Roundup (Nov 28 - Dec 03, 2022)
Sebastian Joseph v. University of Kerala
Kerala University First Statutes 1977, Chapter III Statute 5A – University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations 2018 – The “UGC Regulations 2018” has deliberately and consciously refused to impose the stipulation of an upper age limit for the purpose of appointment as a Professor, no such contra-stipulation in the “First Statutes” of the Kerala University, particularly when it was introduced as early as in the year 1986 - much before the “UGC Regulation” were framed - can operate detrimentally.
Arya Vaidya Sala, Kottakkal v. State of Kerala
Employees State Insurance Act 1948, Sections 87 & 91 – A reading of Section 87 coupled with its proviso, makes it clear that an enquiry is to be done by the Government after hearing all the affected parties before passing orders in the exemption application – A speaking order is necessary while deciding an exemption application filed under Section 87 of the ESI Act.
Rinu Sreejaya Aswan v. Union of India
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, Section 112 – Once the maximum speed limit is fixed by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, the said speed limit is legally presumed to be known to every driver driving vehicles on the road, depending on the nature of the road and the speed limits earmarked for such routes.
Reshmy v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC)
Constitution of India, Articles 19 & 21 – Actions like “flash strikes” and “hartals” will serve no purpose other than to prejudice the large number of ordinary persons who rely solely upon the KSRTC for their travelling needs.
Vinod Katara v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Constitution of India, Article 136 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000, Section 7A – Plea of juvenility – The plea of juvenility could be raised in any court, at any stage even after the final disposal of the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Praicy Joseph v. Regional Transport Officer
Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 (Kerala), Rule 95 – Motor Vehicles Act 1988, Section 43 – Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 (Central), Rule 53C – The dealer can deliver a new motor vehicle to the owner on the strength of a temporary certificate of registration issued under Section 43 of the Act 1988, after assigning a temporary registration mark under Rule 53C of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
Suhadath v. Shihab
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986, Section 3 – While quantifying the reasonable and fair provision for future maintenance applying 8 years as the multiplier is absolutely reasonable.
Binu v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.
State and Subordinate Services Rules 1958 (Kerala), Part II Rule 27(a) Third Proviso -- The Government Order must be seen as entrusting the selection process to the PSC for undertaking an independent assessment of the inter se merit of the candidates and thereafter advising the said candidates, in accordance with their ranking in the ranked list prepared by the PSC for the purpose -- The procedure being in no way different from that followed in the case of direct recruitment of open market candidates to the post, the inter se seniority of the candidates advised had to be reckoned, as in the case of other direct recruits, from the date of advise of the candidate to the vacancies reported in relation to the post in question, which is in accordance with Rule 27(c) of Part II, KS & SSR.
Mani C. Kappen v. Sunny Joseph
Representation of the People Act 1951, Section 81 – Election petition – Extension of limitation due to COVID-19 – The benefit of the Supreme Court orders extending limitation is applicable to a proceeding under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Salim v. Asianet Satellite Communication Ltd.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, Section 11 – Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act 1997 – Arbitration is barred in respect of the matters which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of TDSAT under the provisions of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997.
Aleyamma Kuruvila v. Mahatma Gandhi University
Mahatma Gandhi University Act 1985, Section 59(3) – University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations 2018 – Once the Hon’ble Supreme Court has delivered its judgment to the unmistakable effect that only a person who is appointed in terms of the “UGC Regulations, 2018” can continue to be a Teacher of a College, or that matter as an Officer of the University, one cannot rely upon Section 59(3) of the “M.G. University Act”, to maintain that “promotion” as Principal, on the basis of seniority cum fitness is tenable.
Praveen v. State of Kerala
Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure 1976 (Kerala), Rule 13 – Service – If the validity of the rank list is extended by a further period up to the date that coincides with the expiry of one month after the last batch of persons advised under the extended period, under the first proviso to Rule 13, commenced their training, it would render meaningless the phrase “within a period of one year from the date of finalisation of the ranked lists” that finds mention in the first proviso to Rule 13.
State of Kerala v. Kalathil Ambady
Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act 2003 (Kerala), Sections 2(b)(i) & 10(1) – Exemption from vesting under the Vesting Act of 1971 cannot necessarily absolve the lands from vesting under the EFL Act as on the appointed day which is 02.06.2000 though it is a very relevant piece of evidence which has to be reckoned.
Lead Advertising v. Union of India
Income Tax Act 1961, Section 148 – The amendments were not merely curative requiring an interpretation that those provisions will apply to all pending proceedings with retrospective effect.
Althaf Ismail Sait v. Golden Choice Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.
Commercial Courts Act 2015, Section 2(1)(c)(vii) & 2(1)(c) Explanation (a) – A suit filed for recovery of the security deposit in a commercial lease falls within the sweep of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Muhammed Yasin v. Station House Officer
Criminal P.C. 1973, Section 439 – When the cancellation of bail is sought either on the ground of post conduct of the accused like violation of the conditions of the bail or on the ground of the occurrence of supervening circumstances, the court must issue notice to the accused to explain why the bail granted to him should not be cancelled.
Rahul v. Geologist
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957, Section 30B – Non-constitution of Special Courts under Section 30B cannot affect seizure and confiscation proceedings under the MMDR Act.
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. JSW Energy Ltd.
Contract Act 1872, Sections 2 & 10 – In order that there must be a contract concluded, undoubtedly, there must be a proposal made, which must be accepted; There must be consideration for the promise, the proposal must be accepted, which must be communicated – The acceptance must be unqualified.
Irvin John Jayarajan v. Madhavi
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 (Kerala), Section 24 – The timelines prescribed in Section 24 must apply equally to appeals and revisions as well.
Rajratan Babulal Agarwal v. Solartex India Pvt. Ltd.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 – Sale of Goods Act 1930, Sections 4, 12, 13(2), 14, 17, 19 & 31 – The omission in Section 13(2) by the Amending Act 33 of 1963 confines the compelled treatment of a breach of a condition as a breach of a warranty to only cases where the contract is not severable and the buyer has accepted the goods or part thereof. All of this is subject to a contract either expressly or impliedly otherwise.
Executive Engineer (R and B) v. Gokul Chandra Kanungo
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Conduct of respondent remaining silent (about the claim) for a longer period – Entitlement to interest – A party cannot be permitted to derive benefits from its own lapses.
Shaheen Abdulla v. Union of India
Penal Code 1860, Sections 153A, 153B, 295A & 505 – Constitution of India, Articles 14, 19 & 21 – Hate Speech – As and when any speech or any action takes place which attracts offences such as Sections 153A, 153B and 295A and 505 of the IPC etc., suo moto action will be taken by Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Delhi Governments to register cases even if no complaint is forthcoming and proceed against the offenders in accordance with law.
Surendrababu v. Kodungallur Town Co-operative Bank Ltd.
High Court Act 1958 (Kerala) – Pendency of cases – Registrar General and the Registrar (Judicial) will bring to the notice of the Hon’ble Chief Justice about the old Writ Petitions pending in different jurisdiction and will take appropriate steps in this regard as per the directions of the Hon’ble Chief Justice.
Ubaid v. State of Kerala
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, Section 36A(4) – Criminal P.C. 1973, Section 167(2) – As per Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, in respect of persons accused of an offence punishable under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A or for offences involving commercial quantity the references in sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. thereof to “ninety days”, where they occur, shall be construed as reference to “one hundred and eighty days”.
TATA Power Company Limited Transmission v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission
Electricity Act 2003, Sections 62 & 63 – Where the tariff has already been determined through bidding, the Appropriate Commission has to adopt such tariff that has been determined and cannot negate such tariff by using its powers under Section 62.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Shiv Dutt Sharma
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, Section 24(2) – Illegal occupants and / or encroachers of land in question – Non-payment of compensation to the recorded owner – Lapse of acquisition proceedings – Since possession of the land in question was taken over and landowner can be permitted to take the benefit of the encroachment made on the land in question and applying Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors (2020 (2) KLT OnLine 1010 (SC)) acquisition will not lapse.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Radheshyam
Land Acquisition Act 1894, Section 18 – Enhancement of compensation – Deduction of development charges – Whether there should be any deduction or not and the ratio of deduction depends upon the evidence to be brought on record by the parties in respect of the land under acquisition.
xxx v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C. 1973, Section 438 – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va), 18 & 18A – Penal Code 1860, Section 354 – In cases involving serious offences under the SC/ST Act where anticipatory bail is specifically barred by the statute, mere illness of the accused is not a ground for granting anticipatory bail against the mandate of the statute, where custodial interrogation or medical test etc., are necessary in particular.
Union of India v. Subrata Nath
Constitution of India, Article 226 – Service – Dismissal – Judicial review – In exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court or the Tribunal cannot ordinarily reappreciate the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion in respect of the penalty imposed unless and until the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the offence that it would shock the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal or is found to be flawed for other reasons, as enumerated in UOI v. P. Gunasekaran (2015 (1) KLT Suppl. 64 (SC)).
Parivar Seva Sanstha v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
Constitution of India, Article 14 – Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949 (Gujarat), Schedule A Chapter VIII (Taxation Rules - Rule 8B) -- Taxation – The benefit of uniformity in the classification of taxation should not be struck down on the application of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Meenakshi Solar Power Pvt. Ltd. v. Abhyudaya Green Economic Zones Pvt. Ltd.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, Section 11(6) – Novation of the agreement between the parties must be left to the Arbitrator to decide – High Court not right in dismissing the petition under Section 11(6) by giving a finding on novation.
Rasheedali v. M/s. Valiery Vaidyasala
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Sections 7, 9 & 138 – When the cheques issued in favour of the firm were dishonoured, managing director is competent to send notices and non description of the fact that he had sent notices, as the Managing Director of the firm and representing the firm is of no legal consequence, since the accused got the due information and knowledge about the party, to whom, he had to discharge the liability.
Jose v. State of Kerala
Promotion of Tree Growth in Non Forest Areas Act 2005 (Kerala), Section 9(3) – Competency of the Forest Range Officer to file a report (of seizure of articles) – Divisional Forest Officer alone is competent to file report under Section 9(3) of the Act and the same presupposes the fact that Forest Range Officer is not a competent officer under Section 9(3) to file final report.
Sansera Engineering Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, Large Tax Payer Unit
Central Excise Act 1944, Section 11B – Central Excise Rules 2002, Rule 18 – Rebate claim barred by time – While making claim for rebate of duty under Rule 18, the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B shall be applied.
Suneetha Narreddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Constitution of India, Article 21 & Article 32 – Murder and destruction of evidence – Transfer of criminal trial outside State of Andhra Pradesh – Free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 – For transfer of a criminal trial there must be a reasonable apprehension that there shall not be any fair investigation.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Property Owners Association
Municipal Corporation Act 1888 (Bombay), Section 154 – Taxation – Basis of property tax – For the purpose of determining capital value, only the present physical attributes and status of the land and building can be considered and not the future prospects of the land.