Petition challenging Constitution Validity of the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rule 2008 regarding 40 percentage criteria for passing in interview i.e. minimum 20 marks out of 50 is dismissed by Bombay High Court.

Supreme declare Aadhar as Constitutional and Valid but declare some provision as Unconstitutional.

SupremeCourt to pronounce on Thursday judgement on PIL challenging constitutional validity of penal provision on Adultery

Maharashtra govt moves SC challenging Delhi High Court order to quash transit remand of activist Gautam Navlakha, the state govt is likely to mention before CJI Ranjan Gogoi for urgent hearing of the case.

#KulbhushanJadhav case

The International Court of Justice to commence public hearing of the Kulbhushan Jadhav case from February 18, 2019 to 21 Feb. 2019

Photo from Jmfc Weekend Batch Pune

 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

SUPREME COURT

 8 IMPORTANT INDIAN SUPREME COURT CASES DECIDED TODAY [FRIDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2018]

1. Kamal Nath v. Election Commission of India

Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 - Rules 22(1)(c) - for issuance of directions for conducting Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) verification on random basis for 10% of the votes - to provide to the petitioner soft copies of the draft electoral rolls published on July 31, 2018 in text format; to decide complaints pertaining to voter list expeditiously; and to prohibit deletion of voters from the voter list without intimation to the political parties - Another writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1012 of 2017 was filed before this Court in October 2017 itself, with almost identical prayer. This was dismissed in limine on November 20, 2017. In the counter affidavit, ECI has also referred to similar writ petitions filed in the High Court of Gujarat, which met the same fate. In view of the orders dated October 30, 2017 passed in W.P.(C) No. 983 of 2017 and on the basis of statement given by the ECI in the Court, we do not intend to entertain this relief. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.




Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 935 of 2018 12-10-2018


Bench Hon'ble : Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri


2. Om Prakash Agarwal Since Deceased Thr Lrs. v. Vishan Dayal Rajpoot

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 21 - Objections to jurisdiction - The policy underlying Section 21 of CPC is that when the case has been tried by a court on merits and the judgment rendered, it should not be liable to be reversed purely on technical grounds, unless it has resulted in failure of justice.

Even when the court of Additional District Judge was not competent to decide the Small Causes Suit in question on the ground that the pecuniary jurisdiction is vested in Court of Small Causes i.e. Civil Judge, Senior Division w.e.f. 07.12.2015, no interference was called in the judgment of Additional District Judge in the exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction by High Court in view of the provisions of Section 21 of Civil Procedure Code.


Case Number : C.A. No. 9051-9052 of 2018 12-10-2018



Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri



3. Powari Panchsheel Co-op. Hng. Sty. v. Maharashtra Housing Area Development Authority (MHADA)

The law on the question as to how and in what manner the State should deal with its largesse at the time of its disposal amongst the citizens - The Government, is not and should not be as free as an individual in selecting the recipients for its largesse. Whatever its activity, the Government is still the Government and will be subject to restraints, inherein in its position in a democratic society. A democratic Government cannot lay down arbitrary and capricious standards for the choice of persons with whom alone it will deal.




Case Number : C.A. No. 7608 of 2009 12-10-2018

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre


4. Dahisar Saraswati Coop. Hsg. Scy. Ltd v. State of Maharashtra

Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (Maharashtra) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 (4)- Whether the High Court was justified in declining to grant leave to file appeal against the order dated 1.11.2007 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate - Legality and correctness of the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Borivali (Mumbai) as contemplated under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. - the matter is now remanded to the High Court for deciding the complainant’s appeal on merits in accordance with law.


Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1550 of 2010 12-10-2018

Petitioner's Advocate : Nitin Bhardwaj

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre


5. The Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sri Kalappa M. Sankad (d) Thr. Lrs.

Servic

e Law - Setting aside of the Termination Order - Reinstatement - Payment of Back Wages.




Case Number : C.A. No. 10574 of 2018 12-10-2018


Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre


6. Mallikarjun Kodagali (dead) Represented Through Legal Representatives v. State of Karnataka

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 372 and 378 - A victim can file an appeal in the High Court without seeking leave to appeal in terms of Section 378(3) of CrPC.


Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 357A - Victim Compensation Schemes - Judiciary is obliged to go and has gone beyond merely awarding compensation and has taken into consideration the larger picture from the perspective of the victim of an offence, relating to infrastructure in court buildings and has recommended and implemented some recommendations such as the construction of child friendly courts and courts that address the concerns of vulnerable witnesses. The Courts have done and are continuing to do their best for the victims of crime.


Criminal Law - Rights of Victims - Victimology - The rights of victims, and indeed victimology, is an evolving jurisprudence and it is more than appropriate to move forward in a positive direction, rather than stand still or worse, take a step backward. A voice has been given to victims of crime by Parliament and the judiciary and that voice needs to be heard, and if not already heard, it needs to be raised to a higher decibel so that it is clearly heard.


Criminal Law - Victim - The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society. Yet, it has made great progress over the years. It is our evolving and developing jurisprudence that has made this possible. But we still have a long way to go to bring the rights of victims of crime to the centre stage and to recognise them as human rights and an important component of social justice and the rule of law. The travails and tribulations of victims of crime begin with the trauma of the crime itself and, unfortunately, continue with the difficulties they face in something as simple as the registration of a First Information Report (FIR).


Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1281-1282 of 2018 12-10-2018


Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur


7. Sebastiani Lakra v. National Insurance Company Ltd.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 168 - Deduction can be ordered only where the tort­feasor satisfies the court that the amount has accrued to the claimants only on account of death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident.


It is not disputed that the last drawn income of the deceased including DA was Rs.58,565/­. On this amount, the deceased would definitely have been paying some income tax. Since exact calculations of the same has not been given, we deduct about Rs.2,565/­ per month for this purpose and for purposes of calculation of loss of income, assess the income as Rs.56,000/­ per month. Out of this amount 1/3 is deducted i.e. Rs.18,667/­, for personal expenses leaving a balance of Rs. 37,333/­ per month as loss of dependency to the family, which works out to Rs.4,47,996/­ per annum. Applying a multiplier of 11, the compensation works out to Rs.49,27,956/­. In addition thereto, according to the judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi case (supra), the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/­ for loss of estate, Rs.40,000/­ loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/­ for funeral expenses i.e. a total amount of Rs.49,97,956/­ which is rounded off to Rs.50,00,000/­. On this amount, the claimants shall be entitled to interest @ of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the payment of the amount. Obviously, the insurance company shall be entitled to deduct/adjust the amounts already paid by it. The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.


Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 168 - Whether Court should deduct the a

mount being received by the family members under the EFB Scheme while calculating the loss of income -  Held, this amount cannot be deducted - The payment of the amount under the EFB Scheme more than offsets the loss of future prospects.


Under the EFB Scheme, the nominee or legal heir(s) of the deceased employee have to deposit the entire amount of gratuity and all other benefits payable to them on the death of the employee. In the present case, it stands proved that the claimants have deposited a sum of Rs.27,43,991/­ received by them on the death of the deceased with the employer and are now getting about Rs.50,082/­ per month. This amount of Rs.50,082/­ is to be paid to the legal heirs under the EFB Scheme only till date of retirement of the deceased. Even if an interest @ of 12% per annum is calculated on the amount of Rs.27,43,991/­, that would amount to Rs.3,30,000/­ per year or Rs.27,500/­ per month. The appellants­claimants are getting about Rs.50,000/­ per month i.e. about Rs.22,500/­ per month more, but this is only to be paid for a period of about 7 years till 30.04.2021. This payment will cease thereafter. However, since the claimants are getting quite an advantage, we feel that the MACT was right in not taking into consideration the future prospects in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, though we are not inclined to deduct the amount payable to the claimants, we feel that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, they are not entitled to claim another amount @ of 15% by way of future prospects. The payment of the amount under the EFB Scheme more than offsets the loss of future prospects. This, in our opinion, would be ‘just’ compensation.


Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 168 - “just compensation” should be paid to the claimants. 


Any method of calculation of compensation which does not result in the award of ‘just compensation’ would not be in accordance with the Act. The word “just” is of a very wide amplitude. The Courts must interpret the word in a manner which meets the object of the Act, which is to give adequate and just compensation to the dependents of the deceased. One must also remember that compensation can be paid only once and not time and again. The traditional view was that while assessing compensation, the Court should assess the loss of income caused to the claimants by the death of the deceased and balance it with the benefits which may have accrued on account of the death of the deceased. However, even when this traditional view was being followed, it was a well settled position of law that the tort­feasor cannot not take benefit of the munificence or gratuity of others.


Whether the amounts received by the deceased by way of provident fund, pension, life insurance policies and similarly, in cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits etc., are ‘pecuniary advantages’ received by the heirs on account of death of the deceased and liable to be deducted from the compensation. Held, that these amounts have no co­relation with the compensation receivable by the dependents under the Motor Vehicle Act.


The law is well settled that deductions cannot be allowed from the amount of compensation either on account of insurance, or on account of pensionary benefits or gratuity or grant of employment to a kin of the deceased. The main reason is that all these amounts are earned by the deceased on account of contractual relations entered into by him with others. It cannot be said that these amounts accrued to the dependents or the legal heirs of the deceased on account of his death in a motor vehicle accident. The claimants/dependents are entitled to ‘just compensation’ under the Motor Vehicles Act as a result of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. Therefore, the natural corollary is that the advantage which accrues to the estate of the deceased or to his dependents as a result of some contract or act which the deceased performed in his life time cannot be said to be the outcome or result of the death of the deceased even though these amount

s may go into the hands of the dependents only after his death.


Motor Accident Claims - Insurance Policy - The tort­feasor cannot take advantage of the foresight and wise financial investments made by the deceased.


As far as any amount paid under any insurance policy is concerned whatever is added to the estate of the deceased or his dependents is not because of the death of the deceased but because of the contract entered into between the deceased and the insurance company from where he took out the policy. The deceased paid premium on such life insurance and this amount would have accrued to the estate of the deceased either on maturity of the policy or on his death, whatever be the manner of his death. These amounts are paid because the deceased has wisely invested his savings. Similar would be the position in case of other investments like bank deposits, share, debentures etc. 


Motor Accident Claims - Service Benefits - Amounts of pension and gratuity cannot be deducted.


As far as the amounts of pension and gratuity are concerned, these are paid on account of the service rendered by the deceased to his employer. It is now an established principle of service jurisprudence that pension and gratuity are the property of the deceased. They are more in the nature of deferred wages. The deceased employee works throughout his life expecting that on his retirement he will get substantial amount as pension and gratuity. These amounts are also payable on death, whatever be the cause of death. Therefore, applying the same principles, the said amount cannot be deducted.




Case Number : C.A. No. 10588 - 10589 of 2018 12-10-2018

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur


8. Mohammed Imran v. The State of Maharashtra

Employment - If empanelment creates no right to appointment, equally there can be no arbitrary denial of appointment after empanelment.


The consideration of the candidature of the appellant and its rejection are afflicted by a myopic vision, blurred by the spectacle of what has been described as moral turpitude, reflecting inadequate appreciation and application of facts also, as justice may demand


Judicial Service - “Moral Turpitude” - Cancelling Selection for Appointment - Character Verification Report of the Police - Refusal of the High Court to Interfere. 


Employment opportunities is a scarce commodity in our country. Every advertisement invites a large number of aspirants for limited number of vacancies. But that may not suffice to invoke sympathy for grant of relief where the credentials of the candidate may raise serious questions regarding suitability, irrespective of eligibility. Undoubtedly, judicial service is very different from other services and the yardstick of suitability that may apply to other services, may not be the same for a judicial service. But there cannot be any mechanical or rhetorical incantation of moral turpitude, to deny appointment in judicial service simplicitor. Much will depend on the facts of a case. Every individual deserves an opportunity to improve, learn from the past and move ahead in life by self­ improvement. To make past conduct, irrespective of all considerations, an albatross around the neck of the candidate, may not always constitute justice. Much will, however depend on the fact situation of a case.


Employment - Mere disclosure in an appropriate case may not be sufficient to hold for suitability in employment. Nonetheless the nature of allegations and the conduct in the facts of a case would certainly be a relevant factor.


In the present proceedings, on 23.03.2018, this Court had called for a confidential report of the character verification as also the antecedents of the appellant as on this date. The report received reveals that except for the criminal case under reference in which he has been acquitted, the appellant has a clean record and there is no adverse material against him to deny him the fruits of his academic labour in a competitive selection for the post

of a judicial officer. In our opinion, no reasonable person on the basis of the materials placed before us can come to the conclusion that the antecedents and character of the appellant are such that he is unfit to be appointed as a judicial officer. An alleged single misadventure or misdemeanour of the present nature, if it can be considered to be so, cannot be sufficient to deny appointment to the appellant when he has on all other aspects and parameters been found to be fit for appointment.


Case Number : C.A. No. 10571 of 2018

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed an inquiry to be conducted against all those involved, including a lower court judge, in the passing of an order by the judge after the case had already been transferred to another court.

The court was hearing a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, demanding quashing of an order passed on August 19, 2015, whereby Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Ujjain had allowed compounding of offences in the case.

MCRC_7179_2016_FinalOrder_03-Oct-2018

The Bench of Chief Justice of India and justice Sanjay Kaul Takes Suo Motu Cognizance On Lower Court Vacancies, Asks HCs To Report On Status Of Appointments

Bombay High Court Appellate side Assistant Public Prosecutor recruitment.

Last Date for Application - 10 Nov. 2018.

Maharashtra govt moves SupremeCourt against a BombayHC order declining to grant more time to Pune police for filing charge sheet against activists in Bhima Koregaon case.

The matter related arrest of Surendra Gadling, Rona Wilson and others.