Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 2 R. 2 — Bar of second suit: Bar of second suit under this provision is applicable when relief claimed in second suit was also available but not claimed in first suit. [Sucha Singh Sodhi v. Baldev Raj Walia, (2018) 6 SCC 733]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 8 R. 1 proviso — Extension of period of filing written statement: Court has discretion to allow defendant to file WS beyond that period in exceptional cases for proper and satisfactory reasons to be recorded in writing. Onus is on defendant to plead and show convincing and cogent reason for filing WS beyond prescribed period. [Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.A. Chunawala & Co., (2018) 6 SCC 639]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 100(5) proviso — Disposal of second appeal on substantial question(s) of law other than such questions formulated at time of admission of second appeal — Proper exercise of such power — Requirements of, clarified: Deciding the second appeal on substantial questions of law formulated in the judgment alone and which questions were not framed at admission stage, does not meet the requirements of S. 100(5) proviso. Proviso to S. 100(5) recognises power of High Court to hear appeal on any other substantial question of law which was not initially framed by High Court under S. 100(4). However, this power can be exercised by High Court only after assigning reasons for framing such additional question of law at the time of hearing of the appeal — Thus High Court though has the jurisdiction to frame additional question(s) by taking recourse to proviso to S. 100(5) but it is subject to fulfilling the three conditions, first “such questions should arise in the appeal”, second, “assign the reasons for framing the additional questions” and third, “frame the questions at the time of hearing the appeal”. [Vijay Arjun Bhagat v. Nana Laxman Tapkire, (2018) 6 SCC 727]
Competition Act, 2002 — S. 6(2) r/w Ss. 5(a), 5(b), 31, 42 and 43-A — Penalty for non-compliance with S. 6(2): The proposal to enter into combination was required to be notified to the Commission and the legislative mandate was that the notification had to be made before entering into the combination. Further, the intent being that the Commission has an opportunity to assess whether the proposed combination would cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition and in case combination was to be notified ex post facto for approval, it would defeat the very intendment of the provisions of the Act. [SCM Solifert Ltd. v. CCI, (2018) 6 SCC 631]
Constitution of India — Art. 226 — Writ appeal — Proper mode of disposal: As Division Bench failed to notice averments in writ petition and dismissed writ appeal, writ appeal restored for hearing afresh. [Hemraj Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2018) 6 SCC 628]
Constitution of India — Art. 30(1) — Minority educational institution status — Authority empowered to decide: All questions relating to minority educational institution status, held, have to be decided by National Commission for Minorities. Ss. 11(f) and 12-B of National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 as amended are wholesome provisions for deciding all these issues. [Paramveer Albert Ekka Memorial College v. State of Jharkhand, (2018) 6 SCC 788]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 199(2), (4) and (6) — Prosecution for defamation — Special procedure with regard to S. 199(2): Section 199(2) CrPC provides for a special procedure with regard to initiation of a prosecution for the offence of defamation committed against the constitutional functionaries and public servants mentioned therein. However, the offence alleged to have been committed must be in respect of acts/conduct in the discharge of public functions of the functionary or public servant concerned, as may be. The prosecution under Section 199(2) CrPC is required to be initiated by the Public Prosecutor on receipt of a previous sanction of the competent authority in the State/Central Government under Section 199(4) CrPC. Such a complaint is required to be filed in a Court of Session that is alone vested with the jurisdiction to hear and try the alleged offence and even without the case being committed to the said court by a subordinate court. Section 199(2) CrPC read with Section 199(4) CrPC, therefore, envisages a departure from the normal rule of initiation of a complaint before a Magistrate by the affected persons alleging the offence of defamation. The said right, however, is saved even in cases of the category of persons mentioned in subsection (2) of Section 199 CrPC by sub-section (6) thereof. [K.K. Mishra v. State of M.P., (2018) 6 SCC 676]
Income Tax — Reassessment of income: The power to reassess income is conditional upon the fact that the assessing officer has some reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment. Further, a liberal interpretation of the words “reason to believe” would have the consequence of conferring arbitrary powers on the assessing officer. S. 147 does not allow the reassessment of an income merely because of the fact that the assessing officer has a change of opinion with regard to the interpretation of law differently on the facts that were well within his knowledge even at the time of assessment and doing so would have the effect of giving the assessing officer the power of review and S. 147 confers the power to reassess and not the power to review. [CIT v. Techspan India (P) Ltd., (2018) 6 SCC 685]
Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 — S. 17 and Statement of Objects and Reasons — Indigenous systems — Uniform qualification and registration — No exemption under IMCC Act: Appellants not registered either under State Act nor Central Act, cannot be allowed to practice. Quacks cannot be allowed to play with lives of people. S. 17(3)(c) protects indigenous practitioners having practise of more than 5 yrs on date of commencement of IMCC Act only in case State concerned did not have a State Register under State law. [Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum v. State of Kerala, (2018) 6 SCC 648]
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 — Ss. 11(1) and 17-A(2) — Reservation of land for public sector company: Central Government order taking into account various factors while rejecting proposal of State Government, on facts and law, held, valid. Central Government can consider any factor, while considering an approval under S. 17-A(2). Under S. 11(1), preference has to be given to an RP holder(s) who has carried out reconnaissance, while considering grant of PL and when land is held under PL or ML even reservation under S. 17-A(2) is prohibited. [Geomysore Services (India) (P) Ltd. v. Hutti Goldmines Co. Ltd., (2018) 6 SCC 791]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — S. 166 — Collision of car into rear end of truck resulting in death of one of the passengers in car: Finding of Tribunal was that truck did not brake too suddenly nor veer to centre/right side of narrow road causing the collision, rather cause of collision was that said car did not maintain “sufficient distance” from truck, thus car was being driven rashly and negligently. Claim of contributory negligence re manner in which truckcsuddenly braked, not tenable as when Maruti car was following truck and no fault can be attributed to truck driver, blame must rest on driver of Maruti car for having driven his vehicle rashly and negligently. Hence, plea of contributory negligence on part of truck driver, correctly rejected. [Nishan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 6 SCC 765]
National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 — Ss. 10(1) and 11(f) and 12, 12-A, 12-B, 12-C, 12-F, 2 and 22 — Harmonious construction of Ss. 10(1) and 11(f) — Powers of NCMEI to issue minority status certificate — Scope of: Even if S. 10(1) requires a no-objection certificate for starting a minority institution (which appellant did not have), it should be harmoniously construed with S. 11(f). So construing, S. 11(f) powers are wide enough and NCMEI is empowered to decide any question directly or indirectly relating to minority educational status of an institution. This is clear from effect of wide expressions “all questions” and “relating to” in S. 11(f). Hence, NCMEI conferring minority status to an institution in midstream, which originally started as a secular institution, held, valid. [Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny v. State of W.B., (2018) 6 SCC 772]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 366 — Ingredients of: Mere abduction does not bring accused under ambit of S. 366. It must be proved that accused abducted woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. Unless prosecution proves that abduction is for purposes mentioned in S. 366, court cannot hold accused guilty and punish him under S. 366. [Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC 664]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 302/34 and 201 — Dowry death — Demand for dowry — Wife shot to death because of — Circumstantial evidence: In this case evidence to prove demand of dowry by appellant-accused (husband and brother-in-law of deceased), present. Story of suicide set up by appellants is wholly unbelievable in the light of evidence brought on record. Circumstances establish chain of events being directly connected with incident, proving involvement of appellants in aforesaid crime beyond reasonable doubt, hence, their conviction confirmed. [Chandra Bhawan Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 6 SCC 670]
Rent Control and Eviction — Acquisition of Residential Building by Tenant — Eviction decree on ground under S. 20(2)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 — Proviso to S. 20(4) — Applicability: Proviso provides that if tenant or any member of his family builds or acquires in vacant state any residential building in same city, then tenant would not be saved from liability of eviction even if he pays/deposits entire rent amount with damages, interest, etc. in terms of main S. 20(4). To attract proviso, member of family who owns a residential building need not be shown to be living with the tenant. [Sudama Devi v. Vijay Nath Gupta, (2018) 6 SCC 759]
Rent Control and Eviction — Tenancy/Tenant — Attornment by tenant: By attornment old tenancy continues and attornment can be proved by several circumstances including conduct of tenant. [Apollo Zipper India Ltd. v. W. Newman & Co. Ltd., (2018) 6 SCC 744]
Rent Control and Eviction — Tenancy/Tenant — Statutory tenancy — Heirs and LRs — Status: They inherit statutory tenancy as joint tenantsand not as tenants-in-common, despite Personal Law to the contrary. [Suresh Kumar Kohli v. Rakesh Jain, (2018) 6 SCC 708]
Service Law — Police — Recruitment procedure — Selection Process/Procedure — Selected candidates directed to be sent for training: Additional Advocate General directed to file affidavit stating number of candidates who had qualified in examination in respective categories but were yet to be considered and also outcome of verification of those people who had approached High Court, either as petitioners or as interveners. [Alok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 6 SCC 813]
U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 (33 of 1961) (as adopted in Uttaranchal) — S. 15 — No-confidence motion: No-confidence motion against Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat, is valid when it is signed by more than 50% of members. [Ram Pal Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 6 SCC 692]
