Top 25 Judgement for Year 2015

Top 25 Judgement for Year 2015

1. The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) though not a State under Article 12, is amenable to Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution since it discharges public functions. [Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors [LNIND 2015 SC 49]

2. An accused cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period if trial is not likely to be concluded within reasonable time. Detention cannot be punitive or preventive. Dr. Vinod Bhandari Vs. State of M.P [LNIND 2015 SC 67]

3. Mechanical reduction of sentence to the period already undergone cannot be appreciated. The court is duty bound to award just sentence to a convict against whom charge is proved. Sentence has to be fair not only to the accused but also to the victim and the society. State of M.P Vs. Mehtaab [LNIND 2015 SC 87]

4. Non-disclosure of certain offences at the time of filing of nomination paper creates an impediment in the free exercise of electoral right and such non-disclosure amounts to undue influence. Krishnamoorthy Vs. Sivakumar & Ors [LNIND 2015 SC 76]

5. Second generation Christian converts can retain the benefits of the caste even after they re-convert to the original caste. K.P Manu Vs. Chairman, Scrutiny Committee for verification of community certificate [LNIND 2015 SC 125]

6. When a tribunal refuses to initiate contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person has remedy only under Article 136 and not under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. Sujitendra Nath Singh Roy Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors [LNIND 2015 SC 162]

7. A Magistrate has discretion either to direct registration of a case under Section 156(3) or to conduct inquiry himself as the situation may warrant. This discretion is to be exercised by the Magistrate in his wisdom and having regard to the nature of material available. Direction under Section 156(3) to register a criminal case and to investigate is to be exercised where the Magistrate is satisfied that prima facie a cognizable offence has been committed. Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd Vs. State of Gujarat [LNIND 2015 SC 166]

8. There cannot be a reduction of sentence whenever an accused offers acceptable compensation for rehabilitation of a victim, regardless of the gravity of the crime under Section 304A IPC. State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi [LNIND 2015 SC 219]

9. Though periods of limitation, being procedural law, are to be applied retrospectively, yet if a shorter period of limitation is provided by a later amendment to a statute, such period would render the vested right of action contained in the statute nugatory as such right of action would now become time barred under the amended provision. M.P. Steel Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [LNIND 2015 SC 282]

10. In cases of composite negligence, the claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tort feasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several. Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors [LNIND 2015 SC 320]

11. Photographs of only the Prime Minister, President and the Chief Justice of India may be used in advertisements released by Central and State Governments after obtaining prior permission. Common Cause Vs. Union of India [LNIND 2015 SC 339]

12. National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) are Constitutional. Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India & Anr [LNIND 2015 SC 334]

13. The welfare of the child is of paramount consideration vis a vis the perceived rights of parents. If a single parent/unwed mother applies for the issuance of a Birth Certificate for a child born from her womb, the Authorities concerned may only require her to furnish an affidavit to this effect, and must issue a Birth Certificate, unless there is a Court direction to the contrary. It is the responsibility of the State to ensure that no citizen suffers any inconvenience or disadvantage merely because the parents fail or neglect to register the birth. Karuna Purti Vs. The State [LNIND 2015 SC 391]

14. Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board is not empowered to fix or regulate the maximum retail price at which gas is to be sold by entities like Indraprastha Gas Ltd. (IGL) to its consumers. The Act does not confer any right on the Board to fix the tariff of a consumer of natural gas. Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Vs. Indraprastha Gas Limited & Ors [LNIND 2015 SC 366]

15. While State Governments are not competent to impose taxes/levies on industrial alcohol, fee charged for services rendered to prevent the diversion and conversion of industrial alcohol for human consumption is permissible and legal; such fee need not be charged strictly on quid pro quo basis and it will pass legal muster so long as it is not excessive. A tax is levied as part of a common exaction, whereas a fee is payment towards services rendered. M/S K.C.P. Ltd. Vs. Government of A.P & Ors [LNIND 2015 SC 458]

16. A sentence of death in a case of murder may be rare, but, if the courts have, upon consideration of the facts and evidence, found that the same is the only sentence that can be awarded; it is difficult to revisit that question in collateral proceedings. The provisions of Section 364A in so far as the same prescribes death or life imprisonment is not unconstitutional and the punishment prescribed for those committing any act contrary to Section 364A cannot be dubbed as so outrageously disproportionate to the nature of the offence as to call for the same to be declared as being declared unconstitutional. Vikram Singh @ Vicky & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [LNIND 2015 SC 482]

17. The inherent power of a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly used. The High Court should exercise this power only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is not exercised. While exercising its inherent powers in economic offences, it must keep in mind that the society at large has been defrauded. Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Maninder Singh [LNIND 2015 SC 494]

18. When Government transfers land or any interest therein to any person, such a transfer is not governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The rights and obligations flowing from the transfer of either a piece of land or an interest therein by the Government cannot be determined on the basis of the rights and obligations specified under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. They are to be ascertained only from the tenor of the document made by the Government evidencing such a transfer. M/S. Tata Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [LNIND 2015 SC 551]

19. The Supreme Court has struck down the 99th Amendment to the Constitution as Unconstitutional. The 99th Amendment pertains to setting up of a National Judicial Appointments Commission for appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court and High Court. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record -Association and another Vs. Union of India [LNIND 2015 SC 611]

20. An Environment Compensation Charge has been imposed on all light and heavy duty commercial vehicles entering Delhi. However, the above charge shall not be imposed on Passenger vehicles and ambulances and on vehicles carrying essential commodities. The amount so collected to be exclusively used for augmenting public transport and improving roads, particularly for most vulnerable users, that is, cyclists and pedestrians in Delhi. M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors. [LNINDORD 2015 SC 13633]

21. While availing benefits under the Aadhar card Scheme, the following Schemes are also be included: The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, (MGNREGS), National Social Assistance Programme (Old Age Pensions, Widow Pensions, Disability Pensions) Prime Minister’s Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY) and Employees’ Provident Fund Organization (EPFO). However, the Aadhar card Scheme is purely voluntary and it cannot be made mandatory till the matter is finally decided. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr Vs. Union of India & Ors [LNINDORD 2015 SC 13643]

22. There is a distinction between a decree for divorce and decree of judicial separation; in the former, there is a severance of status and the parties do not remain as husband and wife, whereas in the later, the relationship between husband and wife continues and the legal relationship continues as it has not been snapped. Therefore, the claim preferred under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is valid as she has not ceased to be an “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a) of the Act. Krishna Bhatacharjee Vs. Sarathi Choudhury & Anr. [LNIND 2015 SC 652]

23. No person can claim the name of a holy or religious book as a trade mark for his goods or services marketed by him. The registration of the word “RAMAYAN” as a trade mark, being the name of a Holy Book of Hindus, is prohibited under Section Sections 9(2) of the Trade Marks Act. Lal Babu Priyadarshi Vs. Amritpal Singh [LNIND 2015 SC 624]

24. The Supreme Court has directed all the States and Union Territories to consider the plight of acid attack victims and take appropriate steps with regard to inclusion of their names under the disability list. Parivartan Kendra Vs. Union of India and others [LNIND 2015 SC 684]

25. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that in respect of cases, where the sentence is imposed by the Criminal Court under any law which falls within the proviso to Article 73(1)(a) of the Constitution, then the Appropriate Government would be the Central Government for exercising its power of remission, suspension as well as commutation as provided under Section 432 and 433 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In all other cases, if the sentence order is passed by the Court within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned State, then, the concerned State Government would be the Appropriate Government. Also, where the law came to be enacted by the Union in exercise of its powers under Articles 248, 249, 250, 251 and 252 of the Constitution, though the legislative power of the States would remain, yet, the combined effect of these Articles read along with Article 73(1) (a) of the Constitution will give primacy to the Union Government in the event of any laws passed by the Centre prescribing the Executive Power to vest with it to the exclusion of the Executive Power of the State then such power will remain with the Centre. Union of India versus V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors [LNIND 2015 SC 677]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

eighteen − 18 =