SUPREME COURT

• TENANCY

Bibi Zafira Khatoon Vs. Mohammed Hussain (Decided on 17.09.2009) MANU/SC/1634/2009

Scope and ambit of section 12 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 - Trial court ruled Respondent No. 1 to be tenant and orders eviction - High Court dismissed Revision Petition on grounds that Respondent No. 1 is not a tenant and Section 12 cannot be invoked against a person who is not tenant within the meaning of section 2(h) as he is living in the premises in his own right - Whether section 12 should have been invoked by the Executing Court for ordering eviction of Respondent No. 1 from the suit premises?

Section 12 begins with a non-obstante clause and lays that where the interest of tenant is determined and an order is made by the court for recovery of possession of the premises, such order shall be binding on all persons, who may be in occupation of the premises, and vacant possession thereof shall be given to the landlord by evicting all such persons there from. The use of the words "all persons" in the substantive part of Section 12 signifies the legislative intendment that the order passed by the court for the recovery of possession of the tenanted premises should bind everyone who may be occupying the premises irrespective of his status. To put it differently, Section 12 seeks to ensure delivery of vacant possession of the premises to the landlord by evicting not only the tenant but any other person who may be occupying the premises. Therefore, the Executing Court committed an error by refusing to execute the decree of eviction against Respondent No. 1 and the view taken by the High Court on the applicability of Section 12 of the Act qua respondent No. 1 is clearly flawed and untenable.

N. Eswari W/o Adhinarayana Rao Vs. K. Swarajya Lakshmi W/o K.V.L.N.A. Sastry (Late) (Decided on 15.09.2009) MANU/SC/1630/2009

Decree of eviction passed against the Appellant by High Court in Revisional Jurisdiction setting aside the Order of the Rent Controller rejecting the eviction petition filed by the appellant under section 10(3)(a)(i)(a) read with section 10(2)(i) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 - Whether the High Court is justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below?

When the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are supportable on the evidence on record, the revisional Court must, indeed, be reluctant to embark upon an independent re-assessment of the evidence and to supplant a conclusion of its own, so long as the evidence on record admitted of and supported the one reached by the Courts below. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had considered the entire materials on record and the arguments adduced by the parties and came to a finding that the requirement of the land-lady/Respondent was not genuine and there was no need to leave her permanent house where she has been living and to come over to the tenant's place. That being the position, it was not open to the High Court, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the Rent Controller as well as of the Appellate Authority.

• CRIMINAL

Satish Narayan Sawant Vs. State of Goa (Decided on 14.09.2009) MANU/SC/1628/2009

Conviction for murder and imprisonment under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code - Trial court acquits all the accused persons - Petition filed in High Court convicts the Appellant under section 302 - Conviction challenged on grounds that the FIR is hit by section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the High Court was not justified in setting aside the order of acquittal - Whether in light of the evidence adduced it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and not a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder?

The provisions of trial for murder would be applicable where the knowledge of the offender as to the probability of death of a person or persons in general as distinguished from a particular person or persons being caused from his imminently dangerous act, approximates to a practical certainty. Such knowledge on the part of the offender must be of the highest degree of probability, the act having been committed by the offender without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. In the instant case there was only one main injury caused due to stabbing and that also was given on the back side of the deceased and therefore, it cannot be said that there was any intention to kill or to inflict an injury of a particular degree of seriousness. There was provocation and the incident happened in the spur of the moment and therefore, it is a case falling under section 304 Part II and not 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

D Venkatasubramaniam Vs. M K Mohan Krishnamachari (Decided on 14.09.2009) MANU/SC/1627/2009

FIR lodged for offences under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code - Police registers case and commences investigation - High Court rules that it is obligatory for police to conduct investigation and record statements of witnesses, arrest, seize property, peruse documents, and file charge sheet - Whether it is open to the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to interfere with the statutory power of investigation by police into a cognizable offence? What are the parameters for its interference?

The saving of the High Court's inherent power is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code conferred on the High Court has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution only where such exercise is justified by the test laid down in the provision itself. The impugned order of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code is overstepping the limits of judicial interference. Without recording any reason whatsoever it has directed the police that it is obligatory on their part to record statements from witnesses, arrest, seize property and file charge sheet. The High Court interfered with the investigation of crime which is within the exclusive domain of the police by virtually directing the police to investigate the case from a particular angle and take certain steps.

State through CBI Vs. Parmeshwaran Subramani (Decided on 11.09.2009) MANU/SC/1625/2009

Scope and ambit of section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Charge sheet filed for offences punishable under section 120B read with section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Special Judge and High Court rules that previous sanction under section 19 of the aforesaid Act was necessary to prosecute a public servant for offence punishable under section 12 and declines to take cognizance of the offence - Whether any previous sanction is necessary for taking cognizance of an offence punishable under section 12 of the Act in the wake of the judgments given by the lower courts?

Where, the words are clear, there is no ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for the court to innovate or take upon itself the task of amending or altering the statutory provisions. The language employed in Section 19 of the Act is couched in mandatory form directing the courts not to take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 only, alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction of the Government. The legislature consciously in its wisdom omitted the offence of abetment of any offence punishable under Section 7 or 11 of the Act thereby making its intention clear that no previous sanction as such would be required in cases of offence punishable under Section 12 of the Act. The High Court read something into Section 19 on its own thereby including Section 12 also into its ambit.

• COMPANY LAW

Zenit Metaplast P. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra (Decided on 11.09.2009) MANU/SC/1626/2009

Application filed for allotment of a portion of land from a designated vacant land - Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation refuses allotment - High Court rejects application for interim relief - Whether rejection of the appellant's application on grounds that the land in dispute was a designated vacant land and not meant for industrial purpose keeping in view the simultaneous allotment of land for others was discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the statutory requirement which provided for allotment of land to the neighbouring unit holders?

Interim injunction should be granted by the Court after considering all the pros and cons of the case in a given set of facts involved therein on the risk and responsibility of the party or, in case he looses the case, he cannot take any advantage of the same. Delay in approaching the Court is of course a good ground for refusal of interim relief, but in exceptional circumstances, where the case of a party is based on fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution and there is an apprehension that suit property may be developed in a manner that it acquires irretrievable situation, the Court may grant relief even at a belated stage provided the court is satisfied that the applicant has not been negligent in pursuing the case. The Corporation and the Government proceeded in haste while considering the application of respondent No. 4 which amounted to arbitrariness and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Application of the appellant was required to be disposed of by a speaking and reasoned order. Admittedly, no reason was assigned for rejecting the same.

• SERVICE

State of Punjab Vs. Smt. Lalita (Decided on 09.09.2009) MANU/SC/1617/2009

Show Cause Notice issued for misconduct, unauthorized absence, negligence of duty and irresponsible and careless behaviour - Excise and Tax Commissioner, Punjab passed order removing the Respondent from service - Writ petition filed against the order of the Commissioner in the High Court is declined to be entertained and referred back to the appellate authority for final decision - Whether the High Court fell into grave error in not considering at all whether the order of removal suffered from any legal infirmity?

The impugned order cannot be sustained and the matter has to go back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The High Court fell into grave error in not considering at all whether the order of removal suffered from any legal infirmity. Even if it is assumed that the order of appellate authority is not proper as observed by the High Court, it ought to have considered the legality of the order of removal. Hence, the matter needs to be remanded to the High Court. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. It is requested that the High Court hears and decides the writ petition as expeditiously as may be possible.

HIGH COURTS

• SERVICE

DELHI HIGH COURT

Dr. SC Bhatia Vs. University of Delhi (Decided on 11.09.2009) MANU/DE/2175/2009

Petitioner called upon to show cause as to why his services be not terminated - Petitioner challenges the notice and seeks quashing of the same on grounds that the petition is liable to be set aside as he has already been punished - The impugned show cause notice and the proceedings pursuant thereto would be in the nature of a review for which there is no provision either under the Delhi University Act, 1922 or the Statutes and Ordinances made thereunder - Whether the power of review has to be expressly given by a statute, and, if there is no such power is it settled that quasi-judicial authorities do not have any inherent power of review?

A quasi-judicial authority cannot review its own order, unless the power of review is expressly conferred on it by the statute under which it derives its jurisdiction. There is no such provision either in the Delhi University Act, 1922 or the Statutes or the Ordinances made thereunder. Executive Council does not act administratively, but acts quasi-judicially in considering the quantum of penalty/punishment to be meted out in cases of misconduct. The entire process of natural justice is required to be followed before the penalty is imposed. The decision taken by the Executive Council as communicated through the Office Memo was a quasi-judicial decision. That being the case, it cannot be recalled or reviewed unless and until there is a clear provision for such recall/review. Since there is no power of review given to the Executive Council in respect of the decisions taken pertaining to imposition of penalty/punishment, the penalty of demotion already awarded to the petitioner cannot be reopened.

• LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

The State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader, Plantation Officer, Social Forestry Division, Dy. Director, Social Forestry Division and Director of Social Forestry Department Vs. Shri Rambhau Bansi Bagul (Decided on 14.09.2009) MANU/MH/0972/2009

Scope and ambit of section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - Respondent files complaint for termination of services without following the mandatory provisions of the aforesaid sections - Labour Court ruled that there was unfair labour practice and ordered the petitioners to reinstate the Respondent - Revision application filed in Industrial Court was dismissed - Whether the post on which appointment was made is of permanent nature and the findings of the Courts are based on concrete evidence?

The Labour Court has examined the post on which the Respondent was appointed. The witness, who deposed on behalf of the Petitioner/State Authority has categorically deposed in his statement that the nature of work which was offered to the Respondent, was of permanent nature and the findings were confirmed by the Industrial Court. The contentions of the Petitioners that the Respondent was appointed under a particular scheme and since that scheme came to an end, the Respondent's services were terminated, is falsified by the evidence on record in the nature of appointment letter as well as the deposition of the witness of the Petitioners.