Case Law Digest- September,2014

CASE LAW DIGEST – SEPTEMBER

2014

CASE LAW DIGEST - SEPTEMBER 2014 - Manjeet Kumar Sahu



The Delhi High Court dismissed a suit by a media house purporting copyright infringement on its database of users, as the database was “nothing but a collection of e-mail addresses"

TECH PLUS MEDIA PRIVATE LTD v. JYOTI JANDA & ORS CS(OS) 119/2010 Judgment Dated:29/09/2014 Brief Facts of the Case: The plaintiff claimed that collection of data amounted to an original expression of thoughts of the plaintiff and preparing the database involved “immense original skill, thought process and imagination”. CONCLUSION: The Court held that the plaint did not disclose how the database in question could be afforded copyright protection, as “the said databases are nothing but a collection of the e-mail addresses of the visitors to the website/news portal of the plaintiff.” The Court referred to the landmark decision of the Supreme Court in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008) where it was held that for a compilation of data to be protected by copyright, it must be demonstrated not only that the creator exercised labour and capital, but also skill and judgment such that it is not a mechanical exercise. The Court also commented on how the Copyright Act is often being misused by employers to harass employees who have quit employment. This is especially evidenced by the fact that such suits are usually only pressed till interim stage (when the opposite party is sufficiently “scared”) and are abandoned thereon. CATCHPHRASE: 1. The plaintiff being a juristic person is incapable of being the author of any work in which copyright may exist.

CASE LAW DIGEST – SEPTEMBER

2014

2. Application of Doctrine of "Sweat of the Brow" have been outcasted by Doctrine of modicum of creativity. 

The Competition Commission of India issued order against Super Cassettes Industries Limited for abusing dominant position imposes penalty of Rs. 2.83 crores.

M/s HT Media Limited v. M/s Super Cassettes Industries Limited Case No. 40 of 2011 Judgment Dated: 1/10/2014 CATCHPHARSE: 1.The Competition Commission of India(CCI)has imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.83 crores @ 8% of the average turnover of the last 3 financial years on Super Cassettes Industries Limited for abusing dominant position. 2.The Commission found Super Cassettes Industries Limited to be in dominant position in the relevant market of licensing of Bollywood music to private FM radio stations for broadcast in India. 3.The Commission held Super Cassettes Industries Limited in contravention of the provisions of section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Competition Act, 2002 for imposing unfair conditions of Minimum Commitment Charges (MCC) upon the private FM Stations in its existing agreements. 4. CCI also directed Super Cassettes Industries Limited to modify the unfair condition of MCC imposed on private FM Stations in the agreements within 3 months. 

The Punjab & Haryana High Court stated that Differential educational criteria for dealership in LPG outlets located in rural and urban areas are justified. Such criteria do not involve restriction to freedom of profession, trade or calling under Article 19 but satisfy reasonable classification under Article 14 of the Constitution .

Vikash v. Union of India Writ Petition (Civil) No.28009/ 2013

CASE LAW DIGEST – SEPTEMBER

2014

Judgment Dated : 17/09/2014 Facts of the Case: The Minimum qualification for grant of dealership license was made Diploma in Engineering in the year 2013. However, under RGGLV (Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitaran), there is was no such restriction and it allowed even for a matriculate to be eligible to apply for dealership CONCLUSION: 1.Levels of education in a village are relatively lower and, therefore, compulsions of graduation or any higher degrees would not have been appropriate. 2.The Intelligible Differentia here are the gradations dependent on educational qualifications and the object sought to be achieved is to empower section of people who are educated and who would also fulfill certain other norms relating to property holding identifying property for locating the business etc. 

The HP High Court has set aside the plea to review its landmark order imposing a ban on animal sacrifices in religious places in the state and issued 7 mandatory directions, prohibiting/banning animal/bird sacrifice in the temples and public places.

Ramesh Sharma. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. CWP No. 9257 of 2011 Judgment : 26/09/2014 CORAM : Rajiv Sharma .J, Sureshwar Thakur .J

DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE HIGH COURT: 1. No person throughout the State of Himachal Pradesh shall sacrifice any animal or bird in any place of religious worship, adoration or precincts or any congregation or procession connected with religious worship, on any public street, way or place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public are granted access to or over which they have a right to pass; 2. No person shall officiate or offer to officiate at, or perform or offer to perform, or serve, assist or participate, or offer to serve, assist, or participate, in any

CASE LAW DIGEST – SEPTEMBER

2014

sacrifice in any place of public religious worship or adoration or its precincts or in any congregation or procession, including all lands, buildings near such places which are ordinarily used for the purposes connected with religious or adoration, or in any congregation or procession connected with any religious worship in a public street; 3. No person shall knowingly allow any sacrifice to be performed at any place which is situated within any place of public religious worship, or adoration, or is in his possession or under his control; 4. The State Government is directed to publish and circulate pamphlets henceforth to create awareness among the people, to exhibit boards, placards in and around places of worship banning the sacrifice of animals and birds; 5. The State Government is further directed to give due publicity about the prohibition and sacrifice in media both audio and visual, electronic and in all the newspapers; and 6. All the duty holders in the State of Himachal Pradesh are directed to punctually and faithfully comply with the judgment. It is made clear that the Deputy Commissioners and Superintendents of Police of all the Districts shall personally be responsible to prevent, prohibit the animal / bird sacrifices throughout the State of Himachal Pradesh. 7. The expression „temple‟ would mean a place by whatever designation known, used as a place of public worship and dedicated to, and for the benefit of, or used as a right by the Hindu community or any section thereof, as a place of public religious worship. The temple premises shall also include building attached to the temple, land attached to the temple, which is generally used for the purposes of worship in the temple, whether such land is in the property of temple area or place attached to the temple or procession is performed.



The conduct of Delhi University made it possible to take admission in LLB Course even without holding the Graduation degree.- However, the Delhi High Court granted Justice ( but only inference that one can drew out from this judgment is that APPLICATION OF LAW IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS.. :P). "Exceptio semper ultima ponenda est".

PRASHATN CHAUHAN v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR W.P.(C) 6398/2014

CASE LAW DIGEST – SEPTEMBER

2014

Judgment dated: 29/09/2014 CORAM :MANMOHAN, J Brief facts of the case: 1. The Petitioner is the Student of DU at School of Open Learning.However, the results of Graduation courses have not been declared. 2. The Petitioner also sat for DU LLB Entrance test and qualified the same.But, his admission was rejected on the ground that he has not yet received the graduation degree. 3.The seat alloted to the petitioner is stiill vacant. CONCLUSION: The Respondents are directed to give admission to the petitioner against the vacant LL.B. seat in Academic Session 2014-15 for which he had been provisionally selected in the counselling after having qualified the entrance test as per his rank in the General category. ( It is clarified that admission to the petitioner shall be subject to his passing the graduation course.) 

The Supreme Court passed an interim order to accommodate the seats of medical colleges which are are likely to remain vacant for the academic year 2014-15 within 30th Sept, 2014 seeking its power under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution.

The Apex Court also directed the petitioners to file undertakings by President/Chairman and Secretary of the petitioners' institutions running medical colleges within 10 days from today, to the effect that there is no defect in the medical colleges run by them and they would also state that their deposit with the MCI, which is around Rs.10 crores, be forfeited by way of penalty if the statement made in the undertaking is found to be incorrect at the time of the next inspection. HIND CHARITABLE TRUST SHEKHAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 469 OF 2014 Judgment Dated : 18/09/2014 CORAM:ANIL R. DAVE .J , VIKRAMAJIT SEN .J , UDAY UMESH LALIT .J

CASE LAW DIGEST – SEPTEMBER

2014

GROUND: Because of non-renewal of recognition of several medical colleges, our citizens would be deprived of a good number of physicians. 

The Constitution Bench upheld the principle of "Lex prospicit non respicit" which means "Law looks forward,not backward". (Strict Interpretation of Taxation Statute)  The Constitution Bench overruled the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central II v. Suresh N. Gupta case in which proviso to Sec.113 of the Income Tax Act , 1961 was treated as retrospective/ clarificatory in nature.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, NEW DELHI v. VATIKA TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED CIVIL APPEAL NO.8750 OF 2014 Judgment Dated : 15/09/2014 CORAM : R.M. Lodha CJI, Jagdish Singh Khehar .J, J. Chelameswar .J, A.K. Sikri .J , Rohinton Fali Nariman .J ISSUE INVOLVED whether the proviso appended to Section 113 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which was inserted in that Section by the Finance Act, 2002 is to operate prospectively or is clarificatory and curative in nature and, therefore, has retrospective operation. REASON: 1. Imposing a retrospective levy on the assessee would have caused undue hardship. 2.Please Read para 39 (d) and (f) of the Judgment. 

The 3-Judge Bench of Allahabad High Court declared that An order of the magistrate rejecting an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code for the registration of a case by the police and for investigation is not an interlocutory order. Such an order is amenable to the remedy of a criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC.  Under Such Circumstances, The complianant shall not file case under Sec.482 or Sec.401 of CrPC.

CASE LAW DIGEST – SEPTEMBER

2014

Jagannath Verma & Ors v. State of U P & Anr Criminal Misc Case No 3778 of 2012 Judgment Dated : 23/09/2014 CORAM: Dr Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, Chief Justice, Dr D K Arora. J, Hon‟ble D K Upadhyaya, J ISSUE INVOLVED: Whether an order made under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is an interlocutory order and the remedy of a revision against such an order is barred under sub-section (2) of Section 397. CONCLUSION: 1. An interlocutory order merely regulates the procedure and does not affect rights or liabilities. 2. An order which determines matters of moment or which affects valuable rights is not an interlocutory order. 3. An order passed by the magistrate declining to entertain an application under Section 156 (3) is a matter of moment for the complainant or the informant because such an order has the effect of declining to issue a direction to the police to register an FIR and investigate the case. (Refer para 48,49.50,51 of the judgment)

NOTE : Sec.397(2) bars the revision of Interlocutory Order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding



IIPM and its management / officials including its Dean Mr. Arindam Chaudhuri are restrained with immediate effect from using the word “MBA, BBA, Management Course, Management School, Business School or BSchool. Says Delhi High Court....

B. MAHESH SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS W.P.(C) 5937/2010 Judgment Dated: 26/09/2014 CORAM:G. Rohini CJI, RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW .J

CASE LAW DIGEST – SEPTEMBER

2014

IIPM and its management / officials including its Dean Mr. Arindam Chaudhuri are directed to prominently display on the website of IIPM that they are not recognized by any statutory body / authority and the status of the Foreign University / Institution and/or its Degree or Certificate in the country of its origin and whose Degree or certificate the students enrolling in the Course / Programme offered by the IIPM. 

The Constitution Bench of Supreme Court held that National Tax Tribunals Act . 2005 is unconstitutional, being the ultimate encroachment on the exclusive domain of the superior Courts of Record in India.  Substantial questions of law which relate to taxation would also involve many areas of civil and criminal law, for example Hindu Joint Family Law, partnership, sale of goods, contracts, Mohammedan Law, Company Law, Law relating to Trusts and Societies, Transfer of Property, Law relating toIntellectual Property, Interpretation of Statutes and sections dealing with prosecution for offences. It is therefore not correct to say that taxation, being a specialized subject, can be dealt with by a tribunal. All substantial questions of law have under our constitutional scheme to be decided by the superior courts and the superior courts alone

Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and Anr. TRANSFERRED CASE (C) NO. 150 OF 2006 Judgment Dated : 25/09/2014 CORAM : R.M. LODHA CJI, JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR .J, J. CHELAMESWAR .J, A.K. SIKRI .J, R.F. Nariman .J CATCHPHRASE: I. Justice Khehar observations (Who wrote Judgment in consonance with other 3judges) circumscribes around Hinds v. The Queen Director of Public Prosecutions v. Jackson Attorney General of Jamaica (Intervener), 1976 All ER Vol. (1) 353 and Indian Constitution being Westminster Model. II. One of the objects for enacting the National Tax Tribunals Act, as stated by the Minister on the floor of the House, is that the National Tax Tribunal can lay down the law for the whole of India which then would bind all other 35 authorities and tribunals. This is a direct encroachment on the High Courts‟ power under Art.

CASE LAW DIGEST – SEPTEMBER

2014

227 to decide substantial questions of law which would bind all tribunals..( Observation by Nariman .J at para 31 of his judgment) 1. Validity of Sec. 5 ( Refer Para 80 of the Judgment) Establishment of Tax Tribunal Only at NCT deprive the litigating assessee, the convenience of approaching the jurisdictional High Court in the State. 2. Validity of Sec. 6 (Refer Para 82 of the Judgment) Qualification of the appointment of the member 3.Validity of Sec.7 (Refer Para 87 of the Judgment) It is not possible to accept a party to a litigation, can participate in the selection process 4. Validity of Sec. 8 (Refer Para 89 of the Judgment) The above provision would undermine the independence and fairness of the Chairperson and Members of the NTT 5. Development of Art.227 very succinctly explained by Justice Nariman. (Please read para 11 onward of his judgment) Excellent observation by Nariman .J in para 24 

The Division Bench of the Supreme Court issued guidelines that needs to be followed in the matters of investigating police encounters in the cases of death. (Please refer para 31 of the Judgment)

People‟s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1255 OF 1999 Judgment Dated : 23/09/2014 CORAM : R.M. Lodha CJI, Rohinton Fali Nariman .J 

The illustration (g) appended to Section 114 of the Evidence Act is only a permissible inference and not a necessary inference. Says Delhi High Court

BIJENDER v. STATE CRIMINAL APPEAL :857/2011 Judgment Dated :19/09/2014

CASE LAW DIGEST – SEPTEMBER

2014

CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG .J ,MUKTA GUPTA .J CONCLUSION: Merely because a material witness is not examined by the prosecution, a criminal court would not lean to draw an adverse inference that if he was examined, he would have given a contrary version. 

Circumstantial Evidence cannot be the sole ground for Conviction. Says Supreme Court

VIJAY THAKUR v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 632 OF 2011 Judgment Dated : 19/009/2014 CORAM:J. CHELAMESWAR, A.K. SIKRI .J Conclusion: 1. In a case relating to circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances has to be spelt out by the prosecution and if even one link in the chain is broken the accused must get the benefit thereof. 2.The discovery is a weak kind of evidence and cannot be wholly relied upon on and conviction in such a serious matter cannot be based upon the discovery. 3.Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the character of proof. 

The 3- Judge Bench of the Supreme Court stated that "A complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act before the expiry of 15 days from the date on which the notice has been served on the drawer/accused is no complaint in the eye of law. Hence, no cognizance of an offence can be taken on the basis of such complaint.

Yogendra Pratap Singh v. Savitri Pandey & Anr. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.605 OF 2012 Judgment Dated : 19/09/2014 CORAM: R.M. Lodha CJI, Kurian Joseph .J, Rohinton Fali Nariman .J

CASE LAW DIGEST – SEPTEMBER

2014

ISSUE INVOLVED: Can an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act be said to have been committed when the period provided in clause (c) of the proviso has not expired? 

The Division Bench of the Supreme Court declared that allotment of Land to the Institute of Law was arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust and is opposed to provision of Art.14 of the Constitution.

INSTITUTE OF LAW & ORS. v. NEERAJ SHARMA & ORS. CIVIL APPEAL NO.2143 OF 2007 Judgment Dated:19/09/2014 CORAM: SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA .J, V. GOPALA GOWDA .J FACTS OF THE CASE: The allotment of land was made in favour of appellant-Institute for 99 years on lease hold basis with the condition that the initial lease period will be 33 years and renewable for two like periods only if the lessee continues to fulfil all conditions of allotment. CATCHPHRASE: 1.Maintainability of Writ Petition (Refer para 21 to 25 of the Judgment) CONCLUSION: The policy followed by the Chandigarh Administration where the allotment of land was done in favour of the appellant-Institute without giving any public notice and in the absence of a transparent policy based upon objective criteria and without even examining the fact that the Union Territory of Chandigarh is already under extreme pressure of over population and even in the case of allotment of school sites by making no attempt to enforce clause 18 of the (Allotment of land to Educational Institutions (Schools),Rules etc. )Scheme on a Lease-hold basis in Chandigarh Scheme 1996, thereby confining the said provision merely to the statute book, is arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust and is opposed to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 

The Division Bench of the Supreme Court stated that It is the experience of the Judge which comes to his aid and ....the said experience should be

CASE LAW DIGEST – SEPTEMBER

2014

used with care, caution, circumspection and courageous prudence with respect to the quashment of the Criminal proceedings under Sec.482 CrPC.  How Power under Sec.482 CrPC needs to be analysed.

State of Maharashtra Through CBI v. Vikram Anantrai Doshi and Others CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2048 OF 2014 Judgment Dated: 19/09/2014 CORAM : Dipak Misra .J, Vikramajit Sen .J 

Suit containing a counter-claim can be heard by DRT or Civil Court Alone. - Matter referred to Larger Bench

Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd. CIVIL APPEAL Nos.8973-8973 OF 2014 Judgment Dated: 17/09/2014 CORAM: RANJAN GOGOI .J, S.A. BOBDE .J The Division Bench finds it appropriate to refer the following questions of law to a larger Bench: (a) Whether an independent suit filed by a borrower against a Bank or Financial Institution, which has applied for recovery of its loan against the plaintiff under the DRB Act, is liable to be transferred and tried along with the application under the RDB Act by the DRT? (b) If the answer is in the affirmative, can such transfer be ordered by a court only with the consent of the plaintiff? (c) Is the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to try a suit filed by a borrower against a Bank or Financial Institution ousted by virtue of the scheme of the RDB Act in relation to proceedings for recovery of debt by a Bank or Financial Institution? 

The Supreme Court expressed its opinion about nature and manner of admissibility of Electronic Evidence Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and others CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4226 OF 2012

CASE LAW DIGEST – SEPTEMBER

2014

Judgment Dated : 18/09/2014 CORAM: R. M. LODHA CJI, KURIAN JOSEPH .J, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN .J ISSUE INVOLVED: What is the nature and manner of admission of electronic records? CATCHPHRASE: 1. First Principles of Evidence. > Construction by plaintiff, destruction by defendant. > Construction by pleadings, proof by evidence; > Proof only by relevant and admissible evidence. > Genuineness, veracity or reliability of the evidence is seen by the court only after the stage of relevancy and admissibility. 2.The very caption of Section 65A of the Evidence Act, read with Sections 59 and 65B is sufficient to hold that the special provisions on evidence relating to electronic record shall be governed by the procedure prescribed under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. That is a complete code in itself.(Generalia specialibus non derogant) 3. If an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act, the same is admissible in evidence, without compliance of the conditions in Section 65B of the Evidence Act. 

Blanket Cancellation of allotment of dealership does not result in automatic allotment of Second empanelled Candidate. Says The Division Bench of Supreme Court Chairman cum Managing Director Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. Sunita Kumari & Anr. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8980 OF 2014 Judgment Dated: 18/09/2014 CORAM: Madan B. Lokur .J, C. Nagappan .j ISSUE INVOLVED: Whether, on the cancellation of the allotment of a dealership or distributorship for

CASE LAW DIGEST – SEPTEMBER

2014

petroleum products in favour of the first ranked or first empanelled candidate, there is an automatic allotment in favour of the second ranked or second empanelled candidate, subject to fulfillment of the conditions of allotment. CONCLUSION: If the allotment is tainted due to political connections or patronage or other extraneous considerations, the entire selection process is vitiated and, therefore the second ranked or second empanelled candidate is not entitled to an automatic allotment of a dealership or distributorship in his or her favour. 

Only the husband, his parents or at best close family members may be expected to demand dowry or to harass the wife but not distant relations, unless there is tangible material to support allegations made against such distant relations. - Says Supreme Court KAILASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2055 of 2014 Judgment Dated : 16/09/2014 CORAM : V. GOPALA GOWDA .J, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL .J CONCLUSION: Mere naming of distant relations is not enough to summon them in absence of any specific role and material to support such role. 

The Division Bench of Supreme Court once again reiterated that Evidence of child witness cannot be rejected unless the same is tutored or unless the same is unreliable. GUL SINGH v. STATE OF M.P. & ANR. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.667 of 2011 Judgment Dated : 16/09/2014

CORAM: V. GOPALA GOWDA .J, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL .J FACTS: On the night intervening 24th /25th of May, 1998 - the accused persons with a view to kidnap Parubai, arrived, armed with weapons like Dharia, Falia and Lathi

CASE LAW DIGEST – SEPTEMBER

2014

- assaulted family members - dragged away Parubai and Later, she was subjected to rape. CONCUSION: In the present case not only the evidence of the child witness is reliable and not tutored, it is corroborated by other testimony. 

Delay in lodging FIR and Complaint raises doubt about the prosecution case. - Supreme Court The Division Bench of Supreme Court stated that "In cases of abuse of powers and obtaining pecuniary advantage and causing wrongful loss , the time of lodging complaint and registration of FIR cannot be considered on the touchstone of prompt lodging of complaint like other cases of murder, dacoity and assault etc., where there are possibilities of exaggeration and embellishments being crept in." EDMUND S LYNGDOH v. STATE OF MEGHALAYA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2056 OF 2014 Judgment Dated: 16/09/2014 CORAM : T.S. Thakur .J, R. Banumathi .J CATCHPHARSE: 1. Whether the term "Abuse" means "Misuse" .( Please refer para 31 of the judgment) 

During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, there cannot be enforcement or specific performance of an agreement. - says Supreme Court

Orissa Manganese & Minerals Ltd. v. Synergy Ispat Pvt. Ltd. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8645 OF 2014 Judgment Dated: 1209/2014 CORAM :Chelameswar .J , A.K. Sikri .J 

The Division bench of the Supreme Court once again reiterated that Suspicion however strong cannot be a substitute for proof. In a case resting

CASE LAW DIGEST – SEPTEMBER

2014

completely on the circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances must be so complete that they lead only to one conclusion, that is, the guilt of the accused.

Sangili @ Sanganathan v. State of Tamil Nadu CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 639 OF 2011 Judgment Dated: 10/09/2014 CORAM: J. Chelameswar .J, A.K. Sikri .J 

Combating piracy is imperative for safety of seafarers as well as successful world trade. The issue is of international concern as noted, it is receiving the attention of Government of India at highest level. We do hope the Government of India will continue its efforts for protection of affected citizensSays the Division Bench of Supreme Court

GAURAV KUMAR BANSAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 536 OF 2012 Judgment Dated: 09/09/2014 CORAM: T.S. THAKUR .J, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL .J CONCLUSION: Periodic review at the appropriate level and a nodal officer may be designated who may continue to coordinate such activities 

Appreciation or re-appreciation of evidence must come to a halt at some stage of the judicial proceedings and cannot percolate to the constitutional court exercising jurisdiction under Article 136- says Division Bench of Supreme Court LEELA RAJAGOPAL & ORS. v. KAMALA MENON COCHARAN & ORS. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9282 OF 2010 Judgment Dated: 08/09/2014 CORAM: RANJAN GOGOI .J, R.K. AGRAWAL .J

CASE LAW DIGEST – SEPTEMBER

2014



The Supreme Court overruled the contrary view taken by the different High Courts in the present matter. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI v. SANJAY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 499 OF 2011 Judgment Dated: 04/09/2014 CORAM: M.Y. Eqbal .J, Pinaki Chandra Ghose .J Issue: Whether the provisions contained in Sections 21, 22 and other sections of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 operate as bar against prosecution of a person who has been charged with allegation which constitutes offences under Section 379/114 and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Conclusion: 1. Dishonestly removing sand, gravels and other minerals from the river, which is the property of the State constitute an offence of theft apart from offences under Special Statute. 2. For the commission of offence under Section 378 I.P.C., on receipt of the police report, the Magistrate having jurisdiction can take cognizance of the said offence without awaiting the receipt of complaint that may be filed by the authorized officer for taking cognizance in respect of violation of various provisions of the MMRD Act. 

Re-evaluation of Marksheet on the ground of ambiguous answer cannot be accepted.- says Delhi High Court SALIL MAHESHWARI v. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ANR W.P.(C) 4976/2014 Judgment Dated : 05/09/2014 CORAM :S. RAVINDRA BHAT .J, VIPIN SANGHI .J 

The Division Bench of Supreme Court defined "Memory" as a highly fluid entity that changes, sometimes dramatically, with the passage of time.

CASE LAW DIGEST – SEPTEMBER

2014

(Excellent Explanation of " General Theory on Memory" is mentioned under Para 15 of the Judgment) PARGAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.47 OF 2014 Judgment Dated: 05/09/2014 CORAM: A.K. Sikri .J, J. Chelameswar .J CATCHPHRASE: The Apex Court in the instant matter stated that 90 seconds was too long a period which could enable the eye-witness (PW-2) to watch the accused persons and such a horrible experience would not be easily forgotten. Death of a friend and near death experience by the witness himself would be etched in the memory for long. Therefore, faces of accused persons would not have been forgotten even after 7½ years. 

The Supreme Court for the 1st time deliberated its opinion on "Fundamental Policy of Indian Law" in the below mentioned judgment. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Western Geco international Ltd. CIVIL APPEAL NO.3415 OF 2007 Judgment Dated:04/09/2014 CORAM :T.S. THAKUR .J, C. NAGAPPAN .J, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL .J CATCHPHRASE: The Apex Court deciphered three principles to identify the "Fundamental Policy of Indian Law". The Court further stated that this principle, however, shall not be treated as exhaustive in itself. 1.In every determination whether by a Court or other authority that affects the rights of a citizen or leads to any civil consequences, the Court or authority concerned is bound to adopt what is in legal parlance called a „judicial approach’ in the matter. (Para 26)

CASE LAW DIGEST – SEPTEMBER

2014

2.The Court and also a quasi-judicial authority must, while determining the rights and obligations of parties before it, do so in accordance with the principles of natural justice.(Para 28) 3. A decision which is perverse or so irrational that no reasonable person would have arrived at the same will not be sustained in a Court of law. (Salutary Juristic Fundamental) (Para 29) 

The Division Bench of the Supreme Court stated stated that If a nonarbitrable dispute is referred to an Arbitrator and even if an issue is framed by the Arbitrator in relation to such a dispute then there cannot be a presumption or a conclusion to the effect that the parties had agreed to refer the issue to the Arbitrator. M/s Harsha Constructions v. Union of India & Ors. CIVIL APPEAL NO.534 OF 2007 Judgment Dated: 05/09/2014 CORAM: ANIL R. DAVE .J, VIKRAMAJIT SEN .J CATCHPHRASE: It was not open to the Arbitrator to decide the issues which were not arbitrable and the award, so far as it relates to disputes regarding non-arbitrable disputes is concerned, is bad in law . 

The Division Bench of Supreme Court stated that Using a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of policy contract. Narinder Singh v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors. CIVIL APPEAL NO.8463 OF 2014 Judgment Dated: 04/09/2014 CORAM : M.Y. Eqbal .J, Pinaki Chandra Ghose .J

CASE LAW DIGEST – SEPTEMBER

2014



The Constitution Bench upheld the Uttar Pradesh Official Language (Amendment) Act, 1989 as constitutionally valid. U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan v. State of U.P. CIVIL APPEAL NO.459 OF 1997 Judgment Dated:04/09/2014 CORAM: R.M. Lodha CJI, Dipak Misra .J, Madan B. Lokur .J, Kurian Joseph .J, S.A. Bobde .J PRIMARY ISSUE: Whether it is constitutional for the U.P. Legislative Assembly to declare Urdu as the second official language through the 1989 Amendment Act once it has declared Hindi as the official language in 1951 under Article 345 of the Constitution of India. CATCHPHRASE: 1. Concept of "Official Language" and its history (Refer para 19 to 23 of the Judgment. 2. Interpretation of Art.345 and 347 (Refer para 25 to 31 of the judgment) 3. Reference of Sec.14 of General Clauses Act,1897 (Refer para 43) 

When reliance is placed upon Dying Declaration,the court must be satisfied that the dying declaration is true, voluntary and not as a result of either tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination - Says the Division Bench of supreme Court PREMPAL v. STATE OF HARYANA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2030 OF 2012 Judgment Date : 03/09/2014 CORAM : R. BANUMATHI .J, T.S. THAKUR .J 

The Constitution Bench of Supreme Court stated that teachers of privately managed primary schools and primary sections of privately managed high schools are eligible to receive their salaries from the State Government.

CASE LAW DIGEST – SEPTEMBER

2014

State of U.P. & Ors. v. Pawan Kumar Divedi & Ors. CIVIL APPEAL NO.3989 OF 2006 Judgment Dated ; 02/09/2014 CORAM :R.M. Lodha .J,Jagdish Singh Khehar .J, A.K. Sikri .J,Rohinton Fali Nariman .J Chelameswar, J. CATCHPHRASE: 1. Application of Doctrine of Resonable Classification 2. Application of Principle " Ut res Magis Valeat cum Pereat" 

The Constitution Bench ( 4:1 ratio) held that the fundamental right to life and the irreversibility of a death sentence mandate that oral hearing be given at the review stage in death sentence cases, as a just, fair and reasonable procedure under Article 21 mandates such hearing, and cannot give way to the severe stress of the workload of the Supreme Court. Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. The Registrar, Supreme Court of India & Ors. WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.77 OF 2014 Judgment Dated: 2/09/2014 CORAM : R.M. Lodha .J,Jagdish Singh Khehar .J, A.K. Sikri .J,Rohinton Fali Nariman .J Chelameswar, J. CATCHPHRASE: 1. This judgment partially overrules P.N. Eswara Iyer & Others v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, (1980) 4 SCC 680. 2. Read about the origin of Art.21 of the Constitution in Para 17, 18, 19, 20,21 and 22 of the Rohinton's Judgment. 3.A sentence is a compound of many factors, including the nature of the offence as well as the circumstances extenuating or aggravating the offence. 4.The statement of Justice Holmes, that "the life of law is not logic; it is experience" has been applied by the Hon'ble Court.

CASE LAW DIGEST – SEPTEMBER

2014



The Division Bench of Supreme Court discerned 10 principles for admission in Medical Colleges. (Please refer...Para 30 of the Judgment) 

The Supreme Court reiterated the principle of "Vigilantibus Non Domantibus, Jure Subservient"

Chandigarh Administration & Another v. Jasmine Kaur & others CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8377- 8378 OF 2014 Judgment Dated : 1st September, 2014 CORAM : Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla .J, Shiva Kirti Singh .J 

The constitution Bench of Supreme Court reiterated that Appellate Jurisdiction is Genus and Revisional Jurisdiction is its species. (Refer Para 25 of the Judgment) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh CIVIL APPEAL NO.6177 OF 2004 Judgment Dated : 27th August, 2014 CORAM :R.M. LODHA, CJI. , Dipak Misra .J, Madan B. Lokur .J,Kurian Joseph .J, S.A. Bobde .J Unique feature of the Case: 1. 11 appeals and 3 special leave petitions have been clubbed together in the instant matter. 2.Examine the meaning of "Legality" and "propriety" under Rent Control Act.