Notable Supreme Court Judgments Penned By Justice R Subhash Reddy Who Retired Today

Justice R Subhash Reddy who was elevated as Supreme Court judge on November 2, 2018 retired today. He was the first judge from Telangana to become a Supreme Court judge after the State was carved out from Andhra Pradesh. Born in the year 1957, Justice Reddy was elevated as Additional Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh on February 2, 2002 and was sworn in as Judge of High Court of A.P. on June 24, 2006. Till February 12, 2016, he continued as a Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad and was elevated as Chief Justice, High Court of Gujarat on 13th February 2016.During his tenure as Supreme Court judge, Justice Reddy authored notable judgments in fields of civil, criminal, service and constitutional law, some of which have been listed below.His dissent in the case Ravi v State of Maharashtra whereby he refused to award death penalty in a case is notable.1. 'Judgment On Admissions' Can Be Ordered Only When Admissions Are Categorical And UnconditionalIn Hari Steel and General Industries Ltd.v. Daljit Singh, the bench of Justice R. Banumathi and Justice R. Subhash Reddy observed that 'Judgment on Admissions' can be ordered only when there are categorical and unconditional admissions made in the pleadings. There are no categorical and unconditional admissions made by the defendant as claimed by the Plaintiffs, the bench had observed.2. Partnership Deed Cannot Automatically Bind Legal Heirs Of Deceased PartnerIn S.P. Misra vs. Mohd. Laiquddin Khan, the bench of Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice R. Subhash Reddy had observed that a partnership deed cannot automatically bind the legal heirs of the deceased partner without acceptance and agreement by them. 3. No Reservation In Promotions Without Examining Adequacy Of Representation In Promotional PostsFollowing the principle that reservation in promotions cannot be granted without examining adequacy of representation in promotional posts, the Supreme Court in Pravakar Mallick & Anr. v. State of Orissa upheld the quashing of a resolution passed by the Orissa Government, providing reservations for SC/ ST in promotional posts in Orissa Administrative Service with consequential seniority.The bench comprising Justices Mohan M Shantanagoudar and R Subhash Reddy followed the law laid down in M Nagaraj v. Union of India, and reiterated that the State is not bound to make reservation for SCs/STs in matters of promotion. However, if they wish to do so, they have to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment, keeping in mind maintenance of efficiency, as indicated by Article 335 of the Constitution of India.4. No Construction Allowed In Plots Left For Open Spaces/Gardens In Approved Layout Plans Affirming a Bombay High Court judgment which disallowed construction on two plots at Mumbai that were earmarked as open area under the development plan, a bench comprising Justices Mohan M Shantanagoudar and R Subhash Reddy in Anjum E Shiate Ali & Anr. v. Gulmohar Area Societies Welfare Group & Anr. held that open spaces left for garden areas in approved building layout plans cannot be allowed for construction.5. [Transfer Of Property Act] Protection U/s 53A Available To Person Put In Possession And Has Agreement Of Lease In His FavourThe Supreme Court In UOI v. KC Sharma observed that protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is available to a person who is put in possession pursuant to an agreement of lease in his favour though no lease has been executed and registered. A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah observed:"It is fairly well settled that fraud has to be pleaded and proved. More so, when a judgment and decree passed earlier by the competent court is questioned, it is necessary to plead alleged fraud by necessary particulars and the same has to be proved by cogent evidence. There cannot be any inference contrary to record. As the evidence on record discloses that fraud, as pleaded, was not established, in absence of any necessary pleading giving particulars of fraud, we are of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the High Court."6. [Airfare Refunds] SC Accepts DGCA Recommendations; Refunds To Accrue To Travel Agents For Tickets Booked Through ThemThe Supreme Court in Pravasi Legal Cell v. Union of India accepted the recommendations made by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) regarding for refund of airfare of tickets booked during the COVID-19 induced lockdown. A bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, Subhash Reddy & MR Shah stated that the petitions shall stand disposed of in terms of the DGCA proposals and the vouchers for tickets issued by travel agents shall be utilised by travel agents only when refunds are effectuated. This means that tickets which the passengers have booked through travel agents shall be refunded to travel agents and not directly through...

Notable Supreme Court Judgments Penned By Justice R Subhash Reddy Who Retired Today

Shruti Kakkar

Tags