1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION M.A. NOS. 1744-1745 OF 2017 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 12843-12844 OF 2017 ALL ESCORTS EMPLOYEES UNION …..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. …..RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T A.K. SIKRI, J. Application for intervention is allowed. 2) Appeals filed… Read More Trade Union = whether such a Trade Union which primarily has the membership of the worker of particular Establishment or industry can broaden its scope by opening the membership even to those who are not the employees of the Establishment in respect of which the said Trade Union has been formed. = Once we find that all the workmen of Yamaha are members of the intervenor Union, obviously the appellant-Union is not in a position to comply with the provisions of Section 9A read with Section 22 of the Act. 11) For these reasons, the applications praying for recall of the findings recorded in paragraphs No. 24 and 25 of the judgment dated September 14, 2017 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 12843-12844 of 2017, are dismissed.
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.406 OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.)NO.1994 OF 2018) SATYENDRA KUMAR MEHRA @ SATENDERA KUMAR MEHRA … PETITIONER VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND … RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. This appeal has been filed against… Read More CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – whether by virtue of Section 357(2) Cr.P.C., the said fine which was part of sentence automatically was stayed till the decision of the appeal and would not have been directed by the High Court to be deposited by the appellant.= We, however, make it clear that Appellate Court while exercising power under Section 389 Cr.P.C. can suspend the sentence of imprisonment as well as of fine without any condition or with conditions. There are no fetters on the power of the Appellate Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 389 Cr.P.C.. The Appellate Court could have suspended the sentence and fine both or could have directed for deposit of fine or part of fine.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3173 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (CIVIL) No. 5456 OF 2018) Union of India …Appellant Versus R. Sethumadhavan & Anr. …Respondents J U D G M E N T Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. More than 140… Read More Train Examiner with the Indian Railways, = Department of Personnel and Training of the Government of India to try and make life after retirement easier for a government servant by having appropriate legislation enacted by Parliament or applicable Pension Rules rather than a khichdi of Instructions, Office Memoranda, Clarifications, Corrigenda and so on and so forth.
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO…………….OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C)NO.11067 OF 2017) SITA RAM BHAMA … PETITIONER VERSUS RAMVATAR BHAMA … RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. The appellant, who was plaintiff in Civil Suit No.4 of 2011, has filed… Read More Partition list admissible for collateral purpose i.e. severancy of title, nature of possession of various shares but not for the primary purpose i.e. division of joint properties by metes and bounds = whether the document dated 09.09.1994 which was inadmissible in evidence could have been used for any collateral purpose. In a suit for partition, an unregistered document can be relied upon for collateral purpose i.e. severancy of title, nature of possession of 10 various shares but not for the primary purpose i.e. division of joint properties by metes and bounds. Further, an unstamped instrument is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose, until the same is impounded. = whether these can be used for any collateral purpose. The larger Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chinnappareddigari Peda Mutyala Reddy v. Chinnappareddigari Venkata Reddy(AIR 1969 AP 242) has held that the whole process of partition contemplates three phases i.e. severancy of status, division of joint property by metes and bounds and nature of possession of various shares. In a suit for partition, an unregistered document can be relied upon for collateral purpose i.e. severancy of title, nature of possession of various shares but not for the primary purpose i.e. division of joint properties by metes and bounds. An unstamped instrument is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose, until the same is impounded. Hence, if the appellantdefendant want to mark these documents for collateral purpose it is open for them to pay the stamp duty together with penalty and get the document impounded and the trial court is at liberty to mark Exts. B21 and B22 for collateral purpose subject to proof and relevance. Following the law laid down by this Court in the above case, we are of the opinion that document dated 09.09.1994 may be admissible in evidence for collateral purpose provided the appellant get the document impounded and to pay the stamp duty together with penalty as has been directed in the above case.
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDCITON CIVIL APPEAL NO.2367 OF 2010 KRISHNA DEVI … APPELLANT VERSUS KESHRI NANDAN … RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T S.ABDUL NAZEER, J. 1. Parties in this appeal are close relatives. Krishna Devi, the appellant/plaintiff is the daughter of Dharam Singh. Mathura… Read More suit for partition and separate possession of half share in the suit scheduled property. It is her case that the property originally belonged to her grandfather Banshi Dhar. After Banshi Dhar’s death, her father Dharam Singh and her paternal uncle Mathura Prasad have succeeded to the said property and after the death of her father Dharam Singh, she is entitled for half share in the said property. Dharam Singh had executed a sale deed in respect of his fifty per cent share in the said property in favour of the first defendant. The plaintiff filed a reply to the written statement contending that the sale deed said to have been executed by Dharam Singh has been obtained by fraud and mis-representation and hence, the said sale deed is not binding upon her.= It cannot be held that the sale deed dated 11.07.1991 executed by Dharam Singh was obtained by fraud or by mis-representation. It is clear that when the sale deed was executed by Dharam Singh, he was having sound state of mind. The Sub-Registrar, who had registered the documents was examined as DW-3. In his evidence he stated that the sale deed was executed by Dharam Singh after he had explained to the parties about contents of the said deed. Ex. D-1 was attested by PW-2 and PW-3. They have nowhere stated in their statements that Dharam Singh was not in good state of mind at the time of the execution of the document. Though it is contended on behalf of the appellant that Dharam Singh was not keeping well, no medical evidence has been produced in support of the said contention. We do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the High Court.
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5887 OF 2009 MOHAN LAL … APPELLANT VERSUS NAND LAL … RESPONDENT JUDGMENT N.V. RAMANA, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 29th November, 2006 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore… Read More Will Deed – suit – seeking ejectment of his brother = whether the Courts below were right in decreeing the suit in favour of the respondent—plaintiff on the basis of the Will. It is not in dispute that the Will was executed by the testator in the year 1945 and it was drawn in the own handwriting of the executant himself. His handwriting was also duly proved by PW5—Nandlal Nagar, grandson-in-law of late Goverdhanlal, who used to correspond with him and thereby well acquainted with the handwriting of the testator. The argument that the Will lacks credibility because the idea of bringing it on record was an afterthought of the respondent—plaintiff, that too after filing the written statement, cannot be sustained for the reason that PW2—Tushar Akolekar, Clerk of Indore Paraspar Sahkari Bank, clearly deposed, supported by documentary evidence, that the respondent secured a loan from the Bank by pledging the Will in the year 1964 and since then the Will was kept in the bank. It is also on record that the said witness (PW2) was not cross-examined at the trial – Once the will is believed to be a genuine piece of document, there is no need for us to delve into the matter further. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to disturb the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below by reasoned judgments
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.416 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.5661 of 2017) DR. SUBHASH KASHINATH MAHAJAN …Appellant VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. …Respondents J U D G M E N T ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred… Read More SC and ST Act- arrest of a public servant can only be after approval of the appointing authority and of a non-public servant after approval by the S.S.P. which may be granted in appropriate cases if considered necessary for reasons recorded While registration of FIR is mandatory, arrest of the accused immediately on registration of FIR is not at all mandatory. i) Proceedings in the present case are clear abuse of process of court and are quashed. ii) There is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide. We approve the view taken and approach of the Gujarat High Court in Pankaj D Suthar (supra) and Dr. N.T. Desai (supra) and clarify the judgments of this Court in Balothia (supra) and Manju Devi (supra); Iii) In view of acknowledged abuse of law of arrest in cases under the Atrocities Act, arrest of a public servant can only be after approval of the appointing authority and of a non-public servant after approval by the S.S.P. which may be granted in appropriate cases if considered necessary for reasons recorded. Such reasons must be scrutinized by the Magistrate for permitting further detention. iv].To avoid false implication of an innocent, a preliminary enquiry may be conducted by the DSP concerned to find out whether the allegations make out a case under the Atrocities Act and that the allegations are not frivolous or motivated.-Any violation of direction (iii) and (iv) will be actionable by way of disciplinary action as well as contempt.
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 2926 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No .4208 OF 2011) Director Aryabhatta Research Institute Of Observational Sciences (ARIES) & Anr. … Appellants Versus Devendra Joshi & Ors. … Respondents WITH Civil Appeal No. 2927 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.… Read More service matter = when the termination of service at the end of probation due to unsatisfactory work- can not ask for reinstate = termination of the services of Respondent No.1 at the end of the period of probation was due to unsatisfactory work and not for any misconduct. – We are constrained to hold that there is no basis for the finding of the High Court that the real reason for the Order dated 31st December, 2008 was to ensure that the manner in which Respondent No.4 was appointed to the post of Engineer-C (Civil) remained concealed. We are satisfied that the Order dated 31st December, 2008 does not suffer from any infirmity and it is an Order of termination simpliciter. There is sufficient material on record to 9 indicate that Respondent No.1 was informed about his unsatisfactory performance during the period of his probation.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 408 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7970 of 2014) P. Sreekumar ….Appellant(s) VERSUS State of Kerala & Ors. ….Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1) Leave granted. 2) This appeal is directed against the… Read More criminal laws – what is prohibited whether filing of two firs by one part against same accused or filing case and counter case against each other ? = if two FIRs are filed in relation to the same offence and against the same accused, whether the subsequent FIR was liable to be quashed or not. = the lodgment of two FIRs is not permissible in respect of one and the same incident. The concept of sameness has been given a restricted meaning. It does not encompass filing of a counter-FIR relating to the same or connected cognizable offence. What is prohibited is any further complaint by the same complainant and others against the same accused subsequent to the registration of the case under the Code, for an investigation in that regard would have already commenced and allowing registration of further complaint would amount to an improvement of the facts mentioned in the original complaint