whether by notice dated 07.09.2001 the landlord has waived his right of eviction. From the averments of notice, as quoted above, it is clear that tenancy was terminated and landlord contemplated eviction of the tenant. We thus are of the view that there is no question of the waiver of eviction- “Whether the plaintiff has any right to evict the respondent from the disputed property?”= the landlord was clearly insisting on termination of the tenancy and was also mentioning a cause of action of not handing over of the possession. In these circumstances, we are of the view that it cannot be held that there was any waiver of relief of eviction either on the notice or in the suit. Formal prayer has already been added in the plaint seeking possession of shop after eviction which amendment was allowed by the High Court in its judgment dated 05.08.2008. We are thus of the view that High Court committed an error in setting aside the judgment and decree of the Judge, Small Causes Court.

  1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JUJRISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 20833 OF 2017 ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 33994 OF 2014 TRILOK SINGH CHAUHAN … APPELLANT VERSUS RAM LAL(DEAD) THR. LRS & ORS … RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. This appeal… Read More whether by notice dated 07.09.2001 the landlord has waived his right of eviction. From the averments of notice, as quoted above, it is clear that tenancy was terminated and landlord contemplated eviction of the tenant. We thus are of the view that there is no question of the waiver of eviction- “Whether the plaintiff has any right to evict the respondent from the disputed property?”= the landlord was clearly insisting on termination of the tenancy and was also mentioning a cause of action of not handing over of the possession. In these circumstances, we are of the view that it cannot be held that there was any waiver of relief of eviction either on the notice or in the suit. Formal prayer has already been added in the plaint seeking possession of shop after eviction which amendment was allowed by the High Court in its judgment dated 05.08.2008. We are thus of the view that High Court committed an error in setting aside the judgment and decree of the Judge, Small Causes Court.

Section 108 of TLR&LR Act reads as follows :- “108. (1) The interest of under-raiyat in any land held by him as such shall be heritable but, save as otherwise provided in this Act, shall not be transferable. (2) No under-raiyat shall be evicted from his land except as provided in this Act.”= The protection under Section 108 of the TLR&LR Act which is a statutory protection could not have been taken away by the subterfuge committed by the then raiyat. = This is what Section 108 prohibits. The plaintiffs who were subsequent purchasers cannot take benefit of the subterfuge and fraud committed by Sayed Jama Kazi and Mohd. Aftaruddin. Their remedy, if any, lay in taking action against Sayed Jama Kazi and Mamataj Begam, who were not even impleaded as parties in the suit.

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9040 OF 2013 Aftaruddin (Dead) Rep. Thr. Lrs. .…Appellant(s) Vs. Ramkrishna Datta alias Babul Datta & Ors. ..Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Deepak Gupta, J. 1. Ramkrishna Datta, Dhirendra Chandra Ghosh and Lalit Mohan Ghosh, filed a… Read More Section 108 of TLR&LR Act reads as follows :- “108. (1) The interest of under-raiyat in any land held by him as such shall be heritable but, save as otherwise provided in this Act, shall not be transferable. (2) No under-raiyat shall be evicted from his land except as provided in this Act.”= The protection under Section 108 of the TLR&LR Act which is a statutory protection could not have been taken away by the subterfuge committed by the then raiyat. = This is what Section 108 prohibits. The plaintiffs who were subsequent purchasers cannot take benefit of the subterfuge and fraud committed by Sayed Jama Kazi and Mohd. Aftaruddin. Their remedy, if any, lay in taking action against Sayed Jama Kazi and Mamataj Begam, who were not even impleaded as parties in the suit.

We clarify that at an appropriate stage or upon completion of the investigation, if the Investigating Officer is satisfied with the explanation offered by the appellants and is of the opinion that continuance of the seizure of the stated bank accounts or any one of them is not necessary, he will be well advised to issue instruction in that behalf.

  1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1099 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 6474 of 2016) TEESTA ATUL SETALVAD …Appellant(s) :Versus: THE STATE OF GUJARAT …Respondent(s) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1083 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.6477 of 2016) JAVED IFTEKHER AHMED ANAND …Appellant(s)… Read More We clarify that at an appropriate stage or upon completion of the investigation, if the Investigating Officer is satisfied with the explanation offered by the appellants and is of the opinion that continuance of the seizure of the stated bank accounts or any one of them is not necessary, he will be well advised to issue instruction in that behalf.

appeal seek to overturn the judgment and order dated 04.10.2004 rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Petition No. 34886 of 1998, thereby directing the Corporation to convert the dealership of a petrol pump initially allotted in favour of the respondent No.1 (hereafter to be referred to as the “respondent”) under the discretionary quota of the Departmental Minister 2 concerned to one under its (appellant) circular No.67-2/2K4 dated 12.02.2004 and restraining it as well from interfering with the possession of the respondent of the installation premises.-Adverting to the facts of the case, to recapitulate, the dealership of the respondent had been cancelled being vitiated by favourtism due to exercise of fanciful discretion of the Departmental Minister, which was neither approved nor condoned. Nevertheless, the Corporation visibly did not act in terms of the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi in initiating the fresh process for auction. This led to the challenge to the faulty advertisement dated 05.10.1998 and the corrigendum dated 13.10.1998, the operation whereof to start with was stayed and thereafter the respondent was permitted to continue with the dealership and eventually she was directed to be awarded a fresh dealership by converting the 39 existing dealership under its policy dated 12.02.2004. The dealership of the respondent having been cancelled w.e.f. 01.12.1997, though the operation of the auction notice and the corrigendum thereto had been stayed and she had been allowed to run the outlet, we fail to comprehend as to how all these could be construed to signify that her dealership did subsist from the date of the impugned judgment and order. There was thus no scope for conversion of the existing dealership to a new dealership as ordered. In addition thereto, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the direction to award the new dealership under the prevalent policy dated 12.02.2004, having regard to the backdrop of adjudication undertaken by the Delhi High Court would amount to perpetuation of the undue benefit, earlier bestowed on her by a method held to be illegal, dubious, arbitrary and transgressive of public interest.

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5565 OF 2009 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. …APPELLANTS VERSUS SHASHI PRABHA SHUKLA & ANR. …RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T AMITAVA ROY, J. 1. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereafter to be referred to as the… Read More appeal seek to overturn the judgment and order dated 04.10.2004 rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Petition No. 34886 of 1998, thereby directing the Corporation to convert the dealership of a petrol pump initially allotted in favour of the respondent No.1 (hereafter to be referred to as the “respondent”) under the discretionary quota of the Departmental Minister 2 concerned to one under its (appellant) circular No.67-2/2K4 dated 12.02.2004 and restraining it as well from interfering with the possession of the respondent of the installation premises.-Adverting to the facts of the case, to recapitulate, the dealership of the respondent had been cancelled being vitiated by favourtism due to exercise of fanciful discretion of the Departmental Minister, which was neither approved nor condoned. Nevertheless, the Corporation visibly did not act in terms of the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi in initiating the fresh process for auction. This led to the challenge to the faulty advertisement dated 05.10.1998 and the corrigendum dated 13.10.1998, the operation whereof to start with was stayed and thereafter the respondent was permitted to continue with the dealership and eventually she was directed to be awarded a fresh dealership by converting the 39 existing dealership under its policy dated 12.02.2004. The dealership of the respondent having been cancelled w.e.f. 01.12.1997, though the operation of the auction notice and the corrigendum thereto had been stayed and she had been allowed to run the outlet, we fail to comprehend as to how all these could be construed to signify that her dealership did subsist from the date of the impugned judgment and order. There was thus no scope for conversion of the existing dealership to a new dealership as ordered. In addition thereto, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the direction to award the new dealership under the prevalent policy dated 12.02.2004, having regard to the backdrop of adjudication undertaken by the Delhi High Court would amount to perpetuation of the undue benefit, earlier bestowed on her by a method held to be illegal, dubious, arbitrary and transgressive of public interest.

A demonstration of tractors was being held at 11.30 A.M. by Sonalika tractors. The appellant, who is an agriculturist, claimed that when he approached the tractor, the driver was unable to bring it to a halt as a result of which it turned turtle and collided with the appellant resulting in his sustaining grievous injuries. The lower portion of his body has been paralyzed. Dr Jayaprakash, PW 2, deposed in evidence that the disability of the appellant is one hundred per cent since both his lower limbs have been paralyzed resulting in a loss of bladder and bowel control.The High Court has proceeded to reverse the finding of the Tribunal purely on the basis that the FIR which was lodged on the complaint of the appellant contained a version which was at variance with the evidence which emerged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had noted the admission of RW1 in the course of his cross-examination that the insurer had maintained a separate file in respect of the accident. The insurer did not produce either the file or the report of the investigator in the case. Moreover, no independent witness was produced by the insurer to displace the version of the incident as deposed to by the appellant and by PW 3. The cogent analysis of the evidence by the Tribunal has been displaced by the High Court without considering material aspects of the evidence on the record. The High Court was not justified in holding that the Tribunal had 7 arrived at a finding of fact without applying its mind to the documents produced by the claimant or that it had casually entered a finding of fact. On the contrary, we find that the reversal of the finding by the High Court was without considering the material aspects of the evidence which justifiably weighed with the Tribunal. We are, therefore, of the view that the finding of the High Court is manifestly erroneous and that the finding of fact by the Tribunal was correct.The appellant suffers from traumatic paraplegia and was hospitalized for 42 days. The appellant was 28 years of age when the accident took place on 24 September 2005. In our view, the monthly income of the appellant, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case should be taken at Rs.4,000/-. After allowing for future prospects and making a deduction for present expenses, the compensation payable to the appellant shall stand enhanced by an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from Rs.5,75,000/- to Rs.7,75,000/-. The amount for future medical expenses which has been fixed at Rs.30,000/- should be enhanced to Rs.1,20,000/- having regard to the serious nature of the disability. In other words, the compensation of Rs.8,66,000/- awarded by the Tribunal shall be 8 enhanced by an additional amount of Rs.2,70,000/-. The appellant shall be entitled to interest @7% p.a. from the date of the claim petition until realization.

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS 022911-022912 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C ) Nos 6891-6892 of 2017) HALAPPA ….. APPELLANT Versus MALIK SAB ….. RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J 1 The High Court of Karnataka by… Read More A demonstration of tractors was being held at 11.30 A.M. by Sonalika tractors. The appellant, who is an agriculturist, claimed that when he approached the tractor, the driver was unable to bring it to a halt as a result of which it turned turtle and collided with the appellant resulting in his sustaining grievous injuries. The lower portion of his body has been paralyzed. Dr Jayaprakash, PW 2, deposed in evidence that the disability of the appellant is one hundred per cent since both his lower limbs have been paralyzed resulting in a loss of bladder and bowel control.The High Court has proceeded to reverse the finding of the Tribunal purely on the basis that the FIR which was lodged on the complaint of the appellant contained a version which was at variance with the evidence which emerged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had noted the admission of RW1 in the course of his cross-examination that the insurer had maintained a separate file in respect of the accident. The insurer did not produce either the file or the report of the investigator in the case. Moreover, no independent witness was produced by the insurer to displace the version of the incident as deposed to by the appellant and by PW 3. The cogent analysis of the evidence by the Tribunal has been displaced by the High Court without considering material aspects of the evidence on the record. The High Court was not justified in holding that the Tribunal had 7 arrived at a finding of fact without applying its mind to the documents produced by the claimant or that it had casually entered a finding of fact. On the contrary, we find that the reversal of the finding by the High Court was without considering the material aspects of the evidence which justifiably weighed with the Tribunal. We are, therefore, of the view that the finding of the High Court is manifestly erroneous and that the finding of fact by the Tribunal was correct.The appellant suffers from traumatic paraplegia and was hospitalized for 42 days. The appellant was 28 years of age when the accident took place on 24 September 2005. In our view, the monthly income of the appellant, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case should be taken at Rs.4,000/-. After allowing for future prospects and making a deduction for present expenses, the compensation payable to the appellant shall stand enhanced by an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from Rs.5,75,000/- to Rs.7,75,000/-. The amount for future medical expenses which has been fixed at Rs.30,000/- should be enhanced to Rs.1,20,000/- having regard to the serious nature of the disability. In other words, the compensation of Rs.8,66,000/- awarded by the Tribunal shall be 8 enhanced by an additional amount of Rs.2,70,000/-. The appellant shall be entitled to interest @7% p.a. from the date of the claim petition until realization.

No further notice before imposition of a penalty in department equiry. = In this case, the Respondent had sufficient opportunity to respond to the Report of the Inquiring Authority and to the findings of the Disciplinary Authority disagreeing with the Inquiring Authority regarding Charge Nos. 6 and 8. He is not entitled to any further notice before imposition of a penalty. Apart from the requirement of a second show-cause notice before imposition of penalty no other point was raised in this Appeal.

  Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No .22970 of2017 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.25040 of 2012) STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. …. Appellants Versus B.R. SAINI …. Respondent J U D G M E N T L. NAGESWARA RAO, J. Leave granted. 2. The Respondent who… Read More No further notice before imposition of a penalty in department equiry. = In this case, the Respondent had sufficient opportunity to respond to the Report of the Inquiring Authority and to the findings of the Disciplinary Authority disagreeing with the Inquiring Authority regarding Charge Nos. 6 and 8. He is not entitled to any further notice before imposition of a penalty. Apart from the requirement of a second show-cause notice before imposition of penalty no other point was raised in this Appeal.

contributory negligence ? = in Sudhir Kumar (supra) where it was held as follows : “9.If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini truck who was driving rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was not having a licence, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence…- there was no visible damage to the lorry but that it was the motor cycle which had suffered damage and that there was no eye-witness. The award of the tribunal indicates that absolutely no evidence was produced by the insurer to support the plea that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant.- In view of the above position, we are of the view that the deduction of forty per cent which was made on the ground of contributory negligence is without any basis. Accordingly, we direct that the appellant shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs 4.60 lakhs which was wrongly disallowed. We direct that the respondent shall accordingly pay an additional amount of Rs 4,60,000, over and above the amount which has been awarded by the High Court. This amount shall also carry interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum as awarded by the High Court, from the date of the petition until realization. The insurer shall deposit the amount before the tribunal within 3 months which shall be released to the appellant.

  1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 22966 OF 2017 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27398 of 2016] SRI DINESH KUMAR. J. @ DINESH J, …..APPELLANT Versus NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD & ORS. …..RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD,… Read More contributory negligence ? = in Sudhir Kumar (supra) where it was held as follows : “9.If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini truck who was driving rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was not having a licence, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence…- there was no visible damage to the lorry but that it was the motor cycle which had suffered damage and that there was no eye-witness. The award of the tribunal indicates that absolutely no evidence was produced by the insurer to support the plea that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant.- In view of the above position, we are of the view that the deduction of forty per cent which was made on the ground of contributory negligence is without any basis. Accordingly, we direct that the appellant shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs 4.60 lakhs which was wrongly disallowed. We direct that the respondent shall accordingly pay an additional amount of Rs 4,60,000, over and above the amount which has been awarded by the High Court. This amount shall also carry interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum as awarded by the High Court, from the date of the petition until realization. The insurer shall deposit the amount before the tribunal within 3 months which shall be released to the appellant.