Supreme Court Weekly Update Important Judgement 1-7 July 2019
1. Adani Power (Mundra) Ltd. v. Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission
The clauses in the agreement ought to be given the plain, literal and grammatical meaning of the expression used in the same. No doubt, that the courts will also try to gather as to what intention the parties wanted to give them.
Bench: Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai & Surya Kant
C.A. No. 11133 of 2011 02-07-2019
2. Amit Kumar Roy v. Union of India
Air Force Act, 1950 – Ss. 13, 14 & 15 – Procedure before enrolling officer – Mode of Enrolment – Validity of Enrolment – appellant in breach of the provisions contained in AFO 14/2008 applied for the post of a Probationary Officer with the Bank of India, participated in the written test and appeared at the interview without intimation or approval. There was, therefore, a failure of the appellant to comply with his obligations both in terms of his engagement as an enrolled member of the force and in relation to the requirements which were to be fulfilled under the terms of AFO 14/2008.
Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud & Hemant Gupta
C.A. No. 4606 of 2019 03-07-2019
3. Reckitt Benckiser v. Reynders Label Printing, Arb. Case (C) No. 65 of 2016 01-07-2019
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Ss. 11(5), 11(9) & 11(12)(a) – Appointment of a Sole Arbitrator – When a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement can be impleaded and subjected to arbitration proceedings ?
4. R.S. Anjayya Gupta v. Thippaiah Setty, C.A. No. 7418 of 2009 01-07-2019
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – S. 96 – Purport of power of the appellate court coupled with its duty.
5. Madhav Prasad Aggarwal v. Axis Bank Ltd., C.A. No. 5126 of 2019 01-07-2019
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 7 Rule 11 (d) – Rejection of Plaint – Relief of reject the plaint only against one of the defendant(s) – Held, Such a relief “cannot be entertained” in exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC – the relief of rejection of plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC cannot be pursued only in respect of one of the defendant(s) – the plaint has to be rejected as a whole or not at all, in exercise of power Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC – the plaint as presented must proceed as a whole or can be rejected as a whole but not in part.
6. Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Jaggu, C.A. No. 8094 of 2011 05-07-2019
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 – In the given circumstances, a mere assertion of fact that the contract labour which was allowed to continue after the prohibition notification came to be published dated 17th March, 1993 in the establishment of the appellant SAIL performing same or similar kind of work in the establishment of the principal employer is not sufficient to endorse their entitlement of claiming wages notified by the NJCS memorandum of agreement for direct/regular employees of the establishment applicable universally to all the steel industries.
7. Asim Shariff v. National Investigation Agency, Crl.A. No. 949 of 2019 01-07-2019
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Ss. 227, 228 & 239 – Scope of – Discharge – Ambit and scope of the powers of the Court at the time of considering the discharge application.
8. State of Meghalaya v. All Dimasa Students Union Hasao District Committee, C.A. No. 10720 of 2018 03-07-2019
Environmental Law – Natural resources of the country are not meant to be consumed only by the present generation of men or women of the region where natural resources are deposited. These treasures of nature are for all generations to come and for intelligent use of the entire country. The present generation owes a duty to preserve and conserve the natural resources of the nation so that it may be used in the best interest of coming generations as well and for the country as a whole.
9. Ramesh Dasu Chauhan v. State of Maharashtra, Crl.A. No. 1682 of 2012 04-07-2019
Evidence Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Standard of proof necessitated for recording a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence – Golden principles of standard of proof required to be established in such a case.
10. Star Wire (India) Vidyut Pvt. Ltd. v. Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission, C.A. No. 5139 of 2019 02-07-2019
Judicial Review – the challenge to the validity of the regulations can be decided only in judicial review proceedings before the courts and not by way of appeal or review.