(ii) - 164.100.107.37164.100.107.37/scr/index_v12_2010.pdf · Asoke Basak v. State of Maharashtra...

(i)

(ii)

Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.; State of Karnataka v. ..... 895

Bharti Cellular Limited v. Union of India and Ors. ..... 725

Chandigarh Housing Board v. Avtar Singh and Ors. ..... 96

Chandrika and Ors.; Pankajakshi (D) Thr. Lrs. And Ors. v. ..... 989

Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr. ..... 223

Charutar Arogya Mandal v. State of Gujarat & Anr. ..... 916

Choudhary Ship Breakers (M/s.) v. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad ..... 854

Coal India Limited and Ors. (M/s.) v. Alok Fuels (P) Ltd. Through Director ..... 299

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. M/s. Shital International ..... 824

Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad; Choudhary Ship Breakers (M/s.) v. ..... 854

Commissioner of Customs; L.M.L. Ltd. v. ..... 80

Datar Switchgear Ltd. & Ors.; Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. ..... 551

Department of Telecommunications v. Gujarat Co- operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. ..... 384

CONTENTS

Abu Salem Abdul Kayyam Ansari and Ors.; State of Maharashtra v. ..... 204

Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam & Ors. v. Navin Kumar Saini Etc. ..... 1173

Alok Fuels (P) Ltd. Through Director; Coal India Limited and Ors. (M/s.) v. ..... 299

Amarjit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. ..... 163

Amina Beevi v. Thachi & Ors. ..... 1084

Angel Baby Products Pvt. Ltd. (M/s.) v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority & Ors. ..... 1073

Army Welfare Housing Organization & Ors.; New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) v. ..... 1

Ashis Chatterjee & Anr.; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. ..... 1165

Ashok Pal Singh and Ors. v. U. P. Judicial Services Association and Ors. ..... 25

Asoke Basak v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... 736

Avtar Singh and Ors.; Chandigarh Housing Board v. ..... 96

Ayyanna (V.) v. Govt. of A. P. and Ors. ..... 316

(iii) (iv)

Dilawar Singh & Ors. etc. v. Union of India & Ors. ..... 1059

Doosan Infracore Co. Ltd. (M/s.); Dozco India P.Ltd. (M/s) v. ..... 259

Dozco India P. Ltd. (M/s) v. M/s Doosan Infracore Co. Ltd. ..... 259

Gainda Ram and Ors. v. M.C.D. and Ors. ..... 996

Ganpat v. State of Haryana & Ors. ..... 400

Gardi Medical College (R. D.) and Anr. etc. v. State of M.P. and Ors. ..... 692

Girjesh Shrivastava and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors. ..... 839

Glanrock Estate (P) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu ..... 597

Golden Chariot Airport and Anr. (M/s.); Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. ..... 326

Govt. of A. P. and Ors.; Ayyanna (V.) v. ..... 316

Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd.; Department of Telecommunications v. ..... 384

Gurbux Singh v. Harminder Kaur ..... 275

Hanumanth (D.) SA & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. ..... 1098

Har Narain (D) by Lrs. v. Mam Chand (D) by Lrs. and Ors. ..... 974

Hari Chand Roach v. Hem Chand and Ors. ..... 1125

Harminder Kaur; Gurbux Singh v. ..... 275

Hartar Singh Sangha; Man Kaur (D) By Lrs. v. ..... 515

Hem Chand and Ors.; Hari Chand Roach v. ..... 1125

IBA Health (I) P. Ltd. (M/s.) v. M/s Info-Drive Systems Sdn. Bhd. ..... 137

ICICI Bank Limited v. Official Liquidator ofAPS Star Industries Ltd. and Ors. ..... 644

Info-Drive Systems Sdn. Bhd. (M/s.); IBA Health (I) P. Ltd. (M/s.) v. ..... 137

Iyasamy & Anr. v. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition ..... 489

Jai Singh and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr. ..... 358

Kalipatnapu Atchutamma (D); Kammana Sambamurthy (D) By LRs. v. ..... 772

Kalla Surya Kantham & Anr.; Sadaram Suryanarayana & Anr. v. ..... 808

Kammana Sambamurthy (D) By LRs. v. Kalipatnapu Atchutamma (D) ..... 772

Khurana Brothers (M/s.); State of Uttaranchal (now known as State of Uttarakhand) & Ors. v. ..... 1108

Krishna Pradhan & Ors.; State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. ..... 201

(v) (vi)

L.M.L. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs ..... 80

M. C. D. and Ors.; Gainda Ram and Ors. v. ..... 996

Mahamudul Hassan v. Union of India & Ors. ..... 257

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Datar Switchgear Ltd. & Ors. ..... 551

Mam Chand (D) by Lrs. and Ors.; Har Narain (D) by Lrs. v. ..... 974

Man Kaur (D) By Lrs. v. Hartar Singh Sangha ..... 515

Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan v. Ram Gopal Poddar and Anr. ..... 289

Meiyappan (M.) and Ors.; Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai v. ..... 1184

Mohanlal Nanabhai Choksi (D) by Lrs. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. ..... 499

Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of U.P. and Ors. ..... 448

Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Golden Chariot Airport and Anr. ..... 326

Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.; Jai Singh and Ors. v. ..... 358

Munikadirappa & Ors.; State of Karnataka & Ors. v. ..... 250

Narinderjit Singh Sindhu; Union of India and Ors. v. ..... 475

Navin Kumar Saini Etc.; Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam & Ors. v. ..... 1173

New Okhla Industrial Development Authority & Ors.; Angel Baby Products Pvt. Ltd. (M/s.) v. ..... 1073

New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) v. Army Welfare Housing Organization & Ors. ..... 1

Official Liquidator of APS Star Industries Ltd. and Ors.; ICICI Bank Limited v. ..... 644

Pankajakshi (D) through Lrs. And Ors. v.Chandrika and Ors. ..... 989

Pebam (Smt.) Ningol Mikoi Devi v. State of Manipur and Ors. ..... 429

Pitambar Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. ..... 958

Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr. ..... 1165

Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and Ors.; Vijendra Kumar Verma v. ..... 944

Ram Gopal Poddar and Anr.; Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan v. ..... 289

Ram Krishna Singh & Ors. v. Thakurji Shivji ..... 241

Ramappa; Rathna (D. R.) Murthy v. ..... 755

(viii)

Ramesh Chander and Ors.; Van Vibhag Karamchari Griha Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit (Regd.) v. ..... 1045

Ramesh v. State of Haryana ..... 799

Ramji Pandey and Ors. v. Swaran Kali ..... 864

Rathna (D.R.) Murthy v. Ramappa ..... 755

Sadaram Suryanarayana & Anr. v. Kalla Surya Kantham & Anr. ..... 808

Samjuben gordhanbhai Koli v. State of Gujarat ..... 247

Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan ..... 583

Satya Narayana Tiwari and Anr. v. State of U.P. ..... 1137

Shital International (M/s.); Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. ..... 824

Shyam Telelink Ltd. v. Union of India ..... 927

Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition; Iyasamy & Anr. v. ..... 489

State of Assam v. Union of India and Ors. Etc. ..... 413

State of Bihar and Ors.; Pitambar Singh and Ors. v. ..... 958

State of Gujarat & Anr.; Charutar Arogya Mandal v. ..... 916

State of Gujarat and Ors.; Mohanlal Nanabhai Choksi (D) by Lrs. v. ..... 499

State of Gujarat; Samjuben gordhanbhai Koli v. ..... 247

State of Haryana & Ors.; Ganpat v. ..... 400

State of Haryana; Ramesh v. ..... 799

State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Krishna Pradhan & Ors. ..... 201

State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Munikadirappa & Ors. ..... 250

State of Karnataka & Ors.; Hanumanth (D.) SA & Ors. v. ..... 1098

State of Karnataka Rep. by P. Prosecutor; Vithal Laxman Chalawadi & etc. v. ..... 574

State of Karnataka v. Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ..... 895

State of Kerala; Sudhakaran v. ..... 873

State of M. P. and Ors.; Gardi Medical College (R. D.) and Anr. etc. v. ..... 692

State of M. P. and Ors.; Girjesh Shrivastava and Ors. v. ..... 839

State of M. P.; Thanu Ram v. ..... 710

State of Maharashtra and Ors.; Asoke Basak v. ..... 736

State of Maharashtra v. Abu Salem Abdul Kayyam Ansari and Ors. ..... 204

(vii)

Union of India & Ors.; Mahamudul Hassan v. ..... 257

Union of India and Ors. Etc.;. State of Assam v. ..... 413

Union of India and Ors.; Bharti Cellular Limited v. ..... 725

Union of India and Ors. v. Narinderjit Singh Sindhu ..... 475

Union of India; Shyam Telelink Ltd. v. ..... 927

Van Vibhag Karamchari Griha Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit (Regd.) v. Ramesh Chander and Ors. ..... 1045

Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and Ors. ..... 944

Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr.; Chanmuniya v. ..... 223

Vithal Laxman Chalawadi & etc. v. State of Karnataka Rep. by P. Prosecutor ..... 574

(x)(ix)

State of Manipur and Ors.; Pebam (Smt.) Ningol Mikoi Devi v. ..... 429

State of Punjab & Ors.; Amarjit Singh & Ors. v. ..... 163

State of Rajasthan; Sansar Chand v. ..... 583

State of Tamil Nadu; Glanrock Estate (P) Ltd. v. ..... 597

State of U. P. and Ors.; Mohd. Yunus Khan v. ..... 448

State of U. P.; Satya Narayana Tiwari and Anr. v. ..... 1137

State of Uttaranchal (now known as State of Uttarakhand) & Ors. v. M/s. Khurana Brothers ..... 1108

Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala ..... 873

Swaran Kali; Ramji Pandey and Ors. v. ..... 864

Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai v. M. Meiyappan and Ors. ..... 1184

Thachi & Ors.; Amina Beevi v. ..... 1084

Thakurji Shivji; Ram Krishna Singh & Ors. v. ..... 241

Thanu Ram v. State of M. P. ..... 710

U. P. Judicial Services Association and Ors.; Ashok Pal Singh and Ors. v. ..... 25

Union of India & Ors.; Dilawar Singh & Ors. etc. v. ..... 1059

(xii)

Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer & Ors., AIR 1985 SC 1121;

– relied on. ... 451

Apar Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (1992) Supp (1) SCC 1;


Arjun Chaubey v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1984 SC 1356,

– followed. ... 453

Ashok Kumar & Ors. v. Rishi Ram & Ors., 2002 ( 3 ) SCR 1158 ... 242

Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B. (2004) 3 SCC 349; ... 842

Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India and Ors. (2008) 6 SCC 1;


Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (1985) 4 SCC 417 ... 452

Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2007) 2 SCC 640 ... 303

Associated Cements Companies Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs 2001 (128) ELT-21 (SC);

– distinguished ... 83

(xi)

CASES-CITED

Abdul Rashid Khan (Dead) & Ors. v. P.A.K.A. Shahul Hamid & Ors. (2000) 10 SCC 636


Advaita Nand v. Judge, Small Causes Court, Meerut & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 407; ... 242

Ahmed Khan (Mohammad) v. Shah Bano Begum and Ors. (1985) 2 SCC 556 ... 228

Alagh (S.K.) v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2008) 5 SCC 662, ... 552


Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707;

– distinguished. ... 714

Amalgamated Commercial Traders (P) Ltd. v. A.C.K. Krishnaswami and another (1965) 35 Company Cases 456 (SC);


Ambu Nair v. Kelu Nair AIR 1933 PC 167;

– relied on ... 932

Aniglase Yohannan v. Ramlatha 2005 (7) SCC 534


(xiv)(xiii)

Azad (Mohd.) v. State of West Bengal AIR 2009 SC 1307


Babulal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. AIR 1964 SC 725 ... 556

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 898 ... 1145

Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., AIR 1963 SC 395;


Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and Ors. (1978) 3 SCC 527 ... 227

Baijnath Jha v. Sita Ram & Anr. (2008) 8 SCC 77; ... 555 &

740

Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2000) 5 SCC 82 ... 166

Balmadies Plantations Ltd. and Anr. etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972) 2 SCC 133 ... 612

– relied on and explained. ... 606,607, 608

Beepathumma (C.) & Ors. v. V.S. Kadambolithaya & Ors. 1964 (5) SCR 836;



Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar Nakate (2005) 2 SCC 489; ... 454

Bharat Sales Ltd. v. Life Insurance Coropration of India 1998 (3) SCC 1 ... 363

Bharatha Matha & Anr. v. R. Vijaya Renganathan & Ors. JT 2010 (5) SC 534

– relied on. ... 757 &760

Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A. and Anr. 2002(4) SCC 105 ... 260

– held inapplicable ... 261

Bijoe Emmanuel and others v. State of Kerala and others AIR 1987 SC 748; ... 998 &

1004

Binani Brothers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. (1974) 1 SCC 459; ... 900

Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic and Unani Tibia College, Delhi v. State of Delhi AIR 1962 SC 458


Bombay Hawkers’ Union & others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & others (1985) 3 SCC 528; ... 1004

Bondu Ramaswamy v. Bangalore Development Authority and Others 2010 (6) SCR 9 ... 173

Chameli Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr. 1996 (2) SCC 549 ... 171

Chandra Bihari Gautam and others v. State of Bihar SCC 2002 (9) SCC 208


(xvi)(xv)

Chandra Mohan Tiwari v. State of M.P. (1992) 2 SCC 105;


Chandrakant Murgyappa Umrani & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 1998 SCC (Cri) 698; ... 554

Chandrika Singh (Dead) by LRs. v. Arvind Kumar Singh (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. AIR 2006 SCC 2199 ... 978

Charanjit Singh and Ors. v. Harinder Sharma and Ors. (2002) 9 SCC 732; ... 841

Chinnanna (P.) & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors 1994 (2) Suppl. SCR 426

– relied on. ... 1185

Citation Infowares Ltd. v. Equinox Corporation 2009 (7) SCC 220 ... 260

– held in applicable. ... 261

City Montessori School v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. 2009 (14) SCC 253, ... 728


CMC Ltd. v. Unit Trust of India and Ors. 2007 (10) SCC 751 ... 260

Coelho (I.R.) (Dead) by L.Rs. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) 2 SCC 1


– followed and explained. ... 604

Coffee Board, Bangalore v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Madras and Anr. (1969) 3 SCC 349 ... 900

Collector of Bombay v. Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri (1955) 1 SCR 1311 ... 1101

Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Maharashtra Fur Fabrics Ltd. (2002) 7 SCC 444;


Collector of Central Excise, Shillong v. Wood Crafts Products Ltd (1995) 3 SCC 454 ... 82

Colour-Chem Ltd. v. A.L. Alaspurkar & Ors. AIR 1998 SC 948; ... 454

Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar-I v. Champdany Industries Limited (2009) 9 SCC 466


Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi v. Carrier Aircon Ltd. (2006) 5 SCC 596,


Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad-I v. Charminar Non-Wovens Limited (2009) 10 SCC 770,


Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (2007) 8 SCC 89;


(xviii)(xvii)

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry v. ACER India Ltd. (2004) 8 SCC 173;


Commissioner of Customs, Ahemdabad v. Guru Ashish Ship Breakers 2003 (157) E.L.T. 277 ... 856

Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad v. Atam Manohar Ship Breakers Pvt. Ltd. 2003 (156) E.L.T. 151; ... 856

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Pentamedia Graphics Ltd. (2006) 9 SCC 502,


Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. Toyo Engineering India Ltd. (2006) 7 SCC 592;


Consolidated Coffee Ltd. and Anr. v. Coffee Board, Bangalore (1980) 3 SCC 358; ... 900

D’Souza (P.) v. Shondrilo Naidu 2004 (6) SCC 649;


Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat AIR 1964 SC 1563; ... 875

Dani Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar (2004) 13 SCC 203


Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2005) 1 SCC 590; ... 842

Dayal Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors, 2003 (1) SCR 714

– disapproved. ... 1185

Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax, Ernakulam v. Indian Explosives Ltd. (1985) 4 SCC 119,

– upheld ... 900

Dinohamy (A.) v. W.L. Balahamy AIR 1927 P.C. 185 ... 227

Director General, RPF v. Ch. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331; ... 454

Dixit (P.K.) v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1987 (4) SCC 621 ... 30

Dularia Devi v. Janardan Singh & Ors. AIR 1990 SC 1173


Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports 1969 (2) SCR 596

– relied on. ... 1185

Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) and Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra nd Ors. (1998) 7 SCC 273 ... 842

Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Anr. (1999) 7 SCC 675 ... 228

Dy. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports v.Roshanlal Agarwal & Ors. (2003)4 SCC 139; ... 740

(xix) (xx)

Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estates (P) Ltd. 2001 (8) SCC 97,


Fazal Ghosi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1987) 3 SCC 502;


Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.) Sindri & others v. Union of India and others (1981) 1 SCC 568; ... 1003

Gainda Ram and Ors. v. MCD (1993) 3 SCC 178; ... 1004

Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 1 SCC 750;


Garg (O.P.) v. State of U.P. & Ors. 1991 (Supp) 2 SCC 51 ... 30

Ghantesher Ghosh v. Madan Mohan Ghosh & Ors. (1996) 11 SCC 446; ... 777

Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65,


Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P. (2008) 10 SCC 450;


Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari AIR 1952 SC 231 ... 227

Gopinathan (K.) Nair and Ors. v. State of Kerala (1997) 10 SCC 1;

– upheld ... 900

Gopinathan (P.S.) v. State of Kerala and Others (2008) 7 SCC 70;


Goswain (R.N.) v. Yashpal Dhir AIR 1993 SC 352 ... 728


Govt. of A.P. & Ors. v. Mohd. Taher Ali (2007) 8 SCC 656 ... 455

Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 457


Guruswamy Nadar v. P. Lakshmi Ammal (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors. (2008) 5 SCC 796


Hafazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed & Ors. (2001) 7 SCC 189;


Haji Mohd. Akhlaq v. District Magistrate, 1988 Supp (1) SCC 538,


Hamlet @ Sasi & Ors. v. State of Kerala (2003) 10 SCC 108; ... 554

(xxii)(xxi)

Hareram Satpathy v. Tikaram Agarwala & Ors. (1978) 4 SCC 58 ... 740

Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and Ors. (MANU/SC/9654/2010); ... 842

Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi (2008) 7 SCC 11


Hemlatha (P.V.) v. Kattamkandi Puthiva Maliackal Saheeda and Anr 2002 ( 3 ) SCR 1098 ... 990

Hiralal Agrawal Etc. v. Rampadarath Singh & Ors. Etc. AIR 1969 SC 244; ... 978

His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru etc. v. State of Kerala and Anr. (1973) 4 SCC 225; ... 603 &

612

HPA International v. Bhagwandas Fateh Chand Daswani & Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 537,


Illachi Devi & Ors. v. Jain Society, Protection of Orphans India & Ors. 2003 (8) SCC 413

– held inapplicable. ... 5

In Re: Suo Moto Proceedings Against R. Karuppan, Advocate (2001) 5 SCC 289 ... 556

Inamdar (P.A.) & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 537 ... 696

Inamdar (P.A.) v. State of Maharashtra 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 603 ... 917

Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. (2007) 12 SCC 1; ... 555 &

740

India Marine Service (P) Ltd. v. Their Workmen AIR 1963 SC 528; ... 454

Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors, (2006) 6 SCC 736;


Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Raja Transport (P) Ltd. 2009 (8) SCC 520,


Indira Nehru Gandhi (Smt.) v. Shri Raj Narain 1975 (Supp.) SCC 1 ... 603 &

612


Indtel Technical Services Private Ltd. v. W.S. Atkins Rail Ltd. 2008 (10) SCC 308 ... 260


Inglewood Pulp and Paper Co. v. New Brunswick Electric Power Commission 1928 AC 492 ... 1063

Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 697 ... 696

Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 474 ... 917

Jaggi (M.L.) v. Mahanagar Telephones Nigam Ltd. 1996 (3) SCC 119 ... 385

(xxiv)(xxiii)

Jagir Kaur and Anr. v. Jaswant Singh AIR 1963 SC 1521 ... 228

Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd. 2005 (2) SCC 217; ... 521

Jasmer Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. CWP No. 29 of 2004 ... 170

Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana (2000) 4 SCC 484,


Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney v. State of Bombay AIR 1956 SC 575; ... 740

Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and another v. Nanu Ram and others, 2006 Suppl. (9) SCR 544 ... 1175

K. Raheja Constructions Ltd. & Anr. v. Alliance Ministries & Ors. 1995 Suppl. (3) SCC 17

– relied on. ... 1049

K.L.E. Society & Ors. v. Siddalingesh (2008) 4 SCC 541; ... 555 &

740

Kaivelikkal Ambunhi (Dead) By Lrs. and Ors. v. H. Ganesh Bhandary (1995) 5 SCC 444 ... 811

Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr. 2004 (7) SCC 528

– relied on. ... 1167

Kameshwar Prasad and others v. State of Bihar and another AIR 1962 SC 1166; ... 998 &

1004

Kanti Bhadra Shah & Anr. v. State of W.B. (2000) 1 SCC 722; ... 740

Kapur (R.P.) v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866;

– relied on. ... 555 &739

Kartar Singh v. Harjinder Singh & Ors. (1990) 3 SCC 517;


Kasturi and Ors. v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354


Kausalya Devi Bogra (Smt.) and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and Anr. (1984) 2 SCC 324;


Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni and Ors. v. State of Madras and Ors. (1960) 3 SCR 887; ... 612

Keki Hormusji Gharda and Ors. v. Mehervan Rustom Irani and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 475; ... 556

Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and others AIR 1963 SC 1295 ... 998 &

1004

Khardah Company Ltd. v. Raymon & Co. (India) Private Ltd. (1963) 3 S.C.R. 183 ... 652

(xxv) (xxvi)

Koyappathodi Puthiyedath Ahammedkutty v. State of Kerala and Others 1987 (Supp) SCC 158


Krishan Lal v. State of J & K, (1994) 4 SCC 422;


Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. (1991) 1 SCC 537 ... 303

Kunhiabdulla v. State of Kerala 2004 (2 ) SCR 853 ... 1138


Kureshi (A.U.) v. High Court of Gujarat & Anr. (2009) 11 SCC 84;


Lachhman Dass v. Ram Lal 1989 (3) SCC 99,


Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243;


Madan Lal v. State of J & K (1997) 7 SCC 677;


Madhusudan Gordhandas and Co. v. Madhu Woollen Industries Pvt. Ltd. (1971) 3 SCC 632;


Madras Bangalore Transport Co. [West] v. Inder Singh & Ors. AIR 1986 SC 1564; ... 363

Mafatlal Fine Spinning And Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v.Collector of Central Excise, Bombay (1989) 2 SCC 446;


Maharashtra Fur Fabrics Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay 1994 (71) E.L.T. 857 (Tri.-Del.); ... 826

Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2008) 5 SCC 668; ... 556

Maneka Gandhi (Smt.) v. Union of India & Anr. AIR 1978 SC 597;


Manjunath Anandappa v. Tammanasa 2003 (10) SCC 390,


Manjushree Plantation Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.1989 (3) SCC 282; ... 612

Manjusree (K.) v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (2008) 3 SCC 512;


Manzoor Ahmed Magray v. Ghulam Hassan Aram & Ors. (1999) 7 SCC 703;


(xxviii)(xxvii)

Masroor v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2009 (14) SCC 286

– relied on. ... 1166

Mathew (K. M.) v. K.A. Abraham and Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 670; ... 556

Mauleshwar Mani and Ors. v. Jagdish Prasad and Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 468; ... 811

Mediquip Systems (P) Ltd. v. Proxima Medical Systems (GMBH) (2005) 7 SCC 42;


Meenglas Tea Estate v. The Workmen AIR 1963 SC 1719;


Meher Rusi Dalal v. Union of India (2004) 7 SCC 362; ... 1101

Mineral Development Ltd. v. The State of Bihar & Anr. AIR 1960 SC 468;


Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Muhammad Ibrahim Khan and Ors. AIR 1929 PC 135 ... 227

Mohammad Rafiq (S.K.) (Dead) by LRs. v. Khalilul Rehmad & Anr. Etc. AIR 1972 SC 2162; ... 978

Mohammad Raofuddin v. Land Acquisition Officer (2009) 14 SCC 367


Mohammed Ubaidullah (R.K.) & Ors. v. Hajee C. Abdul Wahab (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. AIR 2001 SC 1658


Mohinder Singh Sharma & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. 1988 PLJ 525,

– cited. ... 1186

Moni Shankar v. Union of India & Anr. (2008) 3 SCC 484


Mulk Raj v. The State of U.P. AIR 1959 SC 902;


Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur (1989) 1 SCC 101; ... 1004

Murray and Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia and Anr. (2000) 2 SCC 367; ... 556

Nagraj (M.) and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 212; ... 612

Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Aggarwal and Ors. 1969 (3) SCC 802 ... 228

National Thermal Power Corporation v. Singer Company and Anr. 1992 (3) SCC 551 ... 260

Nawabkhan v. State of Gujarat AIR 1974 SC 1471,


(xxx)(xxix)

New Bihar Biri Leaves Co. v. State of Bihar 1981 (1) SCC 537 ... 728

– relied on ... 333&932


New Reviera Coop Housing Society and Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors. 1996 (1) SCC 731; ... 171

Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. The State of West Bengal & Anr. (1973) 3 SCC 753 ... 740

Olga Tellis & ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & others (1985) 3 SCC 545 ... 1004

Onkar Nath Mishra & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., (2008) 2 SCC 561;


Parthasarthy (S.) v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1973 SC 2701


Pearey Lal v. Rameshwar Das (1963) Supp 2 SCR 834; ... 811

Peiris (A.J.) v. State of Madras AIR 1954 SC 616 ... 208

Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. (1998) 5 SCC 749; ... 555

Prabhu Dayal and Others v. Union of India 1995 (4) SCC 221; ... 1063

Prabodh Verma and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (1984) 4 SCC 251; ... 843

Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi & Anr. 2001 (2) SCR 684

– relied on. ... 1166

Pramod Kumar Jaiswal and Ors. v. Bibi Husn Bano and Ors. (2005) 5 SCC 492; ... 777

Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar & Anr, (1985) 2 SCC 370;


Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. M.A. Rasheed & Ors. 2004 (3) SCR 799

– relied on. ... 1185

Prithpal Singh Bedi (Lt.) (Col.) v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1982 SC 1413;


Pushparani S.Sundaram v. Pauline Manomani James 2002 (9) SCC 582;


Pyare Lal v. New Delhi Municipal Committee and another AIR 1968 SC 133


Rabindranath Bose & Ors. v. The Union of India & Ors. 1970 (2) SCR 697

– relied on. ... 1185

(xxxii)(xxxi)

Radha Sundar Dutta v. Mohd. Jahadur Rahim and Ors. 1959 SCR 1309; ... 811

Rai Bahadur Seth Jessa Ram Fatehchand v. Om Narain Tankha & Anr. AIR 1967 SC 1162; ... 740

Raja Jagdambika Pratap Narain Singh v. Central Board of Direct Taxes & Ors. AIR 1975 SC 1816;


Rajappa Hanamantha Ranoji v. Mahadev Channabasappa & Ors. AIR SC 2000 2108;


Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2007) 7 SCC 378,


Rajendran (K.) & others v. State of Tamil Nadu & others (1982) 2 SCC 273 ... 1004

Rakesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618;


Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors. 2002 (2) SCR 526

– relied on. ... 1166

Ram Saran Lall & Ors. v. Mst. Domini Kuer & Ors. AIR 1961 SC 1747; ... 978

Ramachandra Shenoy and Anr. v. Mrs. Hilda Brite and Ors. 1964 (2) SCR 722; ... 811

Ramanjini (B.) and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (2002) 5 SCC 533. ... 843

Ramarao and others v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association and Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 76; ... 843

Ramaswami Ayyangar & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu (1976) 3 SCC 779


Ramesh Chander Kaushal (Captain) v. Veena Kaushal and Ors. AIR 1978 SC 1807 ... 228

Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi & Anr. (2010) 3 SCC 104,


Rameshwar Bakhsh Singh (Kunwar) and Ors. v.(Thakurain) Balraj Kuar and Ors. AIR 1935 PC 187; ... 811

Ramkishore Lal v. Kamal Narain (1963) Supp 2 SCR 417; ... 811

Randhir Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab (2004) 13 SCC 129


Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, (1997) 2 SCC 397;


Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1970 (3) SCC 533 ... 875

(xxxiii) (xxxiv)

Rattan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co-education) Higher Secondary School & Ors. AIR 1993 SC 2155,


Registrar, Osmania University v. K. Jyoti Lakshmi (2000) 9 SCC 177,


Resham Singh v. Raghbir Singh & Anr. 1999 (7) SCC 263 ... 363

Rupan Deol Bajaj & Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr. (1995) 6 SCC 194;


Rupan Deol Bajaj and Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and Anr. (1995) 6 SCC 194


S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and Anr (2005) 8 SCC 89. ... 553

Sagar Suri (G.) and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 636; ... 555


Saghir Ahmad and another v. State of U.P. and others AIR 1954 SC 728; ... 1004

Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511


Sankari Prasad Singh (Sri) Deo v. Union of India and State of Bihar (1952) SCR 89; ... 612

Sarana (G.) (Dr.) v. University of Lucknow & Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 585;


Sardar Jogender Singh v. State of U.P. (2008) 17 SCC 133;


Sasiman Chowdhurain and Ors. v. Shib Narain Chowdhury and Ors. AIR 1922 PC 63; ... 811

Satinder Singh v. Umrao Singh AIR 1961 SC 908; ... 1063

Satish & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2009) 14 SCC 758


Satnam Overseas (Export) through its Partner and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. (2003) 1 SCC 561; ... 900

Saudan Singh etc. etc. v. NDMC and others etc. etc., (1992) 2 SCC 458; ... 1004

Savitaben Somabhat Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat and Ors. AIR 2005 SC 1809 ... 225

Secretary to Government, Transport Department v. Munuswamy Mudaliar & Anr., AIR 1988 SC 2232;


(xxxvi)(xxxv)

Secretary to Govt. Transport Department v.Munuswamy Mudaliar 1988 (Supp)SCC 651;


Serajuddin (Md.) and Ors. v. State of Orissa (1975) 2 SCC 47; ... 900

Shafiq Ahmed v. District Magistrate, Meerut, (1989) 4 SCC 556;


Shah Jitendra Nanalal v. Patel Lallubhai Ishverbhai AIR 1984 Guj 145;

– relied on. ... 1048

Shankar Finance & Investments v. State of AP (2008) 8 SCC 536 ... 521

Shankar Singh and Others v. Union of India 1988 (1) PLR 163

– approved. ... 1063

Shanmughasundaram & Ors. v. Diravia Nadar (Dead) By LRs. & Anr. (2005) 10 SCC 728 ... 777

Sharon Michael & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2009) 3 SCC 375; ... 556

Shashikala (B.) v. State of A.P. (2004) 13 SCC 249


Shiva Karam Payaswami Tewar v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2009 SC 1692;


Shiva Nath Prasad v. State of W.B. & Ors. (2006) 2 SCC 757; ... 740

Shyam Telelink now Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd. v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 7236 of 2003


Singla (O.P.) v. Union of India (1984) 4 SCC 450 ... 33

Siraj (K.H.) v. High Court of Kerala and Others (2006) 6 SCC 395


Siraj Ahmad Siddiqui v. Prem Nath Kapoor, 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 254 ... 242

Sivakumar v. State by Inspector of Police AIR 2006 SC 563;


Sodan Singh and Ors. v. New Delhi Municipal Committee and Ors. (1989) 4 SCC 155


Sodan Singh v. NDMC and others, (1998) 2 SCC 727; ... 1004

Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka (2008) 3 SCC 574; ... 556

Srikant Tripathi & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. 2001 (10) SCC 237 ... 33

(xxxvii) (xxxviii)

Srinivasa Reddy (B.) v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees’ Association and Ors. (2006) 11 SCC 731 (II); .

842

State (Delhi Administration) v. Jagjit Sing 1989 Supp (2) SCC 770 ... 208

State Bank of Patiala & Ors. v. S.K. Sharma AIR 1996 SC 1669;


State of Assam v. Bimal Kumar Pandit AIR 1963 SC 1612; ... 454

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Sri Radha Krishna Singh & Ors. AIR 1983 SC 1984


State of Gujarat v. Jamnadas G. Pabri and Ors. (1975) 1 SCC 138; ... 166

State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335


State of Kerala and Anr. v. The Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. etc. (1973) 2 SCC 713; ... 612


State of Maharashtra v. R.S. Nayak (1982) 2 SCC 463;


State of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda AIR 1964 SC 506; ... 454

State of Orissa v. Brundaban Sharma 1995 Supp (3) SCC 249; ... 1101

State of Punjab And Others v. Sanjeet Singh Grewal And Others 2007 (8) SCR 1


State of Punjab v. Sukhpal Singh, (1990) 1 SCC 35


State of Rajasthan v. Talib Khan, (1996) 11 SCC 393,


State of U.P. through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 454

– relied on. ... 1166

State of U.P. v. Mohd. Noor AIR 1958 SC 86,


State of U.P. v. Raja Anand Brahma Shah (1967) 1 SCR 362 ... 612

State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Ors. 2010 (3) SCC 571


State v. Hiralal Girdharilal Kothari AIR 1960 SC 360 ... 208

(xxxix) (xl)

Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M/s M & N Publications Limited and Others (1993) 1 SCC 445 ... 303

Sterling Foods, A Partnership Firm represented by its Partner Shri Ramesh Dalpatram v.State of Karnataka and Anr. (1986) 3 SCC 469;


Sudershan Devi & Anr. v. Sushila Devi & Anr., 1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 238 ... 242

Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. v. ONGC Ltd. and Ors. 1998 (1) SCC 305


Sunder v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211;


Suneet Gupta v. Anil Triloknath Sharma & Ors. (2008) 11 SCC 670; ... 555 &

740

Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain (2008) 2 SCC 705; ... 556

Surendra Chauhan v. State of M. P. (2000) 4 SCC 110 ... 554

Suresh & Anr. v. State of U.P. (2001)3 SCC 673; ... 740

Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 281;


Sushil Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar (2003) 8 SCC 673; ... 556

Swift and Co. v. Board of Trade 1925 AC 520(HL); ... 1063

T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481; ... 696

Tarun K. Shah v. C.R. Alimchandani & Ors. (2001) 9 SCC 728; ... 556

Tej Kaur and Anr v. Kirpal Singh and Anr. [1995] SCR 385 ... 990

Thakur Kishan Singh (Dead) v. Arvind Kumar AIR 1995 SC 73; ... 978

The State of Bihar v. Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga and Ors. 1952 SCR 889


Thimma v. The State of Mysore AIR 1971 SC 1871;


Thirugnanam (N.P.) v. R. Jagan Mohan Rao AIR 1996 SC 116;


Tilak Chand Magatram Obhan v. Kamla Prasad Shukla & Ors. 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 21,


TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 ... 917

(xli) (xlii)

Tridip Kumar Dingal & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. 2008 (15) SCR 194


Trilok Singh Mohan Singh (M/s.) v. State of Haryana & Ors. (1994-2) 107 P.L.R. 144

– cited ... 1186

Tulsa and Ors. v. Durghatiya and Ors. 2008 (4) SCC 520 ... 227

U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Mohan Meakins Ltd. & Ors. (2000) 3 SCC 745; ... 740

Udit Narain Singh Malpharia v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar AIR 1963 SC 786,


Union of India & Anr. v. M/s. Mustafa & Najibai Trading Co. & Ors. AIR 1998 SC 2526;


Union of India & Ors. v. Bishamber Das Dogra (2009) 13 SCC 102; ... 454

Union of India & Ors. v. L.D. Balam Singh, (2002) 9 SCC 73;


Union of India & Ors. v. Prakash Kumar Tandon (2009) 2 SCC 541,


Union of India and Ors. v. Rajesh P. U. Puthuvalnikathu and Anr. (2003) 7 SCC 285 ... 841

Union of India and Others v. S. Vinodh Kumar and Others (2007) 8 SCC 100


Union of India v. Chajju Ram 2003 (5) SCC 568; ... 1063

Union of India v. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364;


Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla (Dead) by LRs. 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 149; ... 1063

Union of India v. Inder Singh and Anr. in LPA no.1918 of 1989;

– approved ... 1063

Union of India v. Laishram Lincola Singh @ Nicolai, (2008) 5 SCC 490


Union of India v. Parmal Singh and Others 2009 (1) SCC 618

– relied on. ... 1063

Venkatkrishnan (R.) v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2009) 11 SCC 737


Versatile Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut 2001 (130) E.L.T. 770 (Tri.-Del.) ... 826

(xliv)(xliii)

Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao 1999 (3) SCC 573; ... 521

Vijay Industries v. NATL Technologies Ltd. (2009) 3 SCC 527,


Vijayalaxmi Cashew Company and Ors. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and Anr. (1996) 1 SCC 468,


Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate (2003) 6 SCC 334


Vimala (K) v. Veeraswamy (K) (1991)2 SCC 375 ... 228

Vishnu Dutt & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2005) 13 SCC 592


Vishwambhar & Ors. v. Laxminarayan & Anr. (2001) 6 SCC 163;

– relied on. ... 1049

Viswan (R.) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1983 SC 658


Wahi (N.K.) v. Shekhar Singh and Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 481; ... 556

Waman Rao and Ors. etc. v. Union of India and Ors. 1981 (2) SCC 362; ... 612

Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Anr. AIR 1988 SC 644 ... 225

Yousuf Rather (Mohd.) v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors. (AIR 1979 SC 1925)


Yunus (Baboobhai) A. Hamid Padvekar v. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary & Ors. 2009 (1) SCR 689

– relied on. ... 1185

(xlv) (xlvi)

(xlvii) (xlviii)

(xlix) (l)

(li) (lii)

(liii) (liv)

(lv) (lvi)

(lvii) (lviii)

(lix) (lx)

(lxi) (lxii)

(lxiii) (lxiv)

(lxv) (lxvi)

(lxvii) (lxviii)

(lxix) (lxx)

(lxxi) (lxxii)

(lxxiii) (lxxiv)

(lxxv) (lxxvi)

(lxxvii) (lxxviii)

(lxxix) (lxxx)

(lxxxi) (lxxxii)

(lxxxiii) (lxxxiv)

(lxxxv) (lxxxvi)

1176

1175

1177 1178

1179 1180

1181 1182

1183 1184

1185 1186

1187 1188

1189 1190

1191 1192

1193 1194

1195 1196

1198

SUBJECT-INDEX

ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE:Framing of appropriate charge –Dowry death –Bride strangulated and burnt to death by herhusband and mother-in-law as their demand fordowry was not fulfilled – Held: It was a case u/s302 but no charge under that section was framed– Such cases of bride burning fall in the categoryof rarest of rare cases and, therefore, deservedeath sentence – However, conviction andsentence u/ss 304-B and 498-A upheld – PenalCode, 1860 – ss. 304-B and 498-A – Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 – Sentence/Sentencing.(Also see under: Penal Code, 1860)

Satya Narayana Tiwari and Anr. v.State of U. P. .... 1137

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE:(1) Abuse of process of law.(See under: Education/EducationalInstitutions) .... 692

(2) (See under: Government Litigation) .... 201

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW:(1) Bias.(See under: Service Law) .... 448

(2) Natural justice.(i) (See under: Party) .... 413

(ii) (See under: Service Law) .... 448

AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (CONTRACT)REGULATIONS, 2003:Regulation 3(2).

1197

(See under: Leave and Licence as alsounder Approbate and Reprobate) .... 326

AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA ACT, 1994:(See under: Leave and Licence as also underApprobate and Reprobate) .... 326

APPEAL:(1) Appeal against acquittal – Principles to befollowed – Discussed.(Also see under: Penal Code, 1860)

Ganpat v. State of Haryana & Ors. .... 400

(2) Duty of appellate court – Held: Appellate courthas to look into the impugned judgment for thefacts stated therein and not infer facts based onwhat is urged before it.(Also see under: Party)

State of Assam v. Union of India andOrs. Etc. .... 413

(3) Second appeal – Scope of interference – Held:High Court can interfere with the findings of facteven in the second appeal, provided the findingsrecorded by the courts below are found to beperverse i.e. not being based on the evidence orcontrary to the evidence on record or thereasoning is based on surmises and misreadingof the evidence on record or where the core issueis not decided.(Also see under: Deeds and Documents)

D. R. Rathna Murthy v. Ramappa .... 755

APPROBATE AND REPROBATE:(1) Shifting of stands – Licence granted to run a

1200

u/s.11(6) for appointment of arbitrator –Maintainability of – Held: Language of theagreement clearly indicates that law governing thearbitration would be Korean law and seat ofarbitration would be only in Seoul in Korea – Rulesof arbitration to be made applicable were Rulesof International Chamber of Commerce – Thus, s.11(6) not applicable – Supreme Court does nothave the jurisdiction u/s.11(6) to appoint arbitrator.

M/s Dozco India P. Ltd. v. M/s DoosanInfracore Co. Ltd. .... 259

ARMED FORCES:Promotion.(See under: Service Law) .... 475

BANKS/BANKING:Role of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) – Discussed.

ICICI Bank Limited v. Official Liquidator ofAPS Star Industries Ltd. and Ors. .... 644

BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949:(i) Object and purpose of the Act – Discussed –Provisions of the Act analysed.

(ii) ss.6, 8, 9, 21 and 35A – RBI Guidelines dated13.07.2005 – Deed providing for assignment ofdebts – Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) – Held:Dealing in NPAs as part of the Credit AppraisalMechanism and as a part of RestructuringMechanism falls within s. 21 r/w s. 35A of the Act– Therefore, it cannot be said that “transfer ofdebts/NPAs” inter se between banks is an activitywhich is impermissible under the Act –Consequently, the contracts of assignment of

restaurant for limited period – Notice issued forvacating the licenced premises after expiry oflicenced period – Suit for declaration andinjunction by licencee on the ground that the licencewas irrevocable – In appeal, licencee droppedthe prayer that licence was irrevocable – Suitrevived and decreed on the ground that terms oflicence provided for applicability of the provisionsof Public Premises Act, 1971 – Estate Officerdirecting licencee to vacate the premises –Licencee’s plea before Supreme Court that thelicence was irrevocable – Held: The licencee ona complete volte-face of its previous stand cannoturge its case of irrevocable licence before theEstate Officer and the Supreme Court – Evenotherwise, the licence by its very term wasrevocable – Since licencee took inconsistentstands, and thereby prolonged litigation for morethan a decade and did not pursue its proceedingshonestly in different fora, its appeal is dismissedwith costs assessed at Rs.5,00,000/- – Doctrineof estoppel – Leave and licence – Plea – Costs– Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorizedOccupants) Act, 1971.(Also see under: Leave and Licence)

Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s. Golden Chariot Airport and Anr. .... 326

(2) (See under: Telecom RegulatoryAuthority of India, Act, 1997) .... 927

ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996:s.11(6) – International arbitration – Appointmentof arbitrator – Distributorship agreement betweenIndian company and foreign company – Disputebetween parties – Arbitration clause – Application

1199

1201 1202

BIHAR LAND REFORMS (FIXATION OF CEILINGAREA AND ACQUISITION OF SURPLUS LAND)(AMENDMENT) ACT, 1982:(See under: Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation ofCeiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land)Act, 1961) .... 958

BOMBAY PROVINCIAL MUNICIPALCORPORATIONS ACT, 1949:s.78.(See under: Gujarat Agricultural ProduceMarket Act, 1963) .... 499

CAPITAL OF PUNJAB (DEVELOPMENT ANDREGULATION) ACT, 1952:(See under: Consumer ProtectionAct, 1986) .... 96

CAUSE OF ACTION:(See under: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) .... 1045

CENTRAL EXCISE TARIFF ACT, 1975:Chapter 60, note 4 – Knitted pile fabric – Processof carding, knitting and shearing undertaken byassessee in manufacture of fabric – Claim forexemption under Notification no. 06/2000 as alsounder Notification nos. 5/99, 9/96 and 18/96 –Held: The processes undertaken by assessee didnot have the effect of changing the “grey fabric”into another commodity or bring about apermanent or lasting change in the fabric so as tobring out a new product, amounting to manufacturein terms of Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 60 – Fabricin question was “unprocessed knitted fabric” fallingunder Sr. No.165 of the exemption notification No.06/2000 attracting nil rate of duty as also undernotification Nos. 5/99, 9/96 and 18/96 – In

debts were not illegal – The assignee bank wasentitled to substitution in place of the original lendor(assignor) in the pending winding up proceedingsbefore the Company Court relating to one of theborrowers of the assignor – Contract – Deedsand Documents – Deed of Assignment –Interpretation of Statutes – New concepts –Relevance of – Party.

ICICI Bank Limited v. Official Liquidatorof APS Star Industries Ltd. and Ors. .... 644

BIHAR LAND REFORMS (FIXATION OF CEILINGAREA AND ACQUISITION OF SURPLUS LAND)ACT, 1961:ss.2(ee), 11(1) and 32-B (as amended byAmendment Act, 1982) – Reopening ofproceedings – Class-II land – Mitakshara jointfamily comprising major sons – Draft statementmade and published – Order of Appellate Authoritythat major son was entitled to be treated as aseparate family – Order not challenged by theState and attained finality – Amendment Act cameinto force – Initiation of fresh proceedings – Ceilingre-determined – Challenge to – Rejected by HighCourt – Held: In the facts and circumstances,s.32B could not have been relied upon by theState Government, and the High Court erred inlegalizing the subsequent reopening of theproceedings, which had attained finality – Evenon merits, the rights of coparceners were intact –Since the sons were major on the relevant date,they could not have been held as member of onefamily and were entitled to be treated asindependent families.

Pitambar Singh and Ors. v. State of Biharand Ors. .... 958

1203 1204

construing the words “or any other process” inChapter Note 4 of Chapter 60, the import of thespecific expressions has to be kept in mind –Therefore, the processes undertaken by theassessee must take their colour from the processof bleaching, dyeing, printing, shrink-proofing,tentering, heat-setting, crease-resistantprocessing, specifically mentioned in the Note –Interpretation of statutes – Doctrine of ejusdemgeneris – Notification nos. 06/2000-CE, 5/99-CE,9/96-CE and 18/96-CE.(Also see under: Doctrines/Principles asalso under: Plea)

Commissioner of Central Excise,Chandigarh v. M/s. Shital International .... 824

CENTRAL SALES TAX ACT, 1956:s. 5(3) r/w Article 286 of the Constitution –Exemption of tax on sale of goods as penultimatesale in the course of export – Held: When thelocal sale or purchase between the parties isinextricably linked with the export of the goods,then the claim for exemption u/s. 5(3) is justified– The burden to establish such link is on theassessee – In such a case, the ‘Same Goods’theory has no application – On facts of the case,assessee is eligible for exemption u/s. 5(3) –Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 286.

State of Karnataka v. Azad Coach BuildersPvt.Ltd. & Anr. .... 895

CHANDIGARH ALLOTMENT OF LAND TO CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETIESSCHEME, 1991:(See under: Consumer Protection Act,1986) .... 96

CHANDIGARH LEASE HOLD OF SITES ANDBUILDINGS RULES, 1973:(See under: Consumer Protection Act,1986) .... 96

CIRCULARS/GOVERNMENT ORDERS/NOTIFICATIONS:(1) Exemption notification dated 10.02.2004.(See under: Punjab Regional and TownPlanning and Development Act, 1995) .... 163

(2) G.O.M. No. 85 dated 21.01.1978.(See under: Service Law) .... 316

(3) Notification nos. 06/2000-CE, 5/99-CE, 9/96-CE and 18/96-CE.(See under: Central Excise Tariff Act, 1975) .... 824

(4) Notification No. 17/2001 dated 1.3.2001.(See under: Customs Tariff Act, 1975) .... 80

(5) Notifications dated 01.07.1997 and 15.05.2007published by Central Government.(See under: Public Premises (Eviction ofUnauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 .... 326

(6) Reserve Bank of India Guidelinesdated 13.07.2005.(See under: Banking Regulation Act, 1949) .... 644

COAL:Coal Distribution – Mis-utilization and blackmarketing of allotted coal –BCCL suspended thesupply of coal to respondents – High Court passedinterim orders directing resumption of coal supplyto the respondents on the ground that no materialwas placed by the BCCL to show that the

1205 1206

respondents were involved in any kind of blackmarketing or mis-utilization of the allotted coal –Held: The High Court failed to appreciate that theFIR was lodged by CBI and, therefore, CBI andnot BCCL was in possession of material in supportof the allegations made in the FIR – Such materialcould not be placed before the Court because theCBI was not impleaded as a respondent in thewrit petitions filed by the respondents – BCCL isa public authority; and if the FIR lodged by CBIcreated serious doubts that the allotted coal couldbe diverted or sold in the open market instead ofbeing utilized in the plants of respondents, BCCLwas within its rights to suspend the supplies ofcoal to the respondents till the doubts were clearedin appropriate proceedings – Orders of High Courtset aside – Penal Code, 1860 – s.120-B r/wss.420, 467, 471 – Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 – s.13(2) r/w s.13(d).

M/s. Coal India Limited and Ors. v.Alok Fuels (P) Ltd. Through Director .... 299

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908:(1) s.98(2) – Decision by Division Bench of HighCourt – Difference of opinion between the twoJudges comprising the Bench – Procedure to beadopted – Matter referred to larger Bench forconsideration on the questions: (i) whether s. 23of Travancore-Cochin High Court Act remainsunaffected by the repealing provisions of s. 9 ofKerala High Court Act? If so, whether s. 23 is inthe nature of a special provision vis-à-vis s. 98(2) CPC? and (ii) whether the Supreme Courtunder Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitutioncan direct in an appropriate case a reference toa third Judge to resolve the conflict arising

between two Judges of the High Court hearing anappeal, on a question of fact? – Travancore-Cochin High Court Act – s. 23 – Kerala High CourtAct – s. 9 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles136 and 142.

Pankajakshi (D) through Lrs. And Ors. v.Chandrika and Ors. .... 989

(2) O.2 r.2 and O.6 r.17 – Omission to sue forone of several reliefs and inclusion of omitted reliefafter long time – Cancellation of agreement ofsale of suit land – Intimation of cancellation – Suitby vendee seeking declaration of ownership andpermanent injunction over suit land – Inclusion ofrelief of specific performance by way ofamendment after about 11 years of filing of thesaid suit – Held: The cause of action to file a suitfor specific performance arose on intimation ofcancellation of agreement of sale – Omission toinclude the relief of specific performance in thesuit for declaration would be considered asrelinquishment of that part of claim – Relief ofspecific performance was, therefore, hit by theprovision of O.2 r.2 – Although the inclusion ofrelief was allowed by way of amendment, it wouldnot relate back to the date of filing of the originalplaint, in view of the clear bar under Article 54 ofthe Limitation Act since such inclusion virtuallyaltered the character of the suit – Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – LandAcquisition Act, 1894 – Limitation Act, 1963 –s.14; Schedule, Article 54 – Specific performance– Cause of action – Delay – Suit.

Van Vibhag Karamchari Griha NirmanSahkari Sanstha Maryadit (Regd.) v.Ramesh Chander and Ors. .... 1045

1207 1208

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:(1) s.125 – Maintenance – Interpretation of word‘wife’ in s. 125 – Divergent views in earlierdecisions of Supreme Court – Issues: (1) whetherliving together of a man and woman as husbandand wife for a considerable period of time wouldraise presumption of valid marriage between themand would entitle the woman to maintenance u/s.125 – (2) whether strict proof of marriage essentialfor claim of maintenance u/s. 125 having regardto the provisions of Protection of Women fromDomestic Violence Act, 2005 – (3) whethermarriage performed according to customary ritesand ceremonies, without strictly fulfilling therequisites of s.7(1) of 1955 Act, or any otherpersonal law entitles the woman to maintenanceu/s. 125 – Referred to larger Bench – Protectionof Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 –Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s. 7 – Reference tolarger Bench – Words and Phrases.

Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar SinghKushwaha & Anr. .... 223

(2) s.161 – Statements under – Held: Cannot betaken as sufficient grounds in the absence of anysupportive or corroborating grounds – Section 161statements are not considered substantiveevidence, but can only be used to contradict thewitness in the course of a trial – Evidence.(Also see under: National Security Act, 1980)

Smt. Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi v.State of Manipur and Ors. .... 429

(3) ss.306 to 309 – Forfeiture of pardon grantedto an accomplice – Right of co-accused to cross-

examine such accomplice – Held: On forfeiture orwithdrawal of pardon, the accomplice-approver isrelegated to the position of accused andpermission cannot be granted to co-accused tocross-examine such accomplice – Constitution ofIndia, 1950 – Article 20(3) – Evidence Act, 1872– s.114, 132, 133, 154 – Terrorist and DisruptiveActivities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – s.19.

State of Maharashtra v. Abu SalemAbdul Kayyam Ansari and Ors. .... 204

(4) s.432.(See under: Constitution of India, 1950) .... 257

(5) ss.432, 433 and 433-A – Remission orcommutation of sentence – Restrictions – Held:Remission can only be granted by the executiveauthorities – Accused will be free to seekappropriate redress from the appropriateGovernment by making a representation prayingfor pardon or remission of sentence in terms ofs.432 CrPC or under Article 72 or Article 161 ofthe Constitution of India – Section 433-A CrPCcan restrict the power u/s 432 or s. 433 CrPC,but it cannot restrict the constitutional powers ofthe President of India under Article 72 or theGovernor under Article 161 of the Constitution –Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 72 and 161.

Samjuben Gordhanbhai Koli v. State ofGujarat .... 247

(6) s.439 – Bail – Factors to be taken into accountwhile considering an application for bail –Explained – Held: In the instant case, the HighCourt completely lost sight of the basic principles– In the circumstances, it was not the stage at

1209 1210

which bail u/s 439 should have been granted tothe accused more so when even charges werenot framed – Order of High Court set aside.

Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. AshisChatterjee & Anr. .... 1165

(7) s.482 – Jurisdiction under – Scope and ambitof – Discussed.(Also see under: Penal Code, 1860)

Asoke Basak v. State of Maharashtraand Ors. .... 736

(8) s.482 – Power under – Exercise of – Contractbetween Maharashtra State Electricity Board(MSEB) and a company – Dispute betweenparties – Termination of contract by company –Reference of dispute to arbitral tribunal – Finalaward with observation as regards fabrication ofcertain documents tendered in evidence by MSEB– Criminal complaint by the company againstMSEB, its Chairman and others for commissionof offences u/ss. 192 and 199 r/w s.34 IPC –Issuance of summons to all named in the complaint– Petition u/s. 482 CrPC. – Dismissed by HighCourt – Held: Prima facie case of offences u/ss.192 and 199 IPC made out against MSEB – Thus,not a fit case for exercise of power u/s. 482 infavour of MSEB – As regards the Chairman ofMSEB, no specific averment demonstrating hisrole in fabricating false evidence before arbitraltribunal – No indication of existence of pre-arranged plan – Thus, no prima facie case madeout against Chairman in respect of offences u/ss.192 and 199 r/w s. 34 IPC – Order of magistratetaking cognizance against Chairman in complaintcase quashed – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 192 and

199 r/w s. 34 – Liability – Vicarious liability.

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd. & Anr. v. Datar Switchgear Ltd. & Ors. .... 551

(9) (i) s.482 – Quashing of proceedings – Pursuantto a dowry case filed against the complainant byhis daughter-in-law, a raid was conducted in hishouse by police accompanied by accused whowas brother of his daughter-in-law – Thereafter,complaint filed alleging that the accused forcedthe police officers to search cupboards for seizingthe passport of his sister and in the absence ofcomplainant stole two gold bangles – Magistratetook cognizance of offence punishable u/s.379 IPC– Petition u/s.482 filed by accused – High Courtdismissed the petition holding that it had no suchpower – Held: The complaint deserved to bequashed because prima facie it was absurd andthere was lack of bona fides on the part of thecomplainant – High Court is invested with thetremendous powers u/s.482 to pass any order inthe interest of justice.(ii) s.482 – Scope of – Held: s.482 is a guaranteeagainst injustice – High Court while exercising itsjurisdiction u/s.482 could pass any order in theinterest of justice – This power is available only tothe High Court in contradistinction to the power ofSessions Judge u/s. 397.

Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan v. RamGopal Poddar and Anr. .... 289

(10) (See under: Administration ofCriminal Justice) .... 1137

COMPANIES ACT, 1956:(i) ss.433 and 434 – Winding up petition by the

1211 1212

creditor – Maintainability of – Held: Notmaintainable when there is substantial dispute asto liability – If the debt is bona fide disputed, therecannot be “neglect to pay” within the meaning ofs.433(1)(a) – “Bona fide dispute” implies theexistence of a substantial ground for the disputeraised – On fact, there was bona fide dispute asto liability – Company Court erred in orderingwinding up of the company.

(ii) s.434(1)(a) – Commercial solvency – Held: Anexamination of the company’s solvency may be auseful aid in determining whether the refusal topay debt is a result of a bona fide dispute as tothe liability or whether it reflects an inability to pay– If the debt is an undisputedly owing, then it shouldbe paid – If the company refuses to pay, withoutgood reason, it should not be allowed to avoidthe statutory demand by proving, at the statutorydemand stage, that it is solvent – The commercialsolvency cannot be characterized as a stand aloneground.

(iii) ss.433 and 434 – Winding up proceedings –Abuse of – Held: A creditor’s winding up petitionimplies insolvency and is likely to damage thecompany’s creditworthiness or its financialstanding with its creditors or customers and evenamong the public – A party to the dispute shouldnot be allowed to use the threat of winding uppetition as a means of enforcing the company topay a bona fide disputed debt – Company Courtshould be guarded from such vexatious abuse ofthe process – It cannot function as a DebtCollecting Agency and should not permit a partyto unreasonably set the law in motion, especiallywhen the aggrieved party has a remedy elsewhere.

(iv) s.433 – Winding up petition – Publication inthe newspaper about the filing of petition – Caution– Held: It may damage the creditworthiness orfinancial standing of the company and may alsohave other economic and social ramifications –Company Court, at times, has not only to look intothe interest of the creditors, but also the interestsof public at large and should be more vigilant sothat its medium would not be misused – Publicpolicy.

M/s. IBA Health (I) P. Ltd. v. M/s Info-DriveSystems Sdn. Bhd. .... 137

COMPENSATION:(1) Enhancement of – Acquisition of large extentof land situate in the outskirts of Pathankot fordefence purposes under the Act – Enhancementof compensation was considered by High Courtin a similar case for acquisition of land arising outof the very same acquisition process – In thatcase, High Court enhanced the compensation toRs.350/- per marla – The said order was notchallenged and attained finality – Compensationin the instant case also enhanced to Rs.350/- permarla with proportionate benefits towards solatiumand interest.

Dilawar Singh & Ors. etc. v. Union ofIndia & Ors. .... 1059

(2) (See under: Land Acquisition Act, 1894) .... 489

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950:(1) Article 14 – Plea of discrimination – Held:Can only be raised if a person has a right in law,to be treated in a particular way, but that treatmentis denied to him, whereas others are given the

12141213

same treatment.(Also see under: Approbate and Reprobate)


(2) Articles 14 and 16 – Equal pay for equal work.(See under: Labour Laws) .... 1173

(3) Articles 19(1)(g) and 19(6) – Hawkers andsquatters.(See under: Legislation) .... 996

(4) Article 20(3).(See under: Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973) .... 204

(5) Article 22(5).(See under: National Security Act, 1980) .... 429

(6) Articles 32 and 161 – Writ petition challengingthe order passed under the Foreigners Actwhereby a Bangladesh national was sentencedfor illegally entering India – Held: The petitionerhas a right to appeal to High Court on judicialside – He can also approach the executiveauthority concerned u/s 432 CrPC or to theGovernor under Article 161 of the Constitution –Supreme Court being a judicial Court has no suchpowers – Writ petition dismissed – ForeignersAct, 1946 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 –s.432.

Mahamudul Hassan v. Union of India& Ors .... 257

(7) Articles 32 and 226 – Writ petition challengingacquisition of land – Filed after 16 years of the

award of compensation – Held: The Courts areexpected to be very cautious and circumspectabout exercising their discretionary jurisdictionunder Article 226 or Article 32 if there has beeninordinate and unexplained delay in questioningthe validity of acquisition of land – In the instantcase, the writ petitioners did not furnish anyexplanation, and they had participated in theproceedings before Land Acquisition Collector –High Court should have dismissed the writ petitionat the threshold for delay and laches – LandAcquisition – Delay/Laches.

Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai v.M. Meiyappan and Ors. .... 1184

(8) Articles 72 and 161.(See under: Code of Criminal Procedure,1973) .... 247

(9) Articles 136 and 142.(See under: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) .... 989

(10) Article 142 – Request made before SupremeCourt to exercise jurisdiction u/Article142 in orderto grant dissolution of marriage on the ground thatthe parties were living separately for long and theirre-union was impossible – Held: Request notallowed in the absence of permissibility of such acourse in law – Besides, the issue pending beforelarger Bench – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.13.

Gurbux Singh v. Harminder Kaur .... 275

(11) Article 226 – Judicial review of award passedu/s 7B of Telegraph Act – Scope of – Telephonebill raised – On verification, bills found to be correct– Arbitrator also confirming the demand in its

1215 1216

award – Award set aside by High Court – Held:High Court, in exercise of its power of judicialreview, wrongly interfered with the finding of theArbitrator – Order of the High Court was onassumptions and inferences and not based onevidence – High Court was prejudiced againstthe Telephone Department – Conduct of SingleJudge of High Court in forcing the Department togive up and reduce its claim, is required to bediscouraged – Telegraph Act, 1885 – s.7-B –Judgments/Orders.

Department of Telecommunications v.Gujarat Co-operative Milk MarketingFederation Ltd. .... 384

(12) Article 226 – Petition for a writ of certiorari– Impleadment of proper party.(See under: Party) .... 413

(13) Article 227 – Scope and ambit of –Discussed – Eviction petition, on the ground ofsub-letting without written consent – Allowed byRent Controller – Order upheld by Tribunal – HighCourt in writ petition under Article 227 by MCDset aside the concurrent findings recorded by theauthorities below and quashed the orders passedby them – Held: The writ petition filed by MCDwas liable to be dismissed on the ground of delayand laches alone – Even otherwise, exercise ofpower under Article 227 by the High Court, in thepeculiar facts of the case was improper – Theentire proceedings adopted by MCD were asubterfuge to avoid the execution proceedings ina decree which had become final between theparties – The High Court erroneously undertookinvestigation into issues which did not even arise

in the lis – It traveled beyond the well definedcontours of its jurisdiction under Article 227 – RentControl and Eviction – Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 – ss.14(1)(b) and 39(1) – Delay/laches.

Jai Singh and Ors. v. MunicipalCorporation of Delhi and Anr. .... 358

(14) Article 286.(See under: Central Sales Tax Act, 1956) .... 895

(15) Article 300-A.(See under: Punjab Regional and TownPlanning and Development Act, 1995) .... 163

(16) Article 300A – Right to property – Deprivationof property by acquisition – Held: Right to propertymay no longer be a fundamental right, but it enjoysthe protection of Article 300A to the extent thatthere can be no deprivation of property save byauthority of law – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 –Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act,1949 – s.78 – Gujarat Agricultural Produce MarketAct, 1963.(Also see under: Gujarat Agricultural ProduceMarket Act, 1963)

Mohanlal Nanabhai Choksi (Dead) by Lrs. v.State of Gujarat and Ors. .... 499

(17) (i) Articles 368, 14, 19, 21, 300-A and theNinth Schedule r/w. Article 31B – Immunity to lawsinserted in the Ninth Schedule – Scope of –Constitutional validity of Janmam Act upheld inBalmadies case except the provisions thereofwhich provided for acquisition of forest Land –Insertion of the Act in the Ninth Schedule –Proceedings in respect of the land in question,

1217 1218

under Janmam Act – Challenged – High Courtupheld the proceedings – Held: Inclusion ofJanmam Act in the Ninth Schedule by Thirty-fourthconstitutional amendment did not amount toviolation of doctrine of basic structure – Thechallenge to the thirty-fourth amendment is basedon the right to property in the garb of over-archingprinciples like separation of powers, rule of lawand abrogation of power of judicial review –Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition andConversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969.

(ii) Article 368 – Power to amend the Constitution– Nature and limitations of – Held: Power toamend the Constitution is a derivative power –Therefore, it is subject to two limitations, namely,doctrine of basic structure and lack of legislativecompetence – The concepts like secularism,democracy, separation of powers, power ofjudicial review fall outside the scope of amendatorypowers of Parliament under Article 368 – Doctrineof Basic Structure.

(iii) Article 14 – Held: It is only that breach ofprinciple of equality which is of the character ofdestroying the basic framework of the Constitution,which will not be protected by Article 31B and notevery breach of principle of equality – In cases ofviolation of Article 14 distinction betweenconstitutional law and ordinary law is required tobe kept in mind – Ordinary law can be challengedon the touchstone of Article 14 – Constitutionalamendment violating any over-arching principle inthe Constitution i.e. concepts like secularism,democracy, separation of powers, power ofjudicial review fall outside the scope of amendatorypowers of Parliament under Article 368 – If any of

these were to be deleted, it would require changesto be made not only in Part III of the Constitutionbut also in Articles 245 and the three Lists of theConstitution resulting in the change of the verystructure or framework of the Constitution.(iv) Seventh Schedule, List III Entry 42 and List IIEntry 18 – Article 31(2) – Enactment of GudalurJanmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion intoRyotwari) Act, 1969 – Whether the enactmentliable to be struck down for lack of legislativecompetence – Held: The requirement of publicpurpose and compensation are not legislativerequirements of the competence of Legislature tomake laws under Entry 18 of List II or Entry 42 ofList III, but are conditions and restrictions underArticle 31(2) – Thus, the Act received immunityfrom Article 31(2) with retrospective effect, whenit was included in the Ninth Schedule – In pith andsubstance, the Act was in respect of ‘Land’ and‘Land tenure’’ under Entry 18 of List II – Thus, theAct not liable to be struck down for lack oflegislative competence – Gudalur JanmamEstates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari)Act, 1969.

Glanrock Estate (P) Ltd. v. State ofTamil Nadu .... 597

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986:ss.2(1)(d), (g), (o) and 12 – Chandigarh Allotmentof Land to Co-operative House Building SocietiesScheme, 1991 – Envisaging allotment of land byChandigarh Administration to Co-operative HouseBuilding Societies through Chandigarh HousingBoard – Construction of multistoried structures/dwellings for members of Societies – Non-allotment of land to Societies – Complaint by

1219 1220

members u/s. 12, for refund of 10% earnestmoney forfeited by the Board and 18% interestpaid by them – Maintainability of – Held:Complaint is maintainable – Members of theSocieties were the real and ultimate beneficiaries– Members covered by definition of ‘consumer’ u/s. 2(d)(ii) and had right to file such complaint –Even though Finance Secretary decided to refundthe earnest money, Board did not refund theforfeited portion of the earnest money to themembers of the Societies – This amounted todeficiency in service – National Commission andState Commission justified in directing refund ofthe amount of interest money – Board directed torefund the amount due to complainant within thestipulated period – Chandigarh Allotment of Landto Co-operative House Building SocietiesScheme, 1991 – Capital of Punjab (Developmentand Regulation) Act, 1952 – Chandigarh LeaseHold of Sites and Buildings Rules, 1973.

Chandigarh Housing Board v. AvtarSingh and Ors .... 96

CONTRACT:(1) Contract of sale and agreement to sell –Distinction between.(Also see under: Stamp Act, 1899)

State of Uttaranchal (now known as State ofUttarakhand) & Ors. v. M/s. KhuranaBrothers .... 1108

(2) (See under: Banking Regulation Act,1949) .... 644

(3) (See under: Specific Relief Act,1963) .... 772

COSTS:(See under: Approbate and Reprobate) .... 326

CRIMINAL LAW:Benefit of doubt.(See under: Penal Code, 1860) .... 574

CUSTOMS ACT, 1962:s.14 – Valuation of goods for purposes ofassessment – Import of old vessel underMemorandum of Agreement and purchase priceagreed – Reduction in purchase price by way ofaddendum to the original agreement – Customsduty – Assessment of – Held: Price paid byimporter to seller in the ordinary course ofcommerce is to be taken as the transaction valuefor the purpose of valuation of goods – On facts,while determining value of vessel u/s.14, factumof actual payment of price in terms of addendumcannot be ignored – Tribunal did not examine thesame and rejected assessee’s appeal – Matterremitted back to the tribunal for considerationafresh – Customs Valuation (Determination ofPrice of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 – r. 4(2).

M/s Choudhary Ship Breakers v.Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad .... 854

CUSTOMS TARIFF ACT 1975:(i) Customs Tariff Headings 49.06 and 49.11; Sub-Heading 8524.39 and 8524.90 – ‘CD ROM’containing images of drawing and designs ofengineering goods – Classification of – Held: Notclassifiable under Tariff Heading 49.06 or 49.11as other printed matter – Alternative plea forclassifying the same under Sub-Heading 8524.39or 8524.90 not acceptable – Thus, assessee not

1221 1222

entitled to the benefit of Nil rate of duty underNotification No. 17/2001 dated 1.3.2001 –Notifications.

(ii) Classification of goods – Interference bySupreme Court – Held: Classification of goodsinvolves technical and scientific evaluation andanalysis – Unless there is something patentlywrong while classifying a particular product,interference not called for.

(iii) ‘Software’ and ‘data’ – Distinction between –Held: Software is the set of instructions that allowsphysical hardware to function and performcomputations in a particular manner – Data isinformation that performs no computation andgives no enabling instructions to computerhardware but is ready for processing by computersoftware.

L. M. L. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs .... 80

CUSTOMS VALUATION (DETERMINATION OFPRICE OF IMPORTED GOODS) RULES, 1988:r. 4(2).(See under: Customs Act, 1962) .... 854

DEEDS AND DOCUMENTS:(1) Deed of Assignment.(See under: Banking Regulation Act, 1949) .... 644

(2) Document containing interlineations oralterations – Suit land sold by registered sale deed– After few years, vendor seeking re-purchase ofland by claiming that the sale by him wasconditional – In the sale deed, the word ‘avadhi’was inserted in three places in the margin and an

insertion of a clause was made in the last part ofthe sale deed to make it conditional – Held: Rule42 mandatorily requires that if there is anyinterlineations, erasures, alterations etc., it mustbe mentioned and described at the foot of thedocument and must be duly signed by theexecutant before the document is accepted forregistration – Nothing was endorsed at the foot ofthe sale deed, nor did it bear signatures of theexecutant – Thus, r.42 was not complied with –The insertions in question were surrounded by thesuspicious circumstances of a grave nature and,therefore, the same were required to be ignored– Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965 – rr.41 and42.

(ii) Evidence – Admissibility of a document – Held:Document may be admissible but probative valueof the entries contained therein may still berequired to be examined in the facts andcircumstances of a particular case – Appeal –Evidence.

D. R. Rathna Murthy v. Ramappa .... 755

(3) Execution of lease deed.(See under: Lease Deed) .... 1073

DELAY/LACHES:(1) Acquisition of land challenged belatedly.(See under: Constitution of India, 1950) .... 1184

(2) Delay by Government authorities in filing writpetitions/appeals.(See under: Government Litigation) .... 201

(3) Delay in appointment of arbitrator.(See under: Requisitioning and Acquisition of

Immovable Property Act, 1952) .... 1059

(4) Delay in filing appeal.(See under: Limitation Act, 1963) .... 864

(5) (See under: Constitution of India, 1950) .... 358

(6) (See under: Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)Act, 1972) .... 241

(7) (See under: National Security Act, 1980) .... 429

(8) (See under: Code of Civil Procedure,1908) .... 1045

DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1957:Hawkers and squatters.(See under: Legislation) .... 996

DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958:ss.14(1)(b) and 39(1).(See under: Constitution of India, 1950) .... 358

DOCTRINES/PRINCIPLES:(1) (i) Doctrine of basic structure – Discussed.(ii) Doctrine of pith and substance – Applicabilityof.

(iii) Over-arching principles in the Constitution ofIndia – Discussed.(Also see under: Constitution of India, 1950)


(2) Doctrine of benefits and burdens – Applicabilityof.

Shyam Telelink Ltd. v. Union of India .... 927

(3) Doctrine of estoppel.(See under: Approbate and Reprobate) .... 326

(4) Doctrine of lis pendens.(See under: Specific Relief Act, 1963) .... 974

(5) Principle of ejusdem generis – Applicabilityof – General terms following particular expressionstake their colour and meaning as that of thepreceding expressions – Central Excise Tariff Act,1975.(Also see under: Central Excise Tariff Act,1975)


(6) Proximity test.(See under: Penal Code, 1860) .... 1137

(7) ‘Same goods’ theory.(See under: Central Sales Tax Act, 1956) .... 895

DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961:s. 4.(See under: Penal Code, 1860) .... 1137

EASEMENTS ACT, 1882:s. 52.(See under: Leave and Licence as alsounder Approbate and Reprobate) .... 326

EDUCATION/EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS:(1) Admissions – Medical admissions – AcademicSession 2010-11 – Allocation of seats betweenthe management and the State – Appeals againstorder passed by the High Court in writ petitionswhereby a total of 15 seats in the 1st year MBBS

12241223

course were directed to be reduced from out ofthe management quota of the appellant-collegefor the academic session 2010-2011 – Held: Theappeals are an abuse of the process of law inview of consent of appellant-institution to reductionof seats from management quota as recorded inthe impugned order of the High Court and earlierorder passed by Supreme Court and order passedby High Court in a connected matter – Reductionof seats had to be only from the managementquota – Judicial process – Abuse of.

R.D. Gardi Medical College and Anr. etc. v.State of M.P. and Ors. .... 692

(2) Medical admissions – Management quota –Scheme formulated by college for weakersections.

(See under: Gujarat Professional MedicalEducational Courses (Regulation ofAdmission and Payment of Fees) Rules,2009) .... 916

EMINENT DOMAIN:(See under: Punjab Regional and TownPlanning and Development Act, 1995) .... 163

EQUITY:(See under: Madhya Pradesh PanchayatContractual Teachers (Conditions ofAppointment and Service) Rules, 2001) .... 839

ESTOPPEL:(1) (See under: Telecom RegulatoryAuthority of India, Act, 1997) .... 927(2) (See under: Approbate and Reprobate) .... 326

EVIDENCE:(1) Admissibility of a document.(See under: Deeds and Documents) .... 755

(2) Admission – Held: The allegation of fact, if notdenied/controverted in the counter affidavit,normally, shall be taken to be admitted by therespondents.(Also see under: Party)


(3) Burden of proof.(See under: Central Sales Tax Act, 1956) .... 895

(4) Circumstantial Evidence.(See under: Penal Code, 1860) .... 1137

(5) Facts within personal knowledge – Proving of.(See under: Specific Relief Act, 1963) .... 515

(6) Proving of insanity.(See under: Penal Code, 1860) .... 873


(8) (See under: Wildlife Protection Act,1972) .... 583

(9) (See under: Code of Criminal Procedure,1973) .... 429

(10) (See under: Penal Code, 1860) .... 574

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872:(1) (i) s.32 – Dying declaration – Appreciation of.

12261225

(ii) s.113A.

Thanu Ram v. State of M.P. .... 710

(2) s. 113-B.(See under: Penal Code, 1860) .... 1137

(3) s.114, 132, 133 and 154.(See under: Code of Criminal Procedure,1973) .... 204

FOREIGNERS ACT, 1946:(See under: Constitution of India, 1950) .... 257

GOVERNMENT LITIGATION:Inordinate delay in filing writ petitions/appeals bygovernment or the State Authorities beforeSupreme Court and High Courts – It is high timethat this mal-practice be severely rooted out andan effectual mechanism be adopted all over thecountry so that such delays do not occur in future– Let the copy of this order be sent to SolicitorGeneral of India, who would assist the Court asan amicus curiae – Copies shall also be sent tothe Chief Secretaries of all the States so thateffective action may be taken in this regard –Administration of Justice – Delay/Laches.

State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. KrishnaPradhan & Ors. .... 201

GUDALUR JANMAM ESTATES (ABOLITION ANDCONVERSION INTO RYOTWARI) ACT, 1969:Applicability of the Act – The Act notified in 1974– Proceedings in respect of the land in questioninitiated under Ceiling Act, before the date ofnotification of the Janmam Act – After thenotification, proceedings initiated under Janmam

Act in respect of the land in question – Held: Evenif the proceedings had been initiated under theCeiling Act, it was open to the State to actaccording to provisions of the Janmam Act – TamilNadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land)Act, 1961 [As amended by Tamil Nadu LandReforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) SecondAmendment Act, 1972.(Also see under: Constitution of India, 1950)


GUJARAT AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETACT, 1963:Acquisition proceedings initiated by StateGovernment to establish a vegetable market underBombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act,1949 – Held: The land owner is entitled to raisethe question of non-applicability of the 1949 Act,in view of a specific later legislative enactmenti.e. 1963 Act – Matter remitted to High Court forconsideration afresh in the light of questionsformulated – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 –Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act,1949 – s.78 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article300A.

Mohanlal Nanabhai Choksi (Dead) by Lrs. v.State of Gujarat and Ors. .... 499

GUJARAT PROFESSIONAL MEDICALEDUCATIONAL COLLEGES OR INSTITUTIONS(REGULATION OF ADMISSION AND FIXATIONOF FEES) ACT, 2007:s.10.(See under: Gujarat Professional Medical

12281227

Educational Courses (Regulation ofAdmission and Payment of Fees) Rules,2009) .... 916

GUJARAT PROFESSIONAL MEDICALEDUCATIONAL COURSES (REGULATION OFADMISSION AND PAYMENT OF FEES) RULES,2009:Medical Admissions – Admission to MBBSCourse – Management quota – Held: If anycollege, out of charitable or philanthropic motive,wants to extend a helping hand to economicallyweaker sections of the student community byproviding a scheme for free admission to the tenper cent management quota seats, there is noneed for the Fee Regulatory Committee todetermine and fix the ‘fees’ chargeable by thecollege for such free management seats – Norwill it be necessary for such a college to be a partof consortium of unaided colleges which want tocharge fees – Order of the High Court set asideand the matter remanded to it for considerationand expeditious disposal of the writ petition onmerits – Admissions for academic year 2010-2011 for the management seats be made tofollowing the procedure adopted for 2008-2009subject to the change in regard to Clause (3) inthe Agreement/Bond – Gujarat ProfessionalMedical Educational Colleges or Institutions(Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees)Act, 2007 – s.10.

Charutar Arogya Mandal v. State ofGujarat & Anr. .... 916

HAWKER MATTERS:(See under: Legislation) .... 996

HINDU LAW:(1) Mitakshara Joint Family – Coparceners – LandCeiling.(See under: Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation ofCeiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land)Act, 1961) .... 958

(2) (See under: Partition) .... 1125

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955:(1) s. 7.(See under: Code of Criminal Procedure,1973) .... 223

(2) s.13 – Divorce on the ground of cruelty – Held:It is essential for the spouse, claiming relief, toprove that a particular conduct or behaviourresulted in cruelty to him/her – The married lifeshould be assessed as a whole and a few isolatedinstances over certain period would not amountto cruelty – An isolated friction on some occasionlike festival of Lohri even in the presence of otherscannot be a valid ground for dissolving themarriage.

Gurbux Singh v. Harminder Kaur .... 275

HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956:s.14.(See under: Specific Relief Act, 1963) .... 772

INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925:Will – Execution of – Testatrix bequeathingproperty in absolute terms in favour of herdaughters – Latter part of bequest purporting tovest the same property in their female offsprings– Interpretation of – Held: It is clear from the Willthat testatrix had made an unequivocal and

12301229

absolute bequest in favour of her daughters –Latter part is redundant since it was repugnant tothe clear intention of testatrix in making anabsolute bequest in favour of her daughters – Upontheir demise the estate owned by them woulddevolve by the ordinary law of succession on theirheirs and not in terms of the Will executed bytestatrix – Will.

Sadaram Suryanarayana & Anr. v.Kalla Surya Kantham & Anr. .... 808

INTEREST:(See under: Land Acquisition Act, 1894) .... 489

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES:(1) New concepts – Relevance of.(See under: Banking Regulation Act, 1949) .... 644

(2) Liberal construction.(See under: Punjab Regional and TownPlanning and Development Act, 1995) .... 163

(3) Rule of ejusdem generis.(See under: Central Excise Tariff Act, 1975) .... 824

JUDGMENTS/ORDERS:Order of High Court reflecting prejudice.(See under: Constitution of India, 1950) .... 384

JUDICIAL REVIEW:Purpose of.(See under: National Security Act, 1980) .... 429

JUDICIARY:(1) E-governance – New Judges are expected tohave basic knowledge of the computer operation.

(Also see under: Service Law)

Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public ServiceCommission, Uttarakhand and Ors. .... 944

(2) Higher Judicial Service – Direct recruitmentquota and promotee quota.(See under: Uttar Pradesh Higher JudicialService Rules, 1975) .... 25

KARNATAKA REGISTRATION RULES, 1965:rr.41 and 42.(See under: Deeds and Documents) .... 755

KERALA HIGH COURT ACT:s. 9.(See under: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) .... 989

KERALA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1963:(i) s.51, proviso – Surrender by tenant of hisinterests in the leasehold land to landlord – Held:Being in contravention of s.51, was void.

(ii) ss. 13-A and 125 – Restoration of possessionof tenants dispossessed after 1.4.1964 –Jurisdiction of civil court – Held: Suit for recoveryof possession by a tenant is neither barredexpressly nor impliedly by s. 13-A – Further, s.125makes it clear that in any suit regarding rights ofa tenant, the issues of rights of tenant and whethera person is tenant will have to be referred to thecivil court.

Amina Beevi v. Thachi & Ors. .... 1084

LABOUR LAWS:Work-charge helpers – Claiming regularizationand pay scale of Junior Clerks – Held: There being

12321231

qualitative difference as regards liability andresponsibility, mere volume of work would not berelevant – Further, the plea of equal pay for equalwork is founded on Article 14 of the Constitution,therefore, it was incumbent upon the workmen toestablish that they were performing the work ofJunior Clerk under orders of a competent authority– This has not been done – However, the workmenwere entitled to be considered for regularizationand the pay scale of Junior Clerk from the datetheir juniors were granted the benefits under theregularization scheme formulated by the employer– Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14 and 16– Equal pay for equal work.

Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam & Ors. v. NavinKumar Saini Etc. .... 1173

LAND ACQUISITION:(1) Acquisition of land challenged belatedly.(See under: Constitution of India, 1950) .... 1184

(2) Acquisition of land under compulsoryacquisition – Delay in award – Solatium andinterest allowed.(See under: Requisitioning and Acquisition ofImmovable Property Act, 1952) .... 1059

LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894:(1) ss. 4 and 6 – Issuance of preliminary and finalnotifications under – Legality and Validity of –Issuance of notifications u/ss. 4 and 6 upheld bythe Division Bench of the High Court – Held: Landwas acquired for making approach road as alsofor workshop and residential quarters of staff forState Road Transport Corporation, thus, it wasacquired for public purpose – State Government

was fully competent to issue such a notification –Land acquired under the said notification notconnected with the notification issued by StateGovernment for Karnataka Industrial AreasDevelopment Board for Infrastructure CorridorProject – Even assuming that the part of the saidland stood acquired for a different purpose, it isnot a proper acquisition as the land already stoodacquired under a different notification issued byseparate authority.

D. Hanumanth SA & Ors. v. State ofKarnataka & Ors. .... 1098

(2) ss.4, 6, 18, and 23(1).(See under: Punjab Regional and TownPlanning and Development Act, 1995) .... 163

(3) ss.4, 23(2) and 23(1A) – Land acquired –Compensation awarded – Quantum ofcompensation determined by High Court – Insome cases interest on solatium u/s. 23(2) andadditional compensation u/s 23(1A) denied – Held:The quantum of compensation determined by HighCourt is correct – However, claimants are entitledto interest on solatium and additional interest –Interest.

Iyasamy & Anr. v. Special Tahsildar, LandAcquisition .... 489

(4) Compensation.(See under: Land Laws and AgriculturalTenancy) .... 250

(5) (See under: Code of Civil Procedure,1908) .... 1045

(6) (See under: Gujarat Agricultural Produce

12341233

Market Act, 1963) .... 499

LAND LAWS AND AGRICULTURAL TENANCY:(1) Land Ceiling.(See under: Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation ofCeiling Area and Acquisition of SurplusLand) Act, 1961) .... 958

(2) Litigation for deciding occupancy rights –During pendency of litigation the land in questionacquired – High Court decided the occupancyrights in favour of tenant – Held: The High Courtwas right in deciding the question regarding theoccupancy right – However, it fell into error indeciding the quantum of compensation – The ordergranting occupancy-right is affirmed, the questionregarding compensation is left open to be decidedin appropriate proceeding under Land AcquisitionAct – Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Munikadirappa& Ors. .... 250

(3) Restoration of possession of dispossessedtenants.(See under: Kerala Land Reforms Act,1963) .... 1084

LEASE DEED:Execution of – Failure of allottee to execute leasedeed for commercial plot – Imposition of penaltyand interest – Held: No inclination on the part ofallottee or petitioner company to completeformalities for execution of lease deed pursuantto the change in the name of allottee – Thus, onaccount of subsequent conduct of petitionercompany and allottee, order of High Court anddecision of NOIDA relating to imposition of penalty

and interest not interfered with – UrbanDevelopment.

M/s. Angel Baby Products Pvt. Ltd. v.New Okhla Industrial DevelopmentAuthority & Ors. .... 1073

LEAVE AND LICENCE:(1) Licence agreement executed by and betweenappellant-licencee and Government for providingcellular mobile telephone services – Disputerelating to computation of licence fee dues, interest,penal interest, liquidated damages etc. – Tribunalupheld the computation of licence fee demandedand realized by the respondent-Union of India interms of the Licence Agreement holding thatappellant gave its unconditional acceptance to theentire Migration package, thus, it was not entitledto raise any issue relating to pre-migration period;and further issued directions for re-working thelicence fee dues along with interest – Propriety of– Held: Proper – No legal flaw in the directionsissued by the Tribunal – Telecom RegulatoryAuthority of India Act, 1997 – ss. 14(a)(I) and 18– Maxim, “qui approbat non reprobate”-Applicability of.

Bharti Cellular Limited v. Union ofIndia and Ors. .... 725

(2) Licence – Revocable licence – Held: Acontractual licence is normally revocable, exceptin certain circumstances that are expresslyprovided for in Easements Act, 1882 – On facts,plea of licencee that it invested money inconstruction of restaurant on the oral assuranceby the officers of Airport Authority (AAI) about

12361235

extension of licence so as to make it irrevocablewas of no legal consequence – Besides, being astatutory corporation, AAI was totally bound by theAct and the Regulations framed under the Act –Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 – AirportsAuthority of India (Contract) Regulations 2003 –Regulation 3(2) – Constitution of India, 1950 –Article 14 – Easements Act, 1882 – s.52.(Also see under: Approbate and Reprobate)


LEGISLATION:Need for regulation of rights of squatters/hawkersin Delhi – Schemes evolved by New DelhiMunicipal Council and Municipal Corporation ofDelhi from time to time on directions by SupremeCourt – Right to carry on hawking on pavementsunder control of MCD and NDMC – Held: Hawkershave a fundamental right to carry on hawking underArticle 19(1)(g) of the Constitution – It is subjectto reasonable restrictions imposed by law –National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2004and Scheme framed by NDMC cannot be calledthe law – National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws(Special Provisions) Second Act, 2009 is up to31.12.2010, and Street Vendors (Protection ofLivelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Bill,2009 is there to regulate the fundamental right ofstreet hawking and street vending – Numerousmatters are pending before Supreme Court –Thus, structured regulation and legislation in thisregard is imminently necessary in public interest– Appropriate Government directed to enact alaw to regulate hawking, before 30.06.2011 – Tillsuch time, grievances of hawkers/vendors to be

redressed by internal dispute redressalmechanisms provided in the Schemes –Municipalities – New Delhi Municipal Council Act,1994 – ss. 225, 226, 330 and 369(2) – DelhiMunicipal Corporation Act, 1957 – Constitution ofIndia, 1950 – Articles 19(1)(g) and 19(6) – HawkerMatters.

Gainda Ram and others v. M.C.D.and Ors. .... 996

LIABILITY:Vicarious liability.(See under: Penal Code, 1860) .... 551

LIMITATION ACT, 1963:(1) s.5 r/w s.14 – Delay in filing appeal –Condonation of – Held: On facts, delay cannot becondoned since party seeking condonation wasnot only negligent but also had pursued the entirecase without due diligence.

Ramji Pandey and Ors. v. Swaran Kali .... 864

(2) s.14; Schedule II, Article 54.(See under: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) .... 1045

MADHYA PRADESH PANCHAYAT CONTRACTUALTEACHERS (CONDITIONS OF APPOINTMENTAND SERVICE) RULES, 2001:r. 5(4)(b) – Contractual teachers – Selection andappointment of – Allegation that no properadvertisement for reservation for ex-servicemenwas issued, and near relatives of members ofselection Committee appeared as candidates forselection – PIL by way of writ petition filedchallenging the appointment – Quashing of the

12381237

entire selection process – Held: Issue being aservice dispute, PIL was not maintainable –Alleged participation of near relatives in theselection process would not vitiate the entireselection process – Only the illegal beneficiariesto be weeded out from the selection process – Itcannot be said that advertisement was made soas to prevent ex-servicemen from applying –Persons selected have already put in 3 years ofservice – High Court did not properly balance theequities – Order of High Court quashed andselection proceedings upheld – Public InterestLitigation – Equity.

Girjesh Shrivastava and Others v. Stateof M. P. and Ors .... 839

MAXIMS:(1) “nemo debet esse judex in propria causa”(no man shall be a judge in his own cause) –Applicability of.(See under: Service Law) .... 448

(2) ‘pendente lite, nihil innovetur’ – Applicabilityof.

Har Narain (D) by Lrs. v. Mam Chand(Dead) by Lrs. and Ors. .... 974

(3) ‘qui approbat non reprobate’ – Applicabilityof.

(i) Shyam Telelink Ltd. v. Union of India .... 927

(ii) (See under: Leave and Licence) .... 725

MUNICIPALITIES:Hawkers and squatters.(See under: Legislation) .... 996

NATIONAL SECURITY ACT, 1980:s.3(2) – Detention of Editor of a Daily eveningpaper – Challenge to – Held: There was noreasonable basis for the detention order, and therewas no material to support the same – None ofthe documents relied on by the detaining Authorityin passing the detention order could be deemedto be pertinent – Delay in forwarding therepresentation of the detenu to CentralGovernment also remained unexplained –Sufficient ground made out for quashing the orderof detention – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article22(5) – Judicial review – Purpose of – Delay/Laches – Preventive Detention – Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973.

Smt. Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi v. Stateof Manipur and Ors. .... 429

NATURAL JUSTICE:(i) (See under: Party) .... 413

(ii) (See under: Service Law) .... 448

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ACT, 1994:ss. 225, 226, 330 and 369(2) – Hawkers andsquatters.(See under: Legislation) .... 996

PARTITION:Hindu joint family property – Family settlement –Widow inheriting undivided share of her deceasedhusband in two joint family properties – Familyarrangement between widow and her brothers-in-law – Widow and her daughter selling the propertythat came to their share – Held: By virtue of thefamily arrangement, widow and her daughterbecame absolute owner of the said property and

12401239

had full right to dispose of the said property – Itcannot be said that they had no pre-existing rightin the said land – Hindu Law.

Hari Chand Roach v. Hem Chandand Ors. .... 1125

PARTITION ACT, 1893:s.4.(See under: Specific Relief Act, 1963) .... 772

PARTY:(1) (i) Impleadment of party – Held: In proceedingsfor a writ of certiorari, not only the tribunal orauthority whose order is sought to be quashedbut also the parties in whose favour the said orderis issued are necessary parties – Even if bymistake of the party, the proper parties were notarrayed in the proceedings, it is the duty of thecourt to see that the parties are properlyimpleaded – In the instant case, State Governmentwas a necessary party – Its non-impledmentresulted in imposition of huge recurring financialliability on it without a fair hearing – Matter remittedto High Court for consideration afresh – However,State Government directed to pay minimum wagesduring the pendency of appeals before High Courtsubject to final orders – Natural justice – Servicelaw – Parity in pay scale – Evidence – Appeal –Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226.

(ii) Necessary party and proper party – Distinctionbetween – Held: A necessary party is one withoutwhom, no order can be made effectively and aproper party is one in whose absence an effectiveorder can be made but whose presence isnecessary for a complete and final decision of

the question involved in the proceedings.


(2) Substitution.(See under: Banking Regulation Act, 1949) .... 644

PENAL CODE, 1860:(1) ss. 34, 192 and 199 – Vicarious liability –Common intention.(See under: Code of Criminal Procedure,1973) .... 551

(2) s.120-B r/w ss.420, 467, 471.(See under: Coal) .... 299

(3) ss. 148, 302, 325, 324, 323 r/w s. 149 –Prosecution for murder and for causing injuries –In the incident, injuries sustained by theprosecution-witnesses as well as accusedpersons – Contradiction in the police-statementof complainant and FIR version, regarding numberof accused participating in the incident – One ofthe accused, in his statement u/s. 313 stated thatcomplainant party was the aggressor – I.O. notrecording the statement of the injured accused –Conviction by trial court – Acquittal by High Court– Held: In view of the testimony of PWs, presenceof the complainant at the scene of occurrence wasdoubtful – In the facts of the case, the complainantparty was the aggressor – High Court rightlyacquitted the accused – Appeal.

Ganpat v. State of Haryana & Ors. .... 400

(4) ss. 302/34 and 323 – Murder and voluntarilycausing hurt – Altercation between two families –

12421241

Assault by accused persons resulting in death ofone of the victim and injuries to his mother andbrother – Conviction of two accused u/ss. 323and 324 – Acquittal of remaining four accused –High Court convicting accused nos. 1 to 4 u/s.302/34 – Held: Strained relationship between twofamilies sufficiently established – Testimony ofinjured eye-witnesses that accused no. 1responsible for inflicting injuries resulting in deathof deceased – No overt act attributed to accusedno. 3 except that he gave a ‘chappal’ blow tomother of deceased – Thus, conviction andsentence u/s. 302/34 of accused no. 1 upheldwhereas that of accused no. 3 set aside –Conviction of accused no. 3, u/s. 323 upheld butsentence reduced to the period already undergone– Accused no. 2 acquitted of all charges on benefitof doubt – Evidence – Witnesses – Criminal Law– Benefit of doubt.

Vithal Laxman Chalawadi & etc. v.State of Karnataka Rep. by P. Prosecutor .... 574

(5) (i) s.302 r/w 149 – Unlawful assembly –Accused-appellants, variously armed, assembledat one place and thereafter came to the place ofoccurrence and started assault on victim togetherand one of them shot him dead – Some accusedcaused injury by fire arm, ‘gandasa’, lathi, etc. tovictim party – Conviction u/s.302 with the aid ofs.149 – Held: Accused had come and left theplace of occurrence together – They were,therefore, the members of the unlawful assemblyand offences were committed in pursuance of thecommon object and, each of them was liable forthe offence committed by any other member ofthe assembly – Accused rightly held guilty u/s.302

12441243

with the aid of s.149.

(ii) s.149 – Applicability of – Held: For applicabilityof s.149, it is not necessary that each of theaccused must commit some illegal overt act.

Ramesh v. State of Haryana .... 799

(6) (i) ss. 302 and 84 – Murder – Accusedhusband inflicting fatal assault on wife with chopperon her neck – Defence of insanity claimed –Conviction u/s. 302 – Held: Ocular evidencecorroborated by medical evidence – Allcircumstances point towards the guilt of theaccused – No evidence that accused wassuffering from mental illness at the crucial time asalso before and after the incident – Evidence.(ii) s. 84 – Defence of insanity – Claim of – Held:While claiming such defence, claimant has toprove that his cognitive faculties were so impaired,at the time when the crime was committed, as notto know the nature of the act.

Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala .... 873

(7) (i) ss. 304-B and 498-A IPC and s. 4 of DowryProhibition Act – Dowry death – Circumstantialevidence – Bride died of strangulation and burninjuries in her matrimonial home – Husband andmother-in-law of deceased charged with theoffences – Acquittal by trial court – Conviction byHigh Court – Held: Trial judge recorded acquittaladopting a superfluous approach without in-depthanalysis of the evidence and circumstancesestablished on record – The ingredients of s. 304-B have been established – The presumption u/s113-B of Evidence Act is attracted and theaccused could not displace the same – The

12461245

prosecution has established that the accusedcommitted the offences – Findings of High Courtupheld – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – s. 4 –Evidence – Circumstantial Evidence – EvidenceAct, 1872 – s. 113-B.

(ii) s. 304-B – Ingredients – Explained –Expression ‘soon before her death’ – Connotationof – Proximity Test.(Also see under: Administration of CriminalJustice)


(8) (i) ss.405, 409 r/w s.34 – Criminal breach oftrust – Ingredients of – Discussed – Contractbetween respondent No.2-company andMaharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) –Respondent no.2 deposited Rs.5 lakhs with MSEBas security deposit – Dispute arose betweenrespondent no.2 and MSEB – Respondent No.2sought immediate refund of Rs.5 lakhs – However,MSEB adjusted the deposit of 5 lakhs againstdues payable by respondent No.2 to MSEB –Complaint against (Chairman of MSEB) andothers u/ss. 405 and 409 r/w s.34 IPC – Petitionfiled by Chairman u/s.482 CrPC for quashing ofthe complaint dismissed by High Court – Held:Nothing was there in the complaint to suggest thatthe complainant had entrusted any property to thechairman or that he had dominion over the saidmoney of the complainant, and it was dishonestlyconverted by him to his own use, so as to satisfythe ingredients of s.405 IPC – Since no primafacie case made out against the Chairman inrespect of offence u/s.409 r/w s.405, even with

the aid of s.34 IPC, it was a fit case where theHigh Court should have exercised its powers u/s.482 CrPC by quashing the complaint againsthim – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482.(ii) s.34 – Liability under – Discussed.

Asoke Basak v. State of Maharashtraand Ors. .... 736

(9) ss.498-A, 306 and s.107 – Married womancommitted suicide by sprinkling kerosene uponherself and setting herself on fire – Victim madedying declaration before Naib Tahsildar inpresence of Doctor, who testified that the victimwas in a fit mental condition to make the statement– Evidence of the victim’s parents and brothers –Conviction of victim’s husband u/ss. 498A and306 – Held: Justified – Dying declaration statedin clear and simple language that the victim hadbeen treated with both mental and physical cruelty– Element of instigation within meaning of s.107duly satisfied in view of s.113A of the EvidenceAct – Evidence of prosecution witnesses sufficientto establish the case against the accused-husband– Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113A.

Thanu Ram v. State of M. P. .... 710

PLEA:(1) Fresh plea – Permissibility to build a new case– Held: Not permissible – Revenue cannot beallowed to raise a plea, which was not raised inthe show cause notice nor can it be allowed totake contradictory stands in relation to the sameassessee – Central Excise Tariff Act, 1975.(Also see under: Central Excise Tariff Act, 1975)

12481247


(2) (See under: Approbate and Reprobate) .... 326

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988:s.13(2) r/w s.13(d).(See under: Coal) .... 299

PREVENTIVE DETENTION:(See under: National Security Act, 1980) .... 429

PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTICVIOLENCE ACT, 2005:(See under: Code of Criminal Procedure,1973) .... 223

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION:(See under: Madhya Pradesh PanchayatContractual Teachers (Conditions ofAppointment and Service) Rules, 2001) .... 839

PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISEDOCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971:s.3 – Power of Central Government to appointEstate Officer – Notification dated 1.7.1997published in the Official Gazette by CentralGovernment for appointment of several personsas Estate Officers for the purpose of the 1971Act – By a further notification dated 15.5.07,previous notification amended and for the words‘Airport Director’, the words ‘Deputy GeneralManager (Land Management)’ substituted –Estate Officer who decided the case of thelicencee was promoted as Deputy GeneralManager (Land Management) – Therefore, by

virtue of his designation as Deputy GeneralManager (Land Management), he was a validEstate Officer – Airports Authority of India Act,1994.(Also see under: Approbate and Reprobate)


PUNJAB HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACT,1972:(See under: Punjab Regional and TownPlanning and Development Act, 1995) .... 163

PUNJAB REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING ANDDEVELOPMENT ACT, 1995:ss.178(2) and 14 – Exemption notification u/s.178(2) – Validity of – Expansion of existingtownship – Acquisition of land – Issuance ofnotification dated 10.02.2004 u/s.178(2) –Exemption of land under acquisition from theprovisions of s.14 and Chapters VIII, X and XII –Legality of – Held: Does not suffer from any legalinfirmity – Acquisition under challenge not renderedbad for non-compliance with the provisions of theAct – Direction issued to Collector to makereference to civil court for determination ofreasonable compensation payable to owners –Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4, 6, 18, and23(1) – Punjab Urban Estate (Development andRegulation) Act, 1964 – Punjab HousingDevelopment Board Act, 1972 – Constitution ofIndia, 1950 – Article 300-A – Eminent Domain –Urban development – Town planning –Notifications – Exemption notification dated10.02.2004 – Interpretation of Statutes – Liberal

construction.

Amarjit Singh & Ors. v. State ofPunjab & Ors. .... 163

PUNJAB URBAN ESTATE (DEVELOPMENT ANDREGULATION) ACT, 1964:(See under: Punjab Regional and TownPlanning and Development Act, 1995) .... 163

REFERENCE TO LARGER BENCH:(1) Procedure u/s.98(2) CPC vis-à-vis s.23 ofTravancore-Cochin High Court Act and power ofSupreme Court under Articles 136 and 142 inthis regard – Matter referred to larger Bench.(See under: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) .... 989

(2) (See under: Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973) .... 223

REGISTRATION ACT, 1908:(1) ss.17(1)(d) and 49 – Payment of stamp dutyon lease – Lease deed/sub-lease of immovableproperty – Held: Is compulsorily registerable u/s.17(1)(d) of the Registration Act and s.107 of theTransfer of Property Act – In absence of such adocument, s.49 of the Registration Act visualizesno legal effect or an effective transfer by way of alease or sub-lease – Transfer of Property Act,1882 – s.107.(Also see under: Transfer of Property)

New Okhla Industrial Development Authority(NOIDA) v. Army Welfare HousingOrganization & Ors. .... 1

(2) s.47.(See under: Specific Relief Act, 1963) .... 974

RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION:(See under: Constitution of India, 1950) .... 358

REQUISITIONING AND ACQUISITION OFIMMOVABLE PROPERTY ACT, 1952:Solatium and interest – Acquisition of land underthe Act – Delay of 16 years in appointment ofarbitrator – Held: Award of solatium and interestis justified as there was an inordinate delay in theappointment of the arbitrator and consequent delayin determination of compensation payable to theland owners.

Dilawar Singh & Ors. etc. v. Union ofIndia & Ors. .... 1059

REVIEW:Scope of – Held: Division Bench of High Courttravelled beyond the scope of review, as the viewtaken in the judgment under review did not sufferfrom any error apparent on the face of recordjustifying its review.


RULES OF INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OFCOMMERCE:International arbitration – Jurisdiction to appointarbitrator.(See under: Arbitration and ConciliationAct, 1996) .... 259

12501249

SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1930:s.4.(See under: Stamp Act, 1899) .... 1108

SALES TAX:Export of goods – Exemption from central salestax.(See under: Central Sales Tax Act, 1956) .... 895

SENTENCE/SENTENCING:(See under: Administration of CriminalJustice) .... 1137

SERVICE LAW:(1) Appointment/Recruitment/Selection:(i) Appointment.(See under: Madhya Pradesh PanchayatContractual Teachers (Conditions ofAppointment and Service) Rules, 2001) .... 839

(ii) Higher judicial service – Direct recruitmentquota and promotee quota.(See under: Uttar Pradesh Higher JudicialService Rules, 1975) .... 25

(iii) Selection – Selection of Civil Judge –Eligibility criteria – Basic knowledge of computeroperation – Unsuccessful candidate filed writpetition contending that the said eligibility criteriawas introduced during the midstream of theselection process, therefore, such process wasvitiated – Held: The eligibility criteria of basicknowledge of computer operation is prescribedin Rule 8 itself – Appellant appeared in theinterview and faced questions from computerexpert without any protest at any stage – He cannotnow turn back to state that the procedure adopted

was wrong and without jurisdiction – UttaranchalJudicial Service Rules, 2005 – Rule 8 – JudicialService.(Also see under: Judiciary)

Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public ServiceCommission, Uttarakhand and Ors. .... 944

(2) (i) Equal pay for equal work.(ii) Regularization.(See under: Labour Law) .... 1173

(3) Inter-se seniority – Seniority on basis ofqualification – Merger of post of the Basic HealthWorker to that of Multipurpose Health Assistant –Essential qualification for appointment to post ofHealth Assistant was a certificate of SanitaryInspector Training Course (SITC) – Appellant, aBasic Health Worker, did not have the SITCcertificate, therefore, although his post wasmerged with that of the Multipurpose HealthAssistants, he was not given the same pay-scaletill he had acquired the required certificate – Held:Possession of a SITC certificate was an essentialqualification, and, as such, the appellant could gethis seniority only from the date he acquired sucha certificate – Circulars/Government Orders/Notifications – G.O.M. No. 85 dated 21.01.1978.

V. Ayyanna v. Govt. of A.P. and Ors. .... 316

(4) Parity in pay scale.(See under: Party) .... 413

(5) Promotion – Officer initially commissioned inthe Regiment of Artillery – After establishment ofArmy Aviation Corps, the officer transferred to theAviation Corps permanently – Complaint by the

12521251

officer for non-consideration of his name forpromotion to the next higher post of Major General– High Court directing the authorities concernedto consider the name of the officer for promotion– Held: The direction given by High Court is just– Rejection of the complaint by the authorities waserroneous – Armed Forces – Promotion.

Union of India and others v. NarinderjitSingh Sindhu .... 475

(6) (i) Termination – On ground of misconduct –Uttar Pradesh Police – Appellant, GuardCommander, found absent from duty for 25minutes – Punishment imposed – Protest byappellant – Punishment enhanced – Appellantrefused to serve the enhanced punishment –Disciplinary proceedings – Termination of serviceof appellant – Held: The order of punishment stoodvitiated – Absence of appellant from duty as GuardCommander for 25 minutes was bona fide andpermissible under the statutory rules – Impositionof punishment for the said absence wasunwarranted – Protest against the imposition ofthe said punishment could not warrantenhancement of punishment by the Commandantconcerned – Consequently, disobedience of theenhanced punishment could not warrant initiationof disciplinary proceedings by the Commandant– The Commandant could not himself becomethe Judge of his own cause and could not appointhis own subordinate as the inquiry officer – Thepunishment order was passed in violation of thestatutory rules and the principles of natural justiceas well and, as such, rendered null and void –Directions issued to meet the ends of justice –Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate

Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 –Rules 13 and 14(1).

(ii) Disciplinary proceedings – Bias – Authoritywho initiated the disciplinary proceedings againstthe employee became a witness before the inquiryofficer appointed by him, who was subordinate tohim in his office, and also accepted the enquiryreport and passed the order of punishment –Justification of – Held: Not justified – Such a courseis not permissible in law – Natural justice –Violation of.

(iii) Punishment – Past conduct – Relevance of –Held: Past conduct of an employee should notgenerally be taken into account to substantiatethe quantum of punishment without bringing it tothe notice of the delinquent.

Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of U.P.and Ors. .... 448

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE:(See under: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) .... 1045

SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963:(1) s.12 – Applicability of – Specific performanceof contract – Agreement of sale of a house –Representation by vendor that he was absoluteowner of the house – Receipt of advance moneyby vendor – Vendor’s wife sought cancellation ofagreement on the ground that the vendor was notabsolute owner of the house and she owned halfshare in the house – Suit for specific performanceof contract by vendee – Held: Vendee cannot seekspecific performance of contract of entire house– Decree for specific performance can be granted

12541253

only to the extent of vendor’s share in the house– s.12 was not applicable in the facts of the case– s.41 of Transfer of Property Act was also notapplicable since it was not the case of the vendeethat the vendor was the ostensible owner of theproperty – Right to invoke s.4 of Partition Act alsonot available to the vendee – Transfer of PropertyAct, 1882 – s.41 – Partition Act, 1893 – s.4 –Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s.14 – Contract.

Kammana Sambamurthy (D) By LRs. v.Kalipatnapu Atchutamma (D) .... 772

(2) (i) s.16(c) – Compliance of – Agreement ofsale of property between parties through theirattorney holders – Suit for specific performanceof agreement of sale by plaintiff against defendant,through another attorney holder – Held: Plaintiffneither signed the agreement of sale nor the plaintnor appeared to give evidence about hisreadiness and willingness – Plaintiff’s attorneyholder who executed agreement of sale notexamined and one who signed the plaint had nopersonal knowledge of the transaction – Thus, non-compliance of s. 16(c) – Agreement did not barspecific performance – Plaintiff could seek therelief subject to proving breach by defendant andplaintiff’s readiness and willingness to perform thecontract – Material on record shows that plaintiffcommitted breach – Courts below ignored therelevant evidence and drew adverse inferencefrom the evidence – Thus, earnest money isforfeited and plaintiff not entitled for the refund –Decree for specific performance set aside.

(ii) s. 16(c) – Specific performance of contract –When barred – Explained.

(iii) Specific performance of contract – Readinessand willingness to perform – Proving of, by plaintiff– Examination of persons/attorney holders havingpersonal knowledge about the transaction –Discussed – Evidence.

Man Kaur (Dead) By Lrs. v. HartarSingh Sangha .... 515

(3) s.19(b) – Protection under – Scope – Landedproperty – Agreement of sale – Subsequently saledeed in respect of same property in favour ofsubsequent purchasers – Suit for specificperformance by original vendee – Sale deedexecuted in favour of subsequent purchasersregistered subsequent to institution of the suit –Suit dismissed – Held: The sale executed in favourof subsequent purchasers could not be termed asa complete sale until the document got registered– As the sale stood completed during thependency of the suit, doctrine of lis pendens isapplicable – Moreover, the fact that originalvendee had been in possession of the suit landsince long and had also been mentioned in thesale deed in favour of subsequent purchasers,therefore, the question of their being bonafidepurchasers for value and having paid money ingood faith without notice does not arise –Subsequent purchasers, therefore, cannot take thebenefit of the provisions of s.19(b) of the SpecificRelief Act – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.54– Registration Act, 1908 – s.47 – Doctrines –Doctrine of lis pendens.

Har Narain (D) by Lrs. v. Mam Chand(Dead) by Lrs. and Ors. .... 974

12561255

STAMP ACT, 1899:s.2(10); Schedule I-B; Article 23 – ‘Conveyance’– Contract of sale – Auction – Bid – Acceptanceof bid – In terms of the contract, auctioned lotremained at purchaser’s risk from the date ofacceptance of its bid and seller was notresponsible for any loss and damage – Sinceproperty in auctioned lot vested in the purchaseras a result of subject contract, it amounted totransfer of movable property and ‘conveyance’ asdefined u/s.2(10) and was chargeable to stampduty under Article 23, Schedule I-B – Contract –Sale of goods Act, 1930 – s.4.


SUIT:(See under: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) .... 1045

TAMIL NADU LAND REFORMS (FIXATION OFCEILING ON LAND) ACT, 1961:(See under: Constitution of India, 1950 asalso under: Gudalur Janmam Estates(Abolition and Conversion into Ryatwari)Act, 1969) .... 597

TAMIL NADU LAND REFORMS (FIXATION OFCEILING ON LAND) SECOND AMENDMENTACT, 1972 (ACT 20 OF 1972):(See under: Constitution of India, 1950 asalso under: Gudalur Janmam Estates(Abolition and Conversion into Ryatwari)Act, 1969) .... 597

TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,ACT, 1997:(1) s.14(a)(i) r/w s. 14A(1) – Licence fee andunliquidated damages – Grant of licence to acompany under Telecom Act for providing basictelecom services – Delay in commencing thecommercial operations – The companyunconditionally accepting the ‘Migration Package’and paying the entire amount towards the licencefee and liquidated damages in terms of thepackage – Further demand of amount towardsliquidated damage – Held: The company notentitled to question the terms of the MigrationPackage after unconditionally accepting and actingupon the same – Telecom Act, 1885 – Evidence– Estoppel – Approbate and reprobate.

Shyam Telelink Ltd. v. Union of India .... 927

(2) ss. 14(a)(I) and 18.(See under: Leave and Licence) .... 725

TELEGRAPH ACT, 1885:(1) s.7-B.(See under: Constitution of India, 1950) .... 384


TERRORIST AND DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES(PREVENTION) ACT, 1987:s.19.(See under: Code of Criminal Procedure,1973) .... 204

12581257

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY:Transfer of land cum super-structure – Land allottedby NOIDA to respondent-societies pursuant toexecution of lease deed – Super-structure builton the land – Notices issued by NOIDA directingindividual members of the housing societies toexecute tripartite deeds with the housing societies,as the lessee, and NOIDA, as the lessor, for saleof the super-structure – Propriety of – Held: Proper– The impugned notices postulating the executionof tripartite deeds flow not only from the clausesof the lease deed but also from the supervisoryauthority placed on NOIDA by virtue of theprovisions of s.7 of the Act – Transfer of the landcum super-structure would be by way of a sub-lease from the lessor i.e. NOIDA to the lessee(respondents-housing societies) to the sub-lessees who are the individual allottees, by wayof a stamped and registered document – UttarPradesh Industrial Development Act, 1976 – ss.7and 14 – Registration Act, 1908 – ss.17(1)(d)and 49.

New Okhla Industrial DevelopmentAuthority (NOIDA) v. Army WelfareHousing Organization & Ors. .... 1

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882:(1) s.41.(See under: Specific Relief Act, 1963) .... 772

(2) s.54.(See under: Specific Relief Act, 1963) .... 974

(3) s.107.(See under: Registration Act, 1908) .... 1

TRAVANCORE-COCHIN HIGH COURT ACT:s. 23.(See under: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) .... 989

URBAN DEVELOPMENT:(1) Allotment of land to co-operative HouseBuilding Societies – Not effected – Refund ofearnest money and interest.(See under: Consumer ProtectionAct, 1986) .... 96

(2) Failure of allottee to execute lease deed –Imposition of penalty and interest.(See under: Lease Deed) .... 1073

(3) Town planning.(See under: Punjab Regional and TownPlanning and Development Act, 1995) .... 163

URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT,1976:(See under: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) .... 1045

UTTAR PRADESH HIGHER JUDICIAL SERVICERULES, 1975:rr. 6, 8 and 22 – Higher Judicial Service –Recruitment, appointment and promotion – Directrecruitment quota and promoted quota – Disputeover inter-se seniority of direct recruits andpromotees – Earlier decisions of Supreme Courtand the Service Rules harmonized – Held: Directrecruits to be given quota in the temporary postsalso – Quota of direct recruits is ‘15%’ and not‘upto 15%’ – Total vacancies to be filled up at arecruitment by applying sub-rules (1) and (2) ofRule 8 and its provisos – There is no question of

12601259

unfilled vacancies being carried forward for thepurpose of fixing the number of officers to be takenat the next recruitment – Service Law – Judiciary.

Ashok Pal Singh and Ors. v. U.P. JudicialServices Association and Ors. .... 25

UTTAR PRADESH INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTACT, 1976:ss.7 and 14.(See under: Transfer of Property) .... 1

UTTAR PRADESH POLICE OFFICERS OF THESUBORDINATE RANKS (PUNISHMENT ANDAPPEAL) RULES, 1991:Rules 13 and 14(1).(See under: Service Law) .... 448

UTTAR PRADESH URBAN BUILDINGS(REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT ANDEVICTION) ACT, 1972:ss.20(2) and (4) – Suit for eviction and arrears ofrent – Decreed ex-parte – On ex-parte decreehaving been set aside, tenant deposited all arrearsof rent in court – Application by landlord for evictionof tenant on the ground that arrears had not beenpaid on the first date of hearing – Revisional courtand High Court holding the tenant not entitled toprotection of s.20(4) – Held: The tenants haveconducted the proceedings with complete lack ofseriousness and in a highly cavalier manner –The landlord is held to ransom for the past morethan six years for absolutely no fault on his partbut simply because of the laches on the part ofthe tenants – In the facts of the case, appealdismissed leaving the question of law open –

Delay/Laches.

Ram Krishna Singh & Ors. v.Thakurji Shivji .... 241

UTTARANCHAL JUDICIAL SERVICE RULES, 2005:r. 8 – Eligibility criteria – Basic knowledge ofcomputer operation.(See under: Service Law) .... 944

WILDLIFE:Poaching of wildlife – Resulting in extinction ofwild animals like tiger, leopard and bison –Direction to the Government and its agencies totake steps to preserve wildlife of the country –Stringent action against those indulging in suchcrimes.(Also see under: Wildlife Protection Act, 1972)

Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan .... 583

WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT, 1972:Illegal trade in wildlife by accused – Accused intothe illegal trade for past 30 years – Prosecutedand convicted by various courts – In the instantcase, disclosure statement by one that he wascarrying leopard skins which were to be handedover to accused – Conviction of accused on basisthereof, by courts below – Held: Extra-judicialconfession corroborated by other material onrecord establishing the guilt of accused – Largeamount of oral and documentary evidence – Thus,accused rightly held guilty beyond reasonabledoubt – Evidence.

Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan .... 583

12621261

WILL:(See under: Indian Succession Act, 1925) .... 808

WITNESSES:(See under: Penal Code, 1860) .... 574

WORDS AND PHRASES:(1) “Bona fide dispute” – Meaning of.

M/s. IBA Health (I) P. Ltd. v. M/s Info-Drive Systems Sdn. Bhd. .... 137

(2) “Cruelty” – Meaning of in the context of ss.498Aand 306 of Penal Code.(Also see under: Penal Code, 1860)

Thanu Ram v. State of M.P. .... 710

(3) ‘Equalitarian equality’, ‘inter-generational equity’and ‘sustainable development’ – Meaning of.


(4) Expressions ‘data’ and ‘software’ –Connotation of and difference between –Explained.

L. M. L. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs .... 80

(5) Expressions ‘soon before her death’ asoccurring in s.304-B IPC; and ‘rarest of rarecases’ in the context of dowry deaths –Connotation of.


(6) ‘Wife’ – Connotation of in the context of s.125

CrPC.(Also see under: Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973)

Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar SinghKushwaha & Anr. .... 223

WRIT:Writ of Certiorari.(See under: Party) .... 413

12641263

THE

SUPREME COURT REPORTSContaining Cases Determined by the Supreme Court of India

VOLUME INDEX[2010] 13 S.C.R.

EDITORRAJENDRA PRASAD, M.A., LL.M.

ASSISTANT EDITORSKALPANA K. TRIPATHY, M.A., LL.B.

NIDHI JAIN, B.A., LL.B., PGD in IPR and ITL.

BIBHUTI BHUSHAN BOSE, B.SC. (HONS.), M.B.E., LL.B.

DEVIKA GUJRAL, B.COM. (HONS.), GRAD. C.W.A., LL.B.,

PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIABY THE CONTROLLER OF PUBLICATIONS, DELHI

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

LIST OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURTCOUNCIL OF LAW REPORTING

Chairman

HON’BLE SHRI S.H. KAPADIACHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

MEMBERS

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALTAMAS KABIR

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI

MR. G.E. VAHANVATI(ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA)

MR. RAM JETHMALANI(NOMINEE OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION)

— Secretary

SUBHASH MALIK(Registrar)

JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA(From 10.09.2010 to 29.10.2010)

1. Hon’ble Shri Justice S. H. Kapadia, Chief Justice of India

2. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir

3. Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. V. Raveendran

4. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari

5. Hon’ble Mr. Justice D. K. Jain

6. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju

7. Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Bedi

8. Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. S. Sirpurkar

9. Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy

10. Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam

11. Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Singhvi

12. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam

13. Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. M. Panchal

14. Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma

15. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph

16. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly

17. Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha

18. Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. L. Dattu

19. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma

20. Hon’ble Dr. Justice B. S. Chauhan

21. Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. K. Patnaik

22. Hon’ble Mr. Justice T. S. Thakur

23. Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan

24. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar

25. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar

26. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli. Kr. Prasad

27. Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. L. Gokhale

28. Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra

29. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave

MEMORANDAOF

JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA(From 01.09.2010 to 21.10.2010)

Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Bedi, Judge, Supreme Court of Indiawas on leave for three days from 15.9.2010 to 17.09.2010on full allowances.

ERRATA

Page Line Read for Read as No. No.

247 9 433 and 433 433 and 433-A

712 7 Section 306 IPC not Section 306 IPCbe sustained. The could not becould petitioner sustained. The

petitioner

737 6-7 provisions of law, and provisions of law;(from deprived willfully and willfully andbottom) dishonestly dishonestly

774 9-10 that the same did not that the same was(from tantamount to not tantamount to abottom) concluded contract. concluded contract.

945 9-11 computer operation by computer operationputting questions to by putting a fewhim and thereafter gave questions to himthe opinion that a few and thereafter gavehe did not possess …. the opinion that he

did not possess….

975 3 (from 2 to 6 could held 2 to 6 could be heldbottom) to be to be

(ii) - 164.100.107.37164.100.107.37/scr/index_v12_2010.pdf · Asoke Basak v. State of Maharashtra...

Documents

Transcript of (ii) - 164.100.107.37164.100.107.37/scr/index_v12_2010.pdf · Asoke Basak v. State of Maharashtra...