SUPREME COURT IMPORTANT JUDGMENT, 1 FEB 2019
1. Association of Managements of Homeopathic Medical Colleges of Maharashtra v. Union of India
A candidate who has secured minimum marks in the NEET UG-2018 shall be eligible for admission to the 1st year BHMS course for the academic year 2018-19. The Appellants to complete the process of admissions strictly on the basis of the merit by 15th February, 2019. The Managements of the colleges are directed to hold extra classes for students who will be admitted pursuant to this order to comply with the requirements of minimum working days.
Case Number : C.A. No. 1393 of 2019 01-02-2019
Petitioner’s Advocate : Anagha S. Desai
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. R. Shah
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao
2. G. Ratna Raj (dead) By Lrs. v. Sri Muthukumarasamy Permanent Fund Ltd.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 9 Rule 6 (1)(a), Order 9 Rule 13, Order 17 Rules 2 and 3 – Procedure when only plaintiff appears When summons duly served – Procedure if parties fail to appear on day fixed – Court may proceed notwithstanding either party fails to produce evidence, etc. – Scope of Order 17 Rule 2 and Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code.
Since the defendants were proceeded ex parte and were found not to have led any evidence in the suit, the Court could only proceed under Order 17 Rule 3 (b) read with Order 17 Rule 2 of the Code for disposal of the suit by taking recourse to one of the modes directed in that behalf by Order 9 of the Code or could have made any other order as it thinks fit.
3. Smt. Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (D) Th. LR v. Arthur Import and Export Company & Ors.
Mutation of a land in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over land not does it have any presumptive value on the title and it only enables the person in whose favour mutation if ordered to pay the land revenue in question, the Supreme Court has reiterated.
Case Referred Sawarni (Smt.) vs Inder Kaur, Balwant Singh & Anr vs Daulat Singh and Narasamma & Ors vs State of Karnataka & Ors.
4. Asharafi Devi (d) Thr. Lrs. v. State of U. P. Through Collector / District Magistrate
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – The original appellant (writ petitioner) never challenged the legality and correctness of the main order dated 14.03.2008 passed in the writ petition (10557/2002) but confined her challenge only to the order dated 16.12.2008 passed in the review application. The original appellant did not assign any reason as to what prevented her in the last almost 11 years in not filing the SLP against the main order. No good ground to invoke extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and permit the appellants (legal representatives of original appellant) to question the legality of main order.
4. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Kolkata v. Jagannath Gupta Family Trust
The Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 12AA – Registered Trust – Bogus Donations.
The High Court has allowed the Writ Petition mainly on one ground, namely, that one bogus donation would not establish that the activities of the trust are not genuine. Such a reason assigned by the High Court is erroneous and runs contrary to the plain language of Section 12AA(3) of the Act.
In view of the serious allegations made against the respondent trust, it is a matter for consideration of the issue, after giving opportunity as pleaded by the respondent but the High Court has committed error in entertaining the appeal against the remand order passed by the appellate authority, and in quashing the order of cancellation of registration. The order impugned is liable to be set aside and the same is, accordingly, hereby quashed and set aside.
Case Number : C.A. No. 1381 of 2019 01-02-2019
Petitioner’s Advocate : Anil Katiyar
Bench : Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
5. All India Institute of Medical Sciences vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi
CAT Chairman Cannot Stay Pending Proceedings Before A Larger Bench. Court observed:
“The Chairman was of the considered opinion that there was urgency in the application for vacating the interim order, the Chairman ought to have assigned the application for vacating and/or vacation of the interim order to a Bench of two or more Members to consider whether the interim order should continue or be vacated. The Chairman could also have exercised his power to suo motu transfer the proceedings to another Bench without prior notice. The order of stay of the proceedings before the Nainital Bench is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law.”