Building and Other Construction Workers’ (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 — SOR and Ss. 1(4), 1(5), 2(1)(d), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 22, 24, 60, 62, Chs. VI and VII — Effective and meaningful implementation of: Directions issued with regard to effective and meaningful implementation of the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 and the Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1996. [National Campaign Committee for Central Legislation on Construction Labour (NCC-CL) v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 607]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 7 R. 11, S. 11 and Or. 2 R. 2: Rejection of plaint on grounds of res judicata, which required consideration of pleadings in written statement, is permissible. While considering application for rejection of plaint, averments in plaint must be considered and not what is stated in written statement. [Soumitra Kumar Sen v. Shyamal Kumar Sen, (2018) 5 SCC 644]
Companies Act, 2013 — Ss. 58(2) and (4) — Public limited company — Free transfer of shares — Right of public limited company to refuse registration of transfer of shares on sufficient: Expression “without sufficient cause” does not mean only illegal transfers or transfers impermissible under any law, can be refused. Transfer can be refused on any other sufficient cause. [Mackintosh Burn Ltd. v. Sarkar & Chowdhury Enterprises (P) Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 575]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 482 —Quashment of FIR: S. 482 has to be cautiously utilised while quashing FIR. In this case of abetment of suicide, High Court prematurely quashed FIR without proper investigation having been conducted by police. Hence, impugned judgment of High Court set aside with directions to investigating authorities to complete investigation with promptness and to take it to its logical conclusion. [Munshiram v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 5 SCC 678]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 156(3) vis-à-vis 202(1) and Ch. XII vis-à-vis Ch. XIV and S. 190: Established law is that direction under S. 156(3) does not amount to taking cognizance but there being divergent views of Supreme Court as to applicability of this principle to offences under PC Act: as to whether prior sanction is required or not, before a direction can be issued under S. 156(3) CrPC vis-à-vis PC Act offences, matter referred to larger Bench. [Manju Surana v. Sunil Arora, (2018) 5 SCC 557]
Government Grants, Largesse, Public Property and Public Premises — Relief/Remedies/Moulding Relief, Judicial Review/Public Interest Litigation (PIL) — Writ jurisdiction in respect of public property: Re-auction of leased municipal property directed by High Court without adverting to efficacy of existing lease or the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition, not proper. [State of H.P. v. Ravinder Kumar Sankhayan, (2018) 5 SCC 584]
Income Tax Act, 1961 — S. 80-P r/w S. 80-P(4) coming into effect from 1-4-2007: Review petition challenging order declaring Society giving loans to members as well as general public, non-eligibile to grant of deduction, dismissed being devoid of merits. [Citizen Coop. Society Ltd. v. CIT, (2018) 5 SCC 548]
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (10 of 1962) — Ss. 107(1)(i) and (iii) and S. 44(1): Lands which belong to Government or University as specified in the 1961 Act, held, are not within purview of the Act. [University of Mysore v. Rajaiah, (2018) 5 SCC 684]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Ss. 166 and 173 — Compensation claims under S. 166 — Proper manner of disposal: While dealing with a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a Tribunal stricto sensu is not bound by the pleadings of the parties; its function being to determine the amount of fair compensation in the event an accident has taken place by reason of negligence of that driver of a motor vehicle. The Tribunal has to take a holistic view of the matter. A strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible. The claimants are merely required to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied. The approach of the Tribunal should be holistic analysis of the entire pleadings and evidence by applying the principles of preponderance of probability. [Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 656]
Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 (10 of 1962) — Ss. 14(1), (5) and 111 — Resumption of land from tenant: In this case resumption and taking possession vide compromise was effected by Tribunal instead of through procedure contemplated under S. 14(5). Though procedure for taking possession under S. 14(5), was allegedly not complied with, but properly explained by landlord by drawing attention to compromise decree. Hence, the impugned order holding that procedure contemplated under S. 14(5) was not followed, set aside. [Raghunath Prasad Pande v. State of Karnataka, (2018) 5 SCC 594]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 302 — Murder trial: In this case strained relations between couple and their families, leading to murder of husband and his sister, by his wife and her family members. Evidence of ocular witnesses, father and brother of deceased husband, and daughter of deceased sister of husband, was found consistent and inspired confidence. Evidence established guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and corroborates with that of medical evidence and motive of crime was very clear. Hence, there was no error in appreciation of evidence and conviction confirmed. [Ganapathi v. State of T.N., (2018) 5 SCC 549]
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Chs. II to VIII — Sexual offences against children: Directions issued for speedy disposal of cases involving sexual offences against children. [Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 651]
Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Ss. 86, 81, 82 and 117 — Maintainability of election petition: Where Court granted time to cure defects raised by Registry, and such defects were rectified within stipulated time, election petition not barred by limitation under S. 81(1). Correctness of translated copy of vernacular language cannot be decided at threshold level but it is subject of trial. When copies of materials relied upon are reproduced in CD and its transcription is provided, phone (used for conversation) and supply of chip was not necessary. Such step would not impair defence of successful candidate. [Abdulrasakh v. K.P. Mohammed, (2018) 5 SCC 598]
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 — R. 9: In this case the requirement specified under R. 9(4) was to deposit balance 75% purchase price within 15 days of confirmation. It was clarified that day of confirmation was not same as day of auction. Said period of 15 days would start from day of confirmation of sale by secured creditor and it does not start from day of auction. On day of auction authorised officer only accepts or confirms highest bid which is not same as confirmation of sale under R. 9(4). Rr. 9(2), (4), (5) & (6) supports above interpretation. [Rakesh Birani v. Prem Narain Sehgal, (2018) 5 SCC 543]
