evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
COL. RAJNISH BHANDARI, VSM

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 3204 of 2019)

AUGUST 02, 2019

[R. F. NARIMAN AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]

Ranbir Penal Code, 1932:

s. 497 - Constitutional validity of - Held: The provision u/s. 497 is pari materia provision to s. 497 IPC, which has been declared as unconstitutional in *Joseph Shine case - Therefore, the provision (s. 497 of RPC) is held violative of part III of the Constitution - Nothing survives against the accused on the charges relatable to s. 497 - Appeal allowed - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 497 - Constitution of India - Part III.

Army Act, 1950:

s. 63 - Prosecution under - Accused already acquitted, subject to confirmation - Judgment of Armed Forces Tribunal is set aside - Confirmation proceedings may go on and reach its logical conclusion - Appeal allowed.

*Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39 : [2018] 11 SCR 765 - followed.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3204 of 2019

From the Judgment and Order dated 08.01.2019 of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Srinagar at Jammu in Original Application No. 450 of 2017

Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., Ms. Neela Gokhale, Ms. Sahrdha Agarwal, Elam Pradi, R. P. Chhibber, Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, Advs. for the Appellant.

R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv., Bharat Singh, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.

[2019] 11 S.C.R. 1


SUPREME COURT REPORTS


The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R. F. NARIMAN, J.

1. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and having perused Section 497 of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1932, applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, we are of the view that, given our judgment in Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39, the pari materia provision contained in Section 497 of the Ranbir Penal Code be also declared as violative of Part III of the Constitution of India. The sentence "In such case the wife shall be punishable as an abettor", which does not occur in Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, cannot stand by itself in view of the fact that the expression used is 'In such case'. The entire Section is, therefore, declared to be unconstitutional. The fact that this statement of law in the Ranbir Penal Code is the exact opposite of the statement of law, so far as the wife is concerned, of that contained in the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is of no consequence.

2. We are, therefore, of the view that nothing survives against the appellant on charges relatable to Section 497 Penal Code. So far as Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950, is concerned, the appellant has already been acquitted, subject to confirmation. The Armed Forces Tribunal judgment dated 08.01.2019 is, therefore, set aside. The appeal stands allowed.

3. However, it is made clear that the confirmation proceedings, so far as the offence under Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950, is concerned, may go on and reach its logical conclusion.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2019] 1 S.C.R.

BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 2530 of 2012)

JANUARY 09, 2019

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND

R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]


Primary Teachers Association v. Administrative Officer & Ors. - During the course of hearing of the appeal, it was not brought to the notice of the bench that pursuant to the decision in Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association, the legislative amendment was made to the definition of "employee" under s.2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act with retrospective effect from 3.4.1997 - Prima facie, there is error in judgment dated 7.1.2019 - Operation of the judgment is stayed till the matter is reheard finally by appropriate bench - Registry is directed to list the matter for rehearing before appropriate bench.

Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association v.

Administrative Officer & Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 755 : [2004] 1 SCR 470 - referred to.

Case Law Reference

[2004] 1 SCR 470 referred to Para 2

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2530 of 2012.

From the Judgment and Order dated 02.04.2008 of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in LPA No. 53 of 2007.

Shambo Nandy, Arijit Mazumdar, Ms. N. Annapoorani, Advs. for the Appellant.

Anil Kumar Jha, Sunil Roy, Advs. for the Respondents.


The following Order of the Court was passed:

O R D E R

On 07.01.2019 this Court delivered the judgment allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court impugned therein.

Today, we have listed the matter suo motu. The reason being that during the course of hearing of the appeal it was not brought to the notice of the Bench that the judgment of this Court in Ahmedabad Pvt.

Primary Teachers Association vs. Administrative Officer & Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 755 on which the reliance was placed for allowing the appeal necessitated the Parliament to amend the definition of "employee" under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act by Amending Act No.47 of 2009 with retrospective effect from 03.04.1997.

In other words, though the definition was amended in 2009 by Act No.47 of 2009, yet the same was given retrospective effect from 03.04.1997 so as to bring the amended definition on Statute Book, from 03.04.1997.

Keeping in view the amendment made in the definition of Section 2(e), which as stated above was not brought to the notice of the Bench, this issue was not considered though had relevance for deciding the question involved in the appeal. It is for this reason, we prima facie find error in the judgment and, therefore, are inclined to stay the operation of our judgment dated 07.01.2019 passed in this appeal

The judgment dated 07.01.2019 shall not be given effect to till the matter is reheard finally by the appropriate Bench.

The Registry is directed to list this matter for rehearing before the appropriate Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr.Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra as early as possible.

Devika Gujral - Operation of earlier judgment stayed. - Matter to be reheard.

BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v. THE STATE OF

JHARKHAND
SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2019] 8 S.C.R.

SUNDAR GUPTA & ORS.

SUNIL VASUDEVA & ORS.

(Contempt Petition (C) No. 1721 of 2017)

(Civil Appeal No. 5140 of 2019)

JULY 02, 2019

[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]

Income Tax Act, 1961 - s.293 - Held: In view of the order reported in [2019] 8 SCR 1190, the present contempt petition has become infructuous and hence, dismissed.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 1721 of 2017.

Petition filed for contempt of this Court in I.A. No. 4 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No.5140 of 2019 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5449 of 2015.

Mukul Rohtagi, Jaideep Gupta, Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Advs., Vikas Mehta, Rajat Sehgal, Ranjan Mukherjee, Mohan Prasad Gupta, Shekhar Vyas, Rajat Nair, Ms. Nitya Rao, Surya Kant, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advs. for the appearing parties.

Petitioner-in-person

Respondent-in-person

The following Order of the Court was passed by

O R D E R

RASTOGI, J.

1. In view of the order passed by us in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C ) No. 5449 of 2015 dated 2nd July, 2019, contempt petition has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed.

2. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

Divya Pandey Petition dismissed.
RAJESH S/O SHRIRAMBAPU FATE & ORS.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 5687 of 2019)

JULY 19, 2019.

[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]

Service Law:

Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles, Group-C in Motor Vehicles Department (Recruitment) Rules, 2016 - rr. 3(iii), (iv) and 4 - Post of Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles, Group-C - Advertisement Nos. 2 of 2017 and 48 of 2017 inviting applications for the posts - Selection of 832 candidates and inclusion in the selection list - Issue as regards challenge to 2016 Rules, advertisements as well as list of selected candidates - In view of the reasons given in Civil Appeal No. 5444 of 2019, Vishal Ashok Thorat and Ors. v. Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate & Ors., as reported in [2019] 9 SCR 628, the instant appeal is dismissed.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5687 of 2019.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.09.2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 1270 of 2018.

Sanjay Kharde, Samrat Shinde, Sunil Kumar Verma, Advs. for the Appellant.

Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Sagar N. Pahune Patil, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

For the reasons given by us in our judgment of the date in Civil Appeal No.5444 of 2019, Vishal Ashok Thorat and ors. vs. Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate & Ors. this appeal is dismissed.

Nidhi Jain Appeal dismissed.

[2019] 9 S.C.R. 653
SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2019] 18 S.C.R.

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

HARLEEN KAUR & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 8974 of 2019)

NOVEMBER 22, 2019

[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND

HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]

Service Law - Regularisation - High Court furnished cogent reasons for declining to interfere with the order of the Tribunal directing the appellant to consider the cases of respondents for regularization as Entomologists - Insofar as consequential monetary benefits is concerned, same directed to be granted w.e.f. date of the judgment of the Tribunal - Respondents entitled to notional pay fixation and continuity of service.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.8974 of 2019.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.2018 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No.3692/2016.

Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Praveen Swarup, Suvesh Kumar, Chandra Pratap Singh, B.C. Santosh Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant.

Satya Mitra Garg, M. K. Bhardwaj, Advs. for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was passed:

ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The High Court has furnished cogent reasons for declining to interfere with the order of the Tribunal directing the appellant to consider the cases of the respondents for regularization as Entomologists.

4. The respondents were appointed after public advertisement and were selected on the basis of interviews. They have been working since 1997-8. Though the appointment was contractual for a period of six months, it has been extended.


Subsequently, on 14 July 2008, posts were created by conversion of the existing posts of AMO, DMO, Entomologist and Asst.

Entomologist. The Tribunal noted that the respondents are working against seven posts of Entomologists out of twelve sanctioned posts. The respondents were engaged with a view to counter the outbreak of dengue, a situation which continues to cause concern even at the present time.

The Tribunal has duly considered the decision in State of Karnataka v Umadevi1.

5. We are not inclined to entertain this appeal insofar as the grant of regularization is concerned.

6. However, insofar as consequential monetary benefits are concerned, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the Municipal Corporation should not be saddled with the obligation of granting monetary benefits from 2008 as awarded by the High Court.

On this aspect, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has fairly left it to the discretion of this Court.

7. We, accordingly, order and direct that the grant of monetary benefits shall be with effect from the date of the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal i.e. with effect from 1 October 2015. However, we clarify that the respondents would be entitled to notional pay fixation and continuity of service.

8. Subject to the aforesaid modification, the appeal is disposed of.

Compliance shall be effected within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose Appeal disposed of.

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v.

HARLEEN KAUR & ORS.

1 (2006) 4 SCC 1