1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IA NO 80789 OF 2017 IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.2 OF 1988 STATE OF ASSAM ..PLAINTIFF VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..DEFENDANTS J U D G M E N T Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J 1 The boundary dispute between Assam and Nagaland forms the subject… Read More The boundary dispute between Assam and Nagaland forms the subject matter of the Suit before this Court.= Order VII Rule 14 provides thus: “Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is 1presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.” – we see no reason to disallow the production of the maps. The evidence of PW 9 is being recorded. Production of the above documents by the witness for the Survey of India should, in our view, be allowed in the 4 interest of justice. The documents were not in the possession of the applicant and the earlier order of this Court will not preclude the State of Assam from seeking production at this stage. We, however, clarify that we have not dealt with the relevance or admissibility of the documents. It would be open to the State of Nagaland to raise such objections as it is advised to raise and all appropriate defences.
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No.3424 of 2018) HETCHIN HAOKIP ..Appellant VERSUS STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS ..Respondents J U D G M E N T Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J 1. Leave granted. 2. These proceedings have arisen from… Read More whether the provisions of Section 3(4) of the National Security Act, 1980, requiring the detaining authority to report the detention to the State Government ‘forthwith,’ have been violated.= the act of reporting the detention after five days was in violation of Section 3(4). The District Magistrate did not furnish any reason whatsoever for having taken five days to report the detention to the state government. No justification was sought to be established for the delay in reporting the detention to the state government. In the circumstances, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dismissing the Writ Petition. In consequence, the order of detention shall stand set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 6641 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 29268 OF 2016 INDIAN BANK & ANR …. Appellants VERSUS K PAPPIREDDIYAR & ANR …. RESPONDENTS With CIVIL APPEAL No. 6645 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) (D… Read More SARFAESI Act = security interest in agricultural land cannot be enforced.=The classification of land in the revenue records as agricultural is not dispositive or conclusive of the question whether the SARFAESI Act does or does not apply. Whether a parcel of land is agricultural must be deduced as a matter of fact from the nature of the land, the use to which it was being put on the date of the creation of the security interest and the purpose for which it was set apart.
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6639 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.28752 of 2013) NUTAN RANI AND ANR ..APPELLANTS VERSUS GURMAIL SINGH AND ORS ..RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J 1 The appeal is from a judgment… Read More benefit of future prospects in computing the income of the deceased=an addition of 40 per cent on account of future prospects, having regard to the age of the deceased. The total compensation payable to the appellants in terms of the judgment in Pranay Sethi is computed below: • Income : Rs 3,000/- • Percentage increase towards future prospects : 40% • 3000 x 40% = Rs 1,200/- • Total income : Rs 4,200/- • One-third deduction : Rs 1,400/- • Income after deduction : Rs 2,800/- • Annual income = Rs 2,800 x 12 = Rs 33,600/- • Multiplier applied : 17 (since age of deceased was 30 years) 1 (2017)16 SCC 680 4 • Loss of dependency : Rs 33,600 x 17 = Rs 5,71,200/- • Loss of consortium : Rs 40,000/- • Loss of estate : Rs 15,000/- • Funeral expenses : Rs 15,000/- • Total compensation = Rs 6,41,200/- 8 Interest is allowed on the aforesaid amount at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the petition until payment. 9 The appeal is allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).971973 OF 2008 BHASKAR SHRACHI ALLOYS LTD. ETC.ETC. ….APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION & ORS. ETC. ….RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1914 OF 2008 CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).45044508 OF 2008 CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).4289 OF 2008 J U D G M E N T RANJAN GOGOI, J 1. This group of appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 23rd November, 2007 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal for Electricity at New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “learned Appellate Tribunal”). The challenge in the appeals before the learned Appellate Tribunal was against the order of the Central Electricity… Read More The challenge in the appeals before the learned Appellate Tribunal was against the order of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as “CERC”) dated 3rd October, 2006 determining the tariff 2 chargeable by the Damodar Valley Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Corporation”) from the consumers of electricity generated and transmitted by the Corporation. The tariff has been determined under the provisions of Section 61 and 62 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “2003 Act”) read with such other provisions of the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1948”) which have been found to be not inconsistent with the provisions of the 2003 Act. – In the instant case, the “other activities” of the Corporation are not optional as contemplated under Sections 41/51 of the 2003 Act but are mandatorily cast by the statute i.e. Act of 1948 which, being in the nature of socially beneficial measures, per se, do not entail earning of any revenue so as to require maintenance of separate accounts. The allowance of recovery of cost incurred in connection with “other activities” of the Corporation from the common fund generated by tariff chargeable from the consumers/customers of electricity as contemplated by the provisions of the Act of 1948, therefore, do not collide or is, in any manner, inconsistent with the provisions of the 2003 Act.
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6872 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 34591/2012) SHYAM SUNDER AGARWAL …APPELLANT (S) VERSUS P. NAROTHAM RAO AND ORS. …RESPONDENT (S) J U D G M E N T R.F. Nariman, J. 1) Leave granted. 2) The present dispute… Read More whether Clause 9 of the memorandum of understanding constituted an arbitration agreement and whether the decision of the Chairman, IFCI constituted an award
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 69866987 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.1035810359 of 2015) Union of India ….Appellant(s) VERSUS Dyagala Devamma & Ors. ….Respondent(s) J U D G M E… Read More deduction of 50% towards developmental charges from the market value.= we find that firstly, the land acquired in question is a large chunk of land (101 acres approx.); Secondly, it is not fully developed; Thirdly, the respondents (landowners) have not filed any exemplar sale deed relating to large pieces of land sold in acres to prove the market value of the acquired land; Fourthly, exemplar relied on by the respondents, especially Ex.P18 pertains to very small pieces of land (19 guntas); Fifthly, the three distinguishing features 15 noticed in the land in sale deed (Ex.P18) are not present in the acquired land. 24) It was for the aforementioned reasons, in our opinion, the Reference Court was justified in making deduction of 50% towards developmental charges from the market value. = So far as the determination of market value made by the Reference Court is concerned, i.e., Rs.21,29,600/ per acre, the same having been upheld by the High Court, we do not find any justification to examine this issue again. Even the learned ASG did not challenge this finding and confined his submissions only relating to the issue of percentage of the deduction only.