Date of posting 15.08.2018 Postal Regd. No.

CHD/0099/2018-2020
Posted at MBU, Chandigarh Annual Subsc. Rs.2500/- (12 Monthly Parts)
Price per part Rs.260/-

APEX COURT JUDGMENTS

Registered with Registrar of Newspapers for India, R.No.CHAENG/2002/06121
A unique monthly journal
Reporting latest Supreme Court Judgments
Pages : (Reports) 625 to 816 & Index
AUGUST, 2018 Total Pages: 1 to 252

IMPORTANT DECISIONS
Accident - Contributory negligence - Question of contributory negligence
would arise when both parties are involved in accident due to rash and negligent
driving. (S.C.) 798
Accident - Vehicle having no permit - Use of vehicle in a public place
without a permit is a fundamental statutory infraction - Insurer to pay
compensation to claimants and to recover the same from owner and driver.
(S.C.) 696
Bail - Serious offence - By itself not a ground to deny bail, if there are
other overwhelming circumstances justifying grant of bail. (S.C.) 633
Contraband - Non production of contraband material before special Judge
- Acquittal calls for no interference. (S.C.) 727
Contraband - Search - Accused gave his consent in writing to be searched
by the police officials - None of the police officials was Gazetted Officer and they
were not empowered to make search and recovery of contraband from the accused
- Accused acquitted for non compliance of mandatory provision of S.50 of the
Act. (S.C.) 785
Industrial Disputes - Ex parte award - Award becoming enforceable -
Labour Court/Tribunal is not functus officio after award has become enforceable
as far as setting aside an ex parte award is concerned. (S.C.) 704
Land Acquisition Re-determination of compensation - It is available only
in respect of an “Award” passed by Court under Part III of the Act. (S.C.) 668
Maintenance - Wife working as Anganwadi worker - Paltry earning - Order
granting maintenance of Rs.1500/- to wife and Rs.500/- to the minor son, restored.
(S.C.) 803
Permanent alimony - Grant of permanent alimony without there being any
discussion, appreciation, reasoning and categorical findings on material issues
such as financial earning capacity of husband to pay alimony and also financial
earning capacity of wife - Direction wholly unsustainable - Matter remanded for
decision afresh. (S.C.) 730
Quit notice - Ought to be replied at the first available opportunity - Failure
to do so amounts to waiver to challenge the invalidity or infirmity of the quit
notice including the ownership issue raised therein. (S.C.) 756
Rejection of plaint - Bar of limitation - Issue of limitation a triable issue -
Plaint cannot be rejected at threshold. (S.C.) 745
 ii

IMPORTANT DECISIONS
Rent & Eviction - Attornment - Can be proved by several circumstances
including taking into consideration the conduct of tenant qua landlord.
(S.C.) 756
Rent & Eviction - Death of tenant - Necessary parties in eviction petition
- It is sufficient for landlord to implead either of those persons who are occupying
the property, as party. (S.C.) 716
Service - Employment obtained by committing fraud - Voidable at the
option of the employer. (S.C.) 687
Service - Selection - Cancellation - Complaints of malpractices and
irregularities in conduct of examinations as well as interviews - Decision of
authority to annul selection process not arbitrary, malafide or illegal - No
interference warranted in it. (S.C.) 783
Service - Theory of 240 days - Means that a workman in the preceding
one year has actually worked under employer for not less than 240 days.
(S.C.) 659
iii AGREEMENT TO SELL
NOMINAL INDEX
Amrit Paul Singh Vs Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (696)
Aparbal Yadav Vs State of U.P. (713)
Apollo Zipper India Limited Vs W.Newman & Co. Ltd. (756)
Arif Khan @ Agha Khan Vs State of Uttarakhand (785)
Atcom Technologies Limited Vs Y.A.Chunawala and Co. (691)
Authorised Officer, State Bank of India Vs M/s Allwyn Alloys Pvt. Ltd. (642)
Avinash C. Vs State of Karnataka (783)
A.Dharmalingam (Dead) by LRs. Vs V.Lalithambal (740)
Baxis Singh Vs Sukhdev Singh (Dead) Thru. LRs. (645)
Bhartiben Nayabha Ker Vs Sidabha Pethabha Manke (780)
Chhotanben Vs Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar (745)
Commodore P.K.Banerjee Vs Union of India (647)
Delhi Development Authority Vs Munni Lal (735)
Ex.Sig.Man Kanhaiya Kumar Vs Union of India (687)
Gurwinder Singh @ Sonu Etc. Vs State of Punjab (764)
Harita Sunil Parab Vs State of NCT of Delhi (795)
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Vs State of Uttar Pradesh (769)
Jalendra Padhiary Vs Pragati Chhotray (730)
Kameshwar Singh Vs State of Bihar (673)
Kamlesh alias Kavita Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh (803)
K.K.Mishra Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (751)
Mohar Sai Vs Gayatri Devi (682)
Mohd.Ali Vs State of H.P. (659)
Murugan Vs State of Tamil Nadu (741)
M/s.Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. Vs Phool Chand (704)
Nishan Singh Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Regional Manager (798)
Prem Giri Vs State of Rajasthan (714)
Rajendra Kumar Verma (D) Th.LRs. Vs Additional District Magistrate (738)
Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai Vs State of Gujarat (668)
Registrar, Orissa University of Agri. & Technology Vs Upendra Nath Patra (679)
Satpal Vs State of Haryana (791)
Seema Singh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation (633)
Shiv Singh Vs State of Himachal Pradesh (793)
Sri Y.P.Sudhanva Reddy Vs Chairman and Managing Director (670)
State of Tamil Nadu Vs S.Martin etc. (733)
Suresh Kumar Kohli Vs Rakesh Jain (716)
Thesima Begam Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by The Inspector of Police (782)
Union of India Vs Rooparam (727)
Union of India Vs Cdr.Ravindra V.Desai (804)
Vijay Arjun Bhagat Vs Nana Laxman Tapkire (665)
Vinod Vs Collector & Chairman, District Selection Committee, Chandrapur (790)

SUBJECT INDEX
AGREEMENT TO SELL
Agreement to sell - Specific performance - Sale agreement executed with defendant
No.1 - Land belonging to defendant No.2, in whose favour land is mutated on basis of Will - In
revenue suit filed by defendant No.2 against defendant No.1 said Will was produced and
property was found to be in possession of defendant No.2 - Specific performance cannot be
granted to plaintiff against defendant No.1. (Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.20). (645)
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 iv
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908
S.100 - Second appeal - Framing of additional questions - High Court though had
jurisdiction to frame additional questions by taking recourse to S.100(5) Proviso CPC but it
was subject to fulfilling three conditions i.e: (i) such questions should arise in appeal; (ii) assign
reasons for framing additional questions; and (iii) frame the questions at the time of hearing
appeal. (665)
S.100 - Second appeal - High Court formulated six substantial question of law - High
Court committed an error as it framed two additional questions in the judgment itself - It
caused prejudice to the rights of the parties who suffered the adverse order, as it had no
knowledge about framing of two additional questions inasmuch as they were deprived of the
opportunity to address Court on the two additional questions on which the impugned judgment
was founded - Impugned judgment set aside and remanded to High Court for deciding appeal
afresh on merits in accordance with law. (665)
O.7.R.11(d) - Rejection of plaint - Bar of limitation - Suit for declaration and permanent
injunction - Plaintiffs asserted that suit was filed immediately after getting knowledge about
fraudulent sale deed executed by defendants by keeping them in dark about such execution and
within 2 days from refusal by defendants to refrain from obstructing peaceful enjoyment of use
and possession of ancestral property of appellants - Issue regarding suit being barred by
limitation, is a triable issue, for which reason, plaint cannot be rejected at threshold - Application
rejected. (745)
O.8.R.1 - Non filing of written statement within stipulated time - Condonation of
delay - Provision of O.8.R.1 CPC though, procedural in nature and hand maid of justice -
However, that does not mean that defendant has right to take as much time as he wants in filing
written statement, without giving convincing and cogent reasons for delay - Order condoning
delay set aside. (691)
O.41.R.27 - Additional evidence at appellate stage - Documents sought to be produced
by way of additional evidence i.e notification issued under Land Acquisition Act, were relevant
and also necessary for deciding rights of parties involved in suit - These documents did not
require any proof being public documents in nature - Moreover, defendant already made
reference of these documents and laid foundation in pleadings - More so, explanation given by
defendant for not filing documents earlier, which was accepted by High Court - Application
rightly allowed. (670)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Art.226 - Second writ petition - Maintainability - Earlier writ petition was withdrawn
on account of pendency of appeal - Second writ petition challenging subsequent order passed
in appeal, held, maintainable. (790)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973
S.125 - Maintenance - Wife working as Anganwadi worker - Actual earning of wife is
paltry and she would require full maintenance in order to enjoy reasonable comforts as well as
bring up her child - Order granting maintenance of Rs.1500/- to wife and Rs.500/- to the minor
son, restored. (803)
S.154 - FIR - Delay of about 30 hours in lodging FIR - Informant/step mother of
deceased is resident of a remote village and was an illiterate and poor lady - Besides, she had
personally seen her son being throttled and being taken away by accused - Informant was
threatened with dire consequences by one of accused - Prosecution thus, fully and satisfactorily
explained delay in lodging FIR. (673)
S.199 - Prosecution for defamation - Complaint u/s 199 Cr.P.C is required to be filed
in a Court of Sessions that alone is vested with jurisdiction to hear and try alleged offence and
even without case being committed to said Court by a subordinate Court - S.199(2) Cr.P.C. r/
w S.199(4) Cr.P.C. therefore, envisages a departure from normal rule of initiation of a complaint
before a Magistrate by alleging offence of defamation - Said right however, is saved even in
cases of category of persons mentioned in S.199(2) Cr.P.C. by S.199(6) Cr.P.C thereof. (751)
v EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
S.199(2), Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.499, 500 - Prosecution for defamation -
Alleged defamatory statements have no reasonable nexus with discharge of public duties by or
office of Hon'ble Chief Minister - Remedy u/s 199(2) Cr.P.C and S.199(4) Cr.P.C thus, not
available - More so, Public Prosecutor admitted that he filed the complaint against accused on
the orders of State Government, which effectively demonstrate that wholesome requirement
spelt out by Ss.199(2), 199(4) Cr.P.C has not been complied with - Proceedings against accused
quashed - Conviction and sentence set aside. (751)
S.199(2), Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.499, 500 - Prosecution for defamation -
Complaint against accused filed by Public prosecutor on the very same day on which sanction
for prosecution was accorded - Haste with which complaint was filed prima facie indicates that
public prosecutor may not have applied his mind to materials placed before him - Complaint
held, not maintainable on the very face of it - Complaint quashed. (751)
S.406 - Transfer of case - Convenience of a party is one of the relevant considerations
but cannot override all other considerations such as availability of witnesses exclusively at
original place, making it virtually impossible to continue with trial at the place of transfer and
progress of which would naturally be impeded from that reason at transferred place of trial.
(795)
S.406 - Transfer of case - Convenience of parties does not mean convenience of
petitioner alone who approaches Court on misconceived notions of apprehension - Convenience
for purposes of transfer means convenience of prosecution, other accused, witnesses and larger
interest of society - Apprehension voiced by petitioner of possible harm to her at Delhi is too
nebulous a ground for transfer - Moreover, on her own pleadings, petitioner has been traveling
from Mumbai to Delhi since long for professional reasons - Even otherwise, investigation is
complete and if petitioner has any grievance with the same, remedy lies in filing an appropriate
application under Cr.P.C before Court concerned - Transfer petition rejected. (795)
S.438 - Anticipatory bail - High Court while dismissing bail application had not assigned
any reasons in support of dismissal - Even on remand, High Court again dismissed bail application
without setting out facts and assigning any reasons - Impugned order of High Court set aside
- Matter remanded back to High Court to decide bail application afresh on merits in accordance
with law. (714)
S.439 - Bail - Serious offence - By itself not a ground to deny bail, if there are other
overwhelming circumstances justifying grant of bail. (633)
S.439, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.302, 498-A, 120-B - Bail - Murder of wife by
husband - Cruelty - Material collected by CBI during investigation is documentary on basis of
photographs which was to be tested during trial - Family members of deceased and some
doctors who were close to family arrived after the incident and postmortem was conducted in
their presence - At that stage, nobody nurtured any suspicion - FIR lodged 9 days after the
incident - Allegations of threats are found to be false - Bail rightly granted to accused. (633)
S.482, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.294-A, 420, 120-B - Quashing of FIR - At the
stage of investigation - Validity - Offence u/ss 294-A, 420, 120-B IPC - Accused allegedly
printed lottery tickets and sold it without permission and amassed enormous profit from the
same - Huge amount of cash of Rs.7.2 crores recovered from house of accused and such
recovery was accepted by accused - Explanation given by them about alleged transaction of
agreement to sale and receipt of cash in pursuance thereof does not prima facie appear to be
correct - Whether such explanation be accepted or not, are all matters which will be gone into
at relevant stage in proceedings - Investigation yet to be completed - High Court ought not to
have interfered in the case - Impugned order of quashing FIR set aside. (733)
EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
Ss.3, 102 - Injuries sustained by accused - Burden is on prosecution to prove the same
- However, before placing burden on prosecution to explain injuries on person of accused, two
condition are to be satisfied: (i) injuries were sustained by accused in same transaction; (ii)
injuries sustained by accused are serious in nature. (764)
Ss.3, 106 - Last seen theory - It is a weak kind of evidence by itself to found
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 vi
conviction upon the same singularly - However, when it is coupled with other circumstances
such as time when deceased was last seen with accused, and recovery of corpse being in very
close proximity of time, accused owes an explanation u/s 106 of the Evidence Act with regard
to the circumstances under which death may have taken place - If accused offers no explanation,
or furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is established, and there is corroborative
evidence available inter alia in the form of recovery or otherwise forming a chain of circumstances
leading to the only inference for guilt of the accused, incompatible with any possible hypothesis
of innocence, conviction can be based on the same - If there be any doubt or break in the link
of chain of circumstances, benefit of doubt must go to the accused. (791)
S.65-B - Call Data Record CDR - Non-production of certificate u/s 65-B of the Act on
an earlier occasion was a curable defect which stood cured - An objection relating to mode or
method of proof has to be raised at the time of marking of the document as an exhibit and not
later - If an objection was taken to CDRs being marked without a certificate, Court could have
given prosecution an opportunity to rectify deficiency. (804)
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955
S.25 - Permanent alimony - Grant of permanent alimony of Rs.15 lakhs without there
being any discussion, appreciation, reasoning and categorical findings on material issues such as
financial earning capacity of husband to pay alimony and also financial earning capacity of wife
- Such direction is wholly unsustainable in law - Matter remanded to Family Court to decide
the quantum of permanent alimony afresh in accordance with law. (730)
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
Ss.302, 201, 149 - Murder - Dead body of deceased was recovered in two pieces and
the same identified by step mother of deceased - Motive of crime proved on record, as just
prior to incident accused 'K' threatened deceased not to give evidence against him in criminal
case filed against accused in which deceased was a witness - Evidence of PWs including eye
witnesses is trustworthy - Prosecution proved guilt of accused 'K' beyond reasonable doubt -
However, there is no specific evidence which points towards guilt of other accused in commission
of offence - Conviction of accused 'K' affirmed, while conviction of other accused set aside.
(673)
Ss.302, 201, 149 - Murder - Evidence of three eye witnesses - Presence of eye witnesses
on the spot cannot be doubted, as mother and brother of deceased immediately proceeded
towards deceased along with PW6 in order to give him a torch light, since it was pitch dark -
Defence in their cross-examination was not successful in proving that presence of three eye-
witnesses on the spot of incident was doubtful - Evidence of three eye witnesses cannot be
faulted merely because they ran away. (673)
Ss.302, 304 Part I - Nature of offence - Incident took place near tubewell where both
the parties assembled to settle land dispute - Both the parties were unarmed - There was
exchange of words between parties, as a result accused went inside the room and brought an axe
and caused head injuries to deceased - No evidence on record as to who started the attack -
Deceased sustained head injuries with multiple fractures - Head injury is sufficient in ordinary
course of nature to cause death - Conviction of accused modified from S.302 IPC to S.304 Part
I IPC. (764)
Ss.364, 302, 34 - Abduction and murder - Common intention - Circumstantial evidence
- Accused convicted on the basis of following circumstances: (i) Motive was against deceased
due to his not agreeing to proposal of marriage of co-accused with his daughter; (ii) accused and
co-accused both being cousins, knew each other very well; (iii) both of them went to house of
deceased to invite him for a dinner at co-accused's house and all the three have dinner together;
(iv) deceased died immediately after dinner; (v) co-accused gave his confessional statement; (vi)
dead body of deceased found lying near iron cot where deceased had dinner with accused and
co-accused; (vii) co-accused and accused both have common intention to eliminate deceased -
Chain of events thus, completed against accused. (741)
Ss.498-A, 406, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, S.4, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973,
S.482 - Offence u/ss 498-A, 406 IPC and S.4 Dowry Prohibition Act - Complainant herself
vii MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988
stated in her statement that she implicated appellants herein out of anger and they had no role
in the family dispute and they were not party in making any demand of dowry and they are
living in foreign country - Inspite thereof, I.O. filed charge sheet against all them - Charge sheet
against appellants quashed. (782)
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947
S.17-A - Ex parte award - Award becoming enforceable - Labour Court/Tribunal is not
functus officio after award has become enforceable as far as setting aside an ex parte award is
concerned - In case a party is able to show sufficient cause within a reasonable time for its non-
appearance in Labour Court/Tribunal when it was set ex parte, Labour Court/Tribunal is bound
to consider such an application and application cannot be rejected on the ground that it was
filed after award had become enforceable. (704)
S.25-F - Casual labourer - Retrenchment - Benefit of continuous service for a period of
240 days - Employee worked only for 195 days in immediate preceding year of his dismissal
which is below required 240 days of working in period of 12 calender months preceding date
of dismissal - He is therefore, not entitled to take benefit of provision of S.25-F of the Act.
(659)
S.25-F - Service - Theory of 240 days for continuous service - Means that a workman
is deemed to be in continuous service for a period of 1 year if he during the period of twelve
calender months preceding date of retrenchment has actually worked under employer for not
less than 240 days. (659)
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
S.17 - Acquisition of land - Invocation of urgency clause - Land acquired for public
purpose of freight complex under planned development - There was thus, urgency and project
was such that it could not have brooked any delay - Invocation of S.17 of the Act, held, proper.
(735)
S.28-A - Re-determination of compensation u/s 28-A of the Act - It is available only in
respect of an "Award" passed by Court under Part III of the Act - Court referred to in S.28-
A of the Act, is Court as defined u/s 3(d) of the Act to mean principal civil Court of original
jurisdiction - Judgment of appellate Court is not within the purview of S.28-A of the Act.
(668)
S.28-A - Re-determination of compensation - Application seeking re-determination of
compensation cannot be filed against order of High Court passed u/s 54 of L.A Act. (668)
S.48 - De-notification of land - Committee not recommended de-notification u/s 48 of
the Act, as land was acquired by DDA for relocation of Chemical Godowns and Development
of freight complex under planned development - Moreover, matter was placed before Lt.
Governor who after due consideration of facts rejected prayer for de-notification of captioned
land - Mind has been applied and considering necessity, decision has been taken not to de-
notify land - Rejection of prayer for de-notification of land held, proper. (735)
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988
S.140 - Fatal accident - No fault liability - Compensation - Claimants failed to
substantiate factum of rash and negligent driving by driver of subject truck, thus claim petition
failed u/s 166 of M.V Act - However, claimants are granted limited relief u/s 140 of the Act -
Respondents jointly and severally liable to pay sum of Rs.50,000 to claimants towards
compensation with 9% interest. (798)
S.140 - No fault liability - Liability of owner - It is regardless of fact that subject
vehicle was not driven rashly and negligently. (798)
S.140 - No fault liability - Where accident occurs without any fault of owner of vehicle
or fault of other vehicle, liability to pay compensation, must be determined in terms of S.140
of the Act. (682)
S.166 - Fatal accident - Collusion between truck and car - Contributory negligence -
Question of contributory negligence would arise when both parties are involved in accident due
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 viii
to rash and negligent driving - In the instant case, when car was following truck and no fault can
be attributed to truck driver, blame must rest on driver of car who dashed the car in truck and
for driving his vehicle rashly and negligently - It is thus, not a case of contributory negligence.
(798)
S.166 - Fatal accident - Compensation - Future prospects - Total income of deceased
was computed by High Court @ Rs.91,800 - An addition of 25% is warranted on account of
future prospectus in view of Pranay Sethi's case - Total income after accounting for future
prospects at 25% would work out to Rs.1,14,000 p.a - An amount of 1/4th would have to be
reduced on account of personal expenses and net income would work out to Rs.85,500 -
Applying a multiplier of 14 compensation would work out to Rs.11,97,000 and adding further
amount of Rs.70,000 under conventional leads, total compensation payable would work out to
Rs.12,67,000 - However, no interference warranted in award of 9% interest p.a by High Court.
(780)
S.166 - Fatal accident - Compensation - Motor cycle in question as per eye witnesses
was driven by appellant no.2 at the time of accident - Deceased along with appellant no.1
sitting behind appellant no.2 as pillion rider - Evidence on record proved that accident caused
due to rash and negligent driving of appellant no.2 resulting in injuries to all three persons
travelling on motorcycle including deceased who succumbed to injuries before being admitted to
hospital - Finding of Tribunal that appellant no.2 was driving motorcycle is consistent with
principle of preponderance of probabilities and accordingly awarded compensation - High
Court committed error in reversing finding of Tribunal by holding that motorcycle was driven
by deceased. (682)
S.166, Rules of Road Regulation, 1989, Regulation, 23 - Fatal accident - Collusion
between truck and car - Distance from vehicle in front - Subject truck was running ahead of car
at the time of accident - Distance between truck and car was only 10-15 feet which was
certainly not a safe distance for which driver of car must take blame - Evidence on record
shows that subject truck was not driven rashly and negligently by truck driver nor he brought
truck in centre of road at right side or applied sudden brake as being cause of accident - Subject
truck not proved to be driven rashly and negligently. (798)
Ss.166, 149, 66 - Fatal accident - Vehicle having no permit - Liability of insurer -
Offending vehicle had no route permit at the time of accident - Use of vehicle in a public place
without a permit is a fundamental statutory infraction - Said situation cannot be equated with
absence of license or a fake license or a license of different kind of vehicle or for that matter,
violation of a condition of carrying more number of passengers - Since nothing has been
brought on record by insured to prove that he had a permit of vehicle, onus cannot be cast on
insurer - Tribunal and High Court rightly directed insurer to pay compensation to claimants
with interest with stipulation that insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from owner and
driver. (696)
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC
SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985
Ss.8, 15(c) - Contraband - Non production of contraband material before special Judge
- Acquittal calls for no interference. (727)
S.50 - Contraband - Compliance of mandatory provision of S.50 of the Act - Accused
apprised of his right to be searched in the presence of either a Magistrate or a Gazetted officer
and accused gave his consent in writing to be searched by the police officials (raiding party) -
Accused acquitted for non compliance of the mandatory provision of S.50 of the Act, viz.(a)
Accused was not produced before any Magistrate or Gazetted Officer; (b) "Charas" was
recovered from accused in the presence of any Magistrate or Gazetted Officer; (c) None of the
police officials of the raiding party was Gazetted Officer and they were not empowered to
make search and recovery of contraband from the accused; (d) In order to make the search and
recovery of the contraband articles from the body of the suspect, the search and recovery has
to be in conformity with the requirements of S.50 of the NDPS Act. (785)
S.50 - Contraband - Compliance of mandatory provision of S.50 of the Act - Accused
ix RENT & EVICTION
apprised of his right to be searched in the presence of either a Magistrate or a Gazetted officer
and accused gave his consent in writing to be searched by the police officials (raiding party) -
None of the police officials of the raiding party was Gazetted Officer and they were not
empowered to make search and recovery of contraband from the accused - Accused acquitted
for non compliance of mandatory provision of S.50 of the Act. (785)
NAVY SERVICE
Navy service - Dismissal - Misconduct - Offence of making obscene calls - Respondent
made sexually explicit calls to wives of three Naval officers - These calls were made from the
cell phone belonging to respondent - Contradictory versions were given by respondent with
regard to charge - Call data record was also produced by prosecution to show that calls were
received from cell phone number which belongs to respondent and was found to be reliable -
Plea of accused that at the relevant time his Sim Card was lost which was found to be false in
view of his contradictory stand and evidence on record - Charge against respondent held,
proved on record - Sentence imposed by Tribunal not to be interfered as not only seniority of
respondent is forfeited by 24 months but he is also deprived of his salary for more than 5
years - However, respondent shall be reinstated in service without back wages within 2 weeks
from this order. (Navy Act, 1957, Ss.48(c), 58, 74). (804)
PARTITION
Partition - Preliminary decree - Defendants transferred their undivided share in property
in favour of plaintiff - Assessment made by lower appellate Court and High Court that
plaintiff entitled to share of defendants held, proper - However, there is small error which
needs to be corrected - The addition of 1/24 share of defendant no.1 and 1/4th share of
defendant no.2 would aggregate to 7/24 and not 5/24 - Plaintiff held, entitled to 7/24 share in
suit property and a preliminary decree in that behalf passed in favour of plaintiff. (740)
RENT & EVICTION
Rent & Eviction - Attornment - It does not create any new tenancy but once factum
of attornment is proved then by virtue of such attornment, old tenancy continues. (756)
Rent & Eviction - Attornment - Proof - Attornment can be proved by several
circumstances including taking into consideration the conduct of tenant qua landlord. (756)
Rent & Eviction - Attornment - Proof - Attornment stands proved viz. (a) no reply
to quit notice which amounts to waiver to challenge invalidity or infirmity of quit notice
including ownership issue raised therein; (b) Letters sent expressing willingness to attorn and
continue the tenancy and also offering to pay rent; (c) Filing suit for mandatory injunction to
accept them as tenant - Attornment can be proved by several circumstances taking into
consideration the conduct of tenant qua landlord. (756)
Rent & Eviction - Derivative title of an assignee - Tenant is estopped from challenging
title of his landlord, yet tenant is entitled to challenge derivative title of an assignee of original
landlord of demised property in an action brought by assignee against tenant for his eviction
under Rent Laws - However, this right of a tenant is subject to one caveat that tenant has not
attorned to assignee - If tenant pays rent to assignee or otherwise accepts assignee's title over
demised property, then it results in creation of attornment which, in turn, deprives tenant to
challenge derivative title of landlord. (Evidence Act, 1872, S.116). (756)
Rent & Eviction - Eviction petition - Death of tenant - Necessary parties - On death
of tenant legal heirs inherit tenancy as joint tenants - Occupation of one of the tenant is
occupation of all the joint tenants - It is not necessary for landlord to implead all legal heirs of
the deceased tenant, whether they are occupying the property or not - It is sufficient for
landlord to implead either of those persons who are occupying the property, as party - There
may be a case where landlord is not aware of all the legal heirs of deceased tenant and
impleading only those heirs who are in occupation of the property is sufficient for the purpose
of filing of eviction petition - An eviction petition against one of the joint tenant is sufficient
against all the joint tenants and all joint tenants are bound by the order of the Rent Controller
RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION............ACT, 2013 x
as joint tenancy is one tenancy and is not a tenancy split into different legal heirs. (H.C.Pandey
vs. G.C.Paul, 1989 Civil Court Cases 320 (S.C.) : 1989(3) SCC 77 followed). (716)
Rent & Eviction - Title of landlord - When issue of title over tenanted premises is
raised in an eviction suit under Rent Laws, landlord is not expected to prove his title like what
he is required to prove in a title suit. (756)
RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND
TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION,
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013
S.15(2) - Acquisition of land - Objections u/s 15 of the Act - There is non-compliance
of mandatory provision of S.15(2) of the Act by Collector, as Collector neither gave any
opportunity to landowners nor submitted any report to Government as provided u/s 15(2) of
the Act - High Court committed error by dismissing petition of landowners challenging land
acquisition proceedings - Impugned order of High Court set aside - Respondents directed to
decide objection filed by landowners in accordance with law. (793)
SECURITIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF
FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF
SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002
Ss.13, 34 - Mortgage/Secured property - DRT and DRAT concurrently held that
respondents legitimately created an equitable mortgage in respect of flat in question in favour
of Bank, which has security interest upon said flat - Respondents failed to file any documentary
evidence to establish their subsisting title over subject flat, as claimed by them - High Court
committed error in concluding that matter involved factual issues warranting production of
evidence and a full-fledged trial giving liberty to respondents to pursue their remedy before a
proper forum - Approach of High Court is completely fallacious and untenable in law and set
aside - However, since respondents contended that crucial aspects have been glossed over by
DRT and DRAT, it is appropriate to relegate the parties before High Court. (642)
SERVICE
Service - Employment obtained by committing fraud - Same cannot be countenanced
by a Court of law - Employment secured by fraud renders it voidable at the option of the
employer. (1995 Suppl.(4) SCC 100 : AIR 1996 SC 686 followed). (687)
Service - Higher Judicial service - Direct recruitment - Determination of seniority -
Quota Rota rule is a mandatory requirement of Rules - However, Quota Rota rule cannot be
applied in absence of determination of vacancies - Direct recruits held, entitled to benefit of
rotation in determination of seniority. (769)
Service - Higher Judicial service - Promotion - Determination of seniority of promotee
- Promotees cannot be given promotion without suitability test nor could they claim seniority
without the same - However, promotees could not be given seniority prior to their selection
and thus, rightly given seniority from their appointments. (769)
Service - Indian Navy - Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) - Adverse remarks -
Denial of promotion - One particular adverse report (which stands expunged) not affected
succeeding reports as rightly held by Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) - Though appellant was
given higher numerical grading by Initiating Officer (IO) and even by Next Senior Reviewing
Officer (NSRO) - However, NSRO moderated the same by keeping in mind overall profile of
appellant - ACRs of disputed period recorded by NSRO are in tune with ACRs of appellant
recorded in previous years - No prejudice is caused to appellant by said adverse report and
such adverse remarks had not affected case of appellant from being considered for promotion
- Appellant not considered for promotion due to his overall comparative merit vis-a-vis those
selected - No interference warranted in order of AFT dismissing application of appellant
questioning gradings given to him in ACRs - However, since appellant is a good officer and
proved to be useful officer of Navy, respondents give him promotion in his turn without
delaying the same keeping in mind observations made by this Court. (647)
Service - Payment of salary - Single Judge of High Court stayed the impugned order
xi UTTAR PRADESH URBAN BUILDINGS.............ACT, 1972
stopping salary only on the basis of doubt - Division Bench modified said order that status as
prevailing on date of filing of writ petition be maintained - No justification at all for Division
Bench to take such a view as appellant has been working since 1987 and was drawing salary till
the impugned order was passed - Order of Single Judge shall continue to operate till disposal
of writ petition. (713)
Service - Post of Field Supervisor declared as Teacher by Registrar of University -
Respondents claiming benefits attached to the post of Teacher - Declaration as made by
University regarding post of Field Supervisor as Teacher for the purpose of Elections has
neither been withdrawn nor rescinded till date and still holds good - Declaration of a Teacher
for one purpose will hold good for the others too - Moreover, respondents have retired from
service and fighting for their rights for nearly 30 years - No reason appears to prevent respondents
getting benefits of their being treated as Teachers - Respondents held, entitled to all the benefits
attached to the post of Teacher. (679)
Service - Post of Field Supervisor - Can be treated as equivalent to post of Teacher
only after declaration by University with prior approval of Board and not otherwise, as per
Statue 19 of Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology Statues. (Orissa University of
Agriculture and Technology Act, 1965, Ss.2(10), 33, Orissa University of Agriculture and
Technology Statutes, 1966, Statutes 19(1), 19(3). (679)
Service - Selection - Cancellation - Complaints of malpractices and irregularities in
conduct of examinations as well as interviews - 566 candidates awarded exactly same marks by
all members who interviewed them - No Objective assessment by individual members - Digital
video recorder in building where selection process held replaced to destroy evidence - Decision
of authority to annul selection process not arbitrary, malafide or illegal - No interference
warranted in it. (783)
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963
Ss.34, 38 - Suit for declaration and permanent injunction - Neither predecessor-in-title
of plaintiffs and nor plaintiffs had any subsisting right, title and interest in suit property on the
date of filing of suit, as suit property was acquired by State - Defendants filed the documents
in appeal by away of additional evidence on record proving the factum of acquisition of suit
property by State and allotted the same to defendants - No documents filed by plaintiffs in
rebuttal to documents filed by defendants - Suit rightly dismissed. (670)
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882
S.106 - Quit notice - Ought to be replied at the first available opportunity - Failure to
do so amounts to waiver to challenge the invalidity or infirmity of the quit notice including the
ownership issue raised therein. (756)
UTTAR PRADESH URBAN BUILDINGS (REGULATION
OF LETTING, RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1972
S.16(5)(a) - Review of an order regarding vacancy - Unless there is finding regarding
vacancy, there cannot be either allotment or release - It is a precondition for an order u/s
16(1)(a) or (b) - Once the finding is that there is no vacancy, the same is certainly open to be
pursued by way of review u/s 16(5)(a) of the Act. (738)

*****

Printer, Publisher, & Owner : Smt.Kanta, Editor : Chander Mohan, Printed at : Bipin
Printers, Chandigarh, Place of Publication : Apex Court Judgments, 605, Sector 10-D,
CHANDIGARH.