IMPORTANT JUDGMENT SUPREME COURT 5, Feb 2019

IMPORTANT JUDGMENT SUPREME COURT 5, Feb 2019

1. Dharam Singh (d) Thr. Lrs v. Prem Singh (d) Thr. Lrs.

Land Law – Every person, who on the date immediately preceding the appointed date, was recorded as occupant of the land held by a hissedar or a khaikar as such in the last revision of records made under Chapter IV of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 shall be called Asami of land and entitled to take or retain possession thereof. For acquiring right under Section 10 sub-clause (e) it has to be established that person claiming Asami right was recorded as occupant of land.

2. M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. Through Its Chief Legal Counsel v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Spl)

The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 – Section 4 (1) – Sale and agreement to sell – Liability towards sales tax, in respect of the free replacement of defective parts in motor vehicles, during the period of warranty – It appropriate that the matter be considered by a larger Bench.

3. Asgar v. Mohan Varma

Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act 1958 (Kerala) – A claim under Section 4 (1) has to be addressed to the court which passes a decree for eviction – the failure to raise a claim would result in the application of the principle of constructive res judicata both having regard to the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act of 1958 and to the provisions of Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 of the CPC.

Important Supreme Court Judgment Pronounced on January 30

4. Ambi Ram v. State of Uttarakhand

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 – Section 5 (2) – The Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 161 – the Court is empowered to impose a sentence, which may vary from 1 year to 7 years with fine. However, in a particular case, the Court finds that there are some special reasons in favour of the accused then the Court is empowered to impose imprisonment of less than one year provided those special reasons are set out in writing in support of imposing sentence less than one year. So far as imposing of fine is concerned, it is mandatory while imposing any jail sentence. How much fine should be imposed depend upon the facts of each case.

5. Employees State Insurance Corporation Thr. Regional Directors v. Venus Alloy Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Managaing Director

Nature and Scope of Article 136 of the Constitution

Whether the Directors of Company, who are receiving remuneration, come within the purview of “employee” under sub-section (9) of Section 2 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 ?