corporate laws – SARFAESI Act= Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, -vs- M/s. Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited =Merely because steps are taken under this general law would not mean that remedy under the special statute is foreclosed. = respondent No.1 would be treated as ‘borrower’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(f) of the SARFAESI Act; the arrangement would be classified as ‘security arrangement’ under Section 2(1) (zb); the agreements created ‘security interest’ under Section 2(1) (zf); and the appellant became ‘secured creditor’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zd) of SARFAESI Act.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2018 INDIABULLS HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED …..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. DECCAN CHRONICLE HOLDINGS LIMITED AND OTHERS …..RESPONDENT(S) W I T H CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 756 OF 2017 A N D CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1693 OF 2017 J U D G… Read More corporate laws – SARFAESI Act= Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, -vs- M/s. Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited =Merely because steps are taken under this general law would not mean that remedy under the special statute is foreclosed. = respondent No.1 would be treated as ‘borrower’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(f) of the SARFAESI Act; the arrangement would be classified as ‘security arrangement’ under Section 2(1) (zb); the agreements created ‘security interest’ under Section 2(1) (zf); and the appellant became ‘secured creditor’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zd) of SARFAESI Act.

corporate laws – Section 5 of the Indian Ports Act, 1908, – notification dated 18th January, 2016, issued under Section 5 of the Indian Ports Act, 1908, by which the State Government of Gujarat expanded the port limits of Hazira port. = can not questioned – it has not been shown to us as to how the impugned notification is contrary to public interest. – the power of the Government to alter the limits of any port under Section 5(1) of the Indian Ports Act must be done only in public interest a commercial port’s limits were altered in public interest because the number of vessels at Hazira port were expected to increase dramatically and it was, therefore, necessary to make adequate facilities not only for anchorage of such vessels, but also for reasons of customs formalities, port conversion, general security etc. We are not, therefore, satisfied that the notification is ultra vires Section 5 of the Indian Ports Act. We have already seen that the Appellants have no ‘right’ to private property in view of the fact that the ownership of the captive jetty that has been constructed and the ownership of reclaimed land is with the GMB/State Government. For this reason also, the notification is intra vires as the alteration in the limits of Hazira Port does not affect any ‘right’ of the Appellants to private property.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2406 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.21364 of 2017) ESSAR BULK TERMINAL LIMITED & ANR. … APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. … RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T R.F. NARIMAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2.… Read More corporate laws – Section 5 of the Indian Ports Act, 1908, – notification dated 18th January, 2016, issued under Section 5 of the Indian Ports Act, 1908, by which the State Government of Gujarat expanded the port limits of Hazira port. = can not questioned – it has not been shown to us as to how the impugned notification is contrary to public interest. – the power of the Government to alter the limits of any port under Section 5(1) of the Indian Ports Act must be done only in public interest a commercial port’s limits were altered in public interest because the number of vessels at Hazira port were expected to increase dramatically and it was, therefore, necessary to make adequate facilities not only for anchorage of such vessels, but also for reasons of customs formalities, port conversion, general security etc. We are not, therefore, satisfied that the notification is ultra vires Section 5 of the Indian Ports Act. We have already seen that the Appellants have no ‘right’ to private property in view of the fact that the ownership of the captive jetty that has been constructed and the ownership of reclaimed land is with the GMB/State Government. For this reason also, the notification is intra vires as the alteration in the limits of Hazira Port does not affect any ‘right’ of the Appellants to private property.

whether the order passed by the City Civil Court in exercise of power under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, as an Appellate Officer, is in the capacity of a Civil Court or persona designata? – whether the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the contesting respondents before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay against the decision of the learned Single Judge rendered in a writ petition (purportedly filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India), questioning the correctness and validity of the decision of the City Civil Court, Mumbai in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.121 of 2011 dated 03.04.2012, which was affirmed by the learned Single Judge, was maintainable.

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 15536 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.11348 of 2013) Life Insurance Corporation of India …..APPELLANT :Versus: Nandini J. Shah & Ors. …..RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. The seminal question posed in… Read More whether the order passed by the City Civil Court in exercise of power under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, as an Appellate Officer, is in the capacity of a Civil Court or persona designata? – whether the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the contesting respondents before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay against the decision of the learned Single Judge rendered in a writ petition (purportedly filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India), questioning the correctness and validity of the decision of the City Civil Court, Mumbai in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.121 of 2011 dated 03.04.2012, which was affirmed by the learned Single Judge, was maintainable.

Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2010. – writ for direction to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to disclose the details of marks (raw and scaled) awarded to them in the Civil Services (Prelims) Examination 2010. = information sought with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically. Situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing. Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC as quoted above which will not be in public interest. However, if a case is made out where the Court finds that public interest requires furnishing of information, the Court is certainly entitled to so require in a given fact situation. If rules or practice so require, certainly such rule or practice can be enforced. In the present case, direction has been issued without considering these parameters.= In view of the above, the impugned order(s) is set aside and the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners are dismissed. This order will not debar the respondents from making out a case on above parameters and approach the appropriate forum, if so advised.

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.(s).6159-6162 OF 2013 UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ETC. Appellant(s) VERSUS ANGESH KUMAR & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 5924/2013 JOINT DIRECTORS AND CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS T.R. RAJESH Respondent(s) AND SLP(C) No. 28817/2014 SLP(C) No. 28801/2014 SLP(C)… Read More Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2010. – writ for direction to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to disclose the details of marks (raw and scaled) awarded to them in the Civil Services (Prelims) Examination 2010. = information sought with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically. Situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing. Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC as quoted above which will not be in public interest. However, if a case is made out where the Court finds that public interest requires furnishing of information, the Court is certainly entitled to so require in a given fact situation. If rules or practice so require, certainly such rule or practice can be enforced. In the present case, direction has been issued without considering these parameters.= In view of the above, the impugned order(s) is set aside and the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners are dismissed. This order will not debar the respondents from making out a case on above parameters and approach the appropriate forum, if so advised.

corporate laws – Service tax – whether, the value of goods/material supplied or provided free of cost by a service recipient and used for providing the taxable service of construction or industrial complex, is to be included in computation of gross amount (charged by the service provider), for valuation of the taxable service, under Section 67 of the Act and for availing the benefits under Notification No. 15/2004-ST dated September 10, 2004 as amended by Notification No. Civil Appeal Nos. 1335-1358 of 2015 with Ors. Page 5 of 26 4/2005-ST dated March 01, 2005 (whereby an Explanation was added to Notification No. 15/2004-ST). = valuation of gross amount has a causal connection with the amount that is charged by the service provider as that becomes the element of ‘taxable service’. – Appeal by revenue dismissed

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1335-1358 OF 2015 COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX ETC. …..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. BHAYANA BUILDERS (P) LTD. ETC. …..RESPONDENT(S) W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO. 15865 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2888 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7238 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NOS.… Read More corporate laws – Service tax – whether, the value of goods/material supplied or provided free of cost by a service recipient and used for providing the taxable service of construction or industrial complex, is to be included in computation of gross amount (charged by the service provider), for valuation of the taxable service, under Section 67 of the Act and for availing the benefits under Notification No. 15/2004-ST dated September 10, 2004 as amended by Notification No. Civil Appeal Nos. 1335-1358 of 2015 with Ors. Page 5 of 26 4/2005-ST dated March 01, 2005 (whereby an Explanation was added to Notification No. 15/2004-ST). = valuation of gross amount has a causal connection with the amount that is charged by the service provider as that becomes the element of ‘taxable service’. – Appeal by revenue dismissed

Section 173(8) Cr.P.C, = whether fresh investigation should be directed to be caused, it is necessary to understand the distinction between further investigation and fresh investigation. = While Section 173(8) CrPC permits the former, it does not provide for the latter. Investigation can be ordered by the Court in varied forms, and at different stages. Right at the initial stage of receiving the FIR or a complaint, the Court can direct investigation in accordance with the provisions of Section 156(1), in the exercise of its powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation can be of the following kinds (i) Initial Investigation; (ii) Further Investigation; (iii) Fresh or de novo or re-investigation. (Vinay Tyagi1). There is no provision in the CrPC which, expressly or by necessary implication, bars the right of the police to further investigate, after cognizance of the case has been taken by the Magistrate. Practice, convenience and preponderance of authority, permits repeated investigation on discovery of fresh facts. (State v. Mehar Singh ). Notwithstanding that a Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence upon a police report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C, the right of the police to further investigate is not exhausted. The police can exercise such right as often as necessary when fresh information comes to light. Where they desire to make further investigation, the police can seek the formal permission of the Court to make further investigation.

HONBLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND HONBLE MS. JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI   W.P.(PIL) No.186 of 2017 and batch   19-01-2018   Prof. Rama Shankarnarayan Melkote and three others..Petitioner   State of A.P. rep., by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, A.P. Secretariat Buildings at Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntu   Counsel for Petitioners: Ms. Vasudha Nagaraj… Read More Section 173(8) Cr.P.C, = whether fresh investigation should be directed to be caused, it is necessary to understand the distinction between further investigation and fresh investigation. = While Section 173(8) CrPC permits the former, it does not provide for the latter. Investigation can be ordered by the Court in varied forms, and at different stages. Right at the initial stage of receiving the FIR or a complaint, the Court can direct investigation in accordance with the provisions of Section 156(1), in the exercise of its powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation can be of the following kinds (i) Initial Investigation; (ii) Further Investigation; (iii) Fresh or de novo or re-investigation. (Vinay Tyagi1). There is no provision in the CrPC which, expressly or by necessary implication, bars the right of the police to further investigate, after cognizance of the case has been taken by the Magistrate. Practice, convenience and preponderance of authority, permits repeated investigation on discovery of fresh facts. (State v. Mehar Singh ). Notwithstanding that a Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence upon a police report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C, the right of the police to further investigate is not exhausted. The police can exercise such right as often as necessary when fresh information comes to light. Where they desire to make further investigation, the police can seek the formal permission of the Court to make further investigation.

Hindu marriage Act – Divorce by husband – restitution of conjugal rights by wife – divorce refused – restitution 0f conjugal rights allowed – schizophrenia = mere allegation is not enough until and unless petitioning spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with her = it was proved that Matrimonial law is concerned with human conduct or human situation, only if, and insofar as, it affects matrimonial happiness. In assessing the effect on matrimonial happiness the legislature has adopted the test of reasonableness. This keeps the statute free from rigid, mechanical tests. It also leaves the judiciary an element of elasticity which, inter alia, enables the court to adjust the relief according to (i) developments in medical science; (ii) appearance of new or aggravated disease; and unexpected or unusual mental symptoms. The context in which the idea of unsoundness of mind as ” mental disorder ” occur in matrimonial law as grounds for dissolution of a marriage, requires the assessment of the degree of the ” mental disorder”. Its degree must be such that the spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. All mental abnormalities are not recognised as grounds for the grant of divorce. – HIGH COURT OF HYDERABAD

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HONBLE SRI JUSTICE N.BALAYOGI Family Court Appeal Nos.105 of 2014 and BATCH 24-01-2018 Tallam Suresh Babu, S/o Late Satyanarayana, Aged about 32 years, Software Engineer, R/o. D.No.15/77, P.B. Street, Kadapa Ci T.Swetha Rani, D/o S.Chandrasekhar, Aged 26 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o. Habeebullah Street, Opp. Balaji Temple, Kadapa Ci Counsel… Read More Hindu marriage Act – Divorce by husband – restitution of conjugal rights by wife – divorce refused – restitution 0f conjugal rights allowed – schizophrenia = mere allegation is not enough until and unless petitioning spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with her = it was proved that Matrimonial law is concerned with human conduct or human situation, only if, and insofar as, it affects matrimonial happiness. In assessing the effect on matrimonial happiness the legislature has adopted the test of reasonableness. This keeps the statute free from rigid, mechanical tests. It also leaves the judiciary an element of elasticity which, inter alia, enables the court to adjust the relief according to (i) developments in medical science; (ii) appearance of new or aggravated disease; and unexpected or unusual mental symptoms. The context in which the idea of unsoundness of mind as ” mental disorder ” occur in matrimonial law as grounds for dissolution of a marriage, requires the assessment of the degree of the ” mental disorder”. Its degree must be such that the spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. All mental abnormalities are not recognised as grounds for the grant of divorce. – HIGH COURT OF HYDERABAD