Important Supreme Court Judgment Pronounced on November 2, 2018
1. Sivasankar V.K. v. V.K. Sivan
Will – Interpretation of the terms of a Will – the testator wished that ‘Schedule A’ properties are to be enjoyed by the male children – it is within the power of the testator to decide whether he wants the property to be held by the male members.
2. Pratap Mehta v. Sunil Gupta
Advocates Act, 1961 – Sections 4, 10B, 15 & 49 – Bar Council of India Rules – Chapter I of Part II -Rule 2, 3 & 7 – For holding election of a member of Bar Council of India to be elected by State Bar Council, notice and agenda has to be issued by the Secretary of the State Bar Council, which is a statutory requirement.
3. Ramesh Badlani v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Bail – High Court declined to grant bail – petitioner is not keeping well – It is for the petitioner to approach the Sessions Judge who, in his judicial discretion, is empowered to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the facts made out by the petitioner in that behalf after hearing all parties concerned. The special leave petition is dismissed.
4. Mangt of Sri Ramnarayan Mills Ltd. v. Sec. Coimbatore Dist. Text. Work. Union
Labour Law – Whether the Courts below (Labour Court, Single Judge and the Division Bench) were justified in rejecting the application filed by the employer to the Joint Commissioner of Labour (certifying officer) seeking therein a permission to add one more new ground i.e. “break in service” in Clause 16 of the Chapter of Punishment in Certified Standing Orders – Held, a “break in service” cannot be allowed as a ground by way of punishment in Clause 16 of the Chapter of Punishment in Certified Standing Orders.
5. North East Karnataka Road Transport
Corporation v. Sujatha
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 – Section 4A (3) – Grant of interest on the awarded sum – When does the payment of compensation under the Act “becomes due” and consequently what is the point of time from which interest on such amount is payable – An employer becomes liable to pay compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workman in the accident which arose out of and in the course of employment. It was accordingly held that it is the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim, which is material.