kartik
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS OF SUPREME COURT (Part 2)
kartik mago 16 Apr 2019

LANDMARK JUDGMENTS OF SUPREME COURT (Part 2)

Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors

(2011)

This judgment came in the year 2011. By virtue of this judgment, now the students who are aggrieved by the evaluation can claim their evaluated answer books to be inspected. They can also take a certified copy of the paper under RTI Act. But this can be done only during the time the authorities are expected to maintain and retain the answer book of all examinees under.

 

Rupa Ashok Hurra V. Ashok Hurra

(2002)

This case related to curative petitions. The Supreme Court has held that Article 32 can be brought into picture only when the matter relates to enforcing the fundamental rights. It is established that no judicial order passed by any superior court in judicial proceedings can be said to violate any of the fundamental rights.

 

T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka

(2002)

The Apex Court laid down a guideline that the right of minorities does include the right of determining the procedure and method of admission and selection of students which is fair and transparent and based on merit for professional and higher education colleges.

In case of aided institution, for non-minority students, the State can regulate the admission which has to be merit-based subject to reservation policy of the State. Merit to be determined by an entrance test or by any other method with consideration for weaker sections.

 

Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association Vs. Union of India

(1993)

The Supreme Court held that the Chief Justice of India's role in appointing the Judges of Apex Court is unique, singular and primal but participatory vis-a-vis the executive on a level of togetherness and mutuality, and neither he nor the executive can push through an appointment in derogation of the wishes of the other.

 

Bangalore Water Supply And Sewerage Board Vs A. Rajappa

(1978)

In this case, Supreme Court has held that the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board does fall under the definition of the industry and by justifying this it gave an elaborating definition of industry.

 

A.R.Antulay v R.S.Nayak
(1998)

This is a landmark judgment in which it was held that a legal remedy can be claimed by the  applicant as a matter of right and the Court cannot refuse by virtue of the maxim ex debito justitiae. Neither party is prejudiced by any accidental or unavoidable action or omission of the Court as the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit has to be applied.

 

I.R.Coelho V. State of Tamil Nadu

(2007)

The Apex Court held that the constitutional validity of 9th schedule laws can be adjudged by applying the test of rights that is direct impact and effect test. It requires that it should be in the form of determinative factor. The Courts are to determine whether the basic structure has been violated or not only after applying this test.

 

M/s. SBP & Co. v. M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Anr

(2005)

The Bombay High Court held that a mere oral evidence of a document (signed between the parties) is not to be considered as a written arbitration agreement which is defined under Section 7(4) of the Act. Thus, oral agreements cannot be deemed to be valid arbitration agreements.

 

Vodafone International Holding vs Union of India

(2012)

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has given recognition to the following:

  • The principles of tax planning.
  • Business entities or individual may arrange the affairs of their business so as to reduce their tax liability in absence of any statutory stipulation prohibiting the same.
  • The multinational companies often establish corporate structures and all these structures should be established for business and commercial purposes only.
  • The corporate veil may be lifted in case facts and circumstances reveal that the transaction or corporate structure is sham and intended to evade taxes.
  • The transactions should be looked holistic manner and not in a dissecting manner and the presence of corporate structures in tax neutral/investor friendly nations should not lead to the conclusion that these are meant to avoid taxes.

 

P.A. Inamdar V. State Of Maharashtra

(2004)

The Supreme Court decided upon the  fixation of quota in respect of unaided professional institutions and to the holding of examinations for admission into such colleges. The Court prima facie held that the institutions must fill the seats in the ratio of 50:50 as a temporary measure without prejudice to the contentions of the parties for the purpose of the final disposal.

 

Samsher Singh V. State Of Punjab

(1974)

The Apex Court in this case has held that a probationer's service can be validly terminated if the Authority is satisfied that he is inadequate or unsuitable for the job due to moral turpitude or temperamental reasons etc. It is not necessary that a formal inquiry is arranged for in such cases.

 

Indira Swahney V. Union Of India

(1992)

In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the implementation of various reservations for OBC (Other Backward Classes) in jobs falling under the category of Central Government.

               

Vishakha V. State Of Rajasthan

(1997)

Supreme Court had laid down guidelines to be followed while dealing with sexual harassment at workplace. These guidelines were stipulated by the Apex Court stating that these guidelines have to be mandatory followed until a proper legislation is passed governing the issue of sexual harassment at workplace.

 

Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology

(2002)

Two questions were put before Supreme Court: (i) whether CSIR was a State within the meaning of Article 12, and (ii) if yes, whether the Supreme Court should reverse the decision to the contrary in the above Sabhajit Tewary case. It was held by the Court that CSIR does fall within the definition of a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.


Daniel Latifi V. Union Of India

(2001)

The Supreme Court was to decide on the maintenance of ex wife beyond the Islamic Law. The Court interpreted the Islamic family law in a manner which struck a balance between promoting equality for Muslim women. This avoided the amendment of Muslim personal law.

 

Ms Githa Hariharan V. Reserve Bank Of India

(1999)

The Supreme Court relied upon gender equality principles mentioned in the Indian Constitution, CEDAW and UDHR and upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6(a) HMGA, 1956. It held that both the father and mother are natural guardians of a minor Hindu child. The mother cannot be given the status of a natural guardian only after the father's death as it would be against the child's welfare.

 

Sangeet V. State Of Haryana

(2013)

The Court held that a prisoner who is sentenced to transportation for life bears no indefeasible right to an unconditional release when the particular term expires. It said: “The rules under the Prisons Act do not substitute a lesser sentence for a sentence of transportation for life.” 

 

Mafatalal Industries V. Union Of India

(1997)

The Supreme Court has had decided upon the rights and remedies which are available to the citizens of India against the State when the taxes and imposts are unlawfully recovered from them. The following were held:

"If non-disclosure of interest is likely to affect the voting pattern of the class of creditors or shareholders who are called upon to vote on the scheme, then only such special interest of the director is required to be communicated to the voters as per Section 393(1) (a).

The Scheme of Compromise and Arrangement is neither unfair nor unreasonable to the minority shareholders represented by the appellant."

 

Centre For Public Interest Litigation V. Union Of India

(2012)

The Supreme Court has in this case held that when the State is to alienate the natural resources, it is its duty to call for auction by publicizing it to the public at large so that all the interested and eligible persons can take part in the auction process.

 

State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights

(2010)

The Apex Court has held that while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the High Court can direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate any offence which is cognizable and alleged to have been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the State. The consent of State Government is not necessarily to be taken for directing this.

 

Amrinder Singh V Punjab Vidhan Sabha

(2010)

It was held that the breach can be established only when his act has a direct nexus with the duties or responsibilities entrusted upon him.  This also includes his functions as a legislator. Exercising the legislative privileges  for the purpose of punishing past acts was held as improper for the 13th Punjab Vidhan Sabha for claiming breach of privileges on the basis of alleged misconduct which in actual took place in the 12th Vidhan Sabha.

Did you find this write up useful? YES 0 NO 0
Send
Featured Members view all

New Members view all

×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.