REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10873 OF 2018 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(CIVIL) … Continue reading whether an application under section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “SARFAESI Act” or the “Act”), at the instance of a borrower, is maintainable even before physical or actual possession of secured assets is taken by banks/financial institutions in exercise of their powers under section 13(4) of the Act read with rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “2002 Rules”)
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7470 OF 2009 North East Karnataka Road Transport … Continue reading whether the employee met with an accident, whether the accident occurred during the course of employment, whether it arose out of an employment, how and in what manner the accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the accident, whether there existed any relationship of employee and employer, what was the age and monthly salary of the employee, how many are the dependents of the deceased employee, the extent of disability caused to the employee due to injuries suffered in an accident, whether there was any insurance coverage obtained by the employer to cover the incident etc. are some of the material issues which arise for the just decision of the Commissioner in a claim petition when an employee 4 suffers any bodily injury or dies during the course of his employment and he/his LRs sue/s his employer to claim compensation under the Act.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1977 OF 2010 THE MANAGEMENT OF SRI RAMNARAYAN … Continue reading “break in service” as a new ground for punishment in the Certified Standing Orders can not be added = The Division Bench, in our considered opinion, rightly concluded that 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 for the following reasons: 8 13. Firstly, the existing grounds enumerated in Clause 16 by way of punishment are sufficient to take care of any misconduct committed by any employee and there appears no reason to introduce one more new ground in the existing grounds specified in Clause 16 for imposing a new punishment. 14. Secondly, the proposed ground, if allowed, would likely to be misused by the employer against its employees for their own benefit and detrimental to the employees’ interest. 15. Thirdly, it would enable the employer to take action against its employees even in a situation where an employee is found absent even for a day and such absence will be treated as “break in service” under the Certified Standing Orders and also under the Payment of Gratuity Act. It will, therefore, be in conflict with the definition of the 9 expression “continuous service” defined under the Payment of Gratuity Act which gives different modes of calculation for determining the continuous service for payment of gratuity amount. 16. Fourthly, such ground will, therefore, defeat the very object of the Payment of Gratuity Act which is a beneficial legislation enacted for the benefit of the employees and lastly, it is neither bona fide nor reasonable and nor required and hence it cannot be allowed. 17. In our opinion, we find no good ground to differ with the reasoning assigned by the Division Bench mentioned above for rejecting the application made by the appellant (employer) for adding, “break in service” as a new ground for punishment in the Certified Standing Orders. The reasons given by the Division Bench, in our view, deserve to be upheld.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2299 OF 2009 STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF … Continue reading Even assuming that the prosecutrix was of easy virtue, she has a right of refuse to submit herself to sexual intercourse to anyone. The 29 judgment of the High Court reversing the verdict of conviction under Section 376(2)(g) recorded by the trial court cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. For the conviction under Section 376(2)(g) IPC, the accused shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may be extended to imprisonment for life. After the amendment by Act 13 of 2013 (with retrospective effect from 03.02.2013), the minimum sentence of ten years was increased to twenty years as per Section 376-D and in the case of conviction, the court has no discretion but to impose the sentence of minimum twenty years. However, prior to amendment, proviso to Section 376(2) IPC provided a discretion to the court that “the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than ten years.” Though the court is vested with the discretion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion in reducing the sentence of imprisonment of ten years imposed upon the respondents-accused. In the result, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeal preferred by the State is allowed. The verdict of conviction of accused-respondent Nos.1 to 4 (CA No.2299/2009) 30 under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and also the sentence of imprisonment of ten years imposed upon them is affirmed. The respondentsaccused Nos.1 to 4 shall surrender themselves within a period of four weeks from today to serve the remaining sentence, failing which they shall be taken into custody.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1330 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.2440 … Continue reading Whether the defence is acceptable or not and whether it is compatible or incompatible with the evidence available is an entirely different matter. If there has been no consideration at all of the defence taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in the given facts of a case, the conviction may well stand vitiated. To our mind, a solemn duty is cast on the court in dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing. Unfortunately neither Trial Court nor the High Court considered it necessary to take notice of, much less discuss or observe with regard to the aforesaid defence by the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to either accept or reject it. The defence taken cannot be said to be irrelevant, illogical or fanciful in the entirety of the facts and the nature of other evidence available as discussed hereinbefore. The complete nonconsideration thereof has clearly caused prejudice to the 13 appellant. Unlike the prosecution, the accused is not required to establish the defence beyond all reasonable doubt. The entirety of the discussion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of evidence available coupled with the manner of its consideration, leaves us satisfied that the links in the chain of circumstances in a case of circumstantial evidence, cannot be said to have been established leading to the inescapable conclusion that the appellant was the assailant of the deceased, incompatible with any possibility of innocence of the appellant. The possibility that the occurrence may have taken place in some other manner cannot be completely ruled out. The appellant is therefore held entitled to acquittal on the benefit of doubt. We accordingly order the acquittal and release of the appellant from custody forthwith, unless wanted in any other case.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1568 OF 2015 KAMIL …..Appellant VERSUS STATE OF … Continue reading whether non-framing of charge has caused prejudice in the present case. In order to judge whether a failure of justice has been occasioned, it is relevant to examine whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which he is being convicted and whether they were explained to him and whether he got a fair chance to defend. The crux of the issue is whether in this case, omission to frame charge under Section 302 IPC has vitiated conviction of the appellant/accused. = the appellant has not raised the objection as to nonframing of charges at the earliest point of time namely the trial court and the first appellate court – High Court. – It is also to be pointed out that in the High Court, the appellant has not raised any grievance as to non-framing of charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and that it has caused prejudice to him. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant only contended that the appellant Kamil ought not to have been convicted by invoking the principle of vicarious liability enshrined by Section 34 IPC. All these aspects clearly show that the appellant clearly understood that charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC has been framed against him and throughout he has been defending himself only for the charge under Section 302 IPC. In such facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the failure of justice has occasioned to him and the absence of a charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to him.
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10853 of 2018 (arising out of … Continue reading applications were required to be disposed of on the basis of the Rules in force at the time of the disposal of the applications. = the claim of plaintiff for allotment of additional land of 20.61 acres which can be at best said to be pending on the date of enforcement of Rules, 1983 would have been only dealt with in accordance with Rule 5 of Rules, 1983 and disregard of said Rules the trial court would not have decreed the suit directing the Trust to execute lease in favour of the plaintiff of 20.61 acres of land. The decree of the trial court was clearly in the teeth of the statutory Rules and the High Court committed error in taking the view that Rules, 1983 were not applicable in the present case.