right of pre-emption = in order to claim the right of pre-emption, the plaintiff should have such right as, inter alia, the co-sharer or heir of the said property. In the matter at hand, though the respondent was declared as a co-sharer by virtue of the decree dated 28.03.1984, the said decree was set aside by the First Appellate Court, the High Court as well as this Court. Thus, the respondent cannot be considered as a co-sharer, and since it is so, he cannot claim the right of pre-emption either.

1IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPEAL NO. 9064 OF 2019(Arising out of SLP (C) No.11268 of 2018)SURAJ BHAN & ORS. APPELLANT(S)VERSUSGORAKH RAM RESPONDENT(S)O R D E RHeard learned counsel for the parties.Leave granted.The judgment dated 21.02.2018 in R.S.A No. 444 of 1995passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarhhas… Read More right of pre-emption = in order to claim the right of pre-emption, the plaintiff should have such right as, inter alia, the co-sharer or heir of the said property. In the matter at hand, though the respondent was declared as a co-sharer by virtue of the decree dated 28.03.1984, the said decree was set aside by the First Appellate Court, the High Court as well as this Court. Thus, the respondent cannot be considered as a co-sharer, and since it is so, he cannot claim the right of pre-emption either.

Acquital could not be distrubed unless it is a perverse order =there were 8 accused who were chargesheeted in S.C. No. 60 of 99 in the Fast Track Court, Additional Sessions Judge, Chitradurga. The appellant and the accused no. 6 faced the trial and as we have noticed that though acquitted by the Trial court appellant stood convicted by the High Court. 17. As far as the other accused are concerned, it is stated as follows: Venkatappa alias Venkataramana and accused no. 2 Narayana faced trial in S.C. No. 84 of 2002. It resulted in their acquittal. It further states that State had not preferred any appeal and acquittal is confirmed. In the order dated 16.10.2003 the chargesheet was made against the other absconding accused i.e. accused no. 3 and accused no. 8. Accused nos. 3 and 8 were also not found guilty and states that they had not preferred any appeal against the said judgment rendered in S.C. 85 of 2003. Still 18 19 further accused nos. 5 and 7 were tried in S.C. No. 57 of 2004 and they were also not found guilty by Sessions Judge and acquitted by the judgment dated 02.05.2005. Thus, against all the other accused, other than the appellant who stood charged under Section 397 have been acquitted. 18. Having regard to the circumstances, we are inclined to take the view that the High Court has erred in interfering with the acquittal of the appellant bearing in mind the principles which govern the question as to in what circumstances the Appellate Court can reverse an acquittal.

1NON-REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.66 OF 2012NAGARAJA … APPELLANTVERSUSSTATE OF KARNATAKA … RESPONDENTJ U D G M E N TK.M. JOSEPH, J. By the impugned judgment, the High court hasallowed the appeal filed by the State and found theappellant (Accused No.4) guilty of the offence underSection 397 of the Indian… Read More Acquital could not be distrubed unless it is a perverse order =there were 8 accused who were chargesheeted in S.C. No. 60 of 99 in the Fast Track Court, Additional Sessions Judge, Chitradurga. The appellant and the accused no. 6 faced the trial and as we have noticed that though acquitted by the Trial court appellant stood convicted by the High Court. 17. As far as the other accused are concerned, it is stated as follows: Venkatappa alias Venkataramana and accused no. 2 Narayana faced trial in S.C. No. 84 of 2002. It resulted in their acquittal. It further states that State had not preferred any appeal and acquittal is confirmed. In the order dated 16.10.2003 the chargesheet was made against the other absconding accused i.e. accused no. 3 and accused no. 8. Accused nos. 3 and 8 were also not found guilty and states that they had not preferred any appeal against the said judgment rendered in S.C. 85 of 2003. Still 18 19 further accused nos. 5 and 7 were tried in S.C. No. 57 of 2004 and they were also not found guilty by Sessions Judge and acquitted by the judgment dated 02.05.2005. Thus, against all the other accused, other than the appellant who stood charged under Section 397 have been acquitted. 18. Having regard to the circumstances, we are inclined to take the view that the High Court has erred in interfering with the acquittal of the appellant bearing in mind the principles which govern the question as to in what circumstances the Appellate Court can reverse an acquittal.

Extra Judicial Confession – supported by other materials – chain completes attackting conviction =In the extra-judicial confession, Darshan Singh has deposed that he has given a Kursi (Chair) blow on the flank of Surjit Kaur. The postmortem report (Ex. PJ) shows fracture of Hyoid bone, an irregular wound over the left breast and fracture of the 6th and 7th rib. Therefore, the extra-judicial confession made by Darshan Singh is also supported by medical evidence. Further, Darshan Singh had also disclosed that he had kept concealed a 15 folding iron chair in house of Avtar Singh, the said chair was recovered. The prosecution has proved the chain of circumstances to hold the appellants guilty of the offences charged.

REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1688 OF 2009DARSHAN SINGH …..APPELLANT(S)VERSUSSTATE OF PUNJAB …..RESPONDENT(S)W I T HCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1690 OF 2009J U D G M E N THEMANT GUPTA, J. The judgment and order dated 19th February, 2009 passed by theDivision Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana… Read More Extra Judicial Confession – supported by other materials – chain completes attackting conviction =In the extra-judicial confession, Darshan Singh has deposed that he has given a Kursi (Chair) blow on the flank of Surjit Kaur. The postmortem report (Ex. PJ) shows fracture of Hyoid bone, an irregular wound over the left breast and fracture of the 6th and 7th rib. Therefore, the extra-judicial confession made by Darshan Singh is also supported by medical evidence. Further, Darshan Singh had also disclosed that he had kept concealed a 15 folding iron chair in house of Avtar Singh, the said chair was recovered. The prosecution has proved the chain of circumstances to hold the appellants guilty of the offences charged.

need of sanction under Section 197 of the Code is not necessarily to be considered as soon as the complaint is lodged = Therefore, the lack of sanction was rightly found not to be a ground for quashing of the proceedings.

REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1662 OF 2019(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NO. 3632 OF 2019)THE STATE OF TELANGANA …..APPELLANT(S)VERSUSSRI MANAGIPET @ MANGIPET SARVESHWARREDDY …..RESPONDENT(S)W I T HCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1663 OF 2019(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NO. 4074 OF 2019)J U D G M E N THEMANT GUPTA, J.… Read More need of sanction under Section 197 of the Code is not necessarily to be considered as soon as the complaint is lodged = Therefore, the lack of sanction was rightly found not to be a ground for quashing of the proceedings.

whether the minimum qualifying service prescribed under the Pension Rules can be ignored for the purpose of consideration of invalid pension under Rule 39 of the Pension Rules. = The respondent’s husband had not served for ten years and was therefore, he disentitled for regular pension. For the same reason, he cannot also be held entitled to invalid pension. The different provisions of the Pension Rules cannot be read in isolation and must be construed harmoniously and the requirement of qualifying service cannot be said to be irrelevant for claiming different service benefits under the same Rules. Here the employee did not satisfy the requirement of qualifying service and therefore the invalid pension could not have been ordered for him, under Rule 39 of the Pension Rules.

[REPORTABLE]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPEAL NO. 9204 OF 2019(Arising out of SLP(C) No.16283 of 2017STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. APPELLANT(S)VERSUSMANJU NAIK RESPONDENT(S)J U D G M E N THrishikesh Roy, J.Leave granted. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated29.11.2016 in W.P. (C)No. 14413 of 2016 whereunder the HighCourt… Read More whether the minimum qualifying service prescribed under the Pension Rules can be ignored for the purpose of consideration of invalid pension under Rule 39 of the Pension Rules. = The respondent’s husband had not served for ten years and was therefore, he disentitled for regular pension. For the same reason, he cannot also be held entitled to invalid pension. The different provisions of the Pension Rules cannot be read in isolation and must be construed harmoniously and the requirement of qualifying service cannot be said to be irrelevant for claiming different service benefits under the same Rules. Here the employee did not satisfy the requirement of qualifying service and therefore the invalid pension could not have been ordered for him, under Rule 39 of the Pension Rules.

whether it is open to the State of Karnataka to levy Sales Tax in view of the Time Charter Agreement dated 8.1.1998 and whether it amounts to transfer of the right to use goods within the meaning of section 5C of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, “the KST Act”) read with Article 366 (29A) (d) of the Constitution of India.= we hold that the Charter Party Agreement tantamount to a deemed sale as there was a transfer of right to use the vessel as provided in Article 366(29A)(d) read with section 5C or section 2(j) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. Thus, the transaction is liable to be taxed by the concerned authorities in the State of Karnataka.

1REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPEAL NO.3383 OF 2004THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD. … APPELLANTVERSUSSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. … RESPONDENTSJ U D G M E N TARUN MISHRA, J. The question involved in the appeal is whether it is open to theState of Karnataka to levy Sales Tax in view… Read More whether it is open to the State of Karnataka to levy Sales Tax in view of the Time Charter Agreement dated 8.1.1998 and whether it amounts to transfer of the right to use goods within the meaning of section 5C of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, “the KST Act”) read with Article 366 (29A) (d) of the Constitution of India.= we hold that the Charter Party Agreement tantamount to a deemed sale as there was a transfer of right to use the vessel as provided in Article 366(29A)(d) read with section 5C or section 2(j) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. Thus, the transaction is liable to be taxed by the concerned authorities in the State of Karnataka.

Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections jointly. On 24.10.2019, G. Parmeshwara v. Union of India, (2018) 16 SCC 46, wherein identical directions were issued in respect of formation of Government in the State of Karnataka to test whether the Chief Minister so appointed enjoyed the majority support of the House. Noticing the fact that the elected members of the Legislative Assembly, as in the present case, were yet to take oath and the Speaker was also not elected, the following procedure was directed to be followed for conducting the floor test: “8… (A) Pro­tem Speaker shall be appointed for the aforesaid purpose immediately. (B) All the elected members shall take oath tomorrow (19­5­2018) and this exercise shall be completed before 4.00 p.m. (C) The Pro­tem Speaker shall conduct the floor test on 19­5­2018 at 4.00 p.m. in order to ascertain the majority and it shall not be by secret ballot and these proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with law. (D) Adequate and sufficient security arrangements shall be made and Director General of Police, State of Karnataka will himself supervise the said arrangements so that there is no lapse on this count whatsoever.” It was directed that the floor test would be conducted immediately the next date, i.e., the date following the order. 27. We may note that in the present case, oath has not been administered to the elected members even though a month has elapsed since the declaration of election results. In such emergent facts and circumstances, to curtail unlawful practices such as horse trading, to avoid uncertainty and to effectuate smooth running of democracy by ensuring a stable Government, we are of the considered opinion that it is necessary to pass certain interim directions in this case. In this context, it is necessary and expedient to conduct the floor test as soon as possible to determine whether the Chief Minister, who was administered the oath of office, has the support of the majority or not. Since the elected members of the Legislative Assembly are yet to take oath as specified in the III Schedule of the Constitution, and the Speaker is also yet to be elected, we request the Governor of the State of Maharashtra to ensure that a floor test be held on 27.11.2019. The following procedure is to be followed for conducting the floor test: a. Pro­tem Speaker shall be solely appointed for the aforesaid agenda immediately. b. All the elected members shall take oath on 27.11.2019, which exercise should be completed before 5:00 p.m. c. Immediately thereafter, the Pro­tem Speaker shall conduct the floor test in order to 18 ascertain whether the Respondent No. 3 has the majority, and these proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with law. The floor test will not be conducted by secret ballot. d. The proceedings have to be live telecast, and appropriate arrangements are to be made to ensure the same.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTIONWRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1393 OF 2019SHIV SENA AND ORS. …PETITIONERSVERSUSUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. …RESPONDENTSORDER There is no gainsaying that the boundaries between thejurisdiction of Courts and Parliamentary independence have beencontested for a long time.1However, there is a need andrequirement for recognizing institutional comity and separation ofpowers… Read More Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections jointly. On 24.10.2019, G. Parmeshwara v. Union of India, (2018) 16 SCC 46, wherein identical directions were issued in respect of formation of Government in the State of Karnataka to test whether the Chief Minister so appointed enjoyed the majority support of the House. Noticing the fact that the elected members of the Legislative Assembly, as in the present case, were yet to take oath and the Speaker was also not elected, the following procedure was directed to be followed for conducting the floor test: “8… (A) Pro­tem Speaker shall be appointed for the aforesaid purpose immediately. (B) All the elected members shall take oath tomorrow (19­5­2018) and this exercise shall be completed before 4.00 p.m. (C) The Pro­tem Speaker shall conduct the floor test on 19­5­2018 at 4.00 p.m. in order to ascertain the majority and it shall not be by secret ballot and these proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with law. (D) Adequate and sufficient security arrangements shall be made and Director General of Police, State of Karnataka will himself supervise the said arrangements so that there is no lapse on this count whatsoever.” It was directed that the floor test would be conducted immediately the next date, i.e., the date following the order. 27. We may note that in the present case, oath has not been administered to the elected members even though a month has elapsed since the declaration of election results. In such emergent facts and circumstances, to curtail unlawful practices such as horse trading, to avoid uncertainty and to effectuate smooth running of democracy by ensuring a stable Government, we are of the considered opinion that it is necessary to pass certain interim directions in this case. In this context, it is necessary and expedient to conduct the floor test as soon as possible to determine whether the Chief Minister, who was administered the oath of office, has the support of the majority or not. Since the elected members of the Legislative Assembly are yet to take oath as specified in the III Schedule of the Constitution, and the Speaker is also yet to be elected, we request the Governor of the State of Maharashtra to ensure that a floor test be held on 27.11.2019. The following procedure is to be followed for conducting the floor test: a. Pro­tem Speaker shall be solely appointed for the aforesaid agenda immediately. b. All the elected members shall take oath on 27.11.2019, which exercise should be completed before 5:00 p.m. c. Immediately thereafter, the Pro­tem Speaker shall conduct the floor test in order to 18 ascertain whether the Respondent No. 3 has the majority, and these proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with law. The floor test will not be conducted by secret ballot. d. The proceedings have to be live telecast, and appropriate arrangements are to be made to ensure the same.