State Of U.P.Now Uttarakhand & Anr vs Vinit Traders & Investment Ltd.& ... on 26 July, 2013
Fri, 26 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Leave granted.

Whether the sale deed executed by Aditya Mills Ltd. in favour of respondent No.1 could be treated as lease deed for the purpose of stamp duty is the question, which arises for consideration in this appeal filed against order dated 4.7.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Uttarakhand High Court in Writ Petition No.1987/2001.

For the sake of reference, the relevant portions of the sale deed are reproduced below:

“This Indenture made this 3rd day of May One Thousand Nine hundred Ninety Five between Aditya Mills limited a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office at Madanganj Kishangarh (Rajasthan) through their duly constituted attorney Sri Kishan Singh Kothari S/o Sri Tej Raj Kothari, R/o Old Kotwali Road, Kishangar

Kantilal Martaji Pandor vs State Of Gujarat & Anr. on 25 July, 2013
Thu, 25 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

This is an appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of theConstitution against the judgment and order dated 13.09.2007 of the GujaratHigh Court in Criminal Appeal No.294 of 1994.

FACTS

2. The facts very briefly are that the appellant was married to Laxmibenin 1980. The appellant, who was a teacher, used to travel in a bus alongwith Amriben, who was also a teacher, for their work in their respectiveschools located at a distance of 2 kms. from each other. The appellant andAmriben fell in love and got married in 1990. A daughter was born toAmriben in 1991. The appellant, Laxmiben and Amriben were living togetherin different portions of one house of the appellant in village DhuletaPalla. On 26.03.1992, a letter written by Amriben was received in ShamlajiPolice Station. In this letter, Amriben alleged inter alia that theappellant was more interested in money and not in love and he hadthreatened and kidnapped her, although he had a wife and three children andthe appellant had cheated her and persuaded her to have civil marriage on21.08.1990. She further alleged in the letter that after marriage theappellant’s family was living on her salar

Barku Bhavrao Bhaskar vs State Of Maharashtra on 25 July, 2013
Thu, 25 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530

FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated 10.02.2006, in Criminal Appeal No.1024 of 2001. The sole accused is the appellant before us. He was convicted by the trial Court in Sessions Case No.49 of 2001, for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of IPC. He was imposed with sentence of life for the offence proved under Section 302 IPC and five years’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 354 IPC apart from three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 201 IPC. The trial Court also imposed fine with a default sentence. On appeal, the High Court having confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed, the appellant has come before us by filing this appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution as projected before the trial Court, to be stated in a nutshell was that the deceased was a female child aged about 6 years and was the daughter of the complainant PW-1. The accused was also related to the family of PW-1. PW-1 used to undertake masonry work. The appellant also worked under PW-1 on

Anuj Kumar Gupta @ Sethi Gupta vs State Of Bihar on 24 July, 2013
Wed, 24 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530

FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Patna at Bihar dated 02.11.2007, passed in Criminal Appeal No.690 of 2005. The said appeal was disposed of along with Criminal Appeal No.606/2005, as well as Death Reference No.8 of 2005.

2. To trace the brief facts, the deceased Chhotu Kumar Das @ Abhinav Das (hereinafter referred to as ‘Chhotu’) son of the informant Gopal Prasad Das (PW-6), left his house on 21.04.2002 at about 8.15 p.m., for visiting a local Mela, which was held every year in the village on the eve of Ram Navami. Thereafter, he could not be traced inspite of a search by his parents and, therefore, a written report was submitted by PW-6 at the police station on 22.04.2002 at 10.30 a.m. briefly narrating the circumstances in which the deceased could not be traced. No suspicion was raised against any person for the disappearance of the deceased.

3. Based on the written report, the police registered the FIR in P.S. Case No.39/2002 and proceeded with the investigation. The investigation was carried o

Kailash vs State Of M.P. on 24 July, 2013
Wed, 24 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530

FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.

1. This appeal by the sole accused is directed against the Single Bench decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench dated 08.09.2006, passed in Criminal Appeal No.1030 of 2003. The appellant, who was initially charged under Section 306 and 376(2)(f) IPC, was convicted by the trial Court only for the offence under Section 376(1) IPC and was imposed with the punishment of 10 years rigorous imprisonment, along with the fine of Rs.500/- and in default of the payment of fine to undergo one more year’s rigorous imprisonment.

2. The brief facts which are required to be stated are that on 23.07.2002, PW-2 - the mother of the deceased, when she returned from her day’s work in the field at 6 p.m., found her daughter, the deceased Radha Bai, who had returned back from the field at around 3 O’clock, inside the house with the door locked from inside. One Parmanand climbed the roof and found the deceased hanging from the roof with a Saree. The said Parmanand stated to have opened the door, cut the rope and brought the body down. PW-1 reported the matte

Gian Chand & Ors. vs State Of Haryana on 23 July, 2013
Tue, 23 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 4.11.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 392-SB of 2001, by which it has affirmed the judgment and order dated 2.2.2001 passed by the trial court, Sirsa by which the appellants were convicted under the provisions of Section 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). By that order, they were sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years each and to pay a fine of rupees 1 lakh each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for a period of one year.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: A. On 5.9.1996, at about 2.15 a.m., Bhan Singh, ASI of Police Station, Rania alongwith other police officials was present in the village Chakka Bhuna in an official jeep. The police party saw a jeep coming at high speed from the opposite direction and asked the said jeep to stop. However, instead of stopping, the driver accelerated the speed of the jeep. Th

Commnr. Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S. Ayyappan Textiles Ltd. on 23 July, 2013
Tue, 23 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
Commnr. Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S. Ayyappan Textiles Ltd. on 23 July, 2013


Gurbinder Kaur Brar And Anr vs Uoi And Ors on 22 July, 2013
Mon, 22 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530

G.S. SINGHVI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against order dated 18.3.2011 passed bythe Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby the writpetitions filed by the appellants for quashing the acquisition of theirland were dismissed along with a batch of other petitions.

3. At the outset, we may mention that the impugned order was set asideby this Court in Surinder Singh Brar and others v. Union of India andothers (2013) 1 SCC 403 and Notifications dated 26.6.2006, 2.8.2006 and28.2.2007 issued by the Chandigarh Administration under Sections 4(1) and6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the 1894 Act’) for theacquisition of l

Md.Eqbal & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 22 July, 2013
Mon, 22 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

1. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 2.9.2009 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Appeal Nos. 316 and 218 of 2002, by which the Court has affirmed the judgment and order of the trial court dated 22.5.2002 passed in GR. No. 151 of 1999, by which the appellants had been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’). They were sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and further, to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, and in default of the same, to further undergo RI for a period of 6 months. However, both the appellants were acquitted of charges punishable under Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that: A. Aliva Kongari (PW.10) – the prosecutrix at about 10 a.m. on 13.6.1999 came to the district headquarters Simdega from her village Jhingur Pani Toli. The

Dharam Pal & Ors. vs State Of Haryana & Anr. on 18 July, 2013
Thu, 18 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530

ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.

1. This matter was initially directed to be heard by a Bench of Three-Judges in view of the conflict of opinion in the decisions of two Two-JudgeBenches, in the cases of Kishori Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar andOthers [(2004) 13 SCC 11]; Rajender Prasad Vs. Bashir and Others [(2001) 8SCC 522] and SWIL Limited Vs. State of Delhi and Others [(2001) 6 SCC 670]. When the matter was taken up for consideration by the Three-Judge Bench on1st September, 2004, it was brought to the notice of the court that twoother decisions had a direct bearing on the question sought to bedetermined. The first is the case of Kishun Singh Vs. State of Bihar[(1993) 2 SCC 16], and the other is a decision of a Three-Judge Bench inthe case of Ranjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(1998) 7 SCC 149]. RanjitSingh’s case disapproved the observations made in Kishun Singh’s case,which was to the effect that the Session Court has power under Section 193of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

Christian Medical College ... vs Union Of India And Ors. on 18 July, 2013
Thu, 18 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
Christian Medical College ... vs Union Of India And Ors. on 18 July, 2013
Author: . ...................
Bench: A R Dave, V Sen, A Kabir

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

T.C.(C) NO.98 OF 2012

CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE

VELLORE & ORS ...Petitioners

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ...Respondents

WITH T.C.(C) NO.99/2012

T.C.(C) NO.101/2012

T.C.(C) NO.100/2012

T.C.(C) NO.102/2012

T.C.(C) NO.103/2012

W.P.(C) NO.480/2012

T.C.(C) NO.104/2012

T.C.(C) NO.105/2012

W.P.(C) NO.468/2012

W.P.(C) NO.467/2012

W.P.(C) NO.478/2012

T.C.(C) NO.107/2012

T.C.(C) NO.108/2012

W.P.(C) NO.481/2012

W.P.(C) NO.464/2012

T.C.(C) NO.110/2012

T.C.(C) NOS.132-134/2012

T.C.(C) NOS.117-118/2012

T.C.(C) NOS.115-116/2012

T.C.(C) NOS.125-127/2012

T.C.(C) NOS.113-114/2012

T.C.(C) NOS.128-130/2012

T.C.(C) NOS.121-122/2012

T.C.(C) NO.112/2012

T.C.(C) NO.131/2012

T.C.(C) NOS.123-124/2012

T.C.(C) NO.111/2012

T.C.(C) NO.120/2012

T.C.(C) NO.119/2012

T.C.(C) NOS.135-137/2012

T.C.(C) NOS.138-139/2012

W.P.(C) NO.495/2012

W.P.(C) NO.511/2012

W.P.(C) NO.512/2012

W.P.(C) NO.514/2012

W.P.(C) NO.516/2012

W.P.(C) NO.519/2012

W.P.(C) NO.535/2012

T.C.(C) NO.142/2012 @ T.P.(C) NO.364/2012

W.P.(C) NO.544/2012


Faculty Association Of Aiims vs Union Of India & Ors. on 18 July, 2013
Thu, 18 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530

ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.

1. When Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2106 of 2002, filed by the Faculty Association of AIIMS, was taken up for consideration, notice thereupon was issued by a Bench of Two-Judges and it was stipulated that any appointment to be made, after the order was passed in accordance with the reservation policy, would only be tentative in nature until further orders. When the Appeal was taken up for hearing on 20th February, 2003, along with Civil Appeal No. 5119 of 2002, considering the important nature of the issues involved for determination in the said cases, as also the recurring nature of the problem, it was thought appropriate that the matters be heard by a larger Bench. Thereafter, on 12th February, 2004, a Bench of Three-Judges headed by the Chief Justice was of the view that the matters involved substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution and were required to be heard by a Bench of Five-Judges. It is pursuant to such direction that

Yashwant Singh & Ors. vs State Of Bihar & Ors. on 18 July, 2013
Thu, 18 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530

ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.

1. Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 22882-22888 of 2004 were filed by several trained teachers for a direction upon the State of Bihar to appoint them in the vacancies in the post of primary teachers in the State of Bihar. The same was withdrawn on an undertaking given on behalf of t

Ketankumar Gopalbhai Tandel vs State Of Gujarat on 18 July, 2013
Thu, 18 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

The question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whetheror not the appellant, who was admittedly not a juvenile within the meaningof the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (for short ‘the 1986 Act’) when offenceswere committed but had not completed 18 years of age, on that date, will begoverned by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,2000 (for short ‘the 2000 Act’) and be declared as a juvenile in relationto the offences alleged to have been committed by him.

2. The appellant herein was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge,Valsad (trial court) in Sessions Case No. 133 of 1995 for offencespunishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (forshort ‘IPC’) and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to paya fine of Rs1000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15days for an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and to undergoRigorous Imprisonment for 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and indefault to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 7 days for an offence punishableunder Section 324, IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to ru

Sant Longowal Instt.Of Engg.& ... vs Suresh Chandra Verma on 18 July, 2013
Thu, 18 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Leave granted.

2. The question that has come up for consideration in this appeal iswhether the appellant-institute is justified, in directing the respondentto refund the entire amount of Rs.12,32,126/- paid to him towards salaryand other allowances for pursuing Ph.D studies at IIT, Kanpur, on failureto produce the certificate of obtaining the Ph.D, for which study leave wasgranted.

3. The appellant-institute was established by the Ministry of HumanResource & Development, Government of India in the year 1989 and has beenfully funded by the Central Government. The respondent joined the servicein the appellant-institute as Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering on30.08.1993. He applied for grant of study leave for pursuing his Ph.D atIIT, Kanpur. The competent authority acceded to that request and grantedthree years study leave commencing from 24.07.1999 to 22.07.2002. Therespondent after executing necessary bond proceeded on study leave on24.07.1999 and three years period was completed on 24.07.2002.

Salil Bali vs Union Of India & Anr on 17 July, 2013
Wed, 17 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530

ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.

1. Seven Writ Petitions and one Transferred Case have been taken uptogether for consideration in view of the commonality of the grounds andreliefs prayed for therein. While in Writ Petition (C) No. 14 of 2013,Saurabh Prakash Vs. Union of India, and Writ Petition (C) No. 90 of 2013,Vinay K. Sharma Vs. Union of India, a common prayer has been made fordeclaration of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,2000, as ultra vires the Constitution, in Writ Petition (C) No. 10 of 2013,Salil Bali Vs. Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 85 of 2013, KrishnaDeo Prasad Vs. Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 42 of 2013, KamalKumar Pandey & Sukumar Vs. Union of India and Writ Petition (C) No. 182 of2013, Hema Sahu Vs. Union of India, a common prayer has inter alia beenmade to st

Jagdish Prasad Sharma Etc.Etc. vs State Of Bihar & Ors. on 17 July, 2013
Wed, 17 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
Jagdish Prasad Sharma Etc.Etc. vs State Of Bihar & Ors. on 17 July, 2013
Author: . ...................
Bench: J Chelameswar, S S Nijjar, A Kabir

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5527-5543 OF 2013

[@ SLP (C) Nos. 18766-18782/2010]

1 Jagdish Prasad Sharma etc. etc. … Appellants

Vs.

2 State of Bihar & Ors. … Respondents

WITH

C.A. NO.5544 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.29332 OF 2010

C.A. NO.5545 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.10661 OF 2011

C.A. NO.5546 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.10783 OF 2011

C.A. NO.5547 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.11605 OF 2011

C.A. NO.5548 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16523 OF 2011

C.A. NOS.5549-5551 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.12990-12992 OF 2011 C.A. NO.5552 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16845 OF 2011

C.A. NO.5553 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.21611 OF 2011

C.A. NO.5554 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.21609 OF 2011

C.A. NO.5555 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.16619 OF 2011

C.A. NO.5556 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.17446 OF 2011

C.A. NO.5557 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.23392 OF 2011

C.A. NO.5558 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.25446 OF 2011

C.A. NOS.5559-5560 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.24037-24038 OF 2011 WP (C) NO.348 OF 2011

C.A. NO.5561 OF 2013 @ SLP(C)NO.3679 OF 2009

WP (C) NO.442 OF 2011

C.A. NO.5562 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.31422 OF 2011

C.A. NO.5563 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NO.1631 OF 2012

C.A. NOS.5564-5566 OF 2013 @ SLP(C) NOS.1

Rajendra Sharma vs State Of West Bengal on 17 July, 2013
Wed, 17 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530

P.Sathasivam,J.

1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated09.04.2008 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta inC.R.A. No. 81 of 2006 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal preferredby the appellant herein by confirming his conviction and sentence passed bythe Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore dated 19/20.12.2005 inSessions Trial No. 1(2) of 2000 for the offence punishable under Sections395/397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’), Section 25 (1a)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive SubstancesAct, 1908.

2) Brief facts:

(a) As per the prosecution case, on 07.12.1998, at about 13:15 hours, theaccused persons, viz., Rajendra Sharma, Sk. Muktar @ Dabbu, Sarban Singhand 2/3 others, armed with revolvers, khojali, bombs etc., committeddacoity in gold jewellery workshops at Gopal Bose Lane and looted goldornaments weighing about 1820 grams approx. and fled away in two taxis.(b) With regard to the above incident, a written FIR being No. 234 dated07.12.1998 was registered by Arun Hazra (PW-3) at P.S. Cossipore underSections 395/397 IPC and S

Arshad Hussain vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 July, 2013
Wed, 17 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530

P.Sathasivam,J.

1) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated30.04.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpurin Criminal Appeal No. 586 of 2004 whereby the Division Bench of the HighCourt dismissed the appeal with regard to the appellant herein whilesetting aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon rest of the twoappellants therein by the Court of Sessions, Udaipur, vide order dated18.05.2004 in Session Case No. 96 of 2001 for the offence punishable underSection 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short’the IPC’).

2) Brief facts

(a) As per the prosecution case, on 18.12.2000, at around 10:30 p.m.,Nizam (the complainant), Iqbal, Jamil and Moin were returning back toKhanji Peer, Udaipur on two scooters after having meals at Mulla Talai,Udaipur, in-laws’ house of Iqbal. At that time, when all four of themreached near the house of Ashfaq, all of a sudden, Shahjad and Mujaffar,sons of Ashfaq, came in front of their scooters and stopped them. On seeingthem, Iqbal got down from the scooter an

Nagappan vs State Inspector Of Police, T.N. on 17 July, 2013
Wed, 17 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530

P.Sathasivam,J.

1) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated12.04.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CriminalAppeal No. 1861 of 2002 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filedby the appellants therein and confirmed the order of conviction andsentence dated 20.12.2002 passed by the Court of Additional District andSessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore in Sessions CaseNo. 230 of 2000.

2) Brief facts

(a) The case relates to the death of a person by name Pasupathy, residentof Periya Irusampalayam village, committed by Sivaraman (A-1), Mano (A-2),Nagappan (A-3) and Tamil@Tamilvanan (A-4) on account of enmity between thedeceased-Pasupathy and Sivaraman (A-1). At one point of time, there was aquarrel between Sivaraman (A-1) and one Srinivasan (DW-1) which waspacified by Pasupathy and thereby A-1 had an impression that Pasupathy isin support of Srinivasan (DW-1). Due to this kind of impression, A-1planned to eliminate Pasupathy.

(b) In order to materialize the same, on 08.05.2000, at 08:30 p.m., A-1to A-4, assembled near the road leading to the graveyard of PeriyaIrusampalayam village with an ulter

Lucknow K.Gramin ... vs Rajendra Singh on 29 July, 2013
Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530

A.K.Sikri, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the decision dated 19th December 2011 rendered by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, whereby three Writ Petitions filed by the respondents in these appeals have been disposed of with certain directions.

-

3. Before we point out the directions of the High Court in the impugned judgment and the grievance of the appellant thereto, it would be proper to traverse the seminal facts which are largely undisputed.

4. The appellant-Bank had issued separate charge-sheets to six employees leveling identical charges. Three respondents before us in these appeals were the three employees out of those six employees to whom these charge-sheets were issued. All the six employees, including the respondents herein, filed their repli

Govinda Bala Patil (D) By Lrs. vs Ganpati Ramchandra Naikwade (D) ... on 29 July, 2013
Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD,J.

This appeal arises out of a proceeding under Section 32G of the BombayTenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. One Govinda Bala Patil, sincedeceased, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, hereinafterreferred to as “the landlord”, owned land being R.S. No. 51 admeasuring 35gunthas at Village Pandewadi within Taluka Radhanagari in the District ofKolhapur. A proceeding under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy andAgricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, wasinitiated by one Rama Dattu Naikwade, predecessor-in-interest of therespondents, for determination of price of the land on the plea that heshall be deemed to have purchased the land. The Additional Tahsildar &ALT, Radhanagari, at the first instance, held that the land in question wasleased out for growing sugarcane and, accordingly, dropped the proceeding.However, in appeal, the said order was set aside and the matter ultimatelyremitted back to him to hold fresh inquiry. Accordingly, the AdditionalTahsildar held fresh inquiry and again by its order dated 10th of December,1981 reiterated its earlier finding and held that the land was lea

Jandel Singh vs State Of M.P. on 26 July, 2013
Fri, 26 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passedby the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No.294 of2000, dated 01.04.2008. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Courthas reduced the sentence of the appellant from 10 years rigorousimprisonment to 7 years rigorous imprisonment with fine for the offencepunishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. Ms. Asha G. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the appellant,submits that the appellant has already undergone the sentence so awarded bythe High Court.

5. Placing on record the statement so made by the learned counsel forthe appellant, we direct that the appellant be released forthwith if notrequired in any other case.

: 2 :

6. We clarify that, if, for any reason, the appellant has not completedthe 7 years of sentence awarded by the High Court, we reduce the sentenceto the period already undergone by the appellant.

7. This order shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case.

State Of Bihar & Ors. vs Sudhir Chandra Kumar & Ors. on 23 July, 2013
Tue, 23 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530

1. We have heard Mr.Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant State of Bihar and Mr.P.N.Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr.Atul Jha, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 to 6 in C.A.No.200 of 2011 etc. and other respective counsel in the connected appeals.

2. Since the facts arising from all these appeals are similar, we take Civil Appeal No.200 of 2011 as the lead case.

Civil Appeal No.200/2011:

3. This appeal, by special leave, seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 23rd July, 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in L.P.A.No.439 of 2008. This judgment allowed the appeal filed by the respondents concerning their right to receive pension as per the revised formula.

The short facts leading to this appeal are this-wise:

: 2 :

4. The respondents are the teachers working in T.M.Bhagalpur

Akkode Jumayath Palli Paripalana ... vs P.V. Ibrahim Haji & Ors. on 23 July, 2013
Tue, 23 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J

Leave granted.

The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whetherthe Wakf Tribunal has got jurisdiction to entertain a suit for injunctionrestraining the defendants from interfering with the administration,management and peaceful enjoyment of the Mosque and madrassa run by it andall the assets attached to the Mosque.

Appellant, a society registered under the Societies Registration Actstated to be formed for the management and administration of wakf propertyincluding a Mosque situated therein, filed a suit for an injunction beforethe Court of Munsiff, Manjeri, which was transferred to the Court of WakfTribunal, Kozhikode and numbered as O.S. No.53 of 2003. The suit wascontested by the respondents on merits and ultimately it was decreed by theWakf Tribunal on 28.09.2004 and the plaintiff was given a decree for aperpetual injunction restraining the defendants/respondents and their menfrom interfering in any manner in the administration, management and

State Bank Of India Thr. General ... vs National Housing Bank & Ors on 31 July, 2013
Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Chelameswar, J.

1. These statutory appeals are filed under Section 10 of the SpecialCourt (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act 27 of1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Special Court Act’). An appealboth on questions of fact and law under the above-mentioned provision isprovided directly to this Court from any “judgment, decree, sentence ororder” of a Special Court established under Section 5 of the above-mentioned Act.

2. The Special Court Act was made in the aftermath of a scandal in thestock market in the year 1991-1992 when “large scale irregularities andmalpractices were noticed in both the Government and other securities,indulged in by some brokers in collusion with the employees of variousbanks and financial institutions”.[1]

3. Under Section 3(2)[2] of the said Act, the Custodian appointed by theGovernment of India, if satisfied that any person was involved in “anyoffence relating to transactions in securities” during the

D.H.B.V.N.L Vidyut Nagar, Hisar & ... vs Yashvir Singh Gulia on 30 July, 2013
Tue, 30 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Leave granted.

2. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whetheronce a charge-sheet has been issued for imposition of a major penalty underRegulation 7 of the Haryana State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment &Appeal) Regulations, 1990 [for short “the Regulations 1990”], is itobligatory on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to conduct a fullfledged departmental inquiry even if, after considering the reply of thedelinquent, the authority decides to impose a minor penalty, for which nodepartmental inquiry is provided under the Regulations.

3. The respondent herein who was working as an Assistant Law Officer,was served with a charge-sheet on 14.8.1992 alleging that he had exceededhis power by directing implementation of an arbitration award dated10.9.1991 without getting approval of the superior Authorities.Respondent filed three replies to the charge-sheet and the repliessubmitted by the respondent were considered by the Board and it was decidedto impose only a minor pen

State Of M.P. vs Mohan & Ors. on 30 July, 2013
Tue, 30 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Leave granted.

2. State is aggrieved by the order of the High Court dated 13.12.2011passed in CRLA No. 898 of 2007, reducing the sentence awarded by the trialCourt from three years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- toeach of the accused persons, with default clause, to that of the periodalready undergone.

3. Respondents herein were charge-sheeted for the offences punishableunder Sections 294, 307 read with Section 34 IPC and were convicted andsentenced as stated above. The incident leading to the above chargesoccurred on 11.6.2006 at 11.00 O’clock in the night when complainantsattempted to drive away the animals of the accused persons trespassed intotheir courtyard. Accused persons, infuriated by the conduct of thecomplainants, reached the spot of the incident and started abusing them.One of the accused, Ummed Singh, using his fire arm, fired a gun shot,which hit Lalaram, one of the complainants on his back and the complainantincluding Lalaram in order to save their lives ran away from the spot.Ummed Singh again fire

Union Of India & Ors. vs Rajesh Kumar Gond on 25 July, 2013
Thu, 25 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530

S.L.P.(C) No. 17419/2009

Delay condoned.

2. Heard Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor General in support of this special leave petition and Mr. Subodh Kr. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. This special leave petition seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 9.7.2008 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in Writ Petition No.632 of 2007 which confirmed the judgment dated 9.11.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O.A. No.939 of 2004.

4. The responden

Dharmendra Kirthal vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 2 August, 2013
Fri, 02 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dipak Misra, J.

In this writ petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitutionof India, the petitioner who is undergoing trial before the learned SpecialJudge, District Baghpat, U.P., has called in question the constitutionalvalidity of number of provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (Act 7 of 1986) (for short “theAct”) being violative of Articles 14, 21, 22(4) and 300A of theConstitution of India and further prayed for issue of a writ of certiorarifor quashment of the First Information Report dated 2.5.2010 giving rise toCrime No. 100 of 2010 registered at Police Station Ramala, DistrictBaghpat.

2. At the very outset, it is imperative to state that this Court, on 20th September, 2010, while issuing notice, had passed the following order: -

“Issue notice in regard to the validity of Section 12 of the U.P. Gangster & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.”

Regard being had to the aforesaid, we shall only dwell upon and delveinto the constitutional validity of the section 12 of the Act.

3. It is necessary to state here that the validity of the Act was called in question before the High Court of

Ramchandra vs R.M., United India Ins.Co.Ltd. on 2 August, 2013
Fri, 02 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.

The judgment and order dated 17.4.2007 passed by the High Courtof Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A.No. 6711/2004 (MV) is the subjectmatter of challenge in this appeal whereby the learned single Judge of theHigh Court was pleased to allow the appeal preferred by the respondentNo.1- United India Insurance Company Ltd. through its Regional Managerholding therein that the liability of the respondent No.1-United IndiaInsurance Company Ltd. (shortly referred to as ‘the Insurance Company’) topay compensation is restricted to one under the Workmen’s Compensation Act,1923 and the amount to which the respondent No.1 herein will be liable to pay is Rs.32091/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand and Ninety One Only) andthe balance amount will have to be borne by the insured -owner of thevehicle who had been impleaded by the appellant/claimant as respondent No.2 herein but was allowed to be deleted by this Court from the array ofparties at the risk of the appellant/claimant herein. The High Courtvide its impugned order was thus pleased to hold that the liability of theinsurance company/respondent No.1 is restricted to the one u

Rekha Jain vs Natioanl Insurance Co.Ltd. & Ors. on 1 August, 2013
Thu, 01 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

Leave is granted by this Court vide order dated 02.07.2013 aftercondoning the delay in filing the special leave petitions.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgment, award and ordersdated 24.2.2011 passed in MACA No. 580 of 2007, MACA No. 846 of 2007 anddated 10/03/2011 in MC No. 386 of 2011 in MACA No. 580 of 2007 of the HighCourt of Orissa at Cuttack allowing the appeal of the Insurance Company anddismissing the appeal of the appellant by which she has prayed to set asidethe impugned judgment, award and order and has further prayed forenhancement of compensation by award of just and reasonable compensationallowing the appeals urging various facts and legal contentions.

3. The necessary brief facts for the purpose of appreciating the rivalfactual and legal contentions urged in these appeals are stated as under:

On 17.08.2001 the appellant was driving a Maruti Car bearing Regn. No.OR 15 D-9005 by which she was going along with her mother Grace Jain fromSambalpur towards Cuttack when the accident occurred. A truck bearing Regn.No. MP 23 D-0096 coming from the opposite direct

Rekha Jain & Anr vs National Insurance Co.Ltd. on 1 August, 2013
Thu, 01 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

Leave granted by this Court vide order dated 02.07.2013 aftercondoning the delay in filing the special leave petitions.

2. These appeals are filed by the claimants namely Rekha Jain and T.A.Sebastian. They have questioned the correctness of the judgment and awardand order dated 24.2.2011 passed by the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack inMACA No. 579 of 2007 and order dated 10/03/2011 in MC No. 385 of 2011 inMACA No. 579 of 2007 in the aforesaid appeal and final order dated24.11.2011 in M.A.C.A. No.844 of 2007 urging rival facts and legalcontentions.

3. The daughter and the husband of the deceased have filed these appealsseeking just and reasonable compensation on account of the death of thedeceased in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 17.08.2001. Thedeceased was traveling alongwith her daughter, the first appellant in herMaruti Car bearing Regn. No. OR 15 D-9005. The accident took place onaccount of rash and negligent driving of the offending truck bearing Regn.No. MP 23 D-0096. The deceased Dr. Grac

Devendra Kumar vs State Of Uttaranchal & Ors. on 29 July, 2013
Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 28.5.2004 in Special Appeal No. 16 of 2003 passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal. The order affirmed the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition No. 278 (S/B) of 2002 vide impugned judgment and order dated 1.8.2003 by which and wherein, the order of termination of service of the appellant by the respondent authorities had been upheld.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:

A. An advertisement was published in September 2001 inviting applications from candidates eligible for the 250 posts of Constables in the State of Uttaranchal. The appellant applied in response to the same vide application dated 7.9.2001. He appeared for the physical test and qualified on 28.9.2001. Subsequently, upon passing the written test, the appellant faced an interview in September, 2001 and, ultimately his name was mentioned in the list of selected candidates published on 30.9.2001. The appellant was called for med

Commissioner Of Central ... vs M/S. Ciens Laboratories on 14 August, 2013
Wed, 14 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

KURIAN, J.:

1. ‘Care or cure’, is the clue for the resolution of the lis arising inthese cases. If the product by name ‘Moisturex’ is held to be a medicamentfor cure, the decision goes in favour of the assessee and if the product isheld to be one for care of the skin, the decision benefits the CentralExcise. The Tribunal has held in favour of the assessee and, thus, theCentral Excise is in appeals.

2. The Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as‘CETA’) under Chapter 30 of the Schedule (2) deals with pharmaceuticalproducts for the purposes of tariff. At the relevant time, if a product isheld to be medicament, then, the rate of duty was 15% and, if not, 70%.Heading 30.03 deals with the medicaments including veterinary medicaments.The same reads as follows:

|“Heading |Sub-headi|Description of goods |Rate of ||No. |ng No. | |duty ||(1) |

State Of Jharkhand & Ors. vs Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. on 14 August, 2013
Wed, 14 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

A.K. Sikri, J

1. Leave granted.

2. Crisp and short question which arises for consideration in these cases is as to whether, in the absence of any provision in the Pension Rules, the State Government can withhold a part of pension and/or gratuity during the pendency of departmental/ criminal proceedings? The High Court has -

answered this question, vide the impugned judgment, in the negative and hence directed the appellant to release the withheld dues to the respondent. Not happy with this outcome, the State of Jharkhand has preferred this appeal.

3. For the sake of convenience we will gather the facts from Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 1427 of 2009. Only facts which need to be noted, giving rise to the aforesaid questions of law, are the following:

The respondent was working in the Department of

Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha & Ors. vs Manharbala Jeram Dmodar & Anr. on 13 August, 2013
Tue, 13 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J

Leave granted.

2. We are, in these appeals, concerned with the question whether a suitfiled by a licensor against a gratuitous licensee under Section 41(1) ofthe Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 (for short “the PSCC Act”), asamended by the Maharashtra Act No.XIX of 1976 (for short “1976 AmendmentAct”) is maintainable before a Small Causes Court, Mumbai. .

3. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Ramesh DwarikadasMehra v. Indirawati Dwarika Das Mehra (AIR 2001 Bombay 470) held that asuit by a licensor against a gratuitous licensee is not tenable before thePresidency Small Causes Court under Section 41 (1) of the PSCC Act, and itshould be filed before the City Civil Court or the High Court dependingupon the valuation. The Division Bench held that the expression “licensee”used in Section 41(1) of the PSCC Act has the same meaning as in Section 5(4A) of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act,1947 (in short “the Rent Act”). Further it was held that the expression“l

Alaknanda Hydro Power Co.Ltd. vs Anuj Joshi & Ors. on 13 August, 2013
Tue, 13 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Leave granted.

2. Srinagar Hydro Electric Project (SHEP) located in Tehri / PauriGarhwal district of Uttar Pradesh was a project envisaged by the thenUttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (UPSEB) on river Alaknanda, which wasbasically run-of-the-river scheme.

3. The Techno-Economic approval of the scheme was granted for 200 MW bythe Central Electricity Authority (CEA), a competent authority exercisingpowers under Section 29 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, in itsmeeting held on 6.11.1982, subject to the environmental clearance from theMinistry of Environment. SHEP was later segregated from twenty two otherGanga Valley projects. A separate Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) wasmade on the SHEP on 9.2.1985. No adverse affect had been noticed onenvironment in that assessment on setti

Raj Rishi Mehra & Ors. vs State Of Punjab & Anr. on 13 August, 2013
Tue, 13 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Whether the petitioners, whose names were included in the select listprepared for recruitment to Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) areentitled to be appointed against the posts which became available due tothe resignation of two of the appointees and the unfilled posts of reservedcategories is the question which arises for consideration in thesepetitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Punjab Public Service Commission (for short, ‘the Commission’)issued Advertisement No.1 in the year 2011 for holding examination forrecruitment to the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch). The break up ofthe posts advertised by the Commission was as under:

| |General |47 | || |Scheduled Castes, Punjab.|09 | || |Scheduled Castes, |02 | || |Ex-servicemen/Lineal | | || |Descendent of | | || |Ex-servicemen, Punjab. | | ||

Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav vs State Of Jharkhand on 13 August, 2013
Tue, 13 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

P.Sathasivam, CJI.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated01.07.2013 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in CriminalMisc. Petition No. 1619 of 2013 whereby the High Court dismissed thepetition filed by the appellant herein for transferring the case being R.C.No. 20(A)/1996 from the Court of Special Judge-IV, CBI, (AHD), Ranchi toany other Court of competent jurisdiction.

3) Brief facts:

(a) This appeal relates to illegal withdrawal of a sum ofRs.35,66,42,086/- from the Treasury of Chaibasa by the officials of AnimalHusbandry Department, Government of Bihar in connivance with thepoliticians and suppliers in the year 1994-95 which culminated into theregistration of a First Information Report (FIR) being R.C. No. 20(A)/1996dated 27.03.1996 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477, 477A, 201,511 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( in short ‘theIPC’) and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the

Buddhadeb Ruidas & Ors.Etc.Etc. vs State Of West Bengal & Ors. on 13 August, 2013
Tue, 13 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.

2. Regard being had to the similitude of the seminal issue that arises for consideration in all these appeals they were heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment. For the sake of clarity and convenience we shall state the facts from Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6177-6178 of 2012) wherein the challenge is to the judgment and order dated 11.11.2011 in WPST Nos. 269 and 275 of 2011 passed by the High Court of Calcutta.

3. The fa

State Of M.P. vs Babulal & Ors. on 12 August, 2013
Mon, 12 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, (Gwalior Bench) in Criminal Revision No. 74 of 2010, by way of which the conviction of the respondents has been maintained under Sections 148, 324, 326 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as `IPC’) as awarded by the learned trial court, however, the sentence has been reduced from 2 years to 3 months.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: A. One Sunil (PW.1) lodged a complaint with the police station Bhander on 21.3.2004 that his father Nahar Singh (PW.5) had gone to his agricultural field for guarding his crops, all the respondents came there on a tractor driven by Kallu, armed with axe, farsa and lathi etc. When the complainant Sunil tried to stop the tractor, the respondents started abusing him and on being asked not to abuse, the respondents caused injuries to the complainant Sunil (PW.1) with their respective weapons. When his father Nahar

State Of Punjab vs Madan Mohan Lal Verma on 12 August, 2013
Mon, 12 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 3.3.2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 414-SB/1996 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, setting aside the judgment and order of the Trial Court dated 28.5.1996 by which the respondent stood convicted under the provisions of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 1988’) and had been awarded the sentence of one year on each count and a fine of Rs.2,500/- was imposed, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: A. The complainant - Naresh Kumar Kapoor was contacted by the respondent – the Income Tax Inspector who threatened him with reopening the assessment order, particularly in respect of the house owned and possessed by his wife Smt. Neeru Kapoor bearing No. 456, Model Town, Jalandhar and for purchasing the car which had not been disclosed by the complainant in his income tax return. The complainant and

Manoj Manu & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 12 August, 2013
Mon, 12 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

A.K. SIKRI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the present appellants questioning the validity of the judgment and order dated May 16, 2011 passed by the High Court, in Writ Petition which was filed by the appellants questioning the validity of the order dated 29th March 2011, of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”), Principal Bench, New Delhi. The Tribunal had dismissed the Original Application preferred by the appellants herein under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act against their non- appointment to the post of Section Officer’s Grade of the Central Secretariat Service. The said O.A. was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 29th March 2011 which has been upheld by the High Court.

3. There is no dispute about the facts, which may be briefly recapitulated to understand the controversy that has arisen in these proceedings. The appellants were working as Assistants in th

Dharminder Singh @ Vijay Singh vs State on 12 August, 2013
Mon, 12 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) No. 1939 of 2011.

Each of the appellants in the appeals under consideration have beenconvicted under Sections 364 and 302 read with Section 34 of the IndianPenal Code by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini, Delhi. Theyhave been sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years for the offence underSection 364/34 IPC whereas for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC theyhave been sentenced to undergo RI for life. Aggrieved, appellant DharminderSingh @ Vijay Singh had filed Crl. A. No. 603/2008 and appellant ChintuMalhotra had filed Crl. A. No. 406/2008 before the High Court of Delhi. Asthe said appeals have been dismissed by the common order of the High Courtdated 11.05.2009 appellant Dharminder Singh @ Vijay Singh has filed Crl. A.No.1614/2010 whereas appellant Chintu Malhotra has filed the connectedappeal. Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of bythis common order.

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 26.08.2000 the accused-appel

Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors. vs Chhabil Dass Agarwal on 8 August, 2013
Thu, 08 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

1. Application for impleadment is allowed.

2. Delay condoned.

3. Leave granted.

4. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment andorder passed by the High Court of Sikkim at Gangtok in Writ Petition(C)No.44 of 2009, dated 05.10.2010. By the impugned judgment and order, theHigh Court has quashed the order of assessment passed by the Assistant CIT,Circle-I, Siliguri under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short'the Act') dated 11.12.2009, whereby the assessing authority has confirmedthe notices issued under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Years1995-1996 and 1996-1997, respectively.

5. The facts in brief are: The assessee is a Sikkim based non-Sikkimesewho had filed his first return of income for Assessment Year 1997-1998.Upon assessment, it was discovered that he had a net profit of Rs.5,78,832/- during the Assessment Year 1996-1997 relevant to the Assessment Year 1995-1996. Since no return was filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year1996-1997 despite capitalizing the aforesaid profit, proceedings underSection 147 of the Act were ini

Nihal Singh & Ors. vs State Of Punjab & Ors. on 7 August, 2013
Wed, 07 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Chelameswar, J.

1. Leave granted in SLP (Civil) No.12448 of 2009.

2. Since both the appeals raise a common question of law, the same arebeing disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, weshall refer to the facts in Civil Appeal No.1059 of 2005.

3. This appeal arises out of a judgment in CWP No. 13915 of 2002 of theHigh Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 23rd January, 2003. 20unsuccessful petitioners in the above writ-petition are the appellantsherein. The High Court dismissed the writ petition following an earlierjudgment of a Division Bench in LPA 209 of 1992 dated 6th September, 1993,which in turn arose out of Civil Writ Petition No. 5280 of 1988. Thefacts leading to all these writ petitions as could be culled out from thematerial on record are as follows:-

4. There was a large s

J & K Inst.Of Mgt.Publi Admin & Rur ... vs Renu Bala & Ors. on 7 August, 2013
Wed, 07 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

1 ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 10.3.2010 delivered in LPASWNo.146/08 by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court at Jammu, the J&K Instituteof Management Public Administration & Rural Development has approached thisCourt by way of this appeal.

2. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, areas under:

There were vacancies in the cadre of Computer Operator/LabAssistant/System Administrator and therefore, advertisement Notice No.1 of2005 was published on 15.1.2005 by the appellant. Applications wereinvited from suitable candidates and qualifications required for the postshad been incorporated in the aforestated advertisement notice.

3. In pursuance of the said advertisement, several candidates, includingrespondent No.1, had submitted their applications and after completing theselection process, the appellant had prepared a select list for selectionof suitable candidates for the posts in question.

4. As per the select list prepared by the appellant alongwith othercandidate

Mgb Gramin Bank vs Chakrawarti Singh on 7 August, 2013
Wed, 07 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 27.1.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ)No.798 of 2009 upholding the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.7.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.7869 of 2008 by which the respondent had been directed to be appointed under a scheme for compassionate appointment.

3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: A. Father of the respondent who was working as a Class III employee with the appellant Bank died on 19.4.2006 while in harness. The respondent applied for compassionate appointment on 12.5.2006. B. During the pendency of the application filed by the respondent, a new scheme dated 12.6.2006 came into force with effect from 6.10.2006. Clause 14 thereof provides that all applications pending on the date of commencement of the scheme shall be c

Sec.Dept.Of Atomic Energy & Ors. vs M.K.Bawane on 7 August, 2013
Wed, 07 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2 Leave granted.

3. Though served and sufficient opportunities granted, none has appearedfor the respondent-employee and therefore, the appeal is taken up forhearing.

4. The facts giving rise to the appeal, in a nutshell, are as under: The respondent-employee was re-employed as a Male Nurse at NuclearFuel Complex, Hyderabad. According to the case of the respondent-employee,prior to his re-employment, a sterilization operation was undertaken by hiswife and therefore, as per the policy of the appellant-organization, he wasentitled to one incentive increment for promoting small family norms. Inspite of his repeated requests he was not given the increment andtherefore, he had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabadby filing O.A.No.254 of 2009. The Tribunal rejected his application relyingupon the policy of the Government to the effect that a re-employed person,if he or his spouse had undergone sterilization operation prior to his re-employment, was not entitled to an increment by way of incentive.

5. The Tribu

Bakhshish Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr. on 6 August, 2013
Tue, 06 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

S. A. BOBDE, J.

1. By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of these appeals as they arise out of the same incident and involve common questions of law and facts.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 17.07.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at -Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 334-DB of 2007 whereby the High Court affirmed conviction of the appellants as held by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, Punjab by convicting and sentencing accused – Bakhshish Singh - appellant in Appeal No. 1110 of 2009, Satbir Singh - appellant in Appeal No. 1111 of 2009 and Rachhpal Singh - appellant in Appeal No. 1112 of 2009 for imprisonment life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short ‘IPC’] and fine in F.I.R. No. 271 dated June 21

Sham Lal & Ors. vs State Of Punjab & Ors. on 6 August, 2013
Tue, 06 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

G. S. Singhvi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against order dated 19.01.2011 of thePunjab and Haryana High Court whereby the writ petitions filed by theappellants questioning the acquisition of their land for implementation ofRing Road Phase-I Development Scheme (for short, ‘the scheme’) weredismissed.

3. The appellants own small plots of land within the municipal limits ofBhatinda. They constructed houses on their respective plots. Some did soafter getting the building

Jitendra Kumar Khan & Ors. vs Peerless Gen.Finance & ... on 6 August, 2013
Tue, 06 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dipak Misra, J.

Delay in filing the application for substitution is condoned andprayer for substitution of appellant No. 2 is allowed.

2. Leave granted.

3. The appellant Nos. 1 and 3 along with the predecessor-in-interest of appellant No. 2 instituted suit No. 301 of 1993 in the High Court of Calcutta principally for a declaration that they are entitled to be paid all the commissions and other incentives payable to the agents/field officers by the defendants in respect of the transactions and/or business which was done through the customers/certificate holders in accordance with the circulars/terms and conditions of appointment of all agents/field officers of the defendant company and for a decree of Rs.25 lacs against the defendant No. 1 company jointly and severally or in the alternative to cause an enquiry pertaining to the damages suffered by the plaintiffs and pass a decree for such a sum.

4. After issuance of notice of the plaint which was presented on 11.8.1993, the defendants entered appearance

Tara V Ganju & Anr vs Basant & Co.& Ors. on 6 August, 2013
Tue, 06 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J

Leave granted.

2. The appellant herein instituted a suit on the original side of theHigh Court of Delhi which was registered as CS (OS) No.1861 of 1995 for adecree of declaration, cancellation, permanent injunction, possession anddamages regarding property known as Lakshmi Niwas with the superstructureand also for the consequential reliefs. Few applications for amendmentsof the plaint were also filed earlier, followed by the present on04.03.2005, before the trial court proposing amendment to the valuationpara of the plaint and also to bring on record a subsequent event. Thesaid application was filed proposing amendment enhancing the valuation ofthe suit from Rs.15,00,000/- to Rs.25,25,530/-. Had the amendment beenallowed it would have resulted in ousting the pecuniary jurisdiction of thetrial court and would have transferred the suit back to High Court. Yetanother amendment proposed, was to bring on record the subsequent event ofvacation of the suit property by tenant M/s Osram Surya (I) Pvt. Ltd.Learned Additiona

Venkatesan vs Rani & Anr. on 19 August, 2013
Mon, 19 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. What are the true contours of the jurisdiction vested in the HighCourts under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 (hereinafter for short ‘the Code’) while examining anorder of acquittal passed by the Trial Court? Whether the principlesgoverning the exercise of the aforesaid jurisdiction have been rightlydetermined by the High Court in the present case and, therefore, had beencorrectly applied to reverse the order of acquittal of the accused-appellant passed by the learned Trial Court and to remit the matter to thesaid Court for a de novo disposal, is the further question that arises inthe present appeal filed against an order dated 27.04.2006 passed by theHigh Court of Judicature at Madras.

2. The appellant is the husband of one Anusuya who, according to theprosecution, was put to death by the appellant on 19.4.2000 by pouringkerosene on her and thereafter setting her on fire. The marriage betweenthe appellant and the deceased took place sometime in the year 1998 on theown accord of the parties. According to the prosecution, after themarriage, the appellant raised demands for various dowry items includingcash. As such demands

M/S V.K.M.Kattha Industries ... vs State Of Haryana & Ors. on 16 August, 2013
Fri, 16 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

P. Sathasivam, CJI.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated08.07.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh inCWP No. 13208 of 2007 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filedby M/s V.K.M. Kattha Industries Pvt. Ltd.-the appellant-Company.3) Brief Facts:

(a) The appellant-Company is an industrial unit engaged in manufacturingof kattha for various tobacco and non-tobacco products, having its officeat Janti Kalan Road, Post Office Kundli, District Sonipat. Vide sale deeddated 10.05.1994, the appellant-Company purchased a running industrial unitcomprised in Rect. No. 75, Khasra No. 25, Rect. No. 80, Khasra Nos. 5/1 and6/2 total measuring 23 kanals 14 marlas and got it registered as a SmallScale Industrial Unit with the Director, Industries Department, Haryana.On 05.05.2003, the appellant-Company leased out the running industrial unitto one M/s Anand Agro Products.

(b) On 21.12.2005, Haryana Government Industries Department issue

M/S Rana Girders Ltd. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 16 August, 2013
Fri, 16 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

A.K.SIKRI,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. One M/s. P.J. Steels Pvt. Ltd. (borrower) had taken loans/financial accommodation from the Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation (UPFC). Because of the consistent default on the part of the said borrower in re-paying the loans, the UPFC took possession of the land and building of the borrower which were mortgaged/kept as security with the UPFC. This action was taken under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act. After taking physical possession of the unit, the UPFC held public auction on pursuant to advertisement which was issued on 8th January 2002. In the said public auction conducted by UPFC, the appellant herein (appellant which was known as M/s. Sarju Steels Pvt.Ltd. at that time and has now converted into a Public Limited Company known as M/s. Rana Girders Pvt. Ltd. Dated 20th March 2002 was the highest and thus, successful bidder in respect of land and building as well as plant and machinery. Sale Deed dated 8.3.2002 was executed

Yogesh Yadav vs Union Of India And Ors. on 16 August, 2013
Fri, 16 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

A.K.SIKRI,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Counsel for the parties were heard at length on the issueinvolved in these cases. We now proceed to decide the same by thisorder.

3. Matter pertains to appointment to the post of Deputy Director(Law) in the Other Backward Class (OBC Category). Appointments to thevacancies in the aforesaid post were to be made in the office ofCompetition Commission of India (CCI). The three appellants in thesethree appeals were also the candidates who appeared in the writtentest. After qualifying the written test, they also faced theinterview. However, their names did not appear in the list ofcandidates finally selected. According to the appellants, their non-selection was the result of altering the prescribed mode of selection-mid-way i.e. after the initiation of recruitment process which wasimpermissible. This contention has not found favour with either thelearned Single Judge in the Writ Petitions filed by them or theDivision Bench of the High Court in the appeals filed by themchallenging the order of the learned Single Judge. Bone ofcontention, be

Pt.Ravishankar Shukla ... vs Gopal Mishra on 16 August, 2013
Fri, 16 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In the judgment under appeal, the High Court of Chhattisgarh framedthe following question for adjudication, namely:- “Whether Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur (the University) is liable to issue mark sheet to the students, who are permitted to appear in the examination for improving division of M.Com examination (the subsequent-examination) under Ordinance 24 of the University (the Ordinance), even if the division does not change?”

3. The High Court answered the question in the affirmative. Wedisagree. Ordinance No.24 of the University does not oblige it to issue afresh mark sheet to a student who does not improve his division on taking asubsequent examination held for improving the division.

4. The respondent Shri Gopal Mishra completed his two year Master ofCommerce course with an aggregate of 49.54% marks. This placed him in thesecond division as per Ordinance No. 24 of the University which relates tothe Master of Commerce examination.

5. Th

Asstt.Engr. Rajasthan ... vs Mohan Lal on 16 August, 2013
Fri, 16 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

R.M. LODHA, J.

Leave granted.

2. The consequent relief to be granted to the workman whose termination is held to be illegal being in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “ID Act”) is the sole question for our decision in this appeal. Were it not for the argument strongly pressed by the learned counsel for the respondent that the delay in raising industrial dispute in the absence of any such objection having been raised by the employer before the Labour Court is no ground to mould the relief of reinstatement, we would not have gone into the question which is already answered in a long line of cases of this Court.

3. Mohan Lal, the workman, was engaged as “Mistri” on muster roll by the appellant, employer, from 01.11.1984 to 17.02.1986. On 18.02.1986, the services of the workman were

Sunita Jugalkishore Gilda vs Ramanlal Udhoji Tanna ... on 21 August, 2013
Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J

Leave granted.

2. The question that arises for our consideration is whether themortgagor can induct a person as tenant in a mortgaged property, to theprejudice of the mortgagee, pendente lite, in violation of Section 52 ofthe Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

3. Gangabai, the grand mother-in-law of the appellant, was a mortgageein respect of a three storied building, popularly known as -GowardhandasMathurdas Mohta, along with the suit premises and open space situated atNazrul Plot Nos. which was executed by one Vijaysingh Mohta, father ofRespondent Nos.2 and 3 for himself and as guardian of Respondent No.2 on24.03.1953. A partition deed was executed by Mohta and Respondent Nos.2and 3 on 11.1.1956.

4. Gangabai, on 01.09.1956, filed a civil suit No.3-A/1956 for enforcingthe mortgage in the court of the First Additional District Judge, Amravati. On 02.03.1960, Gangabai also purchased the ½ share in the propertybelonging to Mohta, with the leave of the court in auction.

K.V. Rajendran vs Superintendent Of Police, Cbcid ... on 21 August, 2013
Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 8.12.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl.O.P. No. 9639 of 2011, by way of which the High Court has rejected the prayer of the appellant to transfer the investigation of his case/complaint to Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the `CBI’).

2. The case has a chequered history as the matter has moved from the court of the Magistrate to this Court time and again. Facts and circumstances necessary to adjudicate upon the controversy involved herein are that:

A. The appellant, who is an Associate Professor in Physics in the Presidency College, Chennai, went to his village on 26.8.1998. At about 11.00 P.M., approximately ten people headed by the then Revenue Divisional Officer (hereinafter referred to as the `RDO’), forcibly took him in a government jeep and brought him to the Taluk office and enquired about why he had given a false complaint regarding the smuggling of teakwood in that area. The t

Manjeet Singh Khera vs State Of Maharashtra on 21 August, 2013
Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether theprosecution is bound to produce the original complaint/application filed byan unknown person, based on which an inquiry was initiated by the AntiCorruption Bureau.

2. The petitioner (first accused) along with three others moved anapplication before the Special Sessions Court of Greater Bombay for adirection to the prosecution/Anti Corruption Bureau to produce the originalcomplaint/application filed by an unknown person, leading the accusedperson to be charge-sheeted for offences under Section 13(2) read with13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109 ofthe Indian Penal Code.

3. The petitioner submitted that on the basis of that complaint an openenquiry No.31/198 was conducted and following that Special Case No.39 of1999 was registered against the accused person. It was brought out thatone complaint/application was received by the Anti Corruption Bureau andcopy of that application was forwarded to the Home Department. PW1 haddeposed that he could not disclose the name of the per

State Of U.P.& Ors. vs Ashok Kumar Srivastava & Anr on 21 August, 2013
Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

2. The 1st respondent was appointed as a Lecturer on 23.3.1996 in “RasShastra” in Rajkiya Ayurvedic College and Chikitsalaya, Lucknow. The StateGovernment vide notification dated 21.12.1990 notified the Service Rules,namely, Uttar Pradesh Ayurvedic Aur Unani Mahavidyalaya Aadhyapako Ki SevaNiyamawali, 1990 (for short, “the rules”) for the teachers of Uttar PradeshAyurvedic Colleges. Under the rules, the promotional post from amongstthe Lecturers is Readers. As the vacancies in respect of Readers were notfilled up, the respondent No. 1 preferred W.P. No. 1136 (S/B) of 2004before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad at Lucknow Bench, Lucknow,wherein the High Court took note of the statement by the learned counselfor the State and directed that it should be in the fitness of things thatthe Public Service Commission shall make earnest efforts to expedite thewhole process relating to promotion within a period of six months.Eventually, on 15.6.2005 the U.P. Public Service Commission, (for short‘the Commission’), the respondent No. 2 herein, recommended the names ofsix persons for promotion to the post of R

U.P. State Road Transport Corp. vs C.P. Goswamy on 21 August, 2013
Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

1 ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered in Writ-C No.375 of 2003dated 7th November, 2012, by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,this appeal has been filed by the employer - U.P. State Road TransportCorporation.

3. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the High Court has confirmed theaward dated 30th June, 2001, published on 3rd September, 2001, made by theIndustrial Tribunal (III), U.P. at Kanpur.

4. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, areas under :

The respondent-workman was working as a driver of the appellant-Corporation. On 17th January, 1996, the respondent had abused staffmembers of the Corporation and created hindrance in the work of theCorporation. It was also alleged that the respondent was under influenceof liquor at the time when he had misbehaved. In the aforestatedcircumstances, the respondent was placed under suspension and after holdinga departmental enquiry, by an order dated 28th February, 1998, his servicehad been termi

S.Govindaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 19 August, 2013
Mon, 19 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 6.6.2007, passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.1146 of 2000, preferred by the State against the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, Bangalore city dated 8.6.2000, passed in Sessions Case No.550 of 1995, by which and whereunder, the appellant stood acquitted of all the charges under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC) and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter called the ‘DP Act’). The High Court on appeal convicted the appellant under Section 304B IPC and awarded a sentence of 7 years; under Section 498A IPC awarded the sentence for a period of 3 years and also a fine of Rs.5,000/- was imposed, and in default, to undergo further sentence of 6 months. The appellant was also convicted under Section 3 of DP Act and imprisonment for a period of 5 years was awarded alongwith a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default to undergo imprisonment for one year; under Section 4 of DP Act, imp

Indraj Singh(D) By Lrs.& Ors. vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 19 August, 2013
Mon, 19 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

1 ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.

3. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 6th November, 2009, deliveredin Regular First Appeal No. 950 of 1996 and other First Appeals deliveredby the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, these appeals havebeen filed by the persons whose lands had been acquired for the purpose ofconstruction of a sector road under the Bahadurgarh Scheme. The appellantsare challenging the judgment on the ground that the amount of compensationawarded to them i

Josphine James vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & ... on 14 August, 2013
Wed, 14 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

This civil appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 13.01.2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi in MAC Appeal No. 433 of 2005 by allowing the appeal of the respondent herein and reducing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’) in suit No. 778 of 2003 urging various facts and legal contentions.

2. The appellant widow is the mother of the deceased who filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation on account of the death of her son who was aged about 21 years, in a car accident which occurred on 12.06.1998. The car (bearing registration No. DL 2C F 3431), which he was driving from Jaipur to Delhi, was hit by a truck (bearing registration No. RJ 14 G 7596), which was owned by respondent No.2. and insured with respondent No.1.

3. The claim petition was filed by the appellant before the Tribunal claiming compensation from the respondent for the death of her son caused by the accident. The claim was contested by the respondents. Five witnesses were examined including the appellant herein who produced d

Union Of India & Ors. vs G.R.Rama Krishna & Anr. on 23 August, 2013
Fri, 23 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

A.K.SIKRI,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The respondent No.1 herein (hereinafter referred to as therespondent) was appointed as Engineering Assistant (Mechanical) in AndamanLakshdeep Harbour Works (ALHW) on ad-hoc basis with effect from 17.4.1979.Though this ad-hoc period was of one year, the respondent continued to workin the capacity even thereafter without obtaining the approval of theDepartment of Personnel and Training. The services were continued asALHW was facing lots of problems due to shortage of staff at variouslevels. He was later on promoted as Inspector of Works on ad-hoc witheffect from 11.11.1984. This post was later on merged with that of JuniorEngineer and thus the respondent was accorded the status of JuniorEngineer.

3. Next promotion from Junior Engineer is to the post of AssistantEngineer. Again on ad-hoc basis, the respondent was promoted as AssistantEngineer with effect from 23.9.1999. He was given regular promotion asAssistant Engineer (Mechanical) on 2.6.2005 and was put on probation for aperiod of two years from that date. The respondent s

State Of Orissa vs Khaga @ Khageswar Naik & Ors. on 23 August, 2013
Fri, 23 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

State of Orissa, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 1st September, 2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No.274 of 1997 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has altered the conviction of the respondents from Section 302/34 to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the IPC’), has preferred this Special Leave Petition.

Leave granted.

In the present appeal, as we are concerned with the nature of the offence said to have been committed by the respondents (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the convicts’), we shall refer to only those facts which are necessary for decision on the said issue. Occurrence in the present case had taken place in Raghunathpali, a hamlet within the district of Sambalpur in the State of Orissa. As usual, on 11th October,

In Ref.. vs Rameshwar Prasad Goyal Aor on 22 August, 2013
Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

1. Civil Appeal No. 1398 of 2005, Mohamed Israfil v. Raufunessa Bibi (D) by L.Rs. & Ors., was dismissed in default vide order dated 8.3.2013 as none appeared to press the appeal. An application for restoration of the said appeal was filed by Shri Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advocate-on-Record (hereinafter referred to as AOR). The said application was listed in the Court on 8.7.2013. The Court was of the view that the facts contained in the application were not correct and the counsel appearing for the applicant was not able to clarify the same. The Court passed over the matter and asked the counsel appearing therein to call the AOR who would be able to explain the factual controversy. When the matter was taken up in the second round, the Court was informed that Shri Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR refused to come to the Court. It has also been pointed out that the said AOR has filed extremely large number of cases in this Court but never appears in the Court. In view of the refusal of the AOR to come to the Court, this Court had no other option but to dismiss the application. However, the Court issued a show cause notice to the said AOR as to why his name should not be removed from th

Dr. Subramanian Swamy And Ors. vs Raju Thr.Member Juvenile Justice ... on 22 August, 2013
Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Should the adjudication sought for by the petitioner be refused atthe threshold on the basis of the fairly well established legal propositionthat a third party/stranger does not have any right to participate in acriminal prosecution which is primarily the function of the State. Theaforesaid question arises in the following facts and circumstances.

2. On 16.12.2012, a ghastly incident of gang rape took place in a movingbus in the streets of Delhi. In connection with the said incident sixaccused were arrested on 22.12.2012, one of whom, namely, the firstrespondent in the present special leave petition was a juvenile on the dateof the occurrence of the crime. The victim of the offence died on29.1.2013. While the Juvenile Justice Board (hereinafter for short “theBoard”) was in seisin of the matter against the first respondent, thepetitioners in the special leave petition approached the Board seekingimpleadment in the proceedings before the Board and an interpretation ofthe provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Act, 2000 (hereinafter for short ‘the JJ

Basawaraj & Anr vs Spl.Laq Officer on 22 August, 2013
Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. These appeals have been preferred against the common impugned judgment and order dated 10.6.2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Gulbarga in MFA Nos.10765 and 10766 of 2007 by which the appeals of the appellants under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) have been dismissed on the ground of limitation.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the facts of C.A. No. 6974 of 2013 are taken, which are as under:

A. The land of the appellants in Survey No.417/2 admeasuring 4 acres and Survey No.418 admeasuring 23 acres, 1 guntha; and 5 acres, 23 gunthas of phut kharab situated in the revenue estate of village Mahagaon, Tehsil and Distt. Gulbarga was acquired in pursuance of notification dat

Popat Bahiru Govardhane Etc vs Spl.Land Acquisition Officer And ... on 22 August, 2013
Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.1.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition Nos. 2140-44 of 2009, wherein the High Court has upheld the judgment of the Land Acquisition Collector rejecting the application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) on the ground of limitation.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that:

A. The land of the appellants stood notified under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act in 1994-95. Award in respect of the said land was also made on 14.12.1995.

B. Appellants did not file applications under Section 18 of the Act rather some other “interested persons” whose land was also covered by the same notification under Section 4 of the Act filed references and one such reference, i.e. L.A.R. No. 314 of 1999 was decided on 3.4.2006.

C. For the purpose of filing application under Section 28A of the Act, counsel for the appellants applied for a certified copy of the

Raja @ Sasikumar & Anr. vs State Tr.Insp.Of Police on 22 August, 2013
Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

P.Sathasivam,CJI.

1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated15.03.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CriminalAppeal No. 963 of 2005 whereby the Division Bench of the High Courtdisposed of the appeal by acquitting A4 to A6 and confirmed the order ofconviction and sentence dated 27.10.2005 in respect of A1 to A3 passed bythe Additional District Sessions Judge, Salem in Sessions Case No. 254 of2004.

2) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as under:(a) This case relates to the death of one person by name Babu - residentof Kullaveeranpatti, Mettur, Tamil Nadu. One Arumugam@Arupaiyan, who wasworking as a car driver at Sadurangadi, Mettur, was having an affair withone Chitra (PW-6), who, at the relevant time, was working at KrishnaMedicals. One Palanichami, who was working as a car cleaner, too was inlove with her.

(b) When Chitra informed Arumugam@Arupaiyan about Palanichami, heconfronted the cleaner and when the driver of the car-Senthil (A-7) askedhim as to why he confronted him, A

M/S Young Achievers vs Ims Learning Resources Pvt.Ltd. on 22 August, 2013
Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Leave granted.

2. IMS Learning Resources Private Limited, the respondent herein, filedCS (OS) No.2316 of 2011 in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi for apermanent injunction restraining infringement of a registered trademark,infringement of copyright, passing off of damages, rendition of accounts ofprofits and also for other consequential reliefs against the appellantherein. Appellant preferred IA No.18 of 2012 under Section 8, read withSection 5 -of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for rejecting theplaint and referring the dispute to arbitration and also for otherconsequential reliefs. Respondent-plaintiff raised objection to the saidapplication stating that the suit is perfectly maintainable. The HighCourt rejected the application vide its order dated 16.04.2012 holding thatthat earlier agreements dated 01.04.2007 and 01.04.2010, which containedarbitration clause stood superseded by a new contract dated 01.02.2011arrived at between the parties by mutual consent. Defendant aggrieved bythe said order filed FAO (OS) No.290

Fiona Shrikhande vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr. on 22 August, 2013
Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Leave granted

2. We are, in this case, concerned with an incident which happened inFlat No. 5, 2nd Floor, Goolestan, East Wing, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai, whichled to the filing of a complaint alleging offences under Sections 294 and504 IPC.

3. The Complainant (2nd respondent herein) is the sister-in-law of theaccused, being the wife of the complainant’s brother. Complainant andher brother are the sole surviving heirs of their parents who are no more. Facts indicate that the father had the tenancy rights over the flat wherethe incident is alleged to have taken place.

4. Complaint Case No. 4701623/SS/11 was filed before the AdditionalChief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court at Esplanade Mumbai allegingoffences punishable under Sections 298 and 504 IPC. Complainant statedthat she moved into the above mentioned flat on 23.04.2011 along with herhusband, her servants and necessary household belongings. Having come toknow of the same, her brother along with accused came to India from USA andoccupied one out of the four b

Gm, Sri Siddeshwara Co-Op.Bank ... vs Sri Ikbal & Ors. on 22 August, 2013
Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

R.M. LODHA, J.

Leave granted.

2. The question to which we have to turn in these appeals, byspecial leave, centres around Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement)Rules, 2002 (for short, “2002 Rules”).

3. The facts are these: on 08.02.1996, the respondent no.1,Ikbal (hereinafter referred to as “borrower”), took a housing loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from Sri Siddeshwara Co-operative Bank Ltd. (forshort, “the Bank”). He mortgaged his immovable property being RS No.872,Plot No.29, Mahalbagayat situate at Bijapur. The borrower committeddefault in repayment of the said housing loan. Despite several reminderswhen the borrower failed to make payment of the loan amount, the Bankissued a notice on 16.02.2005 calling upon him to repay the outstandingloan amount of Rs.10,43,000/- with interest and costs failing which it wasstated in the notice th

Ram Tawakya Singh vs State Of Bihar & Ors. on 19 August, 2013
Mon, 19 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

G.S. SINGHVI, J.

1. Leave granted in the special leave petitions.

2. Dr. Ram Tawakya Singh, who had filed writ petition before the Patna High Court for quashing the appointments of Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors of different Universities in the State of Bihar, has questioned the directions contained in order dated 7.12.2012 passed by the Division Bench of that Court. The State of Bihar and two others have also filed an appeal against the order of the High

Shimbhu & Anr. vs State Of Haryana on 27 August, 2013
Tue, 27 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

P.Sathasivam,CJI.

1) Leave granted.

2) These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated22.02.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh inCriminal Appeal Nos. 577 and 479 of 1998 whereby the High Court dismissedthe appeals filed by the appellants herein while affirming the convictionand sentence dated 30/31.03.1998 awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge,Narnaul.

3) Brief facts:

(a) The case relates to the gang rape of the victim in village NangalDurgu, Haryana. Purushottam-her grandfather, had a shop in the saidvillage. Balu Ram (the appellant herein) also had a shop adjacent to theshop of Purushottam. On 28.12.1995, at about 5.00 a.m., when theprosecutrix (PW-3) came out of her house to attend the call of nature,Shimbhu (A-1) and Balu Ram (A-2)-the appellants herein, met her and askedher to accompany them to their shop. When she tried to resist theirattempt, they threatened her by pointing out a knife with direconsequences. They took her inside th

Baldev Krishan vs Satya Narain on 27 August, 2013
Tue, 27 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

1. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties in great detail, at the end of which a settlement was arrived at between them, the terms of which we shall spell out later.

2. The Appeal assails the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan in Second Appeal No.216 of 2010 dated 11.3.2011 which in turn related to the legal propriety of the decree of eviction passed by the First Appellate Court being the District Judge, Churu. The landlord/Appellant had filed a Suit for the eviction of the tenant/Respondent on sundry grounds out of which we are presently concerned only with that under Section 13(1)(h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, which envisages the eviction of a tenant on the predication of the landlord, “that the premises are required reasonably and bonafide by the landlord (i) for the use or occupation of himself or his family, …..”.

3. We have per

Rajasthan Agr.Univ.Bikaner vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 27 August, 2013
Tue, 27 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

1 ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 32 of 2008 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1738 of 2003 dated 20th January, 2001, by the High Court of Rajasthan, the Rajasthan Agriculture University has filed this appeal.

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in a nutshell, are as under :-

Respondent No. 2 was in employment of the appellant-University. Prior to his employment under the appellant-University, respondent No. 2 had worked with the State of Rajasthan in Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Department. After taking voluntary retirement from his State service, he had joined the erstwhile Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur. Subsequently, the said university had been bifurcated and the appellant-University was formed. Service of respondent No. 2 had been taken over by the appellant- University.

4. The question which is to

Advocates Assn.Bangalore vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 August, 2013
Tue, 27 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

P. Sathasivam, CJI.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated16.05.2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in WritPetition No. 7623 of 2012 whereby the Division Bench of the High Courtconstituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate into thebroadcasting of certain news items by certain television channels on02.03.2012 regarding scuffle between advocates, police and media persons inthe premises of the City Civil Court Complex, Bangalore.3) Brief Facts:

(a) On 02.03.2012, Shri Janardhana Reddy, former Minister in theGovernment of Karnataka was sought to be produced by the CBI, BangaloreBranch, in the Court of 46th Additional City Civil and Special Judge, CBIat Bangalore City Civil Court Complex in a case which invited considera

Swamy Devi Dayal Hos. & Dental ... vs U.O.I & Ors on 27 August, 2013
Tue, 27 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

A.K.SIKRI,J.

1. The petitioner is a Dental College set up in the year 2004 for imparting education in the B.D.S. course (Bachelor of Dental Science). The petitioner is recognized and affiliated to Respondent No.4 University, viz. Pt. B.D. Sharma University, Rohtak, Haryana.

2. The petitioner – college was desirous to start the MDS Course (Master of Dental Surgery). For starting the said course the petitioner was required to complete the formalities i.e. (i) Essentiality and No Objection Certificate from the State Government; (ii) Affiliation from Pt. B.D.Sharma University for Health Sciences, Rohtak and (iii) Recognition from the Dental Council of India/Union of India.

3. Respondent No.3 – State of Haryana, vide letter dated 12.1.2010, granted ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the petitioner for starting MDS Course. The said ‘No Objection Certificate’ was granted by the State Government for starting MDS Course in 9 specialties i.e. Oral Surgery, Orthodontics, Conservative Dentistry, Prosthodontics, Periodontic

Kamlesh Prabhudas Tanna & Anr. vs State Of Gujarat on 26 August, 2013
Mon, 26 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dipak Misra, J.

Assailing the legal acceptability of the judgment and order passed bythe High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 531 of 2004whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has given endorsement to thejudgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track CourtNo. 1, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No. 158 of 2001 wherein the learned trialJudge had found the appellants guilty of the offences under Sections 304B,306 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short“IPC”) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and imposed thesentence of rigorous imprisonment of seven years and a fine of Rs.1,000/-on the first score, five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine ofRs.1,000/- on the second score, eighteen months rigorous imprisonment and afine of Rs.500/- on the third count and six months rigorous imprisonmentand a fine of Rs.250/- on the fourth count with the default clause for thefine amount in respect of each of the offences. The learned trial Judgestipulated that all the sentences shall be concurrent.

2. Filtering the unnecessary details, the prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage between the appellant No. 1 and deceased Sandhya, sister of the

Kishan Gopal & Anr. vs Lala & Ors. on 26 August, 2013
Mon, 26 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

V.Gopala Gowda, J.

This appeal has been filed by the appellants questioning the correctness of the judgment dated 15th March, 2011 passed in SBCMA No.1283 of 2000 by the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, affirming the judgment and award dated 25.5.2000 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk (for short 'the Tribunal') in MAC case No.7/93, urging various relevant facts and legal contentions in support of their claim made in this appeal.

2. Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case of the appellants and also to find out whether the appellants are entitled for the reliefs as prayed in this appeal.

The appellants are the parents of the deceased Tikaram, who died in a road accident on 19.07.1992 on account of rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle tractor bearing registration No. RJX 5532 by the driver, as he was traveling in the trolley which was turned upside down and he fell down from the trolley and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed

M/S. Econ Antri Ltd. vs M/S. Rom Industries Ltd. & Anr. on 26 August, 2013
Mon, 26 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. On 13/10/2006, while granting leave in Special Leave Petition(Criminal) No.211 of 2005, this Court passed the following order:

“In our view, the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the appellant in the case of Saketh India Ltd. & Ors. v. India Securities Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 1 requires reconsideration. Orders of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice may be obtained for placing this matter before a larger Bench.”

Pursuant to the above order, this appeal is placed before us.

2. Since the referral order states that the judgment of this Court inSaketh India Ltd. & Ors. v. India Securities Ltd.[1] (“Saketh”) requiresreconsideration, we must first refer to the said judgment. In that case,this Court identified the question of law involved in the appeal before itas under:

“Whether the complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act is within or beyond time as it was contended that it was not filed within one month from the date on which the cause of action arose under clause (c) of the proviso to Se

Commr.Of Central ... vs M/S Kay Kay Industries on 26 August, 2013
Mon, 26 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 26499 of 2008.

2. The controversy that emerges for consideration in this batch of appeals, being consubstantial, was heard together and is disposed of by a common judgment. For the sake of convenience the facts from Civil Appeal No. 7031 of 2009 are set out herein.

3. The respondent-company availed deemed MODVAT credit of Rs.77,546/- during the quarter of March, 2000 on the strength of invoices issued by M/s. Sawan Mal Shibhu Mal Steel Re-Rolling Mills, Mandi Govindgarh. During MODVAT verification it was found that the supplier of inputs h

Pepsu Road Transport Corp. vs National Insurance Co. on 26 August, 2013
Mon, 26 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

KURIAN, J.:

1. Breach of conditions under Section 149(2)(a) of the Motor VehiclesAct, 1988 absolves the insurer of its liability to the insured. Section149(2)(a)(ii) deals with the conditions regarding driving licence. In casethe vehicle at the time of accident is driven by a person who is not dulylicensed or by a person who has been disqualified from holding or obtaininga driving licence during the period of disqualification, the insurer is notliable for the compensation. In the instant case, we are called upon todeal with a situation where the driver allegedly possessing only a fakedriving licence.

2. Widow and two minor sons of late Gurjinder Singh Modi are claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh in M.A.C.T. No. 63/481 filed in the year 2002. The allegation was that Gurjinder Singh Modi died out of a motor accident on 04.10.2001 on account of the negligent driving of bus no. PB-11-K-8512 of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘PRTC’), Patiala, the appellant herein. Rs.30,00,000/- was claimed as compensation. Negligence was proved. The Tribunal awarded Rs.11,03,404/- as compensation. However, the insurance company was absolved of its liability since t

Master Mallikarjun vs Divnl.Mgr.National ... on 26 August, 2013
Mon, 26 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.

2. What is the just and fair compensation to be awarded to a child, who suffered disability in a motor accident, is the main point arising for consideration in this case.

THE UNDISPUTED FACTS

3. Appellant at the age of 12 years was hit by a motorcycle on 05.06.2006. He suffered the following injuries: - a. (Right) lower 1/3 leg deformity, movements restricted diagnosis of fracture.

b. Two abrasions over left elbow posteriorly over olecrenon both measuring 4x1 cms.

c. Abrasion over dorsal aspect right hand at the basis of index finger.

4. Negligence of the rider was proved. The child was treated as inpatient from 05.06.2006 to 01.08.2006, for 58 days. He was operated on 24.06.2006. Six months after the discharge, he was seen by the doctor on 15.02.2007 for follow up. It is in evidence that the patient had the following discomforts/ disabilities, i.e.:

i. Patient walks with limp on to the right side.

ii. Puckered scar on and aspect of middle 1/3 of

Chenda @ Chanda Ram vs State Of Chhatisgarh on 27 August, 2013
Tue, 27 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.

2. ‘Homicide’, as derived from Latin, literally means the act of killinga human being. Under Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafterreferred to as ‘the Code’), homicide becomes culpable when a human beingterminates the life of another in a blameworthy manner. Culpability dependson the knowledge, motive and the manner of the act of the accused. Theoffence is punishable under either Section 302, or Section 304 whichconsists of two parts. In the case before us, we are called upon to examinethe nature of the offence of culpable homicide for which the appellant hasbeen convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 and sentenced to lifeimprisonment. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court.

3. It is sad and unfortunate that the epicenter of the matter is asimple quarrel on a trivial issue – a cat was chased away by the child ofthe deceased and, in the process, it landed on the terrace of the firstaccused where some gram was kept for drying. The appellant before us is thesecond accused who inflicted the fatal blow. The first accused whoinitiated the quarrel was, however, acquitted of the cha

Aneesh D. Lawande & Ors. vs State Of Goa & Ors on 30 August, 2013
Fri, 30 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dipak Misra, J.

The present litigation exposits a sad sad scenario. It is sad because a chaos has crept in in the lives of some students and it is further sad as the State of Goa and its functionaries have allowed ingress of systemic anarchy throwing propriety to the winds possibly harbouring the attitude of utter indifference and nurturing an incurable propensity to pave the path of deviancy. The context is admission to Post Graduate courses in a single Government medical college at Goa. The insensitivity of the authorities administering medical college admissions was seriously decried by a three-Judge Bench in Convenor, MBBS/BDS Selection Board and others v. Chandan Mishra and others[1] and further echoed in Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh and others[2]. The Court in Chandan Mishra (supra) had approvingly reproduced a sentence from the decision of the High Court that proclaimed in sheer anguish: “Shakespeare in Othello has written “Chaos is come again”.

2. The saga of anguish con

Bal Gopal Maheshwari & Ors. vs Sanjeev Kumar Gupta on 30 August, 2013
Fri, 30 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

Leave granted. This appeal is preferred by the appellants againstthe judgment and order dated 17th September, 2007 passed by the learnedSingle Judge, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil MiscellaneousWrit Petition No. 44387 of 2007. By the impugned judgment, the HighCourt exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of theConstitution of India and set aside the orders dated 31st May, 2007 and 9thJanuary, 2006 passed by the District Judge, J.P. Nagar in S.C.C RevisionNo.1 of 2006 and Civil Judge, (S.D.), J.P. Nagar in Suit No. 17 of 1998respectively. Thus, defence of the respondent which was struck off by theCourts below was restored by the High Court.

2. The appellants filed Suit No. 17 of 1998 on 21st September, 1998before Civil Judge (S.D.) for eviction of the respondent-defendant-tenantfrom the suit premises, the shop located at Mohalla Raju Sarai Kanth Road,Amroha Distt., J.P. Nagar on the ground of arrears of rent and default.

3. Inspite of receipt of notice, the respondent did not choose to filewritte

Aneesh D. Lawande & Anr. vs State Of Goa & Ors. on 30 August, 2013
Fri, 30 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

As we have already disposed of the writ petition, nothing survives in the Contempt Petition and, therefore, the same is dismissed.

………………..……………J.

[Anil R. Dave]

………………..……………J.

[Dipak Misra]

New Delhi;

August 30, 2013.


Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. vs Vemuganti Ramakrishan Rao & Ors. on 29 August, 2013
Thu, 29 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of a judgment and order dated 7th September2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabadin Writ Appeal No.936 of 2006 and an order dated 21st August 2009 passed inW.A.M.P. No.2901 of 2008 in W.A. No.936 of 2006 whereby the High Court hasdismissed the Writ Appeal and the review petition filed by the appellantholding that the LAO/Collector, Land Acquisition having made the Awardbeyond the period of two years stipulated in Section 11-A of the LandAcquisition Act, the acquisition proceedings initiated by the authoritieshave lapsed.

3. The appellant happens to be a Government company engaged in coalmining operations in the State of Andhra Pradesh. In terms of anotification dated 30th August, 1992 issued under Section 4(1) of the LandAcquisition Act, a large extent of land measuring 35 acres and 09 gts. inSurvey Nos.285, 287 and 288 situated in village Jallaram, Kamanpur Mandaland Karimnagar Districts was notified for acquisition for the benefit ofthe appellant-company. A final dec

Union Of India & Ors. vs Bhanwar Lal Mundan on 27 August, 2013
Tue, 27 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted,

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.5.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11838 of 2010 whereby the Division Bench has concurred with the view expressed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench at Jodhpur (for short “the tribunal”) in O.A. No. 109 of 2008 wherein the tribunal had quashed the order passed by the competent authority re-fixing his pay prior to his retirement and directing recovery of the amount paid from 3.12.1994 to 31.12.2007.

3. The undisputed facts are that the respondent was appointed as a Gangman on JU Division on 15.1.1966 as a substitute and was regularized in the year 1972. He was promoted to the post of Store Keeper in October, 1977 and thereafter, he went on deputation to Construction Organization in December, 1977. He was given the post of PW Mistry in the Construction Organization with effect from 10.4.1981 in the pay scale of Rs.380-560. O

Gangabhavani vs Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors. on 4 September, 2013
Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. Both these appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated 13.2.2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2005, reversing the judgment and order dated 22.12.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur in Sessions Case No. 374 of 2000, by which and whereunder the respondents were found guilty and convicted under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as `the IPC’) and awarded a sentence of 2 years each. A1 and A2 had been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and they were awarded life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. They were also convicted under the provisions of Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 1908’) and had been awarded the sentence of 3 years with a fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.200/- respectively and, in default, to f

Shahid Balwa vs U.O.I. & Ors. on 3 September, 2013
Tue, 03 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. We are, in these cases, called upon to examine the question whethertwo orders passed by this Court on 11.04.2011 and 09.11.2012 in CivilAppeal No.10660 of 2010, in exercise of powers conferred on this Courtunder Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution of India, while monitoringthe investigation of 2G related cases, are liable to be recalled, de horsthe rights guaranteed to the Petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of thisCourt under Articles 32 and 136 of the Constitution of India, if aggrievedby the orders passed by the Special Court dealing with 2G Spectrum case.

2. Civil Appeal No.10660 of 2010, in which the above-mentioned ordershave been passed, was filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of Indiaby special leave, praying for a Court monitored investigation by theCentral Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or by a Special Investigating Teaminto what was descri

M/S. Kcp Ltd. vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, ... on 3 September, 2013
Tue, 03 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

1 ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the Final Order Nos. 301 & 302/2003 dated 2.5.2003passed by the Custom, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal(hereinafter referred to as ‘the CEGAT’), South Zonal Bench, Chennai, theinstant two civil appeals have been filed by the appellant-assessee. Asfacts of both the appeals are similar, these have been heard and finallydecided together.

2. The circumstances in which the appeals have arisen, in a nutshell,are as under:

The appellant-assessee is a manufacturer of machinery for sugar and cement plants and parts thereof falling under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant not only sets up sugar and cement manufacturing plant as per the specifications of the clients in India but also sets up such plants in foreign countries and here we are concerned with a plant which was set up in Vietnam.

3. The appellant-assessee entered into a contract with M/s Vina Sugars,Vietnam for supply and installation of a sugar plant at Vietnam with aca

Gurdip Singh vs State Of Punjab on 3 September, 2013
Tue, 03 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

KURIAN, J.:

1. Close to be called a centenarian, the appellant is before uschallenging the conviction and sentence under Sections 498A/304B of theIndian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’).

2. Appellant is the second accused in Sessions Case No. 41/1991 on thefile of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. First accused is his son. Theprosecution case as succinctly summarized by the High Court in the impugnedjudgment is extracted below:

“Harjit Kaur, daughter of Mohinder Singh was married with Mohan Singh accused. Mohinder Singh along with Hari Singh Sarpanch, who was his brother from the brotherhood, had gone to village Gharyala to see his daughter Harjit Kaur because the in-laws of Harjit Kaur were in the habit of picking up quarrels with her for bringing less dowry. The in- laws of Harjit Kaur used to pressurize her to bring scooter, refrigerator and cash from her parents. On her failure to do so, they after conspiring with each other, threatened to kill her by giving some poisonous substance. Gurdip Singh, father-in-law of Harjit Kaur, on many occasions told Harjit Kaur that in case she failed to bring the above said articles before Rabi crop, then after murde

Tarabai vs Govt. Of Karnataka & Ors. on 3 September, 2013
Tue, 03 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
Tarabai vs Govt. Of Karnataka & Ors. on 3 September, 2013
Author: H Gokhale

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1361 OF 2006

Tarabai (Dead) Through L.Rs. … Appellant (s)

Versus

Govt. of Karnataka & Ors. … Respondent (s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3789-3791 OF 2007

J U D G E M E N T

H.L. Gokhale J.

These appeals are filed to challenge a common judgment andorder dated 30.9.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of Karnataka HighCourt in Regular Second Appeal No.137/2001 and RSA No.215/2001. Both theappeals, which were decided by the learned Single Judge, were concerningthe land which was owned by the appellant Tarabai (now deceased) along withher family members. The land consisted of 2 acres 16 guntas in SurveyNo.16/1A and 1B in Jangamarakoppa Village in District Hubli. The AssistantCommissioner, Dharwad had initiated acquisition proceedings for acquiringthe said land by publishing a notification under the Land Acquisition Act,1894, for the purposes of constructing an administrative building for thebenefit of the Small Scale Industries Development Corporation. The ChiefManager, Industrial State Zone-2, Hubli, of this corporation is respondentno.2 in these appeals.

2. Initially the acquisition proceedings were challenged by theabove referred appellant by filing a Writ Petition bearing No. 366/1969before

Prem Singh vs State Of Haryana on 2 September, 2013
Mon, 02 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. The appellant, Prem Singh, alongwith six others was charged forvarious offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 and theArms Act, 1959, including, the offence under Section 302 read with Section149 IPC. Two of the accused, namely, Satish Kumar and Surinder, wereacquitted even prior to the recording of their statements under Section 313Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). The remaining five accused, includingthe present appellant, were acquitted by the learned Trial Court at theconclusion of the trial by order dated 5.4.1997. Aggrieved, the State hadfiled an appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The High Courtby judgment and order dated 12.5.2008 reversed the acquittal insofar as thepresent appellant Prem Singh and another accused, i.e., Vishwa Bandhu isconcerned. Both the aforesaid accused persons were convicted under Section302 read with Section 34 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for life. The appeal of the State in respect of the remainingthree accused, namely, Daulat Ram, Ballu and Radhey Shyam was dismissed.Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence imposed, the appellant, PremSingh, has filed the present appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 26.11.1993

Govt. Of Kerala & Ors. vs Sudhir Kumar Sharma & Ors. on 2 September, 2013
Mon, 02 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

1 ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered in Civil Revision PetitionNo. 5189 of 2001 dated 20th January, 2005 by the High Court of Karnataka,this appeal has been filed by the Government of Kerala & other officials.

3. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, areas under:

Respondent No. 1 has filed a civil suit, being OS No. 11286 of 1998 inthe Court of the Additional City Civil Judge at Mayo Hall in Bangalore.According to respondent no.1, he had been wrongfully detained by the StateAuthorities and therefore, in the said suit he has prayed that he should beawarded Rs.55,00,000/- as damages with interest thereon at the rate of 18%. As the suit has been filed against the State, he was supposed to give anotice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ( hereinafterreferred to as ‘the CPC’) but he had not given the statutory notice underSection 80 of the CPC in accordance with law. In fact, the notice wasissued by him on 24th October, 1998 whereas the suit had been filed on28th October

Noor Saba vs Anoop Mishra & Anr on 2 September, 2013
Mon, 02 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. The contempt petitioner had filed a writ petition under Article 32 ofthe Constitution [W.P.(C) No. 503 of 2007] raising a plea that after herhusband had passed away in the year 1980, while serving as the Headmasterin Government Public School, Rampur under the Uttar Pradesh Basic ShikshaParishad, a meagre and inadequate amount of family pension was being paidto her leaving her in a dire state of penury and distress. The writpetition in question was filed before this Court even while a writproceeding on the same issue was pending before the Allahabad High Court.Notwithstanding the above, taking into account the peculiar facts of thecase, particularly, the distress that the petitioner claimed to besuffering from, this Court entertained the writ petition and disposed ofthe same by the order dated 29.7.2008 in the following terms :

“Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct

Umesh Kumar vs State Of A.P.And Anr. on 6 September, 2013
Fri, 06 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. Both these appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 11.4.2012 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 12791 of 2011 by way of which the High Court has quashed the charge sheet in C.C. No. 555 of 2011 in respect of the offence under Section 468 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). However, it has not quashed the charge sheet in respect of offences punishable under Sections 471, 120-B and 201 IPC. Hence, these cross appeals by both parties i.e. the accused and the State of Andhra Pradesh.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that: A. A letter dated 22.4.2011 was received by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, purported to have been written by one Shri M.A. Khan (Member of Parliament) enclosing a representation of All India Banjara Seva Samithi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Samithi’) asking for an impartial enquiry against Shri V. Dinesh Reddy, the then DG

Nagar Panchayat,Kurwai & Anr. vs Mahesh Kumar Singhal & Ors. on 6 September, 2013
Fri, 06 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. We are in these cases concerned with the question whether theappellant, Nagar Panchayat, Kurwai (in Civil Appeal No.7821 of 2013 @SLP(C) No.20997 of 2008) is justified in demanding any fee, for the parkingof the motor, trucks and buses in the bus stand, owned and maintained bythe Nagar Panchayat.

3. The High Court held that Nagar Panchayat has no power to collect thatamount and allowed the writ appeal against which the Nagar Panchayat hascome up with this appeal.

4. The appellant in exercise of the powers conferred under Section357(3) read with Section 349(2), 357 (5) and 358(4) (b) and (d) of MadhyaPradesh Municipality Act, 1961, imposed parking fee on the owners ofvehicles, motors, trucks, buses, matadors etc. Following that a notice wasissued by the appellant demanding Rs.20/- per day or Rs.600/- per month,imposin

Union Of India & Ors. vs B.Banerjee on 6 September, 2013
Fri, 06 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. The precise question that arises for determination in the presentappeal is whether the respondent, a medically decategorised Driver of theIndian Railways, working as a Crew Controller with stationary duties, isentitled to allowance in lieu of kilometerage (ALK). The CentralAdministrative Tribunal by its order dated 10.02.2011 answered the questionagainst the respondent which led to a round of litigation before theCalcutta High Court. The High Court held that the respondent was entitledto the allowance in question. Aggrieved, the Union has filed this appeal.

2. The basic facts that would require notice are not in dispute. Therespondent while serving as a Diesel Driver (Goods) Grade-II was foundunfit to work as a Driver in a special medical examination that was held on5.1.2005. He was, however, allowed to work as a Crew Controller. The saidpost, though involved performance of stationary duties was included in thecadre of Driver in terms of Railway Board Circular No.9/98 dated09.01.1998. Regular Drivers, in addition to medically decategorisedDrivers like the Respondent, were also drafted to p

State Of Maharashtra vs Lahu @ Lahukumar Ramchandra ... on 6 September, 2013
Fri, 06 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

This is an appeal by special leave by the State of Maharashtra againstthe judgment of acquittal. Said judgment of acquittal has been passed inappeal. By the impugned judgment, the High Court of Bombay has acquittedthe respondent under Sections 363, 364A, 386, 302 and 201 of the IndianPenal Code. The trial court, however, had held the respondent Lahu @Lahukumar Ramchandra Dhekhane guilty of all the charges.

According to the prosecution, Sanket, son of Suryakant Bhande, PW-30was studying in Junior K.G. in M.E.S. High School. On 29th of November,1999 Sanket went to school at 9 A.M. When he did not return, the fatherwent to the school where he met Sanket’s Class Teacher, Anjali Walimbe (PW-4), who informed him that he left the school with a person aged about 25years at 12.30 P.M. In the meanwhile, Pratibha, the mother of the childreceived a ransom call promising to release the child on payment of ransomof Rs. 1 lakh. A report was accordingly lodged. On 6th of December, 1999at 11.00 A.M. another ransom call came demanding a sum of Rs. 1 lakh fromthe father for releasing the child from captivity and the ransom am

Rohilkhand Med. Colleg. & Hosp. ... vs M.C.I & Anr on 6 September, 2013
Fri, 06 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. The petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India to quash the letter dated 13.07.2013 issued by the Medical Council of India by which the permission granted for renewal of admission for additional intake of students for the academic session 2013-2014 was revoked.

2. Rohilkhand Medical College and Hospital was established by Rohilkhand Educational Charitable Trust in the year 2005. The Medical College started the first M.B.B.S. Course during the year 2006-07 with an annual intake of 100 seats for which permission was granted under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short “the IMC Act) by the Central Government. Later, the Medical Council of India (for short “the MCI”) granted recognition to the College to award M.B.B.S. Degree granted by M.J.P. Rohilkhand University, Bareily, U.P. The College is also conducting post-graduate courses

Delhi Union Of Journl ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 6 September, 2013
Fri, 06 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

G.S. SINGHVI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Whether the amendment made in the Master Plan of Delhi vide Notification dated 20.9.1995 permitting utilization of the sites earmarked for Nursery Schools for other purposes is ultra vires the provisions of the Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957 (for short, ‘the Act’) or is otherwise arbitrary and whether allotment of 1000 sq. yards (in some paragraphs of the special leave petition and the documents annexed with it the size of the plot has also been mentioned as 1200 sq. yards) of land earmarked in Gulmohar Park for Nursery School to respondent No.4 – Kala Ashram, School of Dance and Drama, New Delhi is violative of the provisions of the Constitution and/or the Act are the questions which arise for consideration in this appeal filed against judgment dated 24.10.2008 of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.

3.

Punjab School Education Board vs Dalip Chand & Ors. on 6 September, 2013
Fri, 06 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The question that has come up for consideration in this appeal iswhether the service rendered by the respondent in the Department ofEducation, Punjab be treated as qualifying service for the purpose ofpension under the Punjab School Education Board (Employees Pension,Provident Fund and Gratuity) Regulations, 1991 (for short “the Regulations1991”).

3. The respondent-herein was recruited as clerk by the PunjabSubordinate Service Selection Board on 07.04.1965 and he was posted in theDepartment of Education, Punjab. Later he was appointed as a lecturer inPolitical Science in Government Senior Secondary School, Valtoha, DistrictAmritsar where he served upto 1970. He had worked as an assistant inEducation Department from June 1970 to 08.08.1979.

4. Punjab School Education Board on 03.05.1979 advertised for the postof Superintendent. The respondent applied for the said post and wasselected. Appointment order dated 03.08.1979 was sent to him and he joinedon 08.08.1979 in the service o

Union Of India & Ors. vs B.V.Gopinath on 5 September, 2013
Thu, 05 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
Union Of India & Ors. vs B.V.Gopinath on 5 September, 2013
Author: ….….…………………..J.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO 7761 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP (C.) No. 6348 of 2011)

Union of India & Ors. …Appellants VERSUS

B.V.Gopinath …Respondent WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7762 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP (C.) No. 25534 of 2011)

Union of India …Appellant VERSUS

K.K. Kapila …Respondent WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7763 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP (C.) No. 26939 of 2011)

Union of India & Anr. …Appellants VERSUS

Sudhir Ranjan Senapati …Respondent

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7764 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP (C.) No. 28222 of 2011)

Union of India & Ors. …Appellants VERSUS

S.K. Srivastava …Respondent WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7765 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP (C.) No. 25838 of 2011)

Union of India & Ors.

Minu Rout & Anr vs Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra & Ors. on 2 September, 2013
Mon, 02 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed by the appellants who were claimants before the Additional District Judge-cum-4th MACT, Jagatsinghpur, Odisha (in short ‘the Tribunal’) in MAC case No.6 of 2005, questioning the correctness of the judgment and award dated 27.07.2011 passed by the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack in MACA No. 594 of 2010, wherein it has affirmed the judgment and award of the Tribunal holding that the award of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the appellants along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till actual payment, is legal and valid and the same is not vitiated either on account of impropriety or illegality. The correctness of the same is challenged in this appeal urging certain relevant facts and grounds.

3. Brief facts of the case are mentioned hereunder for the purpose of appreciating the case and to examine whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation claimed by them in this civil appeal. The first appellant is the wif

Bhanwar Lal & Anr vs Rajasthan Board Of Muslim Wakf & ... on 9 September, 2013
Mon, 09 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

A.K. SIKRI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The question that needs determination in the present appeal is as to whether Civil Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the respondent herein or the subject matter of the suit lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under the Rajasthan Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Act’), having regard to the provisions of Section 85 of the Act. Though the suit was filed by the Respondent in the Civil Court, it is on the application of the Respondent itself stating that the suit was not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Section 85 of the Act, the Civil Court returned the plaint accepting the said contention of the Respondent. The Petitioners herein, who were the Defendants in the suit, challenged the order of the Civil Court by filing Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, at Jodhpur. The said

State Of Maharashtra & Ors. vs Namdeo Etc.Etc. on 9 September, 2013
Mon, 09 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

A.K.SIKRI,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The three respondents herein were the original petitioners who hadfiled three separate Writ Petitions in their individual capacities. Inthese Writ Petitions, the petitioners claimed that they took part in thefreedom movement and were, therefore, entitled to the benefits which theGovernment has announced with the proclamation of the “Freedom FightersPension Scheme”. Having regard to the fact that all the claims were onsimilar set of facts, the Bench High Court of Judicature at Bombayconsolidated those three petitions and after hearing, has allowed all bysingle judgment dated 10.2.2012 with the following directions:

“(i) The impugned orders passed by the State Government, thereby rejecting claims of the petitioners for freedom fighter’s pension, are quashed and set aside. It is held that the petitioners are entitled to freedom fighter’s pension, under the Scheme framed by the State of Maharashtra, from the date of their first application.

(ii) Th

Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs State Of Gujarat on 9 September, 2013
Mon, 09 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. We are in this case concerned with the question as to whether therelationship between A-1 and A-2 was extra-marital leading to crueltywithin the meaning of Section 498A IPC and also amounted to abetmentleading to the act of suicide within the meaning of Section 306 IPC.

2. A-1, the first accused, along with A-2 and A-3, were charge-sheetedfor the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304-B and 306 IPC. TheSessions Court convicted A-1 for the offence punishable under Section 498AIPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for three years and to pay a fine ofRs.5,000/- and in default to undergo further RI for six months. A-1 wasalso convicted for offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and sentencedto suffer RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default toundergo further RI for six months. A-2 and A-3, the mother of A-1 were,however, acquitted of the various offences alleged against them. The trialCourt also acquitted A-1 of the offence charged against him under Section304-B IPC. On appeal by A-1, the High Court though confirmed theconviction, modified the sentence under Section 498A IPC to two years’

Satish Mutually Aided Coop. ... vs Yamjala Malla Reddy & Ors. on 5 September, 2013
Thu, 05 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.

2. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 15.4.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal Nos. 2219 and 2304 of 2005 and C.R.P. No. 1368 of 2010.

3. The disputes in these appeals relate to lands bearing Sy. Nos. 246 to 262, 265 to 269, 430 to 448, 454, 460 to 464, 517, 538 to 540 situated at Bowrampet Village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. As the facts would unfurl, Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a notification under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short “the 1950 Act”), and thereafter, the revenue authority conducted an inquiry as per the notification of 1973 and determined that the ownership stood transferred to the protected tenants with effect from 1.1.1973. The respondents herein, as protected tenants of the said lands, were granted requisite certificate under Section 38E of the 1950 Act. As pleaded, the Mandal R

Union Of India vs Namit Sharma on 3 September, 2013
Tue, 03 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

These are petitions filed under Article 137 of the Constitution ofIndia for review of the judgment dated 13.09.2012 of this Court in WritPetition (C) No.210 of 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the judgment underreview’).

Background Facts:

2. In Writ Petition (C) No.210 of 2012 filed under Article 32 of theConstitution of India, Namit Sharma, the respondent herein, had prayed fordeclaring the provisions of Sections 12(5), 12(6), 15(5) and 15(6) of theRight to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) as ultra vires theConstitution. Sections 12(5), 12(6), 15(5) and 15(6) of the Act areextracted hereinbelow:

“12(

State Of A.P.Thr.I.G.National ... vs Md.Hussain @ Saleem on 13 September, 2013
Fri, 13 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
State Of A.P.Thr.I.G.National ... vs Md.Hussain @ Saleem on 13 September, 2013
Author: ………..……………………..J.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRL. M.P. Nos. 17570 & 17571/2013

IN

(SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Nos. 7375/2012 & 9788/2012)

State of Andhra Pradesh through

I.G. National Investigation Agency … Petitioner

Versus

Md. Hussain @ Saleem … Respondent

AND IN THE MATTER OF

Sadhwi Pragya Singh Thakur … Applicant

Versus

National Investigation Agency … Contesting Respondent

J U D G E M E N T

H.L. Gokhale J.

These Criminal Misc. Petitions have been filed by the applicantfor impleadment, and clarification of the common order passed by this Courton 2.8.2013 in (i) SLP (Crl.) No.7375/2012 State of A.P. through I.G.National Investigating Agency Vs. Md. Hussain @ Saleem, and (ii) SLP (Crl.)No.9788/2012 National Investigation Agency Vs. Ravi Dhiren Ghosh. SLP(Crl.) No.7375/2012 arose from the judgment and order dated 7.9.2012 inCRLP No.6562/2012 passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. SLP (Crl.)No.9788/2012 arose out of the order passed by the Bombay High Court onCriminal Bail Application No.1063/2012. The relevant part of this orderdated 2.8.2013 passed by this Court re

Esha Bhattacharjee vs Mg.Commit.Of Raghunathpur Nafar ... on 13 September, 2013
Fri, 13 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dipak Misra, J.

1. Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.

2. The singular question that we intend to address in these appeals, by special leave, is whether the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta is justified in entertaining the CAN No. 365 of 2011 for condoning the delay of 2449 days in A.S.T.A. No. 10 of 2011 preferred against the interim order dated 25.2.2004 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 6124(W) of 2004. It is also worthy to note that the Division Bench in A.S.T.A No. 10 of 2011 in A.S.T. No. 13 of 2011 had directed stay of further proceedings in connection with A.S.T. No. 346 of 2004. Needless to say, the said order is consequential as whole thing would depend upon the issue pertaining to condonation of d

Manjit Singh & Anr. vs State Of Punjab & Anr. on 13 September, 2013
Fri, 13 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dipak Misra, J.

The two appellants, namely, Manjit Singh and Paramjit Singh, were tried along with three others in ST No. 54 of 2001 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. The facts which are essential to be stated are that on 8.11.1998 about 12:00 noon Amarjot Singh, the complainant, PW-1, along with his younger brother, Jagmohan Singh, the deceased, was going on a tractor towards Bholath for some domestic work. Jagmohan Singh was driving the tractor, whereas Amarjot Singh was sitting on the left mudguard of the tractor. After they reached village Pandori Arayiyan, they were stopped by a Maruti car bearing registration no. PB-10-X 7079, driven by Accused No. 1, Manjit Singh, who parked it on the road in front of the tractor. On seeing the

P.B.Desai vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr. on 13 September, 2013
Fri, 13 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

A.K. SIKRI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant herein, a renowned surgeon, stands convicted of the offence punishable under Section 338 r/w Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘I.P.C’). This conviction was delivered by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, vide judgment and order dated 05.07.2011. The -appellant was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment (SI) till the rising of the Court and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as and by way of compensation, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. This conviction and sentence had been upheld by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 22.03.2012 and is also confirmed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay by way of impugned judgment dated 15.10.2012. Still not satisfied, the appellant has challenged the judgment of the High Court, by way of present appeal.

3. To give a glimpse of the episod

Resurgence India vs Election Commission Of India & ... on 13 September, 2013
Fri, 13 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

P.Sathasivam, CJI.

1) This writ petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India,has been filed to issue specific directions to effectuate meaningfulimplementation of the judgments rendered by this Court in Union of Indiavs. Association for Democratic Reforms and Another (2002) 5 SCC 294 andPeople’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Another vs. Union of India &Anr. (2003) 4 SCC 399 and also to direct the respondents herein to make itcompulsory for the Returning Officers to ensure that the affidavits filedby the contestants are complete in all respects and to reject theaffidavits having blank particulars.

Background:

2) In order to maintain purity of elections and to bring transparency inthe process of election, this Court, in Association for Democratic Reforms(supra), directed the Election Commission of India-Respondent No. 1 hereinto issue necessary orders, in exercise of its power under Article 324 ofthe Constitution, to call for information on affidavit from each candidateseeking election to the Parliament or a State Legislature as a necessarypart of h

A.C. Narayanan vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr. on 13 September, 2013
Fri, 13 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

P.Sathasivam,CJI.

Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2007

This appeal is filed against the final common judgment and order dated12.08.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in CriminalApplication Nos. 797, 798, 799, 801, 802 and 803 of 2002 whereby the HighCourt dismissed the applications filed by the appellant herein against theorder of issuance of process against him for the offence punishable underSections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short ‘theN.I. Act) by the IXth Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bandra,Mumbai in Complaint Case Nos. 292/S/1998, 293/S/1998, 297/S/1998,298/S/1998, 299/S/1998 and 300/S/1998.

Brief facts :

(a) The appellant is the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of theCompany by name M/s Harvest Financials Ltd

Sumit Mehta vs State Of N.C.T. Of Delhi on 13 September, 2013
Fri, 13 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

P.Sathasivam,CJI.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.12.2012 passed bythe High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Bail Application No. 1479 of 2012whereby learned single Judge of the High Court while granting anticipatorybail to the appellant herein in a case registered against him vide FIR No.104 dated 22.08.2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467,468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as“IPC”) directed him to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (one crore) infixed deposit in the name of the complainant in any nationalized bank andto keep the FDR with the Investigating Officer.

3) According to learned senior counsel for the appellant, the conditionfor depositing the amount in fixed deposit in the impugned order isuntenable in law and is outside the purview of Section 438 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “the Code”). He further pointed outthat learned single Judge, while imposing the condition for depositing theamount in fixed deposit, has failed to ap

A.S.V.Narayanan Rao vs Ratnamala & Anr on 13 September, 2013
Fri, 13 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Chelameswar, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of an order dated 28th October 2010 inCriminal Petition No.6506 of 2007 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

3. The aforementioned criminal petition was filed praying that theproceedings initiated against the appellant herein in C.C. No.600 of 2006on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabadfor the offence punishable under section 304A IPC be quashed. The saidpetition along with another similar petition by one of the co-accused washeard and disposed of by a common order (order in appeal).

4. While the petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed by theHigh Court, the other petition of the co-accused was allowed.

5. The appellant is a cardiologist. The husband of the first respondent(one Divakar) approached the appellant herein, complaining of a pain in thechest on 22.04.2002. Divakar was admitted in the hospital where theappellant was working and kept in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU).Thereafter, the appellant informed the first respondent that Divakar

Karnataka State K.V.Industries ... vs Punjab National Bank & Ors. on 13 September, 2013
Fri, 13 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

1 ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the High Court of Karnataka in Regular First Appeal No. 1684 of 2004 dated 29th July, 2005, this appeal has been filed by the Karnataka State Khadi and Village Industries Board, who was defendant No. 3 in the Suit, which had been filed by Punjab National Bank, who is respondent No. 1 (for sake of convenience, the creditor- Punjab National Bank has been described as ‘the Bank’ whereas the appellant has been described as the ‘Board’ and the principal debtor Shevashakti Gramodyoga Sangh, Gulbarga, who had borrowed funds from the Bank has been described as the ‘Borrower’).

3. The facts, giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, are as under :

The Borrower had borrowed money from the Bank for its business and asper policy of the State of Karnataka, the Board had assured the Bank thatby way of subsidy, the amount of interest would

Soma Suresh Kumar vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh & ... on 12 September, 2013
Thu, 12 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. The petitioners, who were erstwhile Directors of Vasavi Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, have approached this Court seeking a declaration that Sections 3, 5, 8 and 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (in short “the Andhra Act”) are unconstitutional and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to them under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also other consequential reliefs.

2. The petitioners were Directors of the above-mentioned bank during the period from 1996 to 2002. Large number of complaints were received from the depositors stating that the Board of Directors of the bank had swindled away the money of the depositors by creating false documents, amounting to crores of rupees. On receipt of the complaints, enquiry was conducted and, ultimately, Joint Registrar o

Manohar Lal Sharma vs M.C.I & Ors on 12 September, 2013
Thu, 12 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. We are, in these cases, concerned with the legal validity of the approval granted by the Medical Council of India (for short “the MCI”) dated 15th July, 2013 for renewal of permission for admission of the third batch of 150 M.B.B.S. students at Chintpurni Medical College & Hospital (for short “the College”) for the academic year 2013-14. The above mentioned College was established during the year 2011-12 and it admitted 150 M.B.B.S. students for that year. Renewal of permission for the second batch was sought for the academic year 2012-13. The MCI carried out an inspection on 19/20th April, 2012 and noticed various deficiencies and, in addition, one fake faculty was also presented before the Inspection Team. Copy of the assessment report was placed before the Board of Governors of the MCI. The Board of Governors, therefore, issued a show cause notice dated 20.6.2012 to the faculty, stating as follows:


Shanmugam & Anr. vs State Rep. By Inspector Of ... on 11 September, 2013
Wed, 11 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 24th August,2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Madras at Madurai, wherebyCriminal Appeal No.857 of 2004 filed by the appellants and two othersagainst their conviction for murder and sentence of life imprisonment hasbeen dismissed.

2. On 5th January, 1999 at about 3.00 p.m. the deceased Asokan was oneamongst 200 other mourners who had assembled to attend the cremation of anear relative who had passed away and was being cremated at villageVeerappanayakan Patti. Adikesavan (PW-1), Rajendran (PW-4), Vellingiri (PW-5) and Paneer (PW-10) were also among those present at the cremationground. The prosecution case is that, that on account of strained relationsbetween the accused and the deceased arising out of rivalry in relation tosmuggling of sandalwood by the two groups, there was, a few days earlier tothe date of occurrence, a quarrel between them which had turned ugly withthe two groups assaulting each other. The accused were, therefore, lookingfor an opportunity to get even with deceased which opportunity came theirway when the deceased who was a resident of another village joined thefuneral and the cre

Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. & Anr vs Kolkata Metrop. Dev. Auth. & Ors on 11 September, 2013
Wed, 11 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

1. We are called upon to decide the correctness of the impugned decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta which in turn has upheld the appreciation of the law as also the facts of the case by a learned Single Judge of that Court. Thus, these courts have concurrently concluded that the Appellant-company had failed to comprehensively correspond to the essential terms of the tender and, therefore, its offer contained in the said tender was ineligible for consideration.

2. The two terms of the subject 'Invitation to Tender' which are germane to the case in hand are clauses (i) and (j) thereof, which read thus –

“(i) A declaration in the form of Affidavit in a non judicial stamp paper should be submitted stating clearly that the applicant is not barred/delisted/blacklisted by any Government Department/ Government Undertaking/ Statutory Body/ Municipality and of the like Government Bodies in DI Pipe-sup

Hill Properties Ltd. vs Union Bank Of India & Ors. on 11 September, 2013
Wed, 11 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. We are in this case concerned with the saleability of Flat No.23,Building No.2, Hill Park Estate, A.G. Bell Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400006, which is under attachment in the execution proceedings before the DebtRecovery Tribunal (DRT), Mumbai.

3. Union Bank of India, Respondent No.1 herein, had advanced somefinancial assistance to the second respondent sometimes in the year 1992.Respondent Nos.3 and 4 stood as personal guarantors for repayment of thedues of

Respondent No.2. Respondent No.5, being an associate company of RespondentNo.2, mortgaged the aforementioned flat in favour of the Union Bank ofIndia to secure repayment of the dues of Respondent No.2. For realizationof the payment of the amount, proceedings were initiated under theSecuritization Act before the DRT, Mumbai, and the flat in question wasattached under the warrant of attachment on 23rd August, 2005.

4. The Hill Properties Ltd., Appellant herein, preferred Suit No.1627 of2007 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (

Kulmeet Kaur Mahal And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 11 September, 2013
Wed, 11 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellants are aggrieved by the order passed by the Punjab & HaryanaHigh Court in Review Application No.89 of 2013 in LPA No.1070 of 2013, bywhich the Division Bench of the High Court clarified its earlier orderdated 25.7.2013 stating as follows :-

“We thus clarify that there has not to be disturbance of the already allocated seats in the general category but whatever further seats remain vacant and/or are spill over from 60% quota, the RMOs will also compete with the only difference that there would be weightage given to them as per Clause (ix) of Medical Council of India Regulations.”

3. Appellants, who are nine in number and not made parties to the ReviewPetition, have questioned the order of the High Court on the followingquestions of law :-

I. Whether the impugned order passed by the Hon’ble High Court is sustainable in the teeth of law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in CA No.5705-5706 of 2012 Satyabrata Sahoo & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. vide judgment dated 03.08.2012 sinc

Sunil Damodar Gaikwad vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 September, 2013
Tue, 10 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

KURIAN, J.:

1. Death and if not life, death or life, life and if not death, is the swinging progression of the criminal jurisprudence in India as far as capital punishment is concerned. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, under Section 367(5) reads:

“If the accused is convicted of an offence punishable with death, and the Court sentences him to any punishment other than death, the Court shall in its judgment state the reason why sentence of death was not passed.”

(Emphasis supplied)

This provision making death the rule was omitted by Act 26 of 1955.

2. There have been extensive discussions and studies on abolition of capital punishment during the first decade of our Constitution and the Parliament itself, at one stage had desired to have the views of the Law Commission of India and, accordingly, the Commission submitted a detailed report, Report No. 35 on 19.12.1967. A reference to the introduction to the 35th Report of the Law Commission will be relevant for our discussion. To quote:

“A resolution was moved in the Lok Sabha on 21st April, 1962, for the abolition of Capital Punishment. In the co

Msr Leathers vs S. Palaniappan And Anr. on 10 September, 2013
Tue, 10 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.

1. This matter was referred before the larger Bench by order dated 25thMarch, 2009. The question referred to the larger Bench was : “whether theaction of the appellant was time-barred under Section 138(b) of theNegotiable Instruments Act or not ?”

2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the respondent issuedfour cheques to the appellant on 14th August, 1996. The appellant presentedthose four cheques on 21st November, 1996 and on presentation, thosecheques were returned by the Bank with an endorsement “not arranged fundsfor”. At the request of the respondent, the appellant did not present thesaid cheques since the respondent agreed to settle the dispute. However,the respondent failed to settle the dispute subsequently. In thesecircumstances, on 8th January, 1997, the appellant sent a notice (to therespondent) under section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The respondent duly received thesaid notice. Subsequent thereto, those cheques were again presented beforethe Bank on 21st January, 1997 by the appellant. On presentation, the saidcheques were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds.

Londhe Prakash Bhagwan vs Dattatraya Eknath Mane And Ors on 10 September, 2013
Tue, 10 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated July 1, 2010 passedby the High Court of Judicature at Bombay whereby the High Court remandedthe matter to the School Tribunal directing it to register the appeal andhear the same in accordance with law. The High Court felt that if an appealis preferred against an order of supersession before the School Tribunalunder Section 9(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools(Conditions of Service) Regulation Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘theMEPS Act’), the provisions of limitation do not apply to such appeals andaccordingly remanded the matter before the School Tribunal.

3. The appellant being aggrieved by the said order has preferred thisappeal.

4. The facts of the case are as follows :

4.1. On August 16, 1996 the appellant was appointed as the Headmaster of Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Vidhyalaya run by Jijamata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal. Then respondent No.1 was acting as the in-charge Headmaster of the said School. The appointment of the a

Maharashtra Ekta Hawkwers Union & ... vs Municipal Corporation,Greater ... on 9 September, 2013
Mon, 09 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

G.S. SINGHVI, J.

1. A street vendor / hawker is a person who offers goods for sale to thepublic at large without having a permanent structure / place for hisactivities. Some street vendors / hawkers are stationary in the sense thatthey occupy space on the pavements or other public / private places whileothers are mobile in the sense that they move from place to place carryingtheir wares on push carts or in ba

Ajoy Acharya vs State Bureau Of Inv.Against ... on 17 September, 2013
Tue, 17 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.

1. Investigation into the affairs of the Madhya Pradesh IndustrialDevelopment Corporation (renamed as Madhya Pradesh State IndustrialDevelopment Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the ‘MPSIDC’) wasordered with effect from 3.1.1996, by the State Government. Thereupon, afirst information report bearing no. 25 of 2004 was registered underSections 409, 406, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and Section 13(1)(d) read withSection 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafterreferred to as the ‘PC Act’). The allegations levelled in the firstinformation report generally were, that the functionaries of the MPSIDC hadpermitted investment by way of inter corporate deposits (hereinafterreferred to as the ‘ICD’s’) through a resolution of the Board of Directors(of the MPSIDC) dated 19.4.1995. By the instant r

M/S Escorts Ltd. vs Rama Mukherjee on 17 September, 2013
Tue, 17 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.

1. This Court on 21.2.2013 directed that the instant SLP (Crl.) No.7325of 2012 be listed after the pronouncement of judgment in Criminal Appealno. 808 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9434 of 2011), titledNishant Aggarwal vs. Kailash Kumar Sharma. Nishant Aggarwal’s case (supra)was disposed of by this Court on 1.7.2013. The pointed question, whicharose for consideration in this Court’s aforesaid determination was,whether the Court within the jurisdiction whereof, the complainant hadpresented the dishonoured cheque (issued by an accused), had thejurisdiction to entertain a petition filed under Section 138 of theNegotiable Instruments Act. While disposing Criminal Appeal No.808 of2013, this Court returned a finding in the affirmative by observing asunder:

“(7) We have already narrated the case of both the parties in the pleadings portion. In order to answer the only question, it is relevant to note that the undisputed facts in the context of territori

Gail (India) Ltd vs Gujarat State Petroleum Corpn. ... on 17 September, 2013
Tue, 17 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

G.S. SINGHVI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Whether the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court was justified inentertaining the writ petition filed by the respondent under Article 226 ofthe Constitution in the matter of fixation of price of the gas supplied bythe appellant and whether a mandamus could be issued requiring theappellant to engage itself with the respondent to arrive at the price ofgas effective from 1.1.2014 are the questions which arise for considerationin this appeal.

3. The Government of India constituted Petronet LNG Limited (PLL) formarketing liquefied natural gas (LNG) imported from Qatar and othercountries. The Petronet LNG Limited consists of GAIL (India) Limited (theappellant), Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOC), Bharat PetroleumCorporation Limited (BPCL) and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited(ONGC).

4. On 31.7.1999, Petronet LNG Limited entered into Sale PurchaseAgreement (SPA) with Ras Gas, Qatar for supply of 5 MMTPA of LNG for aperiod of 25 years. In August 2006, the SPA was amended to includeaddit

Dredging Corp.Of India Ltd. vs P.K.Bhattacherjee on 17 September, 2013
Tue, 17 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8278 OF 2013

[Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.26414 of 2011]

1. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties in detail. The Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation (1st Court), West Bengal held on 24.6.2010 that the Applicant/Respondent had met with an accident on 27.12.1999 while in the employment of the Appellant and that considering his age, wages and injury he was entitled to compensation computed at Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lac) which is the maximum awardable, together with simple interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum till the date of realization. The Appellant thereafter approached the High Court of Calcutta but without success as the Division Bench, by its judgment dated 12.8.2011, has dismi

R. Venkata Ramana & Anr. vs The United India Insurance Co. ... on 17 September, 2013
Tue, 17 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the Judgment delivered by the Andhra Pradesh HighCourt in Civil Misc. Appeal No.1016 of 2007 on 27th December, 2010, thisappeal has been preferred on behalf of the claimants in a Motor AccidentClaim Petition.

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in a nut shell, are asunder:

On account of an accident, which had taken place on 31st July, 2000,around 6 p.m., son of the appellants had suffered severe injuries. He hadto be hospitalized and operations had to be performed. The injured wasleft with 80% disability due to the accident. Looking at the nature ofinjuries suffered by the injured, a claim for Rs.25,07,564/- was made bythe appellants and the injured, who was also a claimant before the Tribunalbut at present, possibly because of his inability, the appeal has beenfiled by the parents.

4. After considering the evidence and looking at the injuries sufferedand physical condition of the injured, namely, Rajanala Ravi Krishna, whowas hardly 17 years old at the time of the accident, by way ofcompensation, the Tribunal awarde

Kollam Chandra Sekhar vs Kollam Padma Latha on 17 September, 2013
Tue, 17 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the common judgment and order dated28.09.2006 passed in CMA No. 2858 of 2002 and CMA No. 2859 of 2002 of theHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh as it has set aside the judgment and decree ofdivorce granted in favour of the appellant-husband dissolving the marriagebetween the appellant and respondent by dismissing the Original PetitionNo. 203 of 2000 filed by the appellant for dissolution of their marriageunder Section 13 (1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short ‘theAct’) and allowing the Original Petition No. 1 of 1999 filed by therespondent-wife against the appellant by granting restitution of conjugalrights urging various facts and legal contentions.

3. The factual and rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the partiesare adverted to in this judgment with a view to examine the tenability ofthe appellant's submissions. The relevant facts are stated as hereunder:

The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnizedon 31.05.1995 at Kakinada (Andhra Pradesh) as

Educare Charitable Trust vs U.O.I & Anr on 17 September, 2013
Tue, 17 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

A.K.SIKRI,J.

1. In this petition, invoking the provisions of Article 136 of theConstitution of India, the petitioner seeks leave to appeal against thejudgment dated 2nd July 2013 passed by the High Court of Kerala. WritPetition of the petitioner has been dismissed by the aforesaid judgment.

2. The petitioner, which is a Charitable Trust working in the field ofeducation, has established a Dental College which was established few yearsago. During the Academic Year 2007-08, course in Bachelor of DentalSurgery (BDS) was started by it with an annual intake of 50 students. Thiswas done after taking due -permission from the Central Government underSection 10-A of the Dentists Act, 1948 on the recommendation of DentalCouncil of India (DCI). The Government of Kerala has issued requisiteEssentiality Certificate. The college run by the petitioner is affiliatedwith University of Calicut as that University had granted necessary Consentof Affiliation. The Dental College also stands affiliated to the KeralaUniversity of Health Sciences, established by the Kerala University ofHealth Science Act, 2010.

3. In the year 2012, the petitioner w

Rajasthan State Road Tranp. Corp. ... vs Babu Lal Jangir on 16 September, 2013
Mon, 16 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

A.K. SIKRI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation is the appellant in the instant petition through of which it impugns the validity of the orders dated 16.1.2013 passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature For Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. The Division Bench has dismissed the Writ Appeal of the appellant and confirmed the orders of the Additional Judge passed in the Writ Petition filed by the respondent herein, quashing the orders of compulsory retirement of the respondent with the direction that the respondent would be deemed to be in the service as if the order of compulsory retirement had not been passed and as a consequence the respondent is held entitled to all consequential benefits.

3. The Respondent joined the services of the appellant on the post of Driver on 14.2.1977. He was placed on probation for a period of one year.

4. The appellant has framed Standing O

M/S. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 16 September, 2013
Mon, 16 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

A.K. SIKRI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. We heard the Counsel for the parties at length. Having regard to the nature of issue involved that needs to be answered by us, it would be enough to to take note of some admitted facts, eschewing detailed factual discussion which may unnecessarily burden this judgment.

3. The appellant before us is M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited (rechristened as Tata Steel Ltd.). Apart from manufacturing steel, its core business, the appellant company was having cement division as well. In the era of globalization, liberalization and also because of economic compulsions, the appellant decided to follow the policy of disinvestment. Persuaded by these considerations it sold its cement division to Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter to be referred as ‘M/s. Lafarge’) vide Business Transfer Agreement (BTA) dated 9.3.1999 which was to be effected from

Gurudwara Sahib vs Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala & ... on 16 September, 2013
Mon, 16 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

A.K.SIKRI,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant herein is the original plaintiff which had filed thesuit for decree of declaration to the effect that it had become owner ofthe suit property by adverse possession. Declaration was also sought tothe effect that the Revenue record showing ownership of respondent No.1herein i.e. Gram Panchayat (defendant in the suit) is liable to becorrected in the name of the appellant and the auction already held by theGram Panchayat of the land in dispute is null and void. Consequentialrelief of permanent injunction restraining Gram Panchayat fromdispossessing the appellant from the disputed land was also prayed for.This suit was partly decreed by the trial court granting relief ofinjunction. First Appeal against that part of the judgment whereby reliefof declaration was denied was dismissed by the learned Additional DistrictJudge and the Second Appeal preferred by the appellant has also beendismissed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide judgment dated 22ndSeptember 2011. Undeterred by successive failures,

State Of Rajasthan & Anr. vs Bal Kishan Mathur(D) Tr.Lrs.& ... on 16 September, 2013
Mon, 16 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Though the only issue that arises in this appeal is with regard tothe correctness of the order dated 12.11.2008 passed by the Division Benchof the Rajasthan High Court declining to condone the delay that hadoccurred in the institution of Special Appeal Writ No.02033 of 2007 by theappellant, a brief conspectus of the relevant facts would be appropriate.

3. An order of eviction dated 17.12.1980 under the Rajasthan PublicPremises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964 was passed by theEstate Officer against the respondent (Now represented by his legal heirs). The respondent was unsuccessful in the challenge made against the saidorder in an appeal before the learned District Judge. Thereafter, therespondent filed an application for review which was transferred to thecourt of learned Additional District Judge who heard the matter and decidedthe same on 17.12.1993 as if he was hearing an appeal against the initialorder of the Estate Officer dated 17.12.1980. The State of Rajasthan,therefore, moved Civil Writ Petition No.35

Baldev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 20 September, 2013
Fri, 20 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

These are appeals by way of special leave under Article 136 of theConstitution against the common judgment dated 06.04.2005 of the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.221-DB of 1998.

Facts of the case:

2. The facts very briefly are that Inder Singh sent an application dated 19.01.1992 by registered post with A.D. to the Director General of Police, Punjab, for releasing seven members of his family. In the application, Inder Singh alleged that on 29.10.1991 at 5.00 a.m. Baldev Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, and Balwinder Singh, Police Constable (the appellants herein) and other police men raided their house and picked up seven members of his family. They are Sadhu Singh (his father), Hardev Singh (his son), Gurdip Singh and Amanjit Singh (his brothers), Sharanjit Sin

Vyas Ram @ Vyas Kahar & Ors. vs State Of Bihar on 20 September, 2013
Fri, 20 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
Vyas Ram @ Vyas Kahar & Ors. vs State Of Bihar on 20 September, 2013
Author: H Gokhale

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No.791 OF 2009

Vyas Ram @ Vyas Kahar & Ors. ... Appellants

Versus

State of Bihar ... Respondent

With

Death Reference Case (R) No.2 of 2011

State of Bihar ... Applicant

Versus

Vyas Ram @ Vyas Kahar & Ors. ... Respondents

J U D G E M E N T

H.L. Gokhale J.

This Criminal Appeal No. 791/2009 filed by Vyas Kahar alias Vyas-jee, Naresh Paswan and Bugal Mochi alias Bugal Ravidas seeks to challengethe Death sentence awarded to them by the Sessions Judge-of the-DesignatedCourt, Gaya, State of Bihar, by his judgment and order dated 11.02.2009 inC.R Case No.430 of 1992 arising out of Tekri PS Case No.19/1992. All ofthem have been convicted and sentenced to death under Section 3(1) of TheTerrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereafterreferred to as TADA), and for life imprisonment on each count underSections 302 read with 149, 364 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code(IPC in short), for rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 436r/w 149 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for 1 year under Section 435 r/w 149IPC. The Death Re

Manju Swarup (D) Thr. Lrs. vs Bhupenshwar Prasad (D) Thr. Lrs. & ... on 20 September, 2013
Fri, 20 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

1 ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This is one of the cases which shows how miserable a decree holder becomes in the execution proceedings. This is a Second Appeal in the execution proceedings filed by the judgment debtor whose property was ordered to be sold in the execution proceedings. In pursuance of a suit, which had been filed in 1955, the final decree was passed and the property of the appellant had been attached on 21st December, 1962. The execution proceedings had been continuing since then. The facts, in a nutshell, are that the Execution Case No. 29 of 1962 was filed for recovery of the decretal amount by the decree-holder. Auction notice was published on 16th April, 1964. The appellant herein, the judgment debtor had filed an application under Order XXI, Rule 83 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’) for postponement of the sale, as it was possible for the judgment debtor to raise the decretal amount and pay the same to the decree-holder.

3. Ultimately, on 8th October, 1964, th

Deepak Rai vs State Of Bihar on 19 September, 2013
Thu, 19 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

H.L. Dattu, J:

1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Death Reference No. 6 of 2009 and Criminal Appeal(DB) Nos. 989 of 2009 and 158 of 2010, dated 19.08.2010. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has confirmed the judgment of conviction, dated 17.09.2010 and order of sentence, dated 30.10.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge cum FTC No. 2, Vaishali at Hazipur in Sessions Trial No. 195 and 571 of 2006, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the three accused-appellants for offence under Sections 120B, 148, 302 read with 149,

University Grants Commission & ... vs Neha Anil Bobde(Gadekar) on 19 September, 2013
Thu, 19 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. We are, in these appeals, called upon to examine whether theUniversity Grants Commission (for short “the UGC”) has got the power to fixthe final qualifying criteria, for those who have obtained the minimummarks for all the papers, before the final declaration of the results ofthe National Eligibility Test (for short “NET”) for the year 2012.

3. We have, before us, a judgment of the Division Bench of the BombayHigh Court, Bench at Nagpur, which ruled that the UGC lacked the competenceto fix the aggregate marks as the final qualifying criteria, after thecandidates obtained the minimum marks, prescribed in the notification dated6.12.2012 before the declarat

Nagoor Pichai @ Badusha vs State Tr.Sub-Insp.Of Police on 19 September, 2013
Thu, 19 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

1. The only question agitated before us by learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner is that the provisions of Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act, 1925 (hereinafter ‘Borstal Schools Act’) have been ignored by the Courts below. It is evident from a perusal of the impugned judgment that the applicability of the said statute has not been raised in either of the Courts below. Briefly stated, the Petitioner has been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his paternal uncle on 12.8.1999. It is not disputed before us that the Petitioner’s date of birth is 29.11.1979 thereby making him 19 years 8 months of age on the date of the commission of the murder. The Petitioner having been found guilty has been sentenced to life imprisonment vide judgment of the Trial Court pronounced on 6.9.2002, on which date the Petitioner was 22 years 9 months old.

Kaini Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 19 September, 2013
Thu, 19 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed by the accused who was convicted for anoffence punishable under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo RigorousImprisonment for seven years. Facts leading to this appeal are as follows:

3. PW2, the prosecutrix, was employed in a Khadi Centre, Kayoor andresiding at Arakachal along with her parents, brothers and sisters.According to the prosecution, on 17.9.1997 at about 8.30 AM, when she wasproceeding to the Khadi Centre from her house, the accused, a friend of herbrother, caught hold of her by hand and forcibly took her to the nearbyproperty of one Karunakaran and committed rape on her, without her consent. She tried to make a hue and cry, but was silenced by the accused bystating that he would marry her. Even after this incident, he had sexualrelationship with her on more than one occasions.

4. PW2, later, became pregnant and gave birth to a boy on 24.6.1998 inthe Government Hospital, Payyannur. Accused not only not kept his promiseto marry her, but even disputed the pat

M/S. Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. vs Jan Chetna & Ors. on 19 September, 2013
Thu, 19 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

G.S. SINGHVI, J.

1. Whether the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court could haveentertained and allowed the petition filed by respondent No.1 as PublicInterest Litigation for setting aside order dated 31.12.2008 passed byNational Environment Appellate Authority (for short, ‘NEAA’) and remandedthe case to the competent quasi judicial forum for being decided on merits.

2. The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act,1956. Its registered office is at Raipur (Chhattisgarh). On 27.6.2007, theappellant submitted an application to Chhattisgarh Environment andConservation Board (respondent No.3) for sanctioning the proposed expansionof its existing plant at Naharpali, Kharsia, Raigarh. Respondent No.3issued notice dated 4.8.2007 under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 andthe Rules framed thereunder for holding public hearing. As many as 700persons participated in the public hearing. Thereafter, respondent No.3sent report dated 4.10.2007 to the Ministry of Environment and Forests(respondent No.2), which granted environmental

U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. vs N.T.P.C.Ltd.& Ors on 18 September, 2013
Wed, 18 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. This appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 calls inquestion the correctness of a Judgment and Order dated 7th July, 2006passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity whereby the Tribunal haswhile partially modifying the Order passed by the Central ElectricityRegulatory Commission (‘CERC’ for short) dismissed Appeal No.36 of 2006filed by the appellant.

2. The CERC had by the Order impugned before the Tribunal allowedPetition No.139 of 2004 filed by the respondent-Corporation and permittedcapitalisation of Rs.4.521 crores over the approved cost for the completionof Feroz Gandhi Unchahar Thermal Power Station Stage-I for the period 1stApril, 2001 to 31st March, 2004. While doing so the CERC had in Para 37 ofits Order held respondent No.1 entitled to return on equity and interest onloan on the said amount payable along with the tariff for the period 2004-2009. What is significant is that both the CERC and the Appellate Tribunalrejected the contention urged on behalf of the appellant-Corporation thatthe additional capital expenditure incurred by the respondent-Co

Gothamchand Jain vs Arumugam @ Tamilarasan on 18 September, 2013
Wed, 18 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. We are, in this appeal, concerned with the applicability of the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1956, vis-à-vis, Article 2262 of the French Code Civil, said to be the governing law of limitation in the Union Territory of Pondicherry, erstwhile French Establishment.

3. Appellant herein preferred a suit, being OS No. 295 of 1991 before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry. The suit was resisted, inter alia, on the ground of limitation, which was ultimately decreed in favour of the plaintiff. However, on the plea of limitation, the trial Court held as follows:

“12. On Issue No. 3: - Article 2262 of French Code Civil shows that the limitation for original cause of action is thirty years and it is a well settled law that the said provision is applicable to the Union Territory – Pondicherry. Accordingly, suit claim is not time barred. Hence this issue is answered in the negative and in favour of the plaintiff.”

4. Defendant took u

Dr.B.R Ambedkar Medical College & ... vs U.O.I & Anr on 18 September, 2013
Wed, 18 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. Petitioners have approached this Court invoking the extraordinaryjurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiaseeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the Corrigendum Notification No.37(1)2013/One Time Permission/Med./19355, in so far as it confines thebenefits of -

the “Enhancement of Annual Intake Capacity in Undergraduate Courses inMedical College for the Academic Session 2013-14 only Regulations 2013” (inshort “Regulations 2013”), issued vide notification dated 8.7.2013, to theGovernment Medical Colleges only, as unconstitutional, being ultra vires ofArticle 14 of the Constitution of India.

2. Petitioners in all these petitions submit that they are all wellestablished private unaided medical institutions in the country running formore than 10 years with an annual intake of 100 MBBS students, over andabove, they are conducting PG Degree and Diploma courses as well.Regulations 2013 was issued on 8.7.2013 by the Medical Council of Indi

Ranjeet Goswami vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 18 September, 2013
Wed, 18 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. We notice with concern the commission of large number of crimes by the juveniles at a time when there is a hue and cry to lower the age limit of juvenile in conflict with law within the meaning of clause (l) of Section 2 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Claiming juvenility large number of applications are also being filed before the criminal courts and age determination enquiry orders passed by the Board themselves result in several litigations right up to this Court. This case is also one among them in spite of the various directions given by this Court as to how to determine the age of a juvenile in conflict with law in Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M.P. (2012) 9 SCC 750.

3. The appellant herein was charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 376, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, along with three others. The appellant, after submission of the charge-she

Channabasappa(Dead) By Lr & Anr. vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. on 17 September, 2013
Tue, 17 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

Leave granted.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgmentand order dated 2nd June, 2006 passed by the Division Bench of the HighCourt of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.A. No.3836/2005(LR). By the impugnedjudgment the Division Bench dismissed the appeal preferred by theappellants herein and affirmed the order passed by the learned SingleJudge, whereby the learned Single Judge directed the Land Tribunal toverify the aspect of filing of Form No.7 by the tenant.

2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: The appellants claim to be the owners of lands in Sy. Nos. 33, 37,38, 39, 40, 41 and 53 situated in village Halligeri, Dharward Taluk,Karnataka, having purchased the same in the year 1956. According to theappellants, the lands were in their personal cultivation since then.

3. The 2nd respondent, Gangappa (since deceased) filed an applicationbefore the Special Tahasildar, Land Reforms, Dharwad, contending thereinthat he had sent an application on 23rd Jun

Ranjana Kumari vs State Of Uttaranchal & Ors. on 23 September, 2013
Mon, 23 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

G.S. SINGHVI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant has questioned correctness of order dated 29.8.2011 bywhich the Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by herin the matter of appointment as District Information Officer against thepost reserved for Scheduled Caste.

3. In response to an advertisement issued by Public Service Commission,Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) (for short, ‘the Commission’), which waspublished in newspaper Amar Ujala dated 25.8.2002 for recruitment against833 posts in different cadres, the appellant submitted an application forappointment as District Information Officer mentioning therein that she isa member of Scheduled Caste. She cleared the Combined Civil ServicesExamination, 2002, preliminary as well as main. She was interviewed by theCommission in May, 2005. During the interview, the appellant was asked toindicate her preferences for various advertised posts. She gave her 15thpreference for the post of District Information Officer. She wasprovisionally selected but her candidature was cancelled by the Commissionvide Office Memorandum dated 4.10.2005 on the ground that she cannot takebenefit of

Delta Distilleries Ltd. vs United Spirits Limited & Anr on 23 September, 2013
Mon, 23 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
Delta Distilleries Ltd. vs United Spirits Limited & Anr on 23 September, 2013
Author: …………..……………………..J.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8426 OF 2013

(@ out of SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 28418/2012 )

Delta Distilleries Limited … Petitioner

Versus

United Spirits Limited & Anr. … Respondents

J U D G E M E N T

H.L. Gokhale J.

Leave Granted.

2. This appeal by Special Leave seeks to challenge the judgmentand order dated 20.7.2012 rendered by a Single Judge of Bombay High Courtallowing Arbitration Petition No.838 of 2011 filed by the respondent No.1herein. The said petition sought to invoke the powers of the court underSection 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein afterreferred to as the Act of 1996), which provides for seeking assistance ofthe court in taking evidence. The said petition had been moved inpursuance of the order dated 16.9.2011 passed by a three member ArbitralTribunal permitting the respondent No.1 to file such an application. Thelearned Single Judge allowed the said petition, and thereby directed theappellant to produce the documents as sought by the respondent No.1 beforethe Arbitral Tribunal. This appeal has been filed by Special Leave tochallenge the said judgment and order. The appeal raises the question withrespect to the scope of Section 27, and the circumstances in which the

Yash Deep Trexim Private Limted vs Namokar Vinimay Pvt Ltd And Ors on 23 September, 2013
Mon, 23 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

Leave granted.

2. The common challenge in these appeals is against the judgment andorder dated 19.10.2012 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court ofCalcutta holding that the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies(Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter for short “SICA”) areapplicable to the “foreign companies” registered in India under theprovisions of Section 591 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter for short“the Act”) and, therefore, the revival scheme framed by the Board forIndustrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as “BIFR”)in respect of the Baranagore Jute Factory Plc. (hereinafter for

State Of Rajasthan vs A.N. Mathur & Ors. on 23 September, 2013
Mon, 23 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

1 ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered in D.B. Civil SpecialAppeal (Writ) No.431 of 2012 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9843 of 2011dated 19th July, 2012, delivered by the High Court of Rajasthan, theappellant-State of Rajasthan has filed the present set of appeals.

3. As all the appeals arise out of a common judgment delivered by theRajasthan High Court, all the appeals were heard together at the request ofthe learned counsel appearing for the concerned parties.

4. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, areas under:


People'S Union For Civil ... vs Union Of India & Anr. on 27 September, 2013
Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

P.Sathasivam, CJI.

1) The present writ petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution ofIndia, has been filed by the petitioners herein challenging theconstitutional validity of Rules 41(2) & (3) and 49-O of the Conduct ofElection Rules, 1961 (in short ‘the Rules’) to the extent that theseprovisions violate the secrecy of voting which is fundamental to the freeand fair elections and is required to be maintained as per Section 128 ofthe Representation of the People Act, 1951 (in short ‘the RP Act’) andRules 39 and 49-M of the Rules.

2) The petitioners herein have preferred this petition for the issuanceof a writ or direction(s) of like nature on the ground that though theabove said Rules, viz., Rules 41(2) & (3) and 49-O, recognize the right ofa voter not to vote but still the secrecy of his having not voted is notmaintained in its implementation and thus the impugned rules, to the extentof such violation of the right to secrecy, are not only ultra vires to thesaid Rules but also violative of Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of theConstitution of

State Of Rajasthan vs Jamil Khan on 27 September, 2013
Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

KURIAN, J.:

1. All murders shock the community; but certain murders shock the conscience of the Court and the community. The distinguishing aspect of the latter category is that there is shock coupled with extreme revulsion. What should be the penological approach in that category is one question arising for consideration in this case. What is the scope of consideration of Death Reference by the High Court under Chapter XXVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.PC’), is the other question. Whether there is any restriction on the exercise of power under Section 432 Cr.PC for remission and Section 433 Cr.PC for commutation in cases of minimum sentence is the third main issue.

2. On 23.12.2002, Pooja, a tiny girl below five years of age was brutally raped and thereafter murdered by the respondent. He packed the dead body in a sack and further in a bag and secretly left it in a train. By Judgment dated 15.04.2004, the Sessions Court, having regard to the overwhelming evidence, convicted the respondent under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and sentenced him to death

Ranjit Singh vs State Of M.P & Ors on 27 September, 2013
Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the order dated 16.8.2013 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior, in M.Cr.C. No. 3370 of 2013 whereby the learned single Judge has cancelled the order of bail granted by learned first Additional Sessions Judge, Guna vide order dated 6.2.2013 to the appellant.

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 14.8.2012 an FIR bearing No. 376/2012 was registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Guna, for offences punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act alleging that the appellant along with one Abhishek Hada and two unknown persons had come to the market place where an altercation ensued between them and the informant and others. It was alleged in the FIR that two of these four persons were carrying weapons and they fired at the informant, respondent No. 3 he

Poongadi And Anr. vs Thangavel on 27 September, 2013
Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. The appellants are the wife and son of one Thangavel. By an orderdated 12.01.1998 passed by the learned trial court each of the appellantshave been granted maintenance @ Rs. 300/- per month w.e.f. 04.02.1993i.e. date of filing of the application under Section 125 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure (CrPC). As the respondent-husband had not complied withthe order of payment, in a miscellaneous petition, i.e., C.M.P. No.566/1998 filed by the appellant, the trial court by its order dated21.07.1998 had sentenced the respondent to imprisonment. The default inpayment of maintenance was for the period 4.2.1993 to 4.2.1998.On 5.2.2002 another miscellaneous application (Crl.M.P.No.394/2002) was filed by the appellants claiming maintenance for theperiod 4.2.1993 to 5.2.2002. The same was allowed by the learnedMagistrate on 31.12.2002 against which the respondent had filed Crl. R.C.No. 620/2003. The High Court by its order dated 21.4.2004 held that asCrl.M.P. No. 394/2002 was filed on 5.2.2002, under the first proviso toSection

M/S Larsen & Toubro Limited & Anr. vs State Of Karnataka & Anr. on 26 September, 2013
Thu, 26 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
M/S Larsen & Toubro Limited & Anr. vs State Of Karnataka & Anr. on 26 September, 2013
Author: R Lodha

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8672 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.17741 of 2007)

M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited & Anr. …… Appellants

Versus

State of Karnataka & Anr. ……Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8673-8684 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 30581-30592 of 2009)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8685 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.17709 of 2012)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8686 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.17738 of 2012)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8687 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.21052 of 2012)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8688 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.21863 of 2012)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8690 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.26226 of 2012)

WITH


Kamlesh Kumar And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 26 September, 2013
Thu, 26 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
Kamlesh Kumar And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 26 September, 2013
Author: H.L. Gokhale

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Nos. 6219-6220 OF 2012

Kamlesh Kumar & Ors. … Petitioners

Versus

The State of Jharkhand & Ors. … Respondents

J U D G E M E N T

H.L. GOKHALE, J

These Special Leave Petitions (Criminal) seek to challenge thejudgment and order dated 19.7.2012, whereby a Learned Single Judge of theJharkhand High Court dismissed the two Writ Petitions bearing Nos. WritPetition Nos.95 & 112 of 2003 filed by Shri Kamlesh Kumar and three others,all children of one Dr. K.M. Prasad who worked earlier as the Director ofAnimal Husbandry department in Government of Bihar. They are beingprosecuted under the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973(in short FERA), and those

cases have been transferred to the Special Judge hearing the Fodder scamcases. In the above referred Criminal Writ Petitions they had challengedthe transfer of those cases to the Special Court by contending that thetransfer order was bad on various grounds, the principal amongst them beingthat the State Government had no jurisdiction to authorise the SpecialJudge to try these cases under FERA. Those Criminal Writ Petitions havebeen rejected, and hence these Special Leave Petitions (Criminal) have beenfiled.

Facts leading this Criminal Petition are as follows:

Sushila Devi vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors. on 24 September, 2013
Tue, 24 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.

1. These applications have been filed by the parties praying for monitoring of the matter in question, on one hand and the other parties seek that since the charge-sheet has already been filed, it is not necessary to continue with the monitoring of the matter in question which is pending before the Criminal Court for adjudication

2. Therefore, the sole question as it appears to be germane at this stage in the matter is: whether this Court should continue to monitor the investigation, as directed earlier, even after filing of the charge- sheet.

3. The facts of the case briefly are as follows:

a) In January, 2006, the Rajasthan Police came up w

Eastern Coalfileds Ltd.& Ors. vs Bajrangi Rabidas on 23 September, 2013
Mon, 23 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

2. Calling in question the legal sustainability of the judgment and order dated 17.8.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in F.M.A. No. 169 of 2006 whereby the Division Bench has overturned the judgment and order dated 14.6.2004 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 5700(W) of 2001 whereunder he had given the stamp of approval to decision dated 26.2.2004 by the General Manager of the appellant-company, who had rejected the objection of the respondent for changing his date of birth as recorded in his service excerpts and Form ‘B’ Register, the appellants have preferred their appeal by special leave.

3. The facts which are requisite to be exposited are that the respondent had joined at Chinakuri Mine No. 111 on 9.1.1970 as Mining Sirdar and for being selected on the said post he had appeared in Gas Testing Examination held on 15.5.1969. He had also appeared in Sirdarship examination held o

Bheemraya vs Suneetha on 23 September, 2013
Mon, 23 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

Undoubtedly, both the parties were minor at the time when the respondent claims that they were married. She further alleges that she gave birth to a daughter when the parties lived together as husband and wife.

Respondent filed a suit with a prayer that the appellant be restrained from marrying anyone else during her life time. She also filed another suit claiming that she and her daughter are entitled to 1/3rd share of the property owned by the appellant and his father. She, therefore, prayed for a perpetual injunction restraining the appellant and his father from alienating the suit property.

...2/-

:2:

In the tw

People'S Union For Civil ... vs Union Of India & Anr. on 27 September, 2013
Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

P.Sathasivam, CJI.

1) The present writ petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution ofIndia, has been filed by the petitioners herein challenging theconstitutional validity of Rules 41(2) & (3) and 49-O of the Conduct ofElection Rules, 1961 (in short ‘the Rules’) to the extent that theseprovisions violate the secrecy of voting which is fundamental to the freeand fair elections and is required to be maintained as per Section 128 ofthe Representation of the People Act, 1951 (in short ‘the RP Act’) andRules 39 and 49-M of the Rules.

2) The petitioners herein have preferred this petition for the issuanceof a writ or direction(s) of like nature on the ground that though theabove said Rules, viz., Rules 41(2) & (3) and 49-O, recognize the right ofa voter not to vote but still the secrecy of his having not voted is notmaintained in its implementation and thus the impugned rules, to the extentof such violation of the right to secrecy, are not only ultra vires to thesaid Rules but also violative of Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of theConstitution of

Tamilnadu Rural Dev.Eng.Asso. vs Secretary To Govt.Rural ... on 27 September, 2013
Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
Tamilnadu Rural Dev.Eng.Asso. vs Secretary To Govt.Rural ... on 27 September, 2013
Author: ….….…………………..J.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8758 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP (C.) No. 20986 of 2007)

Tamil Nadu Rural Development

Engineers Association …Appellant

VERSUS

The Secretary to Government Rural

Development Department & Ors. …Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8759 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP (C.) No. 15918 of 2007)

Tamil Nadu Rural Development

Engineers Association …Appellant

VERSUS

The Secretary to Government Rural

Development Department & Ors. …Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8762 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP (C.) No. 15988 of 2007)

Tamil Nadu Rural Development

Engineers Association …Appellant

VERSUS

The Secretary to Government Rural

Development Department & Ors. …Respondents


Vishnu (D)By Lrs. vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. on 4 October, 2013
Fri, 04 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

G.S. SINGHVI, J.

1. Whether Clause 30 of B-1 Agreements entered into between the Government of Maharashtra and the appellant is in the nature of an arbitration clause is the question which arises for consideration in this appeal filed against judgment dated 6.5.2004 of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench.

2. The tenders submitted by the appellant, who is now represented by his legal representatives, for Tondapur Medium Project, Jalgaon Medium Project Division, Jalgaon and Hatnoor Canal Division No.3, Chopda, District Jalgaon were accepted by the Competent Authority and five agreements were executed between the parties on 19.5.1983 and 5.10.1983 (hereinafter referred to as ‘B-1 Agreements’).

3. In January 1985, the appellant abandoned the works and submitted bills for the

M/S Kulja Industries Ltd. vs Chief Gen.Manager W.T.Proj.Bsnl ... on 4 October, 2013
Fri, 04 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The short question that falls for determination in this appeal iswhether the respondent-Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short ‘BSNL’)could have blacklisted the appellant for allotment of future contracts forall times to come. High Court of Judicature at Bombay before whom theblacklisting order was assailed by the appellant has answered that questionin the affirmative and dismissed Writ Petition No.2289 of 2011 filed by theappellant giving rise to the present appeal.

3. Two tender notices for supply of Permanent Lubricated HDPE Pipe(Telecom Ducts) and Installation of O.F. Cable through Blowing Techniquewere issued by BSNL in the year 2004 and 2005. It is common ground that theappellant-company emerged successful in regard to both the tender notices.It is also not in dispute that several orders for supply of the materialwere placed with the appellant-company during the years 2004-2006 and thatgoods were supplied to various consignee units of BSNL pursuant to thesame. The appellant’s case is that a “receipt certificate” was

Ajahar Ali vs State Of West Bengal on 4 October, 2013
Fri, 04 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 19.9.2012 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in Criminal Revision No. 3240 of 2012 affirming the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 22.8.2012 dismissing the appeal of the appellant against the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate dated 9.5.2012, by which and whereunder the learned Magistrate had found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’). He had been sentenced to suffer SI for 6 months and further to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- , and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo SI for two months.

3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to appeal are that: A. On 6.11.1995, Nasima Begum (PW.1), aged about 16 years filed a complaint alleging that on that day while she was going to attend her tuition alongwith her friend Nilufa Kha

Panchanand Mandal @ Pachan Mandal ... vs State Of Jharkhand on 4 October, 2013
Fri, 04 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 20thSeptember, 2006 passed by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court,Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 441 of 2001. By its impugned judgment, theDivision Bench dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the appellants andaffirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.Thus Trial Court order, finding the appellants- Panchanan Mandal @PachanMandal and Malti Devi alongwith two others guilty of the offence underSection 304(B)/34 IPC and convicting them with imprisonment for life wasupheld by the High Court.

2. The case of the prosecution is based on fard-beyan (I.R.) ofinformant Bachchu Sao (PW-14) who is the brother of the deceased – BasantiDevi. According to the fard-beyan(I.R.) recorded on 14th August, 1998 atSadar Hospital, Giridih, the marriage of his deceased sister Basanti Deviwas solemnised with the accused Kaleshwar Mandal about five years priorto her death. On 12th August, 1998, Bachcho Sao got information that hissister- Basanti Devi had suffered burns and was admitted in Giridih SadarHospital for treatment. He came to Sad

B.S.N.L & Anr. vs G.Sarvothaman on 4 October, 2013
Fri, 04 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Leave granted.

2. We are in this case concerned with the question whether the Chief Commissioner has got the powers to order regularization of promotion and identification of eligible posts in a cadre, in the Department of erstwhile Telecommunications, while exercising powers under Section 59 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act of 1995).

3. The Respondent was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on compassionate ground in relaxation of normal recruitment rules, including upper age limit and typing test, in the Post Master General’s Office Trivandrum on 23.01.1973 in the PMT Department, which was later bifurcated into Departments of Posts and Telecommunications. The Respondent then opted for Telecommunications Department. Nomenclature of posts of Lower Division Clerk/Upper Division

Deputy Commissioner,Kvs & Ors vs J.Hussain on 4 October, 2013
Fri, 04 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

A.K.SIKRI,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The respondent herein was served with a charge memo dated 2/3rdAugust 2000 under the provisions of Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services(CCA) Rules, 1965 and Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules1964. Primary allegation against him was that he had forcibly entered intothe office of Principal of Kendriya Vidayala Sangthan, Tura in the State ofMeghalaya, where he was posted and working as Upper Division Clerk. It wason 24.5.2000 at around 11.30 a.m. The respondent was in a fully drunkenstate. -

The respondent in his reply admitted the incident, namely he entered theoffice of the Principal in that condition. However, according to him, hedid not enter the office of the Principal forcibly. The respondent alsooffered his unconditional apology for consumption of alcohol and requestedthe Disciplinary Authority to take a sympathetic view of the matter andpardon him. The Disciplinary Authority went through the reply. Since therespondent had admitted the charge, it was felt that in view thereof, noregular enquiry was needed and on the basis of ad

H.P.St.Electricity Regulatory ... vs H.P.State Electricity Board on 3 October, 2013
Thu, 03 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dipak Misra, J.

These appeals, by special leave, are directed against the commonJudgment and order dated 21.11.2007 passed by the High Court of HimachalPradesh in FAOs (Ord.) Nos. 489, 490, 491, 492, 493 & 494 of 2002 wherebythe learned Single Judge overturned the decision dated 17.08.2002 renderedby the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short,“the Commission”) constituted under the provisions of Chapter IV ofElectricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as“the 1998 Act”).

2. The controversy that has emerged for consideration being common to

Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza & Ors. vs Ahmedabad Municipal Transport ... on 3 October, 2013
Thu, 03 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

Leave granted.

2. The legal representatives of the deceased Nazirbhai who died in aroad accident on 30th May, 1998 were aggrieved by the judgment and orderdated 11.01.2012 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First AppealNo. 1549 of 2002 wherein the High Court had partly allowed the appeal ofthe respondent and reduced the compensation awarded in favour of theclaimants by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’)at Ahmedabad in MACP No. 563 of 1998 dated 23.10.2001 from Rs.3,51,300/- toRs.2,51,800/- with a direction to the appellants-claimants to refund theexcess amount of Rs.99,500/- along with the interest at the rate of 9% perannum. The appellants-claimants have filed this appeal urging certaingrounds and prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and award passedby the High Court.

3. The brief facts of this case are stated below to appreciate the rivalclaims of the parties:

On 30.05.1998, the deceased Nazirbhai was going on his bicycle to hiscontract work of polishing at about 10.30 a.m. at the house of oneRashidbhai Pathan in Haranwali Pole. While he was waiting for otherlabourers at Kalidas Mill Kachha

U.P.Power Corp.Ltd.& Anr vs Virendra Lal on 3 October, 2013
Thu, 03 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

2. Calling in question the legal acceptability of the order dated11.2.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, LucknowBench, Lucknow, in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 211 of 2011 whereby the DivisionBench has affirmed the judgment dated 23.9.2010 passed by the State PublicService Tribunal, Lucknow, (for short “the tribunal”) in claim petition No.683 of 2000 wherein the tribunal had set aside the order dated 12.10.1999passed by the U.P. State Electricity Board (UPSEB) imposing punishment ofdeduction of 10% amount of pension payable to the original respondent,Virendra Lal, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein, the U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. (for short “the Corporation) and its functionarieshave preferred this appeal by special leave.

3. The expose’ of facts are that late Virendra Lal was posted as Assistant Engineer in Electricity Distribution Division, Sultanpur in the year 1984 and at that time he had released electricity to one consumer, namely, M/s. Arif Cement Industries, Jagdishpur, beyond the approved estimate as a consequence of which wrongful loss was caused to UPSEB. After the authoriti

Anil Kumar & Ors vs M.K Aiyappa & Anr on 1 October, 2013
Tue, 01 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. We are in this case concerned with the question whether the Special Judge/Magistrate is justified in referring a private complaint made under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of Police – Karnataka Lokayukta, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. without the production of a valid sanction order under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The Appellants herein filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the Additional City Civil and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption on 9.10.2012. The complaint of the Appellants was that the first respondent with mala fide intention passed an order dated 30.6.2012 in connivance with other officers and restored valuable land in favour of a private person. On a complaint being raised, the first respondent vide order dated 6.10.2012 recalled the earlier order. Al

C.B.I vs Jagjit Singh on 1 October, 2013
Tue, 01 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

Leave granted.

2. By this appeal, the appellant-Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’for short) has challenged the impugned order dated 31st March, 2010 passedby the High Court of Calcutta in CRR No.719 of 2010. By the impugned order,learned Judge of the High Court allowed the application preferred by therespondent, Jagjit Singh, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973 and quashed the proceedings being G.R. Case No.1508 of 2006 pendingbefore the 12th Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.

3. The said case relates to CBI:SPE:ACB:Kolkata Case No.R.C. 12(A)/2003under Sections 420/471 of the Indian Penal Code. The First InformationReport(FIR) in question was lodged on the basis of a reliable informationwhich was received in the office of the SP, CBI, ACB, Kolkata to the effectthat one Shri Sanjib Kumar Chatterjee while functioning as Sr. Manager,Indian Overseas Bank (IGS), Shreemani Market Branch, Kolkata during theyear 1998-2000 had entered into a criminal conspiracy with private persons,namely, Shri Jagjit Singh, Director of M/s. Tag Reac

Selvi J.Jayalalithaa & Ors. vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. on 30 September, 2013
Mon, 30 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 10.9.2013 passed by the Government of Karnataka asking Shri G. Bhavani Singh – respondent no.4, Special Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as ‘SPP’) in a pending prosecution against the petitioners not to appear in the said matter; the communication dated 14.9.2013 passed by the Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore by which the Chief Justice has approved the removal of Shri G. Bhavani Singh as SPP, as well as the consequential order dated 16.9.2013 issued by the State Government removing the respondent no.4 from the post of SPP.

2. A prosecution was launched against the petitioners for having assets disproportionate to their known income in the year 1996-1997 in the State of Tamil Nadu. Thiru. K. Anbazhagan (respondent no. 5) is a political rival of the petitioner no.1, who is and has been the Chief Minister

Girraj Prasad Meena vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors. on 30 September, 2013
Mon, 30 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.4.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1260 of 2012, by which the High Court rejected the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `Cr.P.C.’) for setting aside the judgment and order dated 15.7.2011 passed by the Judge, Gram Nyayalaya, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan, in Case No. 269 of 2011, whereby the trial court has allowed the application of the respondents-accused for pleading guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 343 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the `IPC’) and has further given them the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the `Act 1958’), in the case arising out of FIR No. 115 of 2009 lodged at Police Station Wazirpur under Section 365 IPC.

2. Facts and circumstance

Vinodkumar M Malavia & Anr vs Maganlal Mangaldas Gameti & Ors. on 30 September, 2013
Mon, 30 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated April 23, 2012 (in First Appeal Nos. 1535 and 1536 of 2009) passed by the High Court of Gujarat, affirming the order dated February 3, 2009 passed by the City Civil Court (in Civil Misc. Application Nos. 470 of 2008 and 630 of 2008). The City Civil Court set aside the order dated May 23, 2008, passed by the Charity Commissioner. The said adjudication was made by the Charity Commissioner pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Vinod Kumar Mathurseva Malvia & Anr. v. Maganlal Mangaldas Gameti and Ors. [2006 (9) SCC 282] (being Civil Appeal No. 1260 of 2006, arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 24198 of 2005, decided on February 24, 2006) in an earlier ancillary dispute wherein this Court directed the Charity Commissioner to adjudicate on all questions pertaining to the merger of trust and other pending disputes as expeditiously as possible. Thus, the Charity Commissioner adjudicated on the objections against Change Repo

Gudda @ Dwarikendra vs State Of M.P. on 30 September, 2013
Mon, 30 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

H. L. DATTU, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Reference No. 03 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.2246 of 2010, dated 16.01.2012. By the common impugned judgment and order, the High Court has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Satna, in Sessions Trial No.257 of 2007, dated 07.09.2010, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) and sentenced him to death.

Facts:

3. The Prosecution case : On 28.05.2007, at around 12:20 p.m., Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P-10) was recorded by the Investigating Officer (PW-19) on the basis of information received from the complainant-Ramesh Prasad Gupta (PW-4) regard

People'S Union For Civil ... vs Union Of India & Anr. on 27 September, 2013
Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

P.Sathasivam, CJI.

1) The present writ petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution ofIndia, has been filed by the petitioners herein challenging theconstitutional validity of Rules 41(2) & (3) and 49-O of the Conduct ofElection Rules, 1961 (in short ‘the Rules’) to the extent that theseprovisions violate the secrecy of voting which is fundamental to the freeand fair elections and is required to be maintained as per Section 128 ofthe Representation of the People Act, 1951 (in short ‘the RP Act’) andRules 39 and 49-M of the Rules.

2) The petitioners herein have preferred this petition for the issuanceof a writ or direction(s) of like nature on the ground that though theabove said Rules, viz., Rules 41(2) & (3) and 49-O, recognize the right ofa voter not to vote but still the secrecy of his having not voted is notmaintained in its implementation and thus the impugned rules, to the extentof such violation of the right to secrecy, are not only ultra vires to thesaid Rules but also violative of Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of theConstitution of

People'S Union For Civil ... vs Union Of India & Anr. on 27 September, 2013
Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530

P.Sathasivam, CJI.

1) The present writ petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution ofIndia, has been filed by the petitioners herein challenging theconstitutional validity of Rules 41(2) & (3) and 49-O of the Conduct ofElection Rules, 1961 (in short ‘the Rules’) to the extent that theseprovisions violate the secrecy of voting which is fundamental to the freeand fair elections and is required to be maintained as per Section 128 ofthe Representation of the People Act, 1951 (in short ‘the RP Act’) andRules 39 and 49-M of the Rules.

2) The petitioners herein have preferred this petition for the issuanceof a writ or direction(s) of like nature on the ground that though theabove said Rules, viz., Rules 41(2) & (3) and 49-O, recognize the right ofa voter not to vote but still the secrecy of his having not voted is notmaintained in its implementation and thus the impugned rules, to the extentof such violation of the right to secrecy, are not only ultra vires to thesaid Rules but also violative of Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of theConstitution of

Sushil Sharma vs State (Nct) Of Delhi on 8 October, 2013
Tue, 08 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. In this appeal, by special leave, appellant - Sushil Sharma (“theappellant”) has challenged judgment and order dated 19/02/2007 passed bythe Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No.827 of 2003 confirming the deathsentence awarded to him in Sessions Case No.88 of 1996. He was tried inthe said case along with A2-Keshav Kumar (“A2-Keshav”), A3-Jai Prakash, A4-Rishi Raj and A5-Ram Prakash.

2. The appellant was tried for offences punishable under Section 302,Section 120-B read with Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (“theIPC”). A2-Keshav was tried under Section 120-B read with Sections 302 and201 of the IPC. A3-Jai Prakash, A4-Rishi Raj and A5-Ram Prakash were triedunder Section 212 of the IPC. Learned Additional Sessions Judge byjudgment and order dated 3/11/2003 convicted the appellant under Section302 of the IPC. He convicted the appellant and A2-Keshav under Section120-B read with Section 201 of the IPC. Since the charge under Section 302read with Section 120-B of the IPC was held not proved against A2-Keshav,he was acquitted of the said charge. Charge under Section 212 of the IPCwas held not proved a

Union Of India & Anr. vs National Federation Of The Blind & ... on 8 October, 2013
Tue, 08 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

P. Sathasivam, CJI.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated19.12.2008 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition(C) No. 15828 of 2006 wherein the High Court interpreted Section 33 of thePersons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights andFull Participation) Act, 1995 (in short ‘the Act’) and issued variousdirections to be complied with by the appellants herein.

3) Brief facts:

(a) National Federation of the Blind-Respondent No. 1 herein is an apexorganization and a society registered under the Societies Registration Act,1860, having its Head Office at New Delhi and is working for theprotection of the rights of the visually challenged.(b) In the year 2006, Respondent No. 1 herein filed a writ petitionbefore the High Court in public interest seeking implementation of Section33 of the Act alleging that the appellants herein have failed to provid

Rajesh Talwar & Anr vs Cbi & Anr on 8 October, 2013
Tue, 08 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

S.A BOBDE, J.

1. This special leave petition has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 19.7.2013, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Application under Section 482 No.20215 of 2013 whereby the petitioners’ prayer for documents pertaining to scientific tests made in their application 405/Kha dated 11.6.2013 filed under Section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.PC’) read with Section 91 was rejected.

2. The petitioners are being tried for charges of committing the murder of their daughter Arushi and their domestic helper Hemraj in their house. At the initial stage, the investigation was conducted by the U.P. Police, however, it was later transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CBI’). A closure report was submitted before the Magistrate who disagreed with it and has issued the process to the petitioners for the charge of committing the double murder.


Sunil Dutt Sharma vs State (Govt.Of Nct Of Delhi) on 8 October, 2013
Tue, 08 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. The accused-appellant was tried for offences under Sections 302 and304-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter for short the “Penal Code”) forcausing the death of his wife in the night intervening 16/17.05.92. He hasbeen acquitted of the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code on thebenefit of doubt though found guilty for the offence under Section 304-B ofthe Penal Code following which the sentence of life imprisonment has beenimposed. The conviction and sentence has been affirmed by the High Court.Aggrieved, the appellant had moved this Court under Article 136 of theConstitution.

2. Limited notice on the question of sentence imposed on the accused-appellant having been issued by this Court the scope of the present appealstands truncated to a determination of the question as to whether sentenceof life imprisonment imposed on the accused-appellant for commission of theoffence under Section 304-B of the Penal Code is in any way excessive ordisproportionate so as to require interference by this Court.

3. Section 304-B(2) of the Penal Code which prescribes the punishmentfor the

Tofan Singh vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 October, 2013
Tue, 08 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

A.K. Sikri, J

1. The appellant herein, Tofan Singh, was listed as Accused No. 3 in the trial for the offences under Section 8(c) r/w Section 21 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as the NDPS Act) as well as for the offences under Section 8(c) r/w Section 29 of the NDPS Act. This trial, conducted by the Special Judge, Additional Special Court, under NDPS Act, Chennai, resulted in the conviction of the appellant holding him guilty of the offences under the aforesaid provisions of the Act. As a consequence of the said judgment dated 18.12.2009 convicting him under the provisions of the NDPS Act, the learned Special Judge sentenced the appellant to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. one lakh. In default whereof, it was ordered that the appellant would undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. Identical sentences were imposed for the offences under Section 8 (c) read with Section 21 & 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 with the direction that both the sent

Kunwar Pal vs State Of Uttarakhand on 8 October, 2013
Tue, 08 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

S. A. BOBDE, J.

1. The appellant has approached this Court challenging the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the High Court convicting and sentencing him to rigorous life imprisonment under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short ‘IPC’] and imposing a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo further imprisonment for one year.

2. According to the prosecution the appellant is guilty of the said offence for having caused the death of one Ramayan Prasad, who was present in the marriage ceremony of one Kaushalya, daughter of Shyam Sunder. The incident took place on 22.05.1998 in the courtyard (aangan) inside the house of Shyam Sunder, father of the bride, where around 30 people were present to attend the ceremony while about 60 people were outside the house having snacks. The appellant was sitting at one side of the courtyard in the verandah on a trunk box. Four persons, namely, Hanuman Pras

Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs Election Commission Of India on 8 October, 2013
Tue, 08 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

P. Sathasivam, CJI.

1) Leave granted.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 13735 of 2012

2) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated17.01.2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at NewDelhi in W.P.(C) No. 11879 of 2009 whereby the High Court disposed of thepetition by disallowing the prayer made by the appellant herein forissuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Election Commission of India(ECI)-Respondent herein to incorporate a system of “paper trail/paperreceipt” in the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) as a convincing proofthat the EVM has rightly registered the vote cast by a voter in favour of aparticular candidate.

3) Being aggrieved of the above, the present appeal has been filed byway of special leave.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 406 of 2012

4) One Rajendra Satyanarayan Gilda has filed this Writ Petition, u

Dulcina Fernandes & Ors. vs Joaquim Xavier Cruz & Anr. on 8 October, 2013
Tue, 08 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The claimants-appellants are the wife and daughters of one NicolauFernandes who died in a motor vehicle accident that had occurred on29.06.1997 at Santimol, Raia while going from Margao to his village inIlha, De Rachol. The deceased was driving a scooter and one Rosario Antaowas riding Pillion. As the deceased reached Santimol Junction, one pick-upvan driven by the first respondent came from the opposite direction; thoughthe deceased tried to avoid the pick-up van which was being driven in arash and negligent manner, the rear mudguard of the pick-up van hit thescooter as a result of which the deceased and the pillion rider fell offand suffered injuries. Due to the injuries sustained Nicolau Fernandesdied on 01.07.1997.

In the aforesaid facts, the appellants, as claimants, had lodged aClaim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(hereinafter for short ‘the Act’) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunalat Margao, Goa. In addition to the first respondent, the New IndiaAssurance Company with whom the pick-up v

T.C.Gupta & Anr vs Hari Om Prakash & Ors. on 8 October, 2013
Tue, 08 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. By an order dated 31.01.2011 the High Court of Punjab & Haryana hasheld the appellants guilty of commission of contempt and had adjourned thematter to a subsequent date for hearing on the question of sentence.Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

3. The facts, in brief, may be noticed.

The respondents 1 & 2 had filed a writ petition (C.W.P. No.5104 of2006) in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana challenging the acquisition ofland belonging to them under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (hereinafter for short “the Act”). By the impugned Notification(s)issued under the Act, over 500 acres of land belonging to different landowners, including respondents-writ petitioners, was sought to be acquired.According to the respondents-writ petitioners, nearly 80% of the acquiredarea was subsequently released from acquisition. Consequently, theremaining land (which included the land of the respondents-writpetitioners) had ceased to be viable for the purpose for which the impugnedacquisition was made, nam

Atamaram vs State Of U.P.& Anr on 8 October, 2013
Tue, 08 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

Crl.Appeal No. 1678 of 2013

[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.1387 of 2012]

1. Leave granted. The Appellant had reported to the Chauki-in- charge, Sheikpura Kadi, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, Saharanpur, U.P. that on 13/14.3.2011 Respondent no.2, namely, Kunwar Singh and other co- accused had cut the ridge of his field on 12.3.2011 which resulted in an altercation between them at 7.00 a.m. on 13.3.2011. Five other persons, namely, Rafal Singh, Issam Singh, Shahspal, Hanish @ Hanif @ Awanish and Pillu @ Ravindra were already present at the site; Kunwar Singh and Rafal Singh were armed with Balkati and the others with lathis. The six persons allege

Thalappalam Ser.Coop.Bank Ltd.& ... vs State Of Kerala & Ors. on 7 October, 2013
Mon, 07 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. We are, in these appeals, concerned with the question whether a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act,1969 (for short “the Societies Act”) will fall within the definition of“public authority” under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005(for short “the RTI Act”) and be bound by the obligations to provideinformation sought for by a citizen under the RTI Act.

3. A Full Bench of the Kerala High Court, in its judgment reported inAIR 2012 Ker 124, answered the question in the affirmative and upheld theCircular No.23 of 2006 dated 01.06.2006, issued by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Kerala stating that all the co-operative institutionscoming under the administrative control of the Registrar, are “publicauthorities” wit

G.L. Batra vs State Of Haryana & Ors. on 7 October, 2013
Mon, 07 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Leave granted.

2. We are in this case concerned with the question whether the State Government is competent to vary the remuneration fixed to a constitutional appointee to his disadvantage, after his appointment.

3. The appellant herein was working, in the post of senior most Additional Secretary, in the Lok Sabha during the years 1991-1994 drawing a salary of Rs.7500/- per month as basic pay for the post in the pay scale of Rs.7500-7600 which was revised in the pay scale of Rs.22400-525-24500 and DA @ 32% w.e.f. 01.01.1996. According to the appellant, he had the prospect of promotion to the Secretary General, Lok Sabha, a post equivalent to Cabinet Secretary which is in the pay scale of Rs.30,000/- fixed and DA @ 32%. The age of retirement of Secretary General, Lok Sabha, when the appellant joined Haryana Public Service Commission, was 60 years, which was later increased to 62 years.

4. The appellant, while

Gulam Sarbar vs State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 7 October, 2013
Mon, 07 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.3.2012 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Appeals (DB) Nos. 273 of 1998 (R) and 262 of 1998 (R) affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.8.1998 and 31.8.1998 respectively passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 112 of 1997, by which and whereunder, the appellants in both these appeals stood convicted alongwith others, namely, Binod Kumar, Asgar Mian @ Asgar Ansari, Paiki Ramm @ Poki Ramm and Mantu Das under Sections 302 read with 120- B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the `IPC’) and sentenced to undergo RI for life.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that: A. As per the case of the prosecution, Dr. Gopal Prasad Sinha (PW.7), informant/complainant was going alongwith Sant Kumar Sinha (deceased), to Rajganj, Dhanbad on his motorcycle at a

Ongc Ltd. vs M/S. Modern Construction And Co. on 7 October, 2013
Mon, 07 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dr.B.S.Chauhan, J.

1. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 10.12.2010 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application Nos.5036-5037 of 2010, reversing and setting aside the order dated 12.3.2010, passed by the Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court, Surat in Misc. Civil Appeal Nos.29 and 30 of 2008 as well as the order dated 28.9.2007, passed in Special Execution Petition Nos.17 and 18 of 2007, passed by the 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that: A. A contract for re-construction of cement godown, site office and warehouse for LPG Plant at Kawas in Surat District was awarded by the appellant to the respondent to be completed on or before 8.8.1984 vide agreement dated 9.2.1984. The respondent completed the work with an inordinate delay and possession could be taken by the appellant only on 31.6.1985. The respondent filed Civil Suit Nos.60, 61 and 62 of 1986 against the appellant in the Civil Court

State Of Haryana & Ors. vs Navir Singh & Anr. on 7 October, 2013
Mon, 07 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

C.A.NO.9030 OF 2013 (@SLP (CIVIL) NO.18323 OF 2008)

The petitioners, aggrieved by the order of the High Court directingentry of charge in the revenue records on the basis of mortgage created bydeposit of title-deeds, have preferred this special leave petition.

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present appealare that one M/s. Ultra Tech Private, a company incorporated under theCompanies Act, was sanctioned a term loan of Rs. 425 lakhs and workingcapital facility of Rs.99 lakhs by the Punjab National Bank (hereinafterreferred to as the Bank). As agreed by the Bank, original title-deeds inrespe

Surya Baksh Singh vs State Of U.P. on 7 October, 2013
Mon, 07 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

1. This appeal brings to the fore the rampant manipulation and misuse ofthe statutory right to appeal by an ever increasing number of convicts whotake recourse to this remedy with the objective of defeating the ends ofjustice by obtaining orders of bail or exemption from surrender, andthereupon escape beyond the reach of the law. Jural compulsions now dictatethat this species of appeals should be consciously dismissed on the groundof occasioning a gross abuse of the judicial process and an annihilation ofjustice. The need to punish every transgressor of the law is ubiquitouslyaccepted in all legal persuasions throughout the ages. Kautilya’sArthasastra opines that - “By not punishing the guilty and punishing thosenot deserving to be punished, by arresting those who ought not to bearrested and not arresting those who ought to be arrested; and by failingto protect subjects from thieves etc. through these causes - decline, greedand dis-affection are produced among the subjects. It is punishment alonewhich maintains both this world and the next.” In similar antiquity i

State Of Rajasthan vs Giridhari Lal on 7 October, 2013
Mon, 07 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan againstthe judgment and order dated 14th March, 2007 passed by the Division Benchof the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. By the impugned judgment, theDivision Bench partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-GirdhariLal, modified the sentence and convicted him under Section 306 IPC insteadof 304B IPC. For the said offence, the Division Bench sentenced him toundergo five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-, in defaulthe has to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. Since therespondent-Girdhari Lal had already undergone imprisonment for a period ofmore than six years, the High Court directed to release him forthwith, ifnot required to be detained in any other case.

2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that: The informant-Jugal Kishore(PW.1) – father of the deceased Babitain his written complaint on 11th August, 1998 informed that his daughter-Babita (since deceased) was married to respondent-Girdhari Lal four yearsback. Her in-laws were harassing Babita in connection with demand for dowryfrom the initial days of her marriage. Earlier also the in-laws of Babitamade atte

Harsha V. Rai vs State Of Karnataka & Anr Through ... on 7 October, 2013
Mon, 07 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

By the orders impugned the claim of respondent no. 2 Bhagirathi Bai,since deceased, to be registered as an occupant under Section 45 of theKarnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 in respect of the land measuring 14 centsin Survey Nos. 353/1 and 353/2 in the Village Attavar in Taluka Mangalorein the District of Dakshina Kannada has been upheld.

Leave granted.

According to the appellant, his mother was the owner of the landmeasuring in all 14 cents in Survey No. 353/1 and 353/2 at Village Attavarwithin Taluka Mangalore in the District of Dakshina Kannada. She gave onlease the aforesaid land to Bhagirathi, respondent no. 2 herein by aregistered deed dated 26th of October, 1953 on an yearly rent of Rs. 42 andthe deed styled as vacant land “chalageni” was executed. According to theappellant, the land at the time of lease contained five standing coconuttrees and respondent no. 2, hereinafter referred to as the tenant, wasentitled to make improvement therein to an extent of only Rs. 5,000/-. Itis the case of the appellant that in terms of the le

Omprakash vs Laxminarayan & Ors. on 7 October, 2013
Mon, 07 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

Plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of contract, possession and permanent injunction in respect of un-irrigated land having an area of 0.506 hectares bearing Survey No. 16012 in Village Arniapitha situated within Tahsil Jaora in District Ratlam in the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is founded on an agreement to sell dated 27th December, 2000. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the properties in question were delivered to them on payment of the part consideration money in pursuance of the agreement to sell and such a recital finds place in the said agreement. Paragraph 1 of the agreement to sell reads as under:

“1.That while selling the aforesaid land I the seller, have received Rs. 1,15,000/- (Rupees one lac fifteen thousand) cash as a token amount before the witnesses and, by remaining present at the spot, actual physical possession has been handed over to the purchaser, and after receiving remaining sale consideration amount Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) from

Somdev Kapoor vs State Of W.B. & Ors. on 7 October, 2013
Mon, 07 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

A.K.SIKRI,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant herein is a proprietor of a Hotel and Restaurant under the name and style of “BHIMSAIN VAISHNAV’ which is being run since 1954. On 28th August 1992, he made an application before the Collector of Excise, Calcutta (now known as Kolkata) for issuance of license to operate foreign liquor bar and restaurant. This application, for the reasons not available on record, kept pending for number of years. Thereafter, on 1.11.2004 he made a request that his earlier application dated 28th August 1992 may be processed and he be granted foreign liquor bar and restaurant license. It was followed by another reminder dated 8.9.2005. Thereafter, the appellant was given temporary license to run the liquor bar in January 2006, purportedly on the basis of his application submitted in the year 1992.

3. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein, namely, Muslim Khawateem Khilafat Tanzeem, a Society and Nazia Elahi Khan, President of the said society respectively, filed a Wri

Arun Kumar Agrawal vs Union Of India & Ors. on 1 November, 2013
Fri, 01 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by one Mr. Arun Kumar Agrawal under Article 32 of the Constitution of India; seeks the issuance of a writ of quo warranto or any other direction against Mr. U.K. Sinha, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘SEBI’) and his consequential removal from the post of Chairman.

2. Stated concisely, the petitioner challenges the appointment of respondent No.4 on the following grounds :-

a) Mr. Sinha failed to fulfill one of the eligibility condition as laid down in sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SEBI Act’), as well as the qualification contained in Government communication, which required that the Chairman shall be a person of high integrity.

b) The appointment of respondent No.4 is the result of manipulation, misrepresen

Cen.Elect.Supply Utility Of ... vs Dhobei Sahoo & Ors. on 1 November, 2013
Fri, 01 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.

2. Assailing the judgment and order dated 28.3.2012 passed by the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack in WP(C) No. 23268 of 2011 whereby the Division Bench has quashed the appointment of the respondent No. 5 herein and further directed the present appellant to recover the amount paid to the 5th respondent towards honorarium, in a public interest litigation preferred by the 1st respondent, the present appeals, one by the Centra

U.T. Chandigarh & Ors. vs Gurcharan Singh & Anr. on 1 November, 2013
Fri, 01 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

1 ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the Judgment delivered in Civil Writ PetitionNo.7006-CAT of 2003 dated 20th March, 2008 by the High Court of Punjab andHaryana at Chandigarh, this appeal has been filed by the employer – UnionTerritory of Chandigarh and others.

3. The facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nut-shell are asunder:

The respondent was appointed as a Clerk by the appellant ChandigarhTransport Undertaking on the quota reserved for ex-servicemen. Therespondent had rendered his services to the Indian Army as a CombatantClerk upto 31st January, 1990, till the date when he was discharged fromthe Indian Army.

Upon his appointment as a Clerk under an office order dated 2ndSeptember, 1992, his pay had been fixed and he was paid his salaryaccordingly. Only when he retired in 1997, it was brought to the notice ofthe employer, on getting an audit query, that his salary had been wronglyfixed under the order dated 2nd September, 1992. The mistake committed inpay fixation had been rectified by an order dated 13th October, 1998.

4. Being aggrieved by t

Ganpath Singh Gangaram Singh ... vs Gulbarga Univ.Tr.Regr.& Ors. on 1 November, 2013
Fri, 01 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

Ganpath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput as also the Gulbarga University,aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19/24th of November, 2009 of theKarnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No. 3216 of 2004 quashing theappointment of aforesaid Ganpath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput as Lecturer inMCA in the Post-graduate Department of the University, have preferred thesespecial leave petitions.

Leave granted.

Short facts giving rise to the present appeals are as follows:

The appellant, Gulbarga University, hereinafter referred to as ‘theUniversity’, issued notification dated May 22, 1998

Girish Bhushan Goyal vs B.H.E.L & Anr on 1 November, 2013
Fri, 01 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant has filed two separate Civil Appeals before this Court. The Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30883-30884 of 2012 are filed questioning the correctness of the judgment and order dated 20.12.2010 passed in the Writ Petition No. 129 of 2009 (S/B) and order dated 28.6.2011 passed in the Review Application No. 431 of 2011 to the Writ Petition No. 129 of 2009 (S/B), whereas Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.30877 of 2012 is filed against the judgment dated 22.2.2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 292 of 2009 (S/B) by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, urging various facts and legal contentions in justification of his claim.

3. Through Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.30883-30884 of 2012, the appellant challenged the impugned order of the High Court by which the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition No. 129 of 2009 and Review Application No. 431 of 20

Asha & Anr vs State Of Uttarakhand on 1 November, 2013
Fri, 01 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

These appeals have been filed by the appellants against the commonimpugned judgment and order dated 07.01.2011 of the High Court ofUttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 1931 of 2001(Old no. 1060 of1998), whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellants andupheld their conviction and sentence of 10 years R.I. under Section 304B ofthe Indian Penal Code (in short “the IPC”) awarded by the trial court. InCriminal Appeal No. 1893 of 2013 the appellants are the sisters-in-law ofthe deceased and in Criminal Appeal No. 1894 of 2013 the appellant is thefather-in-law of the deceased. During pendency of the appeal before theHigh Court, the co-accused, Lilawati, the mother-in-law of the deceased haddied, therefore, the case abated against her.

2. The brief facts of the case are stated hereunder to appreciate the correctness of the findings recorded by both the trial court and the High Court on the charges framed against the accused persons under Sections 302/34, 304B and 306 of the I

T.S.R.Subramanian & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 31 October, 2013
Thu, 31 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been invoked by feweminent retired civil servants highlighting the necessity of variousreforms for preservation of integrity, fearlessness and independence ofcivil servants at the Centre and State levels in the country. Prayersmade in this writ petition are based on various reports and recommendationsmade by several Committees appointed for improving the publicadministration. On the basis of various reports, following reliefs aresought in the writ petition :-

(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction requiring the Respondents to create an “independent” Civil Service Board or Commission both at the Centre and the State based on recommendations by the Hota Committee, 2004 (para 5.09, para 5.11, Main Recommendations No.38); the 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission 2008 (10th Report, para 9.8); the statement adopted at the Conference of Chief Ministers on Effective and

Rajeev Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 31 October, 2013
Thu, 31 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

This is an appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of theConstitution against the judgment dated 16.09.2004 of the Punjab andHaryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No.337-SB of 1992.

Facts:

2. The facts very briefly are that on 26.02.1991 at 11.20 P.M., the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police of Police Station-City Dabwali, District Sirsa in Haryana, Madan Lal recorded a statement of Vandana at CHC Hospital, Mandi Dabwali. She stated that about two years ago, she was married to the appellant and the appellant used to taunt her on petty matters and earlier the appellant used to tease her for dowry and on being fed up with the habits of the appellant, on 26.02.1991 between 7.00 and 7.30 P.M., she sprinkled kerosene on her and set herself on fire. The statement of Vandana was registered as First Information Report (FIR) by the S.I. of P.S. Dabwali, Kuldeep Singh. Soon thereafter on 26.02.1991, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, R.S. Bagri, recorded a statement of Vandana under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) in which

State Of Rajasthan vs Balveer @ Balli & Anr. on 31 October, 2013
Thu, 31 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

This is an appeal against the judgment dated 09.01.2006 of the HighCourt of Rajasthan in D.B. Criminal Death Reference No. 1 of 2005 and D.B.Criminal Appeal Nos. 261 of 2005, 347 of 2005 and 431 of 2005.

Facts:

2. The facts very briefly are that on 01.11.2003 at 10.45 P.M., PremBahadur Singh, Station House Officer, Nadbai Police Station, received aninformation on telephone that a woman has been murdered in the forest ofKishanpura close to the railway track and that a person has been nabbed.The Station House Officer reached the place of occurrence at 10.55 P.M. andfound 10 to 15 villagers standing there who told him that at about 10.30P.M. they heard someone crying and they came running and saw two personsrunning away towards Khedali along the railway track on a motorcycle andthe third person running towards the fields and they managed to catch thisthird person named Rajesh and they also found a girl in a semi-nakedcondition lying dead. When the Station House Officer questioned Rajesh, hetold that on 01.11.2003 at about 4 to 5 O’clock in the evening, respondent-Ram Niwas and the respondent-Balveer brought the girl named Rekha on themotorcycle of Ra

Radha Krishna & Anr. vs Gokul & Ors. on 31 October, 2013
Thu, 31 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

G.S. SINGHVI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Feeling dissatisfied with the meagre enhancement of Rs.8,000 grantedby the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the amount ofcompensation determined by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Barwaha (West), Nimar (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), the appellants havefiled this appeal.

3. Nilesh (son of the appellants) was killed in a road accident, whichoccurred on 20.1.2003, when the motorcycle on which he was going along withhis friend Rohit was hit by the truck belonging to respondent No.1.

4. The appellants filed a petition under Section 166 of the MotorVehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) for award of compensation to thetune of Rs.50,60,000. Their claim was founded on the following assertions: (i) The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck owned by respondent No.1, which was insured with respondent No.3 – United India Insurance Co.

(ii) At the time of accident, the deceased was 19 years old and he was a student of degree cours

Jagdish Singh vs Heeralal & Ors. on 30 October, 2013
Wed, 30 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant herein was the auction purchaser, being the highestbidder for Rs.18,01,000/-, in respect of the land admeasuring one acre inKhasra Nos.104/3 and 105/2, Patwari Halka No.4, Village Segaon, Anjad Road,Barwani, M.P., which was brought to sale for recovery of loan amounts underthe provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assetsand Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “theSecuritisation Act”). The auction was confirmed by the bank on 08.11.2005on the appellant’s depositing Rs.2,90,250/- by 09.11.2005 and remaining 75%within 15 days. The appellant was not put in possession of the property inquestion even though the auction was confirmed.

3. The appellant – auction purchaser then came to know that RespondentNos.1 to 5 herein have filed a Civil Suit No.16A/07 in the Court ofDistrict Judge, Barwani District for a declaration of title, partition andpermanent injunction against Respondent Nos.7 to 9 and others in which theappellant and the bank were also made parties. Following are

Mak Data P. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii on 30 October, 2013
Wed, 30 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The Appellant-assessee filed his return of income for the assessmentyear 2004-05 on 27th October, 2004, declaring an income of Rs.16,17,040/-along with Tax Audit Report. The case was selected for scrutiny andnotices were issued under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was noticed by theAssessing Officer (AO) that certain documents comprising of shareapplication forms, bank statements, memorandum of association of companies,affidavits, copies of Income Tax Returns and assessment orders and blankshare transfer deeds duly signed had been impounded. These documents hadbeen found in the course of survey proceedings under Section 133A conductedon 16.12.2003 in the case of M/s Marketing Services (a sister concern ofthe assessee). The AO then proceeded to seek information from the assesseeand issued a show-cause notice dated 26.10.2006. By the show-cause notice,the AO sought specific information regarding the documents pertaining toshare applications found in the course of survey, partic

Manish Trivedi vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 October, 2013
Tue, 29 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

The petitioner’s challenge to his prosecution for an offence underSections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention ofCorruption Act has been turned down by the trial court and the said orderhas been affirmed by the High Court by its order dated 1st of March, 2013passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1686 of 2009. It is againstthis order that the petitioner has preferred this special leave petition.

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present appealare that the appellant at the relevant time was a Councillor elected to theMunicipal Council, Banswara and a Member of the Municipal Board. Accordingto the prosecution, one Prabhu Lal Mochi lodged a report in the Anti-Corruption Bureau, inter alia, alleging that he had a shoe repair shop nearthe gate of Forest Department, Banswara and the employees of the MunicipalCouncil had seized his cabin in the year 2000 rendering him unemployed.According to the allegation, he applied for the allotment of a kiosk beforethe Municipal Council but

Ch.Cum-Man.Director Mahanadi ... vs Rabindranath Choubey on 29 October, 2013
Tue, 29 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

A.K. SIKRI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The respondent was working as Chief General Manager (Production) since 17.2.2006 at Rajmahal area under Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., the appellant herein. A memo containing articles of charge was issued to him on 1.10.2007 alleging that there was shortage of stock of coal in Rajmahal Group of mines which was under his management and enquiry was proposed to be conducted under Rule 29 of the Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules.

3. During the pendency of the departmental proceeding, the Respondent was allowed to retire on 31.7.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation. The Respondent submitted an application on 21.9.2010 to the Director (Personnel) for payment of gratuity. On the same date, he also submitted an application before the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act cum-Regional Labour Commissioner for payment of gratuity.

4. Notice was issued to the Appellant to appear. The appellant appeared and stated that the payment o

State Of Bihar & Anr. vs Lalu Singh on 29 October, 2013
Tue, 29 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

While dismissing the Writ Petition, the High Court has madeobservations which have far reaching consequences and accordingly the Stateof Bihar, aggrieved by the same has preferred this Special Leave Petition.The observations made read as follows:

“I have no doubt in taking this view that under Section 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the higher police officials have got same powers as available to the officer-in-charge of a police station under them but the power is available only with respect to supervising the investigation or participating into the investigation to some extent but under section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the final view over the investigation of a case with regard to filing charge sheet or final form has to be taken by the concerned officer-in-charge only and he only has the authority to file the charge sheet in the case”

While doing so, however, the High Court has not quashed the reportsubmitted by the In

United India Ins.Co.Ltd. vs Sunil Kumar & Anr on 29 October, 2013
Tue, 29 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing forthe Respondent submitted that in view of the judgment of this Court inUnited India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shila Datta and others [(2011) 10SCC 509], this matter will have to be referred to a larger Bench,especially with regard to points no.(iii) to (v) referred to in the above-mentioned judgment, which are in conflict with the judgment of this Courtin National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi [(2002) 7 SCC 456].The impugned order, we notice, is based on the principle laid down inNicolletta Rohtagi’s case (supra), the correctness of which is doubted inShila Datta’s case (supra). In the present case, the claim petition wasfiled by the Respondent under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, claiming compensation for the injury sustained by him in a roadaccident occurred on 20.11.2006. The Tribunal after recording the evidenceand after hearing the parties, vide its order dated 16.8.2011 passed anawar

M/S Avk Traders vs Kerala State Civil Sup. Corp. Ltd. on 29 October, 2013
Tue, 29 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. OS No.39 of 2008 was a suit preferred on 1.1.2008 by M/s AVK Traders,a partnership firm, for realization of an amount of Rs.53,39,648/- againstthe Respondent Corporation for claims with regard to various supplies madeto the Corporation during the year 2004-06. Respondent Corporation filedits written statement on 26.5.2008 denying the claim. M/s AVK Traders wasa partnership firm with only two partners, the Appellant and his father.The partnership was later re-constituted. The re-constituted partnershipunder the Partnership Deed dated 4.11.2002 contained the following clause :-

“In the event of retirement of partner or refusal of the legal representative of the deceased partner to become the partner of the partnership as on the expiry of the period given to them to become partners or on the expiry of the period given to them to become partner, the other partner shall have the power to purchase his share by giving notice to retired partner or the legal representative of the deceased partner in

Gurjant Singh @ Janta vs State Of Punjab on 28 October, 2013
Mon, 28 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 12.08.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.5-SB of 2000. The appellant was proceeded against for an offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called “the NDPS Act”). The trial Court by its judgment dated 30.07.1999, in Sessions Case No.39 of 31.05.1996, found the appellant guilty of the offence alleged against him and while convicting him imposed a sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment apart from a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one more year.

4. The case of the prosecution as projected before the trial Court was that on 04.04.1996, S.I. Darbara Singh, who was examined as P.W.6, was posted as S.H.O, Police Station, Sunam. According to him he along with A.S.I. Balbir Singh, A.S.I. Massa Singh,

Sukumar De vs Bimala Auddy & Ors. on 28 October, 2013
Mon, 28 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

A.K. SIKRI, J.

This case has a chequered history. However, we do not find it necessary tonarrate all the events leading to the filing of the present Special LeavePetition, as the issue in the present Special Leave Petition, which arisesout of impugned judgment dated 8.6.2004 of the High Court of Calcutta, is anarrow one. In fact, as would be noticed hereafter, the order in questionis discretionary in nature and the grievance of the petitioner is that inthe facts and circumstances of the present case no such discretion shouldhave been exercised by the High Court thereby granting one more opportunityto the respondents to pay the decretal amount with interest, the effect ofwhich was to nullify the auction of the property in the executionproceedings which was bought by the petitioners herein.

The facts which needs to be traversed for this purpose are recapitulatedbelow:

Way back in the year 1965, a money suit No. 20 of 1965 wasinstituted by one Smt. Bimala Bala Sen, (since deceased) (hereinafter to bereferred as the decree holder) for a sum of Rs. 6,100/-, being refund ofearnest money. An ex parte decree was passed on 23.12.1967 againstRespondent Nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 herein (h

M/S. Shree Mahavir Carbon Ltd. vs Om Prakash Jalan (Financer) & Anr. on 28 October, 2013
Mon, 28 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530

A.K.SIKRI,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant-company has filed a complaint registered as ICC No.62/2008 under Sections 420/406/468/471, Indian Penal Code against the respondent herein and two others. After recording preliminary evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Salipur, Orissa took cognizance of the aforesaid offence and issued summons to the accused persons including the respondents. On receiving the summons, the respondents filed applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal -

Procedure with a prayer that orders dated 9.6.2008 by the learned JMFC taking cognizance of the complaint be quashed. It was pleaded that the complaint was with regard to rendition of accounts maintained by the accused persons in respect of business between the complainant and the accused persons and therefore the dispute was of civil nature. The High Court has allowed the said application thereby setting aside

Bhupendra vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 November, 2013
Mon, 11 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The question before us is whether Bhupendra (the appellant) wasrightly convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, Madhya Pradeshof having committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A, Section 304-B and Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and whether his convictionwas rightly upheld by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. In our opinion thequestion must be answered in the affirmative and therefore we find no meritin this appeal.

The facts

2. Geeta Bai married Bhupendra on 7th June, 1993 and at that time herfather PW-1 Bhika Ram gave dowry to Bhupendra and his family according totheir means. The case of the prosecution was that Geeta Bai was harassed byBhupendra and members of his family who demanded dowry over and above whatwas given to them at the time of marriage. Initially, the demand was for ashe buffalo which was met by Bhika Ram. Then there was a further demand forRs. 10,000/- in cash on 20th August, 1996. However, since Bhika Ram wasunable to meet this demand, and apparently fearing the worst, Geeta Baiconsumed wheat tablets on the evening of 20th August, 1996 at hermatrimonial home.

3. Since

Gulab Chand Bhora & Ors. vs Punjab National Bank & Anr. on 11 November, 2013
Mon, 11 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Delay in filing the application for substitution is condoned.

2. Application for substitution is allowed.

3. Aggrieved by the reversal of the decree passed in their favour by thelearned Trial Court and the dismissal of the cross objection filed, theplaintiffs have filed the present appeals.

4. The appellants-plaintiffs are the owners of the premises which werelet out to the respondent-bank. The area of the tenanted premises measures7565 square feet located on the ground, first and second floor of abuilding situated in Ward No.13 of Kharagpur Town in the State of WestBengal. The aforesaid tenancy was on the basis of an unregisteredagreement between the parties effective from 01.06.1978 for a period of 6years with the option of continuance of the tenancy for a further period of5 years. The monthly rent was agreed between the parties at Rs.2200/-. Bymutual agreement, the tenancy continued on expiry of the initial 5 yearsthereof until 30.06.1989. Thereafter, the appellants-plaintiffs claimedenhanced rent at the rate of Rs.3/- per square feet. It appears that theSenior Manager of the defendant Bank an

Bhola Ram vs State Of Punjab on 11 November, 2013
Mon, 11 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The question for consideration is whether the appellant Bhola Ram wasrightly convicted by both the Trial Court and the High Court for havingcaused the dowry death of Janki Devi, an offence punishable under Section304-B and Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In our opinion,Bhola Ram deserves an acquittal since there is no evidence inculpating him.

The facts:

2. Darshan Ram married Janki Devi on 30th June, 1986 after which theyresided in Darshan Ram’s house in village Mehma Sarja. The couple has afemale child.

3. At the time of their marriage, Janki Devi’s family gave dowry withintheir means to Darshan Ram and his family. But according to theprosecution, his brothers Parshottam Ram and Bhola Ram (the appellant) andhis sister Krishna Devi and mother Vidya Devi demanded more dowry from timeto time.

4. Janki Devi’s family was unable to fulfill the additional demands fordowry and, according to the prosecution, she was humiliated and cruellytreated by Darshan Ram’s family for their incapacity. Being unable to facethe harassment, cruelty and humiliation meted out by Darshan Ram’s family,Janki Devi consu

Tribhuvanshankar vs Amrutlal on 13 November, 2013
Wed, 13 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal, by special leave, is from the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore, in Second Appeal No. 33 of 1995 passed on 8.2.2008.

3. The appellant-plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 259A/86 in the Court of Civil Judge Class-II, Mhow, District Indore, for eviction of the respondent-defendant from the suit-premises and for mesne profits. The case of the appellant-plaintiff was that he had purchased the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 1.4.1976 on payment of sale consideration of Rs.4500/- to the vendor, one Kishanlal. The respondent-defendant was in possession of the said suit property as a tenant under the earlier owner Kishorilal on payment of rent of Rs.15/- per month. It was averred in the plaint that it was an oral tenancy and after acquiring the title the appellant informed the respondent about the sale by the earlier owner. Despite assurance given by the respondent to pay the rent to him, it was not honoured which compelled the appellant

Balwant Rai Saluja & Anr Etc.Etc. vs Air India Ltd.& Ors. on 13 November, 2013
Wed, 13 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

Leave granted.

Air India Limited was constituted under the Air Corporations Act,1953. By virtue of Section 3 of the Air Corporations (Transfer ofUndertakings and Repeal) Act, 1994, Air India has vested in Indian AirlinesLimited. It has Ground Services Department at Indira Gandhi InternationalAirport, Delhi. Respondent No. 2 is Hotel Corporation of India, which is aGovernment Company incorporated under the Companies Act. The authorizedshare capital of the Hotel Corporation of India, hereinafter referred to asthe Corporation, is Rupees 10 crores, divided into 10 lakhs equity sharesof Rs. 100/- each. The Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of AirIndia and its entire share capital is held by Air India and its nominee.Excepting 6 shares, 4,99,994 shares have been subscribed by Air India andrest by its nominees. Air India controls the composition of the Board ofDirectors and appoints Directors in consultation with the Government ofIndia. The power to remove the Directors from office before the expiry ofthe term is veste

State Of U.P. & Ors. vs Ajay Kumar Sharma & Anr. on 13 November, 2013
Wed, 13 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

G.S. SINGHVI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Legal Remembrancer’s Manual (for short, ‘LR Manual’) framed by theGovernment of Uttar Pradesh and Section 24 of the Code of CriminalProcedure (Cr.P.C.) contain a comprehensive mechanism for appointment ofDistrict Government Counsel for Civil, Criminal and Revenue Courts in theState and renewal of their term. However, from 1990 onwards theseprovisions have become victim of the spoil system and have been misused bythe party in power for conferring favours upon chosen advocates. In last21/2 decades the appointments and renewal or non-renewal of the term ofDistrict Government Counsel and termination of their services generatedhuge litigation, the disposal of which has consumed substantial time of theAllahabad High Court and this Court.

3. In Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. (1991) 1 SCC 212, thisCourt declared as arbitrary and unconstitutional the State Government’sdecision to en masse terminate the appointment of District GovernmentCounsel in all the districts as a p

Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors. on 12 November, 2013
Tue, 12 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

P.Sathasivam, CJI.

1) The important issue which arises for consideration in the referredmatter is whether “a police officer is bound to register a FirstInformation Report (FIR) upon receiving any information relating tocommission of a cognizable offence under Section 154 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) or the police officer hasthe power to conduct a “preliminary inquiry” in order to test the veracityof such information before registering the same?”

2) The present writ petition, under Article 32 of the Constitutio

Anjanappa vs State Of Karnataka on 12 November, 2013
Tue, 12 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. This appeal, once again like many other appeals, presents before usthe plight of a woman who is burnt to death by her husband. Sadly, herparents turned hostile in the court. This raises the serious question ofwitness protection which is not addressed as yet.

2. Deceased Gowramma was married to the appellant on 17/04/1987. It isthe prosecution case that at the time of marriage the appellant demandeddowry and he received Rs.5,000/-, a motor bike, one gold chain and clothesfrom Hanumantharayappa, the father of Gowramma. After marriage theappellant was harassing the deceased for bringing more dowry from herparents. The harassment was both physical and mental. The appellant hadcaused burn injuries on the thighs of Gowramma to compel her to bring moredowry. He had kept one Puttamma as his mistress, which caused mental agonyto Gowramma. On 17/10/1991 there was a quarrel between the appellant andGowramma on the question of transferring Gowramma’s property in theappellant’s name. At about 6.00 p.m. the appellant poured kerosene on herand set her on fire. Gowramma was taken to the Victoria hospital. At about7.00 p.m. PW-4 Dr. Parthasarathy admitted her for treatment of burninjuries

Sukhvinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 12 November, 2013
Tue, 12 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. In this appeal judgment and order dated 16/17-05-2007 passed by thePunjab and Haryana High Court is under challenge.

2. The appellant is original accused no. 4. He was tried along withGurdev Singh, Surjit Kaur and Jaswinder Singh, original accused nos. 1, 2and 3 respectively, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in SessionsTrial No. 16 of 1994 for offence punishable under Section 304B of the IPC.Learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 31/08/1995 acquitted all theaccused. The State of Punjab carried an appeal from the said order to theHigh Court of Punjab and Haryana. By the impugned judgment and order dated16/17-05-2007 the High Court set aside the order of acquittal so far as theappellant is concerned. He was convicted under Section 304B of the IPC andsentenced to undergo RI for seven years. He was directed to paycompensation of Rs.20,000/- to the father of the deceased. In default hewas directed to suffer RI for one year. The High Court noted that accusedno. 1 Gurdev Singh was dead. So far as accused no. 2 Surjit Kaur andaccused no. 3 Jaswinder Singh are concerned, the High Court gave thembenefit of dou

Saraswathy vs Babu on 25 November, 2013
Mon, 25 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

Leave granted. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-wifeagainst the judgment and order dated 13th December, 2011 passed by the HighCourt of Judicature at Madras. By the impugned judgment, the High Courtdismissed the criminal revision case filed by the appellant and thusaffirmed the order of First Appellate Court.

2. The pertinent facts of the case are as follows: The parties to the present dispute are married to each other and thesaid marriage was solemnized on 17th February, 2000. According to theappellant, she brought 50 sovereign gold ornaments and 1 kg silver articlesas stridhan also Rs.10,000/- was given to the respondent. After marriagethe appellant lived in her matrimonial house at Padi, Chennai. After fourmonths of the marriage, the respondent-husband and his family demanded moredowry in the form of cash and jewels. The appellant was not able to satisfythe said demand. Therefore, she was thrown out of her matrimonial house bythe respondent and her in-laws. Another allegation of the appellant isthat after sending out the appellant from her mat

Saroj vs Sunder Singh & Ors. on 25 November, 2013
Mon, 25 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

Leave granted. This appeal has been preferred by the appellantagainst the judgment and order dated 14th December, 2011 passed by the HighCourt of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S.B. Civil FirstAppeal No. 313 of 2009. The Appellate Court by the impugned judgment heldthat there is no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by thetrial court and affirmed the order of the trial court which dismissed thesuit preferred by the appellant-original plaintiff seeking cancellation ofsale deeds executed by the second respondent in favour of the firstrespondent.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows: The appellant along with her two sisters (original plaintiffs)happened to be the daughters of respondent No.2(original defendant No.2).According to the appellant, she and her two sisters were minors when theirfather Khilluram expired. Thereafter, their mother i.e. second respondent,of course the guardian, sold out the suit property which belonged to theirfather by executing a sale deed on 9th December

Manoharan vs Sivarajan & Ors. on 25 November, 2013
Mon, 25 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

V.Gopala Gowda J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed by the appellant questioning the correctness ofthe judgment and final Order dated 21.03.2012 passed by the High Court ofKerala at Ernakulam in RFA No. 678 of 2011 urging various facts and legalcontentions in justification of his claim.

3. Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case ofthe appellant and also to find out whether the appellant is entitled forthe relief as prayed in this appeal.

The appellant approached the respondent no. 1 - a money lender, for aloan of [pic]2,20,000/-. The respondent no. 1 agreed to give him the loanin return of execution of a sale deed with respect to 3 cents of land in re-survey No. 111/13-1 in Block No. 12 of Maranalloor village by the appellantin his favour. It was agreed upon between the parties that the respondentno. 1 will reconvey the property in favour of the appellant on repayment ofthe loan. The appellant accordingly executed sale deed No. 575 of 2001 atsub Registrar’s office at Ooruttambalam with respect to 3 cents of land inRe-survey No.111/13-1 in Block no.12 of Maranalloor

Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd vs State Thru Deputy Suptd Of ... on 20 November, 2013
Wed, 20 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J

Leave granted.

2. By the common judgment and order dated 17.9.2009 in CRLOPNo.12646/2007 and 18297/2009, the learned Single Judge of the Madras HighCourt has allowed two petitions both under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure (for brevity.P.C.) preferred by the respondents andquashed criminal proceedings against some of the accused in Criminal CaseNo. 462 of 2004 pending before the learned Magistrate-II Tiruppur foroffences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120(b) IPC.

3. Before granting relief to the five petitioners out of ten accused,the High Court noted the relevant facts in brief which disclose that out often accused in the charge-sheet dated 20th Septem

B.Thirumal vs Ananda Sivakumar & Ors on 27 November, 2013
Wed, 27 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of a judgment and order dated 4th August,2009 whereby a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras hasallowed Writ Appeals No. 1155, 1156 and 1346 of 2008 setting aside theorder passed by the learned Single Judge and dismissed Writ PetitionsNo.25871 of 2006 and 8925 of 2007 filed by the appellant.

3. The appellant was, at the relevant point of time, working as a JuniorEngineer (Electrical) in the Tamil Nadu Public Works Department. He wasappointed to the said post by direct recruitment through the Tamil NaduPublic Service Commission in the year 1984-85 and was governed by theSpecial Rules applicable to Tamil Nadu Engineering Subordinate Service(hereinafter referred to as the “Subordinate Engineering Service”).Aggrieved by the prevalent practice of Assistant Engineers (Electrical)being empanelled for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer(Electrical) against 25% quota reserved for members of the SubordinateEngineering Service, the appellant filed a representation to the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works

Sarah Mathew vs Inst., Cardio Vascular Diseases & ... on 26 November, 2013
Tue, 26 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. While dealing with Criminal Appeal No. 829 of 2005 a two-Judge Benchof this Court noticed a conflict between a two-Judge Bench decision of thisCourt in Bharat Damodar Kale & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1] which isfollowed in another two-Judge Bench decision in Japani Sahoo v. ChandraSekhar Mohanty[2] and a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court inKrishna Pillai v. T.A. Rajendran & Anr.[3] . In B

Devendra Kishanlal Dagalia vs Dwarkesh Diamonds Pvt Ltd And Ors on 25 November, 2013
Mon, 25 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

Leave granted. These appeals have been preferred by the appellant-complainant against the judgment and order dated 6th December, 2012 passedby the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ PetitionNos.3992 and 3993 of 2011. By the impugned judgment the High Court setaside the order passed by Sessions Judge in CRA No.301 of 2010 and upheldthe order passed by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate.

2. The appellant filed complaints being CC No.3142/SS/2008 and CCNo.3286/SS/2008 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act(hereinafter referred to as ‘the N.I. Act’) in the Court of the SpecialMetropolitan Magistrate at Small Causes Court on 28th July, 2008 and 18thAugust, 2008. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate after recording of the pre-summoning evidence issued summons on the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C.The accused-respondents 1, 2 & 3 then filed application under Section 201Cr.P.C. for return of complaint for want of jurisdiction. They alleged thatthe entire transaction took place at New Delhi and o

State Of Gujarat vs Girish Radhakishan Varde on 25 November, 2013
Mon, 25 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave which was heard at the admissionstage itself, is directed against the judgment and order dated 8.4.2011passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special CriminalApplication No.2477/2010 whereby the learned single Judge was pleased todismiss the application filed by the appellant-State of Gujarat and thusupheld the order passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge,Deesa who had set aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate bywhich he had permitted the complainant to add Sections 364, 394 and 398 ofthe Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) into the chargesheet which wassubmitted after police investigation.

3. The principal question which arises for determination in theinstant appeal is whether the learned magistrate by virtue of the powersconferred upon him under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) under the Heading of “Complaints toMagistrate” can be permitted to allow the complainant/ informant to addadditional sections of the IPC

Ashok Kumar Aggarwal vs Union Of India And Ors. on 22 November, 2013
Fri, 22 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and final order dated 16.4.2010 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 3314 of 2006 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 938 of 2001, by which the application filed by the appellant to proceed against respondent no. 5 under Section 340 read with Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `Cr.P.C.’) has been dismissed.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: A. The appellant had filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 938 of 2001 before the High Court of Delhi seeking transfer of investigation from respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 to any other senior officer of Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter to referred as `CBI’), as the said respondents had been abusing their investigating powers and adopted unfair and improper means in RC No. S19/E0006/99 dated 7.12.1999.

B. The court made order dated 4.4.2002, on the submission of coun

Ashok Kumar Aggarwal vs C.B.I. on 22 November, 2013
Fri, 22 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

In view of the judgment delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 1838 of 2013 between the same parties, we do not consider it necessary to deal separately Criminal Appeal No. 1841 of 2013 and the appeal stands disposed of in terms of the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 1838 of 2013.

.........................………………..J. (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)

.............………………………J. (S.A. BOBDE)

New Delhi,

November 22, 2013


Kn Aswathnarayana Setty(D) ... vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. on 2 December, 2013
Mon, 02 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. These petitions have been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.10.2011, passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No.1421 of 2008 etc. affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17.4.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 11502/2006, by which and whereunder the court had quashed the order dated 27.2.2004, passed by the Revenue Minister, Government of Karnataka de-notifying the suit land from acquisition.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these petitions are: A. That a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1894’) was issued in respect of huge chunk of land including Survey No.49/1 admeasuring 15 Acres on 6.8.1991 for the benefit of the State Government Houseless Harijan Employees Association (Regd.) (hereinafter referred to as

Himmat Singh And Ors. vs State Of M.P. And Anr. on 29 November, 2013
Fri, 29 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

G.S. SINGHVI, J.

1. Feeling dissatisfied with the meagre enhancement granted by thelearned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the amount ofcompensation determined by II Additional District Judge, Shivpuri(hereinafter described as, ‘the Reference Court’), the appellants havefiled this appeal.

2. By notification dated 28.5.1987 issued under Section 4(1) of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), which was published on12.6.1987, the Government of Madhya Pradesh acquired the appellants’ landmeasuring 3.627 hectares comprised in Survey Nos.2, 10, 20, 22, 46, 48 and166 of Village Jagatpur, Tehsil Kolaras, District Shivpuri for constructionof Broad Gauge Rail Line by the Central Railway. Another parcel of landmeasuring 0.951 hectares comprised in Survey No.18, of which the appellantswere the occupancy tenants, was also acquired by the same notification. Thepossession of the acquired land was taken on 30.11.1987. The LandAcquisition Officer passed an award dated 26.8.1989 and held that for theland measuring 3.627 hectares, the appellants are

Agricultural Produce Market ... vs Biotor Industries Ltd. & Anr. on 29 November, 2013
Fri, 29 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

These appeals have been directed against the common judgment and orderdated 24.04.2007 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad inLetters Patent Appeal Nos. 139 of 2006 and 195 of 2006 in Special CivilApplication No. 13606 of 2005 with Civil Application No. 514 of 2006 andCivil Application No. 1380 of 2006 filed by the appellant-AgriculturalProduce Market Committee, Baroda (for short “APMC”) as it is aggrieved bythe dismissal of its Letters Patent Appeal No.195 of 2006. The High Courtallowed Letters Patent Appeal No. 139 of 2006 preferred by therespondent-Company. Both the Letters Patent Appeals were filed against theorder dated 22.12.2005 of learned single Judge passed in Special CivilApplication No.13606 of 2005 whereby the learned single Judge substantiallyset aside the order dated 19.4.2005 of the Revisional Authority and partlyallowed the application filed by the APMC by framing questions of law.

2. The brief facts of the case are stated below to appreciate the rivalclaims of the parties and to find out as to whether the appellant-APMC isentitled for the relief soug

M/S Paragon Rubber Industries vs M/S Pragati Rubber Mills & Ors. on 29 November, 2013
Fri, 29 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This judgment shall dispose of C.A.No.10745 of 2013 @ SLP (C) No.22280 of 2011 and C.A.No. 10746 of 2013 @ SLP (C) No.33453 of 2011. Both the appeals impugn the judgment of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 15th March, 2011, rendered in Civil Revision Petition No.1417 of 2004.

3. Since these are cross appeals, the parties shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendant. The facts at the centre of this controversy are as follows:

The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of footwear since 1975, under the registered trademark for which it also possesses the registered copyright. The Plaintiff is located in Kerala. The De

A.P.I.I.C.Ltd vs M/S Team-Asia Lakhi ... on 29 November, 2013
Fri, 29 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

1 ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 14th March, 2011 delivered by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in O.S.A.No.18 of 2008, this appeal has been filed by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd.

3. The circumstances in which the aforestated appeal has been filed are as under:

The appellant is a Government Corporation which allots plots of landfor the purpose of setting up industries to different persons. The plotsare allotted on certain conditions and if the conditions are not fulfilledor if the entire payment is not made within the time stipulated, theallotment is cancelled and possession of the plot is taken back by theappellant.

In pursuance of the aforestated activity of the appellant-Corporation,under a letter dated 31st August, 1988, the appellant-Corporation hadallotted a plot to M/s. Team-Asia Lakhi Semiconductors Ltd. on conditionsincorporated in the said letter. The allotment was made in pursuance of an

Maa Binda Express Carrier And Anr. vs Northeast Frontier Railway And ... on 29 November, 2013
Fri, 29 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 6th June, 2012passed by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court whereby Writ Appeal(C) No.79 of 2012 has been allowed; judgment and order dated 4th February,2012 passed by a Single Bench of that Court set aside and Writ Petition (C)No.4668 of 2011 filed by the appellants dismissed.

3. In terms of a notice dated 12th July, 2011 Divisional CommercialManager, Tinsukia invited tenders for the grant of a three year lease of 23tonnes of space in VPH (Parcel Van) on train No.15960/15959 Kamrup Express.Among those who responded to the tender notice was the appellant herein whooffered a sum of Rs.1,46,872/- per trip for the proposed lease. The tenderprocess was discharged by the railway administration on account oftechnical and administrative reasons no matter the appellant’s offer wasthe highest. A communication dated 6th September, 2011, addressed to theappellant was in that regard issued to the appellant who assailed the samein W.P. (C) No.4668 of 2011 before the High Court of Gauhati.

4.

Purushotham vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. on 29 November, 2013
Fri, 29 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530
today.

For Petitioner(s)

Dr. Sushil Balwada,Adv.

Mr. Rajeev Mishra, Adv.

Mr. Sanand Ramakrishnan

For Respondent(s)

Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni,Adv.

Ms. Anitha Shenoy ,Adv

Mr. Rajesh Mahale ,Adv

Mr. Rajeev Mishra, Adv.

Mr. Sanand Ramakrishnan ,Adv

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar pronounced the Judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri.

For the reasons recorded in the signed Reportable Judgment, the Appeals are dismissed.

|(

Himmat Singh & Ors. vs State Of M.P. & Anr. on 29 November, 2013
Fri, 29 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

G.S. SINGHVI, J.

1. Feeling dissatisfied with the meagre enhancement granted by thelearned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the amount ofcompensation determined by II Additional District Judge, Shivpuri(hereinafter described as, ‘the Reference Court’), the appellants havefiled this appeal.

2. By letter dated 27.12.1988, Collector, Shivpuri proposed theacquisition of 4.421 hectares land for construction of link road near Guna-Shivpuri Rail Line. However, even before issue of the notification underSection 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’),possession of the land was taken by the officers of the Central Railway andlink road was constructed.

3. On 16.1.1989, the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Actwas published. However, the same was cancelled on account of discrepanciesin the area of the land proposed to be acquired. After about four months,the Collector proposed the acquisition of 4.788 hectares land of whichpossession had already been taken.

4. Thereupon, the Government of Madhya Pradesh issued notification

Madhu @ Madhuranatha & Anr. vs State Of Karnataka on 28 November, 2013
Thu, 28 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. These criminal appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 8.9.2010, passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal Nos.833, 855 and 864 of 2008 by which the High Court has affirmed the death sentence and confirmed the judgment and orders of the learned District & Sessions Judge dated 11/17.7.2008, passed in Sessions Case No.152 of 2005 with certain observation about the charging Sections of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) by which and whereunder the appellants have been convicted under Sections 364/302/201 r/w Section 34 IPC and for the offences punishable under Section 364 r/w Section 34 IPC, sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and a fine of Rs.25,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo a further imprisonment for a period of 18 months. They have been further convicted und

State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Sankar Ghosh on 28 November, 2013
Thu, 28 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether therespondent, who was dismissed from service following disciplinaryproceedings, is liable to be reinstated on acquittal by a criminal court onthe ground of identity of charges in the departmental as well as criminalproceedings.

3. The respondent was working as a Sepoy in the 2nd Battalion of theKolkata Armed Police. At the time of the incident, he was working as aSepoy on deputation in the Traffic Department of Kolkata Police. He wasarrested by the police in connection with Khardah P.S. Case No.383 dated12.11.2013 and charged for the offences under Sections 392, 395 and 412 ofthe Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act for hiscomplicity in the commission of a dacoity using a motor cycle bearingRegistration No.WB-24/F-3050. On his arrest, he was produced before theSub-Divisional Magistrate, Barrackpore, and he was remanded to policecustody till 28.11.2003 and then to judicial custody till 30.3.2004.Later, he was released on 1.4.2004. The

State Of Rajasthan vs Shambhu Kewat & Anr on 28 November, 2013
Thu, 28 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Respondents herein were charge-sheeted for the offences punishableunder Sections 307, 323, 325, 427 read with Section 34 IPC. They weretried before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No. 1,Kota, Rajasthan. From the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 5 wereexamined and Exh. P1- P12 were produced. From the side of defence, secondaccused was examined as DW1. The Sessions Court, after hearing theparties and considering the oral and documentary evidence, found theaccused persons guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 readwith Section 34 IPC, but acquitted them of the rest of the charges, videits order dated 9.7.2009. Later, the accused persons were heard onsentence, and they stated that they are not habitual criminals and areaged 26 and 28 years, respectively. Further, it was pointed out that theyare poor labourers married and have children. Further, it was also pointedout that the injuries were caused due to sudden provocation, and were notpre-meditated. After hearing the accused and the prosecution

Poonam Tandon vs Chancellor,Lucknow University & ... on 28 November, 2013
Thu, 28 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

S. A. BOBDE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant has challenged the order of the Allahabad High Court, by which the High Court has set aside the order of the Chancellor dated 13th March 2007 passed under Section 31(8)(a) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). By the said order, the Chancellor had approved the appointment of the appellant by holding that the appellant possessed the prescribed and required qualification for the post of Professor of Physics (Specialization in Experimental Solid State). The Chancellor had passed this order on a reference made under Section 31(8) (a) of the Act.

3. The appellant was selected by the duly constituted Selection Committee consisting of the Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, three experts in the field of Physics appointed by the Chancellor, the Head of Dep

K.C. Bajaj And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 27 November, 2013
Wed, 27 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

G.S. SINGHVI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Whether final result of a case filed by a public servant with regardto his service conditions is dependent on the arbitrary choice of the Stateand/or its agencies/instrumentalities to prosecute the matter before thehigher Courts is one of the questions which would require consideration inthese appeals filed against order dated 16.10.2010 of the Division Bench ofthe Delhi High Court whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellantsquestioning the correctness of order dated September 12, 2008 passed by the

Noida Entrepreneurs Assocn. vs N O I D A & Ors on 27 November, 2013
Wed, 27 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

G.S. SINGHVI, J.

1. The legislature of Uttar Pradesh enacted the U.P. Industrial AreaDevelopment Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1976 Act”) forplanned development of industrial and residential areas in the State. Forachieving that object, the State Government constituted New OkhlaIndustrial Development Authority (“NOIDA”). Thereafter, a new township wasestablished near the capital of the country. Unfortunately, allotment ofland and plots in the new township have become subject matter ofinnumerable controversies and generated huge litigation in the Allahabadand Delhi High Courts and this Court.

2. NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association filed the above noted writ petitionunder Article 32 of the Constitution by way of public interest litigation(PIL) for enforcement of their rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and21 of the Constitution. It pleaded that the very object of creating NOIDAhas been defeated because of major land scandals and prayed that a thoroughprobe be ordered into the allotment of land and plots and the abuse ofpower by the functionaries of NOIDA.

3. On 7.4.1997, this Court gave liberty to the petit

Lakha Ram Sharma vs Balar Marketing P.Ltd.& Ors. on 27 November, 2013
Wed, 27 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

A.K. SIKRI,J.

1. Leave Granted.

2. Before adverting to the core issue it would be apposite to note down the genesis of the dispute.

3. The appellant herein is the proprietor of a concern by the name of Kundan Cables which is engaged in the manufacture of electric accessories and fittings including electrical switches, main switches, fuse units, wires and cables and electrical irons. Since 1980 the petitioner has been using the trademark Kundan/ Kundan Cab and the trade name Kundan Cables India in respect of the said goods. The appellant has also been supplying the said goods under the aforesaid trade marks and names to Respondent No. 1.

4. Sometime in the year 1994, the appellant came to know that Respondent No. 1 was using the Trade Mark 'KUNDAN'. The appellant immediately filed a suit for injunction in the District Court at Delhi which was registered as Suit No. 102 of 1994. During the pendency of the said suit, Respondent No. 1 obtained registration of the said Trade Mark in its favou

Indra Sarma vs V.K.V.Sarma on 26 November, 2013
Tue, 26 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Leave granted.

2. Live-in or marriage like relationship is neither a crime nor a sinthough socially unacceptable in this country. The decision to marry ornot to marry or to have a heterosexual relationship is intensely personal.

3. We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether a “live-inrelationship” would amount to a “relationship in the nature of marriage”falling within the definition of “domestic relationship” under Section 2(f)of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “theDV Act”) and the disruption of such a relationship by failure to maintain awomen involved in such a relationship amounts to “domestic violence” withinthe meaning of Section 3 of the DV Act.

FACTS:

4. Appellant and respondent were working together in a private company. The Respondent, who was working as a Personal Officer of the Company, wasa married person having two children and the appellant, aged 33 years, wasunmarried. Constant contacts between them developed intimacy and in theyear 1992, appellant left the job from the above-mentioned Company andstarted living with the r

Chironjilal Sharma Huf vs Union Of India & Ors. on 26 November, 2013
Tue, 26 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530

R.M. LODHA,J.

Leave granted.

2. The brief facts necessary for consideration of the issue raised in the appeal are these: In the search conducted in the house of the appellant on 31.1.1990, a cash amount of Rs. 2,35,000/- was recovered. On 31.5.1990, an order under Section 132(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) came to be passed. The Assessing Officer calculated the tax liability and the cash seized in the search from the appellant's house was appropriated. However, the order of the Assessing Officer was finally set-aside by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) on 20.2.2004. The revenue accepted the order of the Tribunal. Consequently, the appellant has been refunded the amount of Rs. 2,35,000/- along with interest from 4.3.1994 (date of last of the regular assessments by the Assessing Officer)

Sister Mina Lalitha Baruwa vs State Of Orissa & Ors. on 5 December, 2013
Thu, 05 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Cuttack in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.1746 of 2011 dated 05.01.2012. The informant is the appellant before us. The informant is stated to be a Catholic Nun and according to her she was brutally assaulted, molested and also gang raped by the assailants who have been arrayed as accused in the session’s case which is being tried by the District & Sessions Judge in S.T. No.243 of 2010.

3. Briefly noting the contents in the charge-sheet, we find that one Swamy Laxmananda Saraswati was killed in Kandhamal District, which led to a communal violence in the entire district. The appellant and another Jesuit father by name Thomas Chellan and some others who were residents of Jesuit Home called ‘Divyajyoti Pastoral Centre’, Kanjamendi of district Kandhamal, fearing attack by the unruly mob took shelter in the house of one Prahallad Pradhan of village Kanjamendi on 24.08.2008.

Sasidhar Reddy Sura vs State Of A.P. & Ors. on 5 December, 2013
Thu, 05 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

1 ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant, a candidate who aspired to be a District and Sessions Judge, has filed this Appeal challenging the validity of the Judgment and Order dated 17th July, 2012 delivered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 34683 of 2011.

3. The grievance which had been ventilated by the appellant before the High Court was that he had not been appointed to the post of District and Sessions Judge. In pursuance of an advertisement, dated 19th August, 2010 published by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh inviting applications for appointment to 18 (eighteen) posts of District and Sessions Judges (Entry Level) in the A.P. State Judicial Service, the appellant had applied for the said post. He had taken the written examination and also appeared in the oral interview and he had found his name in the select list. Though the appellant

John K Abraham vs Simon C Abraham & Anr on 5 December, 2013
Thu, 05 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 15th December, 2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No.452 of 2004.

3. The issue involved in this appeal arises under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint was preferred by the respondent No.1 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta alleging that appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from him and issued a cheque for the said sum on 20.06.2001 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Plankamon branch in discharge of the debt. It is the further case of the respondent--complainant that when the cheque was presented for encashment through Pathanamthitta District Co-operative Bank, Kozhencherry branch, the same was returned by the bankers with the endorsement ‘insufficient funds in the account of the accused’. The respondent-complainant stated to have issued a lawyer’s notice on 14.07.2001, which was received by the appellant on 16.07.

N.Anantha Reddy vs Anshu Kathuria & Ors. on 2 December, 2013
Mon, 02 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

R.M. Lodha, J. :

Leave granted.

2. The respondent No. 1 herein filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (respondent No. 2 herein) and the Assistant City Planner (respondent No. 3 herein). In the suit, the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) prayed that notice dated 23.12.2009 issued under Section 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 be declared as illegal, void and not legally tenable. It was further prayed that the defendants (respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein) have no right to interfere with the construction being put up by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also prayed for perpetual injunction restraining the two defendants, their officers/officials/servants from interfering with the suit scheduled property and by directing them not to demolish or cause any damage to the suit schedule property.

3.

Lakshmana Rao Yadavalli & Anr vs State Of A.P.& Ors. on 6 December, 2013
Fri, 06 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
Lakshmana Rao Yadavalli & Anr vs State Of A.P.& Ors. on 6 December, 2013
Author: ……………………………….J.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2013

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 8283 of 2012)

State of Rajasthan and others ... Appellants

Versus

M/s. Basant Agrotech (India) Ltd. ...Respondent

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2013

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 8288 of 2012)

State of Rajasthan and others ... Appellants

Versus

M/s. Solaris Chemtech Industries Ltd. ...Respondent

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2013

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 8291 of 2012)

State of Rajasthan and others ... Appellants

Versus

M/s. Madhyabharat Phosphate P. Ltd. ...Respondent

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2013

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 10815 of 2012)

State of Rajasthan and others ... Appellants

Versus

M/s. Liberty Phosphate Ltd. ...Respondent

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2013

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 10816 of 2012)

State of Rajast

Madan & Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 December, 2013
Fri, 06 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated

09.O9.2008 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad holding theReference made by the Collector under Section 18 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to be barred bylimitation. The High Court, accordingly, reversed the Award dated29.10.1993 passed by the Reference Court granting enhanced compensation tothe appellants. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

3. The brief facts of the case may be usefully recited as hereunder:

Acquisition of a total area of 8 Hectares 40 Ares covered by SurveyNo.49 situated at village Phule Pimpalgaon in Taluka Majalgaon of BeedDistrict was initiated by a Notification under Section 4 of the Act whichwas published in the gazette on 13.03.1980. No objection under Section 5Aof the Act was filed by any person interested. Consequently, theNotification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 18.04.1982 and anAward was passed on 16.08.1985 granting compensa

Alsia Pardhi vs State Of M.P.& Ors. on 6 December, 2013
Fri, 06 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

P.Sathasivam, CJI.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated09.04.2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No.3803 of 2011 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed thepetition filed by the appellant herein.

3) Brief facts:

(a) On 10.02.2011, at about 4 p.m., a posse of forest officials of theBetul Range, District Betul, forcibly took away one Kusum, W/o TaarbabuPardhi and Rajnandani, D/o Ankit Pardhi, aged about 14 years, from the fishmarket in their jeep. When the persons present at the site tried to resistthe force of the forest officials, Kusum somehow managed to jump from thejeep but the minor girl Rajnandani was whisked away by them.(b) Alsia Pardhi–the appellant herein, being the uncle of the kidnappedminor girl, on 13.02.2011, made a complaint to the SHO, Kotwali Betul,alleging that the minor girl is in the custody of the officials of theForest Department and requesting to register a case of kidnapping againstthem.

(c) On 14.02.2011, the appellant and his commu

State Of M.P. vs Pradeep Sharma on 6 December, 2013
Fri, 06 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

P.Sathasivam, CJI.

1) Leave granted.

2) These appeals are filed against the orders dated 10.01.2013 and17.01.2013 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat atJabalpur in Misc. Criminal Case Nos. 9996 of 2012 and 15283 of 2012respectively whereby the High Court granted anticipatory bail to therespondents herein.

3) Brief facts:

a) The case of the prosecution is that Rajesh Singh Thakur (thedeceased), resident of village Gopalpur, Tehsil Chaurai, DistrictChhindwara, Madhya Pradesh and Pradeep Sharma (respondent herein), residentof the same village, were having enmity with each other on account ofelection to the post of Sarpanch.

b) On 10.09.2011, Pradeep Sharma (respondent herein), in order to getrid of Rajesh Singh Thakur (the deceased), conspired along with otheraccused persons and managed to call him to the Pawar Tea House, Chhindwaraon the pretext of se

State Of Rajasthan & Ors. vs M/S Basant Agrotech (India) Ltd. on 6 December, 2013
Fri, 06 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

1 ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the Judgment delivered by the High Court of Andhra Pradeh in W.P.No.34683 of 2011 and 894 of 2012 dated 17th July, 2012, the appellants have filed these appeals.

3. The facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nut-shell are as under:

The appellants, Shri Lakshmana Rao Yadavalli and Shri Dunna Ramulu were desirous of being appointed as District and Sessions Judges (Entry Level) in the A.P. Higher Judicial Service and therefore, had applied for the post and they also found their names in the select list at serial nos.9 and 12 respectively.

4. Before they could be appointed to the post in question, Writ Petition Nos.34683 of 2011 and 894 of 2012 had been filed in the High Court wherein their selection had been challenged on the ground tha

Glaxo Smithkline ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 9 December, 2013
Mon, 09 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

R.M. LODHA,J.

Leave granted in SLP(C) Nos.27241-27242 of 2010.

2. This is a group of six appeals, by special leave, four arisingfrom the judgment of the Karnataka High Court and two from the Delhi HighCourt.

3. The two High Courts, Karnataka and Delhi, have takendiametrical opposite view on the question whether the prices fixed underthe Drugs (Prices Control) Order (for short, ‘DPCO’) in respect ofdrugs/formulations would be operative in respect of all sales subsequent to15 days from the date of the notification by the G

Rajeshwar Singh vs Subrata Roy Sahara & Ors. on 9 December, 2013
Mon, 09 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. We may, at the outset, point out that, at this stage, we are onlyexamining the maintainability of this contempt petition, on which argumentshave been advanced by the learned senior counsels on either side. Thiscontempt petition has been preferred under Article 129, 142 of theConstitution of India, read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act,1971 (for short ‘the Act’) and Rule 12 of the Rules to Regulate Proceedingsfor Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975.

2. Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel appearing for the firstrespondent, submitted that this contempt petition is not maintainable sinceit has been filed without the consent of the Attorney General of India orother officer mentioned in Section 15 of the Act. Learned senior counselsubmitted that neither the order of this Court dated 06.05.2011 nor thenotice dated 23.05.2011 gives any indication of the nature of the criminalcontempt to be defended by the respondent. Learned senior counsel furthersubmitted that even the notice dated 23.05.2011 does

Mary Pappa Jebamani vs Genesan And Ors. on 9 December, 2013
Mon, 09 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.

1. Leave as prayed for was granted and hence the counsel for thecontesting parties were finally heard.

2. The complainant/appellant (Mary Pappa Jebamani) herein hasfiled this appeal by way of special leave bearing SLP (Crl.)No.4149/11) against the judgment and order dated 25.2.2010 passed in Crl.R.C. (MD) No.620/2008 of Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court by whichthe learned single Judge while exercising his revisional jurisdiction waspleased to set aside the judgment and order dated 26.6.2008 passed by thePrincipal Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur beingthe first appellate court who had been pleased to set aside the order ofacquittal passed by the trial court against the accused/respondents herein for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 323 of the IndianPenal Code (for short ‘IPC’). Thereafter, the appellants herein alsofiled an application bearing MP (MD) SR No. 15619/2010 in the aforesaidcriminal revision for allowing the application by ordering retrial of theaccused respondents which petition was dismissed as not maintainable

Manoj @ Panu vs State Of Haryana on 9 December, 2013
Mon, 09 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

Leave granted. The application for bail is rejected.

2. This appeal is filed by the appellant–Manoj against the finaljudgment and order dated 13.05.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab &Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 1357-SB of 2007 whereby theHigh Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhiwani in Sessions Case No.21-RBT of 2006 dated 23.04.2007 for the offences punishable under Section307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C. in short) and Sections 25 and 27 ofthe Arms Act and sentenced the appellant-Manoj as under:-

|Under Section 307, IPC |Rigorous imprisonment for a period|| |of ten years and to pay fine of || |Rs.5000/-. In default of payment || |of fine to further undergo || |rigorous imprisonment for a period|| |of six months. ||Under Section 25 of Arms Act |Rigorous imprisonment for a period|| |of three y

B.S.N.L. vs Telecom Regulatory Auth.Of India ... on 6 December, 2013
Fri, 06 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
B.S.N.L. vs Telecom Regulatory Auth.Of India ... on 6 December, 2013
Author: G Singhvi
Bench: .......J., .....J., ......J.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5253 OF 2010

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited ... Appellant versus

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and others ... Respondents With

Civil Appeal Nos. 951-952 of 2005

Civil Appeal No. 3298 of 2005

Civil Appeal No. 3299 of 2005

Civil Appeal No. 4529 of 2005

Civil Appeal Nos. 5834-5836 of 2005

Civil Appeal No. 5837 of 2005

Civil Appeal No. 6049 of 2005

Civil Appeal No. 802 of 2006

Civil Appeal No. 2731 of 2006

Civil Appeal No. 2794 of 2006

Civil Appeal No. 3504 of 2006

Civil Appeal Nos. 4965-4966 of 2007

Civil Appeal No. 177 of 2008

Civil Appeal Nos. 598-599 of 2008

Civil Appeal No. 5184 of 2010

Civil Appeal No. 5873 of 2010

Civil Appeal No. 6068 of 2010

Civil Appeal No. 6255 of 2010

Civil Appeal No. D28298 of 2010


Dlf Limited vs Manmohan Lowe & Ors. on 10 December, 2013
Tue, 10 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of a writ petition filed by the Apartment owners of Silver Oaks Apartments, DLF Qutub Enclave, Phase-1, Gurgaon, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the declaration dated 19.04.2001 filed by the Appellant, on the ground that the same is not in conformity with Section 3(f) of the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 (for short “the Apartment Act”) since the appellant failed to include certain areas of the complex as “common areas and facilities” within the declaration,

Abhay Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. on 10 December, 2013
Tue, 10 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

G.S. SINGHVI, J.

One of the several questions of public and constitutional importanceraised by Shri Harish Salve, learned senior counsel, who initially appearedon behalf of the petitioner in the special leave petitions filed againstorder dated 21.8.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad HighCourt in C.M.W.P. No. 15440 of 1998 quashing the withdrawal of “Z GradeSecurity” provided to Respondent No.6-Pramod Tiwari, but later on assumedthe role of an Amicus, is whether the Constitution contemplatescategorization of citizens into two groups and whether the entitlement touse signs and symbols of authority, such as lights of different coloursincluding red lights, insignia, and convoys/escorts by public servants andpersons, who hold public offices under the States or the Union of India, iscontrary to constitutional ethos and the basic feature of

Sebastiao Luis ... vs K.V.P.Shastri & Ors. on 10 December, 2013
Tue, 10 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

This civil appeal is filed by the appellants as they are aggrieved bythe judgment and decree of the High Court of Bombay at Goa passed on14.9.1998 by the learned single Judge in Second Appeal No. 30 of 1986raising various questions of law and grounds in support of the same. Inthis judgment for the sake of convenience the rank of the parties isdescribed according to their position before the trial court. Theappellants are the legal representatives of the plaintiff and therespondents are the legal representatives of the defendants. The suit wasinstituted by the original plaintiff in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr.Division at Quepem (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) in CivilSuit No.14091 of 1948.

2. The relevant brief facts are stated for the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contentions with a view to examine and find out as to whether the impugned judgment of the High Court of Bombay warrants interference by this Court in this appeal in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.


Chatterjee Petrochem Co. & Anr. vs Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. on 10 December, 2013
Tue, 10 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

V. Gopala Gowda J.

On 21st March, 2012, the appellant Chatterjee Petrochem (Mauritius)Company (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPMC’) filed a request for arbitrationin International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Paris in relation to anagreement of restructuring which was entered into between CPMC, Governmentof West Bengal, West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation (in short‘WBIDC’) and Haldia Petrochemical Limited (in short ‘HPL’) on 12th January,2002. As per the Agreement, the Government of West Bengal was to causeWBIDC to transfer existing shareholding to CPMC to ensure that CPMC holds51% of the total paid up capital of HPL. Clause 15 of the Agreementprovides for reference of all disputes, in any way relating to the saidAgreement or to the business of or affair of HPL to the Rules of the ICC,Paris.

2. The respondent HPL on the other hand, claims that the ArbitrationAgreement contained in clause 15 of the Agreement dated 12th January, 2002is void and/ or unenforceable and/or has become inoperative and/orincapable of being performed.

3. A

B.S.N.L. vs Bhurumal on 11 December, 2013
Wed, 11 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

A.K.SIKRI,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. For deciding this appeal, the seminal facts, which are required amention are recapitulated below:

3. The respondent herein raised an industrial dispute alleging hiswrongful termination, by approaching the Assistant Labour Commissioner,Faridabad in the year 2000. He claimed that he was working as a Lineman ondaily wages with the Sonipat Telephone Department, BSNL at Saidpur Exchangeand was not paid his wages for the period from October 2001 till April2002. He further stated that while working he got an electrical shock andbecause of this accident he was hospitalized. However, he was not allowedto resume his duty which amounted to wrongful termination. ConciliationProceedings commenced after notice was sent to the appellant. Defence ofthe appellant was that the respondent never worked with the appellant. Itwas pleaded that there was an agreement dated 18.1.2002 entered intobetween appellant and M/s. Haryana Securities/Services (Regd) for supply ofsecurities personnel to SSA, Sonipat. The appellant stated that therespondent may have worked as a contract employee with the

Samta Aandolan Samiti & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 11 December, 2013
Wed, 11 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

A.K.SIKRI,J.

1. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing thepresent Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiawith the grievance that while making admissions in the MBBS course, therespondent All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) is not strictlyadhering to the reservation policy and have questioned the manner in whichseats are allotted to the candidates belonging to reserved category. Asper them, the AIIMS have far exceeded the quota prescribed for the reservedcategory candidates which has resulted in more than 50 % reservations ofthe seats, which is contrary to the law laid down by this Court. The standof the AIIMS, on the other hand, is that there is no violation of the lawlaid down by this Court in this behalf and the methodology adopted by theAIIMS for admission in MBBS course is perfectly valid and justified. Thecontroversy has arisen in the following backdrop:

2. “The All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhiissued Prospectus for admission in the MBBS course starting from August,2013 along with admission in Six New AIIMS at Bhopal, Patna, Jodhpur,Rishikesh,Raipur and Bhubaneswar with an in

Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr. vs Naz Foundation & Ors. on 11 December, 2013
Wed, 11 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr. vs Naz Foundation & Ors. on 11 December, 2013
Author: G Singhvi
Bench: S J Mukhopadhaya, G Singhvi

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10972 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.15436 of 2009)

Suresh Kumar Koushal and another ... Appellants versus

NAZ Foundation and others ... Respondents with

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10974 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.37703 of 2013 @ CC NO.13105 of 2009)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10986 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.37708 of 2013 @ CC NO.14042 of 2009)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10981 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.37705 of 2013 @ CC NO.19478 of 2009)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10983 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP(C) NO.20913 of 2009)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10984 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP(C) NO.20914 of 2009)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10975 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP(C) NO.22267 of 2009)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10973 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP(C) NO.24334 of 2009)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10985 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP(C) NO.25346 of 2009)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10976 OF 2013


Bank Of Baroda vs S.K. Kool (D) Thr Lrs And Anr. on 11 December, 2013
Wed, 11 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

S.K. Kool, respondent no. 1 herein (since deceased), was working as aclerk with the petitioner, Bank of Baroda and while working as such aftera departmental inquiry, as a measure of punishment, visited with thepenalty of ‘removal from service with superannuation benefits as would bedue otherwise and without disqualification from future employment’.

S.K. Kool, hereinafter referred to as ‘the employee’, made a requestfor leave encashment, which was declined by the petitioner Bank of Baroda,hereinafter referred to as ‘the employer’, on the ground that ‘wherecessation of service takes place on account of employee’s resignation orhis dismissal/termination/compulsory retirement from the Bank’s service,all leaves to his credit lapse.’

The employee laid claim for pensionary benefits but the same was alsodeclined. However, the employer advised the employee to ask for sanctionof compassionate allowance not exceeding two-thirds of the pension whichwould have been admissible to him otherwise. A dispute was raised and thecompetent Government referred the disput

Kamlesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr. on 11 December, 2013
Wed, 11 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

A.K.SIKRI,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant herein is facing trial in the complaint filed byrespondent No.2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I.Act for short). According to the appellant, criminal complaint is notmaintainable and no such proceedings could be launched against him. He,therefore, approached the High Court of Judicature at Patna in the form ofa petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated28.10.2009 whereby the Court of Magistrate had taken cognizance of thecomplaint filed by the respondent No.2 issued summons to the appellant.This petition, however, has been dismissed by the High Court vide impugnedjudgment dated 1.11.2012. The solitary reason given by the High Courtwhile dismissing the petition is that trial has already commenced and twowitnesses have already been examined and discharged. Hence, at this stageit would not be proper to interfere with the trial. Various contentionswhich were raised by the appellant questioning the very maintainability ofthe complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act are not gone into

Veer Singh & Ors. vs State Of U.P. on 10 December, 2013
Tue, 10 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

C. NAGAPPAN, J.

1. These two appeals are preferred against the common judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.749 of 1996 and Criminal Appeal No.761 of 1996 dated 1.10.2007.

2. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 749 of 1996 are accused Nos. 1 to 4 and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.761 of 1996 is the accused No.5, in the Sessions Case No.72 of 1985, on the file of Third Additional Sessions Judge, Muzafarnagar, and they were tried along with three other accused for the alleged offences under Sections 147,148, 307 read with Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 452 of Indian Penal Code. Sessions Court found accused Nos. 6 to 8 not guilty of the charges and acquitted them and at the same time convicted accused Nos.1 to 5 for the charge under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to death, subject to confirmation by the High Court; convicted them for the offences under Section 307 read with Section 149 of IPC and

Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. vs Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. & ... on 10 December, 2013
Tue, 10 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

G.S. SINGHVI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against order dated 12.4.2012 by which theDivision Bench of the Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition filed byrespondent No.1-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) and quashed thesanction accorded by the competent authority of the Municipal Corporationof Greater Mumbai (for short, ‘the Corporation’) for change of user andconstruction of residential and commercial complex on land bearing CTS Nos.381 and 381/1 to 22, Village Anik, Taluk Chembur, MSD, Mumbai and directedthe Municipal Commissioner to reconsider the application made by Oswal AgroMills Ltd. (hereinafter described as “the appellant”) keeping in view theobjections raised by the Police Department, Ministry of Petroleum, Ministryof Environment and Intelligence Bureau and the Security Control Regulationsissued by the State of Maharashtra under Section 37 (1AA) of theMaharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, ‘the 1966Act’).


Erach Boman Khavar vs Tukaram Sridhar Bhat & Ors. on 12 December, 2013
Thu, 12 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.6.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No. 262 of 2007 reversing the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge in Company Application No. 720 of 2006 in Company Petition No. 201 of 1994 whereby the learned single Judge had granted leave to the appellant to institute a suit for eviction against the respondent therein.

3. The broad essential facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 17.6.1975 the father of the appellant entered into an agreement of leave and licence with respondent No. 2 – Company, namely M/s. Poysha Industrial Co. Ltd. in respect of a flat owned by him. As put forth by the appellant, the licence expired by efflux of time but the respondent No. 2 continued to pay the licence fee and the same was accepted by the father of the appellant without prejudice. In the year 1990 a suit for eviction was instituted by the predecessor-in- interest of the appellant against respondent N

Arasmeta Captive Power Co. Pvt. ... vs Lafarge India P. Ltd on 12 December, 2013
Thu, 12 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

2. In Government of Andra Pradesh and others v. A. P. Jaiswal and others[1] a three-Judge Bench has observed thus:-

“Consistency is the cornerstone of the administration of justice. It is consistency which creates confidence in the system and this consistency can never be achieved without respect to the rule of finality. It is with a view to achieve consistency in judicial pronouncements, the Courts have evolved the rule of precedents, principle of stare decisis etc. These rules and principle are based on public policy...”

3. We have commenced our opinion with the aforesaid exposition of law as arguments have been canvassed by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellants, with innovative intellectual animation how a three-Judge Bench in Chloro Controls India Private Limited v. Seven Trent Water Purification Inc. and others[2] has inappositely and incorrectly understood the principles stated in the major part of the decision rendered by a larger Bench in

Thu, 12 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. This Writ Petition has been preferred by two Associationsrepresenting the Deaf and Dumb persons seeking a Writ of Mandamus directingthe Central and State Governments to grant transport allowance to itsgovernment employees suffering from hearing impairment in equal with thatis being given to blinds and orthopedically handicapped governmentemployees and also for further consequential reliefs.

2. The Ministry of Finance, Government of India vide its OfficeMemorandum (for short ‘OM’) dated 31.8.1978 permitted conveyance allowanceto the employees of the Central Government borne or regular establishmentwho are disabled, namely blind and orthopedically handicapped, withdisability of lower extremities. The Government of India, later, vide itsOM of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure dated 16.4.1987,consequent upon the introduction of C.C.S. (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986,revised the rate of Conveyance allowance to disabled persons, namely blindand orthopedically handicapped to 5% of the basic pay, subject to a maximumo

Fakhruzamma vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 12 December, 2013
Thu, 12 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Leave granted.

2. The question that has come up for consideration in this case iswhether sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is necessary from the StateGovernment before prosecuting the Appellant, though he was removed fromservice following the procedure laid down in Jharkhand Police Manual.

3. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, in Complaint CaseNo.281 of 2003, T.R. No.835 OF 2006, took cognizance against the Appellantfor various offences under Sections 456, 323, 504, 506, 342, 386, 201, 120Band 304 IPC. That order was challenged by the Appellant before the HighCourt by filing Crl. M.P. No.1669 of 2006 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. statingthat in the absence of previous sanction of the State Government, as perthe provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate could nothave taken cognizance of the offences against the appellant who was a Sub-Inspector of Police, since the act alleged was committed while discharginghis official duty. The High Court rejected that contention by holdingthat since the competent authority had removed the Appellant from service,sanction to pr

Chairman-Cum-Managing Director ... vs Bharat Chandra Behera & Anr. on 12 December, 2013
Thu, 12 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
Chairman-Cum-Managing Director ... vs Bharat Chandra Behera & Anr. on 12 December, 2013


Haryana Financial Corporation vs Gurcharan Singh And Anr. on 13 December, 2013
Fri, 13 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. M/s Amrit Steel Industries, Jagadhari, a proprietorship concern ofwhich the first respondent is the sole proprietor, had obtained a loan ofRs.5,05,750/- on 15.9.1994 from the Appellant, Haryana FinancialCorporation, by entering into hypothecation of machinery, fixture, as wellas, personal guarantee bond dated 15.9.1994. The first respondent also gavea written undertaking dated 5.3.1994 that he would not dispose of hisproperties during the currency of the loan. The first respondent failed torepay the loan. Consequently, the Corporation took over the hypothecatedproperty and sold the same and appropriated the amount. In the meantime,the second respondent, the wife of the first respondent filed Civil SuitNo.767 of 1995 against the first respondent before the Court of Civil Judge(Jr. Divn.), Jagadhari, seeking a declaration that she is the absoluteowner and in possession of the properties mentioned in the undertakingdated 5.3.1994. The suit was decreed on 3.2.1996 as against the firstrespondent.

3. The

M/S Prp Export & Etc. vs Chief Sec. Govt. Of Tamil Nadu & ... on 13 December, 2013
Fri, 13 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. These Special Leave Petitions arise out of a common judgment andorder dated 15.2.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras inW.A. (MD) Nos.906 and 907 of 2012. The Petitioner is a registeredpartnership firm, engaged in the manufacture of dimensional granite blocks,slabs, tiles, monuments etc. and has set up its factory for cutting andpolishing of granite in Therkkutheru Village, Madurai District. ThePetitioner firm, it is stated, is 100% export oriented unit, recognized bythe Madras Export Processing Zone. The Petitioner firm is having 55 granitequarries leased in the Madurai District measuring about 584.83 acres.

2. Alleging that the Petitioner firm had indulged in unauthorizedquarrying, the Respondent officials as well as the District Collector andSuperintendent of Police took steps to seal the Petitioners’ factorypremises, vehicles and instruments so as to suspend the quarryingoperations in respect of the above-mentioned quarries. The Petitioners,therefore, approached the Madras High Court by filing W.P. (MD) Nos.12441and 12442 of 2012

Inderjeet Arya And Anr vs Icici Bank Ltd on 13 December, 2013
Fri, 13 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether theappellants who are Directors and Guarantors of a sick company and areentitled to get the protection of Section 22(1) of the Sick IndustrialCompanies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short “the SICA).

3. M/s Rajat Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd. (RPL) was engaged in the business ofmanufacturing, trading and export of generic pharmaceuticals formulationsand products. First appellant is the Chairman-cum-Director of RPL, whilesecond appellant is its Director. The Bank of Rajasthan, prior to itsamalgamation with the respondent–ICICI Bank Limited, instituted recoveryproceedings in the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Delhi and the same wasregistered as OA No.118 of 2009. In those proceedings, the State TradingCorporation of India Ltd. (STC) was defendant No.1, while RPL along withits Directors and Guarantors were arrayed as Defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4respectively. By way of recovery proceedings, Bank of Rajasthan (Now ICICIBank) sought recovery of Rs.26,55,35,824.50 which included interest to thetune o

Kashmir Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors. on 13 December, 2013
Fri, 13 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

A.K.SIKRI,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In all these appeals, challenge is laid to the judgment of theHigh Court pronounced on 20th September 2010, whereby number ofappeals filed for enhancement of compensation under the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘LA Act’) weredismissed by the High Court. The land of the appellants was acquiredby the Government of Haryana, which falls in the Revenue Estate ofTohana, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad, Haryana. The LandAcquisition Collector (LAC) had assessed the market value of theacquired land @ Rs.2,75,000/- per acre for chahi, Rs.1,75,000/- peracre for Tibba/Tall and Rs.3,25,000/- per acre for gair mumkin land.The appellants had filed objections to the said determination ofcompensation by the LAC and the matter was re

Mgmt. Of Sundaram Industries Ltd. vs Sundaram Industries Employee ... on 13 December, 2013
Fri, 13 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 27th April, 2011passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madraswhereby Writ Appeal No.702 of 2011 and M.P. No.1 of 2011 filed by theappellant have been dismissed and order dated 28th February, 2011 passed bya learned Single Judge of that Court in Writ Petition No.8019 of 2010affirmed.

3. The appellant-company is engaged in the manufacture of rubberproducts for various industrial applications. It had, at the relevantpoint of time, 877 employees in its establishment. As many as 488 of theseemployees were working as moulders to operate the rubber moulding machines.The moulding work involved placing rubber into the moulding press whichwould then be pressed into rubber components and marketed for variedindustrial and commercial uses.

4. In March 1999, the management of the appellant-company required theworkmen engaged as moulders to place their individual bags of production onthe weighing scale at the end of their work shift

Sherish Hardenia & Ors. vs State Of M.P. & Anr. on 13 December, 2013
Fri, 13 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

1. Leave granted. These appeals assail the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur delivered in Crl. Revision Nos.1400 and 1445 of 2004 passed on 6.5.2008. The learned Single Judge was called upon to decide two Revision Petitions against the Order dated 26.08.2004 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No.83 of 2004. Amrish Hardenia, the Petitioner in Cr.R.No.1445/2004 stood charged with offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Four other accused namely, his parents, Shri Lajja Shankar and Smt. Meera, as also his brother and sister-in-law Shri Sherish Hardenia and

Prof. A. Marx vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 13 December, 2013
Fri, 13 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. The petitioner herein has approached the High Court seeking a writ ofcertiorari to quash the Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test (TNTET) -2013Notification/Advertisement No.13/2013 dated 22nd May, 2013 issued by theTeachers Recruitment Board and also sought a direction to the Board toissue fresh notification extending the constitutional benefits ofreservation to TNTET by assigning minimum qualifying cut off marks for eachcommunal category, in accordance with the prevailing reservation rule andalso for the consequential reliefs.

2. The Madras High Court refused to grant the reliefs prayed for on theground that the question as to whether relaxation/concessional marks to begranted or not to be granted is a policy matter, to be taken by the StateGovernment and the court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitutional ofIndia cannot give a positive direction to the State so as to reduce theminimum marks to any reserved category.

3. It is noticed that the same question was considered by th

Naib Subedar Naresh Chand vs Union Of India & Ors. on 13 December, 2013
Fri, 13 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

1. Leave granted. This Appeal assails the order dated 31.5.2011 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (for short, ‘AFT’), Principal Bench, New Delhi pronounced in O.A. No.63 of 2010.

2. In Union of India v. Brigadier P.S. Gill (2012) 4 SCC 463 this Court speaking through one of us, Thakur J, has opined that there is no vested right of appeal to the Supreme Court against the final decision of the AFT and accordingly it is imperative that every appeal to the Supreme Court should be preceded by a plea made before the AFT to the effect that the controversy raises a question of law of general public importance. In the event that the AFT disagrees it is necessary for the Appellant to apply for leave of this Court in terms of Section 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (for short, ‘the Act’). The Appellant has neither approached the AFT for leave to appeal under Section 31 of the Act nor has he file

Shalini vs New English High Scl.Assn.& Ors. on 12 December, 2013
Thu, 12 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

1. Leave granted. This Appeal challenges the Order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench passed on 25.11.2009 in L.P.A. No.527 of 2009 affirming the Order of the learned Single Judge who had dismissed the Appellant’s Writ Petition essentially on the opinion of the Three-Judge Bench in Union of India v. Dattatray (2008) 4 SCC

612. The Order impugned before the learned Single Judge was that of the School Tribunal, Nagpur which had granted reinstatement of the Appellant with continuity of service and full back wages. The Appellant had been employed as an Assistant Teacher against a vacancy earmarked for Scheduled Tribe candidate, she having filed a Caste Certificate dated 8.7.1974 issued by the Competent Authority testifying her to belong to the “Halba Scheduled Tribe Category”. The question before us is i

Ghanshyam vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 December, 2013
Thu, 12 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

V.Gopala Gowda J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused questioning thecorrectness of the judgment and final Order dated 04.02.2009 passed by theHigh Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Misc.Petition No. 1067 of 2005 remanding the matter back to the trial court forfresh decision in the light of the statements of the witnesses and also thematerial and evidence available on record, urging various facts and legalcontentions in justification of his claim.

3. Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the caseof the appellant/accused and also to find out whether he is entitled forthe relief as prayed in this appeal.

At the time of filing of this appeal, there were two respondents,respondent no.1 Ram Dayal – the complainant and respondent no.2 – the Stateof Rajasthan. Name of the complainant-Respondent no.1 has been deleted videthis Court’s order dated 13th September, 2010 as the appellant could nottake steps of service upon him.

The complainant alleged that on 1.10.1994, he gave three gold chainswei

Manohar La vs The Principle Secretary & Others on 17 December, 2013
Tue, 17 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

R.M. LODHA, J.

The question for the purposes of this order really resolvesitself into this: whether the approval of the Central Government isnecessary under Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,1946 (“DSPE Act” for short) in a matter where the inquiry/investigationinto the crime under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act” forshort) is being monitored by the Court. It is not necessary to set out thefacts in detail, suffice, however, to say that the Central Bureau ofInvestigation (CBI) has registered preliminary enquiries (PEs) againstunknown public servants, inter ali

State Of R vs Bhagwan Das Agrawal & Ors. on 17 December, 2013
Tue, 17 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

M.Y. EQBAL, J.

Leave granted.

2. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15th July, 2011 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur, whereby the petition filed by respondent No. 1 herein (Bhagwan Das Agrawal) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) seeking relief to hold that the proceedings based on the subsequent and third FIR registered in Dholpur (Rajasthan) as Crime No. 427/2010 under Section 5/9B, 9C of the Explosives Act, 1884, in view of the provisions of Section 186 of Cr.P.C., be discontinued, was allowed, the appellant-State of Rajasthan has preferred the special leave petition being No. 8402

Ashfaq Ahm vs Namrata Chopra & Ors. on 17 December, 2013
Tue, 17 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 15.3.2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in M.Cr.C. No. 8882/2011, by which the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’).

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: A. The appellants entered into an agreement for sale of land admeasuring 1.10 acres of land out of 2.20 acres of total land on 26.11.2009 which had been claimed by the said respondents 1 & 2 to be of their exclusive ownership and for that appellants paid a sum of rupees fifty lakhs to the said respondents as earnest money out of the consideration of Rs.1,50,93,540/-.

B. The sale deed could not be executed as the appellants did not make the payment for the reason that the said respondents did not complete the legal formalities for transferring the land. Later on,

Union Of I vs Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills on 17 December, 2013
Tue, 17 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

1 ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No 28055 of 2008 and SLP (C) No. 938 of 2010.

2. As a common question of law is involved in all these appeals, at the request of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, all the appeals were heard together and they are decided by this common judgment.

3. The issue involved in all these appeals is with regard to the liability to pay interest under the provisions of Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2000 Act’), which pertains to liability of the assessee to pay interest under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). The facts of Civil Appeal No.5634 of 2008 (Union of India and others vs. Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills) are taken into consideration for better understanding of the issue involved in all these appe

Yogendra S vs Bar Council Of Uttarakhand & Ors on 17 December, 2013
Tue, 17 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant, a practising advocate, was duly elected as a Member of the Bar Council of Uttarakhand and being eligible to contest for the post of Chairman of the Bar Council filed the nomination papers for the said post, election for which was scheduled to be held on 19.1.2013. The election, as scheduled, was held on the date fixed and on the basis of the voting, the appellant and the third respondent received six votes of first preference each, respondent No. 4 received three votes of first preference and four votes of first preference were declared invalid. The first preference votes secured by the respondent No. 4 were eliminated and his second preference votes were counted. After counting of votes on the principle of single transferable vote the third respondent secured eight votes as against seven by the appellant as a result of which the Returning Officer declared the third respondent as the elected Chairman of the Bar Council of Uttarakhand.

3. As facts would unfurl, an election tribunal was required to be constituted under Rules for Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman, 2009 (for short “the

J.L.Soman vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 17 December, 2013
Tue, 17 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

V.Gopala Gowda,J.

Leave granted.

2. These criminal appeals have been filed by the appellants as they areaggrieved by the final common judgment and order dated 29.07.2011 passed bythe High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissing their petitions for thereason that their earlier criminal misc. petitions were dismissed by acommon order dated 12.06.2007 after hearing the parties which fact isadmitted by the appellants but they again approached the High Court forsimilar relief. Hence, the High Court was not inclined to interfere withthe same in the said criminal misc. petitions and dismissed the same.Aggrieved by the said orders passed in Criminal Misc. Case Nos. 15687 of2011, 16326 of 2011 and 15681 of 2011, these criminal appeals have beenfiled b

Re:Exploi.Of Chiln.Inj Orph.In ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 16 December, 2013
Mon, 16 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

1. We have heard very lengthy submissions from the Amicus Curie Ms.

Aparna Bhat, Ms. Indira Jaising, ASG, Mr. Paras Kuhad, ASG.

2. It has been brought to our notice that inspite of the emphatic

directions that have been issued by this court on 3rd January, 2013

directing all the States and the Union Territories to implement the

protective provisions contained in the Protection of Rights of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the Right of Children to Free

and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the Commission for Protection

of Child Rights Act, 2005, many States and Union Territories have not

complied with the same. By order dated 3rd January, 2013, we had also

directed the States to file an affidavit indicating the time frame

within which the State Commission for the protection of children would

be established. By a subsequent order dated 7th February, 2013,

further directions were issued to all the States

Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr. on 16 December, 2013
Mon, 16 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Chelameswar, J.

1. By a common judgment dated 4th March, 2002, the High Court of Madrasdismissed a batch of writ appeals and some connected writ petitions.Aggrieved by the said judgment, four companies, which are carrying on thebusiness of manufacture and sale of cement in the State of Tamil Nadu,carried the matter to this Court in these appeals.

2. The Government of Tamil Nadu in the Industries Department issued aletter No. 628 dated 10.5.1982 addressed to the Collectors of the variousdistricts. The relevant part of the letter reads –

“I am directed to state that the rates of Royalty and dead rent in respect of leases over patta lands have been fixed at 50% (half rate) as a convention which has been followed for a long time and this is not based on rules.

2. In 1977 in his Audit report, the Senior Deputy Accountan

Chhotan Sao & Anr. vs State Of Bihar on 17 December, 2013
Tue, 17 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530

Chelameswar, J.

1. The two appellants herein were convicted for the offences undersections 304B and 498A IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge VI, Gaya andthe same was continued in appeal by the High Court of Patna.

2. Initially three accused were charged for the offences under sections328, 304B and 498A Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 5 of DowryProhibition Act on the allegation that they harassed and were responsiblefor the unnatural death of one Babita Devi, the daughter of PW1 and PW6,mother and father respectively. All three accused were found guilty of theoffences they were charged with by the trial court. Each of the accusedwas awarded punishment for seven years for the offence under section 304BIPC and two years for the offence under section 498A IPC. However, thetrial court did not award any separate sentence insofar as the otheroffence of which the accused were charged of.

3. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court dated 5th May 2003 allthe three accused carried appeals to the High Court of Patnaunsuccessfully.

4. The instant appeal is carried by only two accused Chottan Sao andKamla Devi who happened to be the

Gulabrao Baburao Deokar vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. on 17 December, 2013
Tue, 17 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
Gulabrao Baburao Deokar vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. on 17 December, 2013
Author: …………………………………..J.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2113_/2013

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 6020 OF 2012)

Gulabrao Baburao Deokar … Appellant

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

J U D G E M E N T

H.L. Gokhale J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 6.8.2012rendered by a Judge of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad allowing theCriminal Application No. 2522/2012 filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 4herein under Section 439 (2) and 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(Cr.P.C. for short). The High Court order cancelled the bail granted tothe appellant herein in Crime No.13/2006 registered at the City PoliceStation, Jalgaon. The appellant (alongwith 56 others) has been charged foroffences under Sections 120-B, 406, 409, 411, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 109read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C for short), and underSections 13(2) read with 13(1) (c) and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention ofCorruption Act, 1988. The appellant is accused no.34 in that case. Theappellant was granted bail on 21.5.2012 by a common order below theapplications filed by accused nos. 31 to 50 under Section 439(1) of Cr.P.C.by the Incharge Additional Adhoc District Judge No.1 and AdditionalSessions

M/S Yazdani International P.Ltd. vs Auroglobal Comtrade P.Ltd.& Ors. on 17 December, 2013
Tue, 17 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
M/S Yazdani International P.Ltd. vs Auroglobal Comtrade P.Ltd.& Ors. on 17 December, 2013

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11229 OF 2013

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26321 of 2012)

Yazdani International P. Ltd. …Appellant Versus

Auroglobal Comtrade P. Ltd. & Ors. …Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11230 OF 2013

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26319 of 2012) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11231 OF 2013

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26922 of 2012) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11232 OF 2013

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26894 of 2012) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11233-11234 OF 2013

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 27013-27014 of 2012)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11235 OF 2013

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 27477 of 2012)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11236 OF 2013

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 27480 of 2012)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11237 OF 2013

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27481 of 2012)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11238 OF 2013

(Arising out of Sp

Mun.Corp.Of Gr.Mumbai & Ors. vs Kohinoor Ctnl Infrs.Co.P.Ltd.& ... on 17 December, 2013
Tue, 17 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
Mun.Corp.Of Gr.Mumbai & Ors. vs Kohinoor Ctnl Infrs.Co.P.Ltd.& ... on 17 December, 2013
Author: H Gokhale

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11150 OF 2013

(@ out of SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 33402/2012)

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. … Appellants

Versus

Kohinoor CTNL Infrastructure Company Private

Limited and another … Respondents

J U D G E M E N T

H.L. Gokhale J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 9.7.2012 passedby a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court whereby Writ PetitionNo.143/2012 filed by the respondents was allowed, and which quashed thestop work notice dated 22.12.2011 issued by Executive Engineer (BuildingProposal) City-III, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, and orderdated 27.4.2012 passed by the Additional Municipal Commissioner restrictingto four floors the height of Wing ‘C’ (providing for public parking lot-‘PPL’ for short) of the buildings being constructed on Plot No.46 of TownPlanning Scheme-III, N.C.Kelkar Road, Shivaji Park, Dadar, Mumbai.Dispute between the parties, settlement thereof and Part-I of the orderdated 25.7.2013:-

3. This appeal was initially heard by a bench of G.S. Singhvi andH.L. Gokhale, JJ. Mr. Harish Salve and Mr. R.P Bhatt, both learned SeniorCounsel appeared for the appellants, and Mr. F.S Nariman, learned SeniorCou

Union Of India & Ors. vs Vasavi Co-Op. Housing Society ... on 7 January, 2014
Tue, 07 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. The Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., the first respondent hereininstituted a suit No.794 of 1988 before the City Civil Court, Hyderabad,seeking a declaration of title over land comprising 6 acres 30 guntas inSurvey No.60/1 and 61 of Kakaguda village and recovery of the vacantpossession from Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 7, the appellants herein, afterremoval of the structure made therein by them. The plaintiff has alsosought for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering withthe above-mentioned land and also for other consequential refliefs. TheCity Civil Court vide its judgment dated 31.07.1996 decreed the suit, asprayed for, against which the appellants preferred C.C.C.A. No.123 of 1996before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The High Court alsoaffirmed the judgment of the trial Court on 6.9.2002, but noticed that theappellant had made large scale construction of quarters for the DefenceAccounts Department, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice thatan opportunity be given to the appellants to provide alternative suitableextent of land in lieu of the scheduled

Keshar Bai vs Chhunulal on 7 January, 2014
Tue, 07 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal, by grant of special leave, is directed against thejudgment and order dated 03/08/2010 passed by the High Court of MadhyaPradesh, Bench at Indore allowing Second Appeal No. 756 of 2004 filed bythe respondent.

3. Briefly put, the facts are that the appellant-landlady purchased HouseNo. 1/2, Street No. 6, Parsi Mohallah, Indore (‘the said building’) fromM/s. Pyare Mohan Khar, Hari Mohan Khar, Shayam Sunder Khar and Anil Kharpredecessors-in-title of the appellant by a registered sale deed dated26/9/1991 for a consideration of Rs. 1,70,000/-. At the time of purchaseof the said building, the respondent-tenant was occupying one room (‘suitpremises’) situated on the rear side of the said building as tenant. Therespondent was informed by the predecessors-in-title of the appellant thatthe appellant is the new landlady of the said building and he should paythe rent to her. The respondent agreed to pay the rent but failed to payit. Failure of the respondent to pay the rent resulted in a notice beingsent by the appellant to him

State Of Gujarat vs Kishanbhai on 7 January, 2014
Tue, 07 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.

1. A complaint was lodged at Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad,alleging the kidnapping/abduction of a six year old girl child Gomidaughter of Keshabhai Mathabhai Solanki and Laliben on 27.2.2003 at around6:00 p.m. by the accused Kishanbhai son of Velabhai Vanabhai Marwadi. Itwas alleged, that the accused had enticed Gomi with a “gola” (crushed ice,with sweet flavoured syrup), and thereupon had taken her to Jivi’s field,where he raped her. He had murdered her by inflicting injuries on her headand other parts of the body with bricks. In order to steal the “jhanjris”(anklets) worn by her, he had chopped off her feet just above her ankles.The aforesaid complaint was lodged, after the body of the deceased Gomi wasfound from Jivi’s field, at the instance of the accused Kishanbhai. On thereceipt of the above complaint, the first information report came to beregistered at Navrangpur Police Station, Ahmedabad.

2. The prosecution version which emerged consequent upon the completion ofthe investigation reveals, that the family of the deceased Gomi wasdistantly related to the family of the accused Kishanbhai. In this behalfit would

Krishna Kanta Majhi & Ors vs State Of W.B & Ors on 7 January, 2014
Tue, 07 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

We may point out that when the matter camp up for hearing on03.12.2013, we were not inclined to disturb the admissions made in favourof the respondents, and passed an order on the said date directing theState of West Bengal to ascertain whether the seats are available so thatthe petitioners could be accommodated in the subject of their choice,without disturbing the admissions already made to the respondents. We are informed by the State counsel that it would not be possible toaccommodate the petitioners, especially, in the subject of their choice,without disturbing the admissions already made to the respondents. In suchcircumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the HighCourt. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed accordingly. ………………………….J.

(K.S. Radhakrishnan)

………………………….J.

(C. Nagappan)

New Delhi,

January 07, 2014.


Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik vs Lata Nandlal Badwaik & Anr. on 6 January, 2014
Mon, 06 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

Petitioner happens to be the husband of respondent no. 1, LataNandlal Badwaik and alleged to be the father of girl child Netra alias NehaNandlal Badwaik, respondent no. 2, herein. The marriage between them wassolemnized on 30th of June, 1990 at Chandrapur. Wife filed an applicationfor maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, butthe same was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by order dated 10thDecember, 1993. Thereafter, the wife resorted to a fresh proceeding underSection 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to asthe ‘Code’) claiming maintenance for herself and her daughter, inter alia,alleging that she started living with her husband from 20th of June, 1996and stayed with him for about two years and during that period gotpregnant. She was sent for delivery at her parents’ place where she gavebirth to a girl child, the respondent no. 2 herein. Petitioner-husbandresisted the claim and alleged that the assertion of the wife that shestayed with him si

M.B. Suresh vs State Of Karnataka on 6 January, 2014
Mon, 06 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD,J.

Appellant, besides his father Bhadregowda, was put on trial foroffence punishable under Section 302, 114 and 427 of the Indian Penal Codeand Section 3 read with Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. AdditionalSessions Judge, Hasan, vide judgment and order dated 24th of February, 2000passed in Sessions Case No. 24 of 1992, acquitted both the accused of allthe charges. Aggrieved by the same, the State of Karnataka preferred anappeal. The High Court, vide judgment and order dated 9th of February,2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 991 of 2000, reversed their acquittaland held the appellant M.B. Suresh guilty of offence punishable underSection 302 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 and 27 of theArms Act. However, his father Bhadregowda was found guilty of offencepunishable under Section 427 o

State(Gnct Of Delhi) vs Narender on 6 January, 2014
Mon, 06 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

The State of Delhi, aggrieved by the order dated 28th of November,2011 passed by the Delhi High Court in Criminal M.C. No. 2540 of 2011,whereby it had directed for release of the vehicle bearing Registration No.HR-56-7290 to the registered owner on security, has preferred this specialleave petition.

Leave granted.

Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present appealare that while constables Raghmender Singh and Sunil were on nightpatrolling duty at Kirari Nithari turn on 17th of April, 2011, they saw avehicle coming from the side of the Nithari Village. Constable RaghmenderSingh signalled the driver to stop the vehicle, but he did not accede tohis command and turned the vehicle into the Prem Nagar Extension Lane.Both the constables chased the vehicle on their motorcycle and the driverof the vehicle, apprehending that he would be caught, left the vehicle andran away from the place, taking advantage of the darkness. The vehicleabandoned by the driver was “Cruiser Force” and had registration No. HR-56-7290. After opening of the

State Of T.Nadu Tr.Insp.Of Police vs N Suresh Rajan & Ors. on 6 January, 2014
Mon, 06 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.22-23 OF 2014 (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CRL.)Nos.3810-3811 of 2012)

The State of Tamil Nadu aggrieved by the order dated 10th of December,2010 passed by the Madras High Court in Criminal R.C.No.528 of 2009 andCriminal M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2009, setting aside the order dated 25th ofSeptember, 2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-SpecialJudge, Nagercoil (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Special Judge’), wherebyhe refused to discharge the respondents, has preferred these special leavepetitions.

Leave granted.

Short facts giving rise to the present appeals are that

Kichha Sugar Company Limited ... vs Tarai Chini Mill Majdoor ... on 6 January, 2014
Mon, 06 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

Kichha Sugar Company Limited aggrieved by the order dated 24th ofJune, 2008 passed by the Uttarakhand High Court in WPMS No. 3717 of 2001,affirming the award dated 12th of November, 1992 directing payment of HillDevelopment Allowance after taking into account the amount received as“leave encashment and overtime wages”, has preferred this special leavepetition.

Leave granted.

Facts lie in a narrow compass;

The Government of Uttar Pradesh, by its order dated 5th of January,1981, had directed for payment of Hill Development Allowance to itsemployees working at specified hill areas at the rate of 15% of the basicwage. Kichha Sugar Company Limited, the appellant herein (hereinafterreferred to as ‘the employer’), being a unit of a subsidiary of U.P.Government Corporation, adopted the same and started paying HillDevelopment Allowance at the rate of 15% of the basic wage. The workmendemanded calculation of 15% of the said

Donthula Ravindranath @ Ravinder ... vs State Of A.P. on 6 January, 2014
Mon, 06 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Chelameswar, J.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court ofAndhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.203 of 2005 dated 5th June 2007.By the said judgment, the High Court confirmed the judgment dated 8thFebruary 2005 in Sessions Case No.23 of 2004 on the file of the V-Addl.Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Nizamabad.

2. The sole appellant herein alongwith his parents was tried for theoffences under section 304B and 498A IPC. Apart from that the appellantherein was tried for an offence under section 302 IPC simplicitor whileall the three persons were charged and tried for the offence undersection 302 read with section 109 IPC. While the sole appellant hereinwas convicted for the offence under section 302 as well as section 498AIPC, the trial court did not record any finding against the appellantherein insofar as the charge under section 304B IPC is concerned. Theother two accused were acquitted of all the charges.

3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant carriedthe matter in appeal to the High Court unsuccessfully. Hence thepresent appeal.

4. The wife of the appellant by name Jyotsna died on 21st May 2003.The deceased Jyotsna and the

T.S. Shylaja vs Oriental Insurance Co. & Anr. on 3 January, 2014
Fri, 03 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The short question that falls for consideration in this appeal iswhether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order passed bythe Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation holding the appellant entitledto an amount of Rs.4,48,000/- towards compensation with interest @ 12% perannum.

3. The claim before the Commissioner arose out of a motor accident inwhich the deceased-Prahlad lost his life while driving a Toyota Qualisvehicle bearing registration No.KA-02/C-423. The incident in question, itappears, occurred on 3rd September 2000 near Bidadi Police Station, on theBangalore-Mysore highway involving a head on collision with a Tipper Lorrybearing No.KA-02-B-9135. The deceased was removed to the hospital where hedied two days after the accident. A claim petition was then filed beforethe Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Bangalore Sub-Division-IV,Bangalore by the appellant, mother of the deceased for payment ofcompensation. The claim petition alleged that the deceased was employed asa driver on a monthly salary of Rs.6,000/- by the owner of the vehicle. The

Praful Manohar Rele vs Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar & ... on 3 January, 2014
Fri, 03 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 16th October,2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay whereby the HighCourt has allowed Civil Second Appeal No.90 of 1992 set aside the judgmentand decree passed by the Additional District Judge in Civil Appeal No.33 of1987 and restored that passed by the Trial Court dismissing Regular CivilSuit No.87 of 1984. The factual backdrop in which the dispute arose may besummarized as under:

3. Manohar Narayan Rele owned a house bearing Panchayat No.105 situatein village Ravdanda, Taluka Alibag, District Raigad, in the State ofMaharashtra. In RCS No.87 of 1984 filed by the said Shri Rele before theCivil Judge (Junior Division), Alibag, the plaintiff prayed for a decreefor possession of the suit premises comprising a part of the housementioned above on the ground that the defendants who happened to be thelegal heirs of one Shri Narayan Keshav Ghosalkar, a Goldsmith byprofession, residing in Bombay was allowed to occupy the suit premises as agratuitous licensee

Ishwar Chandra Jayaswal vs Union Of India & Ors. on 3 January, 2014
Fri, 03 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

1. Leave granted. These Appeals assail the Judgment dated 11.10.2010 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38190 of 2004 as well as the subsequent Order dated 28.3.2012 by which a Review Application in respect of the former was dismissed.

2. The Division Bench was confronted with the dismissal from service of the Appellant Dr. Ishwar Chandra Jayaswal against whom three Articles of Charge had been framed. Article-I was that he demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.26/- from Shri Pyare Ram, Khalasi for issuing in his favour a Fit Certificate. Article-II, in similar vein was that the Appellant demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.34/- from Shri Nandlal, Semi-skilled Revetter for issuing him a Fit Certificate. Article-III was that the Appellant had demanded and accepted Rs.18/- from Shri Balroop, Semi-skilled Revetter for issuing of Fit

Saberabibi Yakubbhai Shaikh & ... vs National Ins.Co.Ltd.& Ors. on 2 January, 2014
Thu, 02 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The appellants are the wife and the relatives of deceased driver who died in a road accident. The deceased driver was driving a truck bearing No. GJ-17-T-8607, which was owned by Yunusbhai Gulambhai Shaikh, respondent No.2 herein. The deceased was 36 years of age at the time of the accident. On 20th November, 1996, the appellants raised a claim of compensation for a sum of Rs.2,15,280/- and 12% interest therein from the date of accident by filing a claim application before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Labour Court. After passage of more than 16 years, the wife and children of the deceased driver had still not received any compensation.

Sandeep Thapar vs Sme Technologies P.Ltd. on 2 January, 2014
Thu, 02 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 12th November, 2010 in FAO(OS) NO.607 of 2010, whereby the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant in I.A. NO.13902 of 2008 filed under Order VIII rule 1 praying for extension of time for filing written statement by the defendant i.e. the appellant herein till I.A. No. 11803 of 2008 filed under Order I rule 10 to implead Mr. Sharad Maheshwari as plaintiff. The aforesaid Mr. Sharad Maheshwari is the Managing Director of the plaintiff Company who is privy to the entire cause of action of the suit filed for recovery of Rs.39.90 lakhs based on alleged oral agreement/understanding. The applications filed by the appellant were dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court on 3rd August, 2010.


H.M.Singh vs Union Of India & Anr. on 9 January, 2014
Thu, 09 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.

1. The appellant was commissioned as Second Lieutenant in the IndianArmy on 15.6.1969. His initial induction was into the Armoured Corps. On25.5.1983 the appellant changed his cadre. He permanently moved into theDefence Research and Development Organisation (hereinafter referred to as‘the DRDO’). Having gone through decades of rigorous military service andhaving consistently earned onward promotions to higher ranks, as were dueto him from time to time, he was granted acting rank of Major General on1.6.2004, after he had been approved for promotion to the rank of MajorGeneral by a duly constituted Selection Board.

2. On 31.3.2005 Lieutenant General Ravinder Nath retired from service.Resultantly a vacancy in the rank of Lieutenant General became available.On 1.1.2006 the appellant claims to have become eligible for theconsideration for promotion to the above vacancy. It would be relevant tomention, that at that juncture, in the cadre of Major Generals, theappellant was the senior most serving officer (as per seniority lis

Sadashiv Prasad Singh vs Harendar Singh & Ors. on 8 January, 2014
Wed, 08 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.

1. On 11.9.1989, The Allahabad Bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘theBank’) sanctioned a loan of Rs.12.70 lac to M/s. Amar Timber Works, apartnership firm having three partners, Jagmohan Singh, Payam Shoghi andDev Kumar Sinha. The above loan was sanctioned to M/s. Amar Timber Works,after its partners had mortgaged certain properties to secure the loanamount. Since the loan amount was not repaid in compliance with thecommitment made by M/s. Amar Timber Works, nine years later, in 1998, theBank preferred Original Application No.107 of 1998 before the Debt RecoveryTribunal for the recovery of the Bank’s dues. The above OriginalApplication was allowed on 21.11.2000. Accordingly, a direction was issuedfor the recovery of Rs.75,75,564/- from M/s. Amar Timber Works. For theexecution of the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the Bankinitiated recovery procee

Shivshankar Gurgar vs Dilip on 3 January, 2014
Fri, 03 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Chelameswar, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant filed civil suit under section 12(1)(a) of the MadhyaPradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the“Act”) for eviction of the respondent and recovery of arrears of rent. On16.4.2002 the suit came to be decreed ex parte. The said decree came to beset-aside on an application filed by the respondent with a direction tofile the written statement and also deposit the entire arrears within 30days in the court.

3. On 25.7.2004 a compromise memo signed by both the parties came to befiled under which the respondent acknowledged his liability to pay arrearsof rent to the appellant to the tune of Rs.11710/- and also costsquantified to Rs.4000/-. The respondent also agreed to pay the amountwithin a period of six months. It was also specifically agreed as follows:

“H. If the defendant violates any of the aforesaid conditions, the plaintiff shall be entitled to get the vacant possession of suit accommodation from the defendant wherein defendant shall have no objection.”

4. In view of the said compromise,

R. Unnikrishnan & Anr vs V.K. Mahanudevan & Ors. on 10 January, 2014
Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. Leave granted in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)No.24775 of 2013.

2. Common questions of law arise for consideration in these appealswhich shall stand disposed of by this common order. But before we formulatethe questions that fall for determination the factual matrix in which t

Hardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors. on 10 January, 2014
Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
Hardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors. on 10 January, 2014
Author: . B Chauhan
Bench: R P Desai

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1750 OF 2008

Hardeep Singh

…Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab & Ors.

…Respondents

With

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1751 of 2008

Manjit Pal Singh

…Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab & Anr.

…Respondents

With

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 9184 of 2008

Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria & Anr.

…Appellants

Versus

State of Gujarat & Ors.

…Respondents

With

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 7209 of 2010

Rajendra Sharma & Anr.

…Appellants

Versus

State of M.P. & Anr.

…Respondents

With

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 5724 of 2009

Ravinder Kumar & Anr.

…Appellants

Versus

State of Haryana & Ors.

…Respondents


National Insurance Co.Ltd. & Anr. vs Kirpal Singh on 10 January, 2014
Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The short question that falls for determination in these appeals iswhether the respondents who opted for voluntary retirement from the serviceof the appellant-companies are entitled to claim pension under the GeneralInsurance (Employees) Pension Scheme 1995. The High Court having answeredthe question in the affirmative, the appellant-Insurance Companies haveappealed to assail that view.

3.

State Of Gujarat vs Ratansingh @ Chinubhai Anopsinh ... on 10 January, 2014
Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

A.K.SIKRI,J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the final judgment and orderdated 14th September 2006 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat inCriminal Confirmation Case No.9 of 2004 with Criminal Appeal No.1915/2004,setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Ld. Additional SessionsJudge and second Fast Track Court in Sessions Case No.4/2004 convicting therespondent under Section 376,302 and 201 IPC for the offence of rape andmurder of a seven year old girl and punishing him with sentence of death.The High Court found severe loopholes and shortcomings in the prosecutionstory, rendering it unbelievable and thereby acquitted the respondent inthe aforesaid case.

2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, was that the respondent/accusedwas the neighbour of the deceased girl Komal aged 7 years r/o villageBhammiya. On the day of incident i.e. 16.8.2003 the victim was playingwith her two friends viz. Parul and Saroj in the courtyard of therespondent. The respondent/accused came to his house between 15.00 to 15.30hrs. and scolded the girls for playing there. Parul and Saroj ran awaywhereas, however, the deceased girl was forcibly caught by t

State Of U.P.Thr.Exe.Engineer & ... vs Amar Nath Yadav on 10 January, 2014
Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

A.K. SIKRI, J.

1. There is a delay of 481 days in filing this Special Leave Petition and by means of present application petitioner seeks condonation thereof.

2. In the application the petitioner has attributed the delay to the moving of file from one Department/ Officer to the other. We hardly find this to be a sufficient explanation for condoning such an abnormal delay. This Court in the case of Postmaster General and Ors. vs. Living Media India Ltd.; (2012) 3 SCC 563 has deprecated such practices on the part of the Government Authorities/ Departments in the following words:-

“It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a Special Leave Petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with Court proceedings. In the absence of plau

State Of Rajasthan vs Roshan Khan & Ors. on 15 January, 2014
Wed, 15 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

These are appeals by way of Special Leave under Article 136 of theConstitution against the judgment dated 21.11.2003 of the Rajasthan HighCourt, Jodhpur Bench, setting aside the judgment of the trial courtconvicting the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 366and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).Facts

2. The facts very briefly are that on 28.04.1999 Ruliram lodged a complaint at the Bhadra Police Station in District Hanumangarh, stating as follows: There was a marriage of the daughter of his brother Gyan Singh for which a feast was arranged by him on 27.04.1999. His 15-16 years old daughter, who was slightly weak- minded, disappeared. When she did not return for quite some time, he and others started searching her. At about 9.00 p.m., a milkman informed him that he had seen six boys taking away a girl towards Kalyan Bhoomi. About 1.00 a.m. on 28.04.1999, when Ruliram was on a scooter with Gyan Singh still looking for his daughter, he noticed five boys in the light of the scooter near the old dilapidated office building of the She

Exe.Engr.Road Dev.Division ... vs Atlanta Ltd. on 16 January, 2014
Thu, 16 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.

1. State of Maharashtra, through its Public Works Department, awarded acontract dated 12.7.2000 to the respondent-Atlanta Limited (a publiclimited company) for the construction of the Mumbra byepass. On 11.5.2005,a supplementary agreement for additional work was executed between theparties. It would be relevant to mention, that the Mumbra byepass falls onNational highway no. 4. The construction envisaged in the contract awardedto the respondent-Atlanta Limited was, from kilometer 133/800 to kilometer138/200. The contract under reference envisaged, settlement of disputesbetween the parties, through arbitration. Atlanta Limited raised somedisputes through a communication dated 1.10.2009. It also invoked thearbitration clause for resolution of the said disputes. The State ofMaharashtra as also Atlanta Limited nominated their respective arbitrators,who in turn, appointed the presiding arbitrator. On the culmination ofproceedings before the arbitral tribunal, an award was rendered on12

Km. Hema Mishra vs State Of Up & Ors. on 16 January, 2014
Thu, 16 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellant herein had invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned FIR dated 21.12.2011, contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition, lodged at crime No. 797/11 under Sections 419/420 IPC, at Police Station Zaidpur, District Barabanki;

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the Superintendant of Police, Barabanki, the opposite Party No. 2, and the Investigating Officer, Case Crime No. 797/11, under Sections 419/420 IPC, Police Station, Zaidpur, District Barabanki, the opposite party No. 3, to defer the arrest of the petitioner until collection of the credible evidence sufficient for filing the charge-sheet by following the a

Parminder @ Ladka Pola vs State Of Delhi on 16 January, 2014
Thu, 16 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

This is an appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of theConstitution against the judgment dated 06.03.2003 of the Delhi High Courtin Criminal Appeal No. 696 of 2002 by which the conviction of the appellantunder Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’)and the sentences imposed by the trial court on the appellant have beenmaintained.

Facts:

2. The facts very briefly are that on 30.01.2001 at about 8.00 p.m., a young girl of about fourteen years accompanied by her parents, lodged the First Information Report (for short ‘the FIR’) in Police Station, Khajoori Khas, Delhi, in which she stated as follows: She was a student of Higher Secondary School and residing with her parents at House No.131, Gali No.12, Khajoori Khas, Delhi. Opposite to their house was the house of Sardar Jagir Singh. Babbo, daughter of Sardar Jagir Singh, was her friend and she used to visit the house of Sardar Jagir Singh to meet Babbo. On 28.01.2001 at about 8.30 p.m., the lights in the area went off and as the generator at the house of Sardar Jagir Singh was on, the prosecutr

Tulip Star Hotels Ltd. vs Special Director Of Enforcement on 16 January, 2014
Thu, 16 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In these two appeals, the challenge is to a common judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in FEMA Appeal Nos.3 & 4 of 2008, dated 14th October 2010.

3. Brief Facts which led to the culmination of the present appeals are required to be stated. The Appellant in SLP No.7655 of 2011 is the company and the Appellant in SLP No.7657 of 2011 was also proceeded against as the Executive Director of the company. The Respondent issued a show cause notice against the Appellants dated 29th April 2002, wherein it was alleged that the Appellant in SLP No.7655 of 2011 sold foreign currency to the value of 1,47,000 US$ and 1000 Sterling

Syed Sadiq Etc. vs Divisional Manager,United India ... on 16 January, 2014
Thu, 16 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed by the appellants questioning the correctness of the common judgment and final order dated 31.10.2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A. No. 1131 of 2011 [MV], C/W M.F.A. Nos. 1132 and 1133 of 2011 [MV], urging various facts and legal contentions in justification of their claim.

3. Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case of the appellants and also to find out whether the appellants are entitled for the relief as prayed in these appeals.

On 14.8.2008, all the three appellants/ claimants in the appeals herein were proceeding on the left side of the road by pushing the motorcycle bearing Registration no. KA-16-2404 since it was punctured. When the appellants/ claimants came near the Coper Petrol Bunk, opposite to Jai Hind Hotel, a tractor bearing no KA-16/T-8219-8220 came from the opposite direction on its right side in rash and neglig

Varinder Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 16 January, 2014
Thu, 16 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

V.Gopala Gowda, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed by the appellant questioning the correctness ofthe judgment and final order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryanaat Chandigarh in petition Crl. Misc. No. M-13296 of 2011 (O & M) urgingvarious facts and legal contentions in support of his case.

3. Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the caseof the appellant and also to find out whether the appellant is entitled tothe relief prayed for in this appeal.

The appellant had gone as a visitor to the Central Jail, Ferozepur on17.09.2009. There, on being searched, a mobile phone was recovered from histurban and a charger was recovered from his shoes. An FIR dated 24.09.2009was filed at the Police Station Ferozepur, under Sections 42 and 45 (12)of the Prisons Act, 1894 (in short “the Act”). The Chief JudicialMagistrate of Ferozepur charged him on 01.05.2010 under Sections 42 and 45of the Act. The appellant approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryanaby way of a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, praying that the F

Sh Medical Center Hospital vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 16 January, 2014
Thu, 16 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

V.Gopala Gowda, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 13th March, 2009 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 362 of 2007 whereby the High Court dismissed the writ appeal of the appellant holding that the appellant-hospital is not entitled to building tax exemption relying on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Medical Trust Hospital v. State of Kerala[1]. The appellant had filed writ petition No.605 of 2007 before the High Court of Kerala which dismissed the same by order dated 23.01.2007 on the ground that the building of the appellant is not used principally for charitable purposes, pursuant to which the above said writ appeal was filed which was also dismissed. Hence, this appeal.

3. The facts of the case in brief are stated hereunder: SH Medical Centre is a charitable institution registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. This institution m

U.O.I & Ors vs Tilak Raj Gandhi on 15 January, 2014
Wed, 15 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

1 ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Delay Condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Being aggrieved by the Judgment delivered by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.7816 of 2011 dated 21st January, 2013, whereby the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, in O.A.No.2164 of 2011 dated 12th October, 2011 has been quashed and set aside, has been challenged before this Court.

4. The facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nut-shell are as under:

There was a vacancy in the cadre of Director

(Finance) in the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and for filling the vacancy, an advertisement had been published by the Public Enterprises Selection Board on 3rd January, 2008. Somehow, nothing happened in pursuance of the said advertisement and therefore, another advertisement was published on 13th/14th November, 2008. In pursuance of the second advertisement, several applic

Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 21 January, 2014
Tue, 21 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

P.Sathasivam, CJI.

1) Our Constitution is highly valued for its articulation. One suchastute drafting is Article 21 of the Constitution which postulates thatevery human being has inherent right to life an

Biswanath Bhattacharya vs Union Of India & Ors. on 21 January, 2014
Tue, 21 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Chelameswar, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These two appeals are preferred against the final judgment dated 9thAugust 2007 passed by the Calcutta High Court in FMA No.206 of 2003 andorder dated 30th August 2007 in Review Application bearing RVW No.2372 of2007 dismissing the said review application filed by the appellant herein.

3. The facts leading to the instant litigation are as follows:

4. The appellant was initially detained by order dated 19.12.1974 underthe provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (sincerepealed) and later under the provisions of the Conservation of ForeignExchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafterreferred to as the “COFEPOSA”) on the ground that he in collaboration withhis brother, who was living in London at that point of time, was indulgingin activities which are prejudicial to the conservation of foreignexchange. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the detention order. Hewas eventually released in 1977.

5. While he was in custody, the second respondent issued a notice dated4th March 1977 under section 6(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exch

M.D.Jacob vs United India Insurance Ltd.& Anr. on 21 January, 2014
Tue, 21 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for therespondent-Insurance Company.

2. The appellant was a victim of road accident on 27th July, 1997. Onaccount of several serious injuries including amputation of complete lefthand, severe injuries in head, dislocation of bones in hip and both kneesand severe injuries in foot, the Doctor assessed his disability at 100%.

3. The appellant preferred a claim petition before the Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal at Chennai and sought compensation of Rs.26,00,000/-(rupees twenty six lacs). The Claims Tribunal allowed a claim forRs.14,20,000/- (rupees fourteen lacs and twenty thousand only) videjudgment dated 9.8.2000 rendered in M.C.O.P. No. 3365 of 1997. The claimallowed on different heads includes:

i) Loss of income for one year as Rs.60,000/-; ii) Special diet and transportation-Rs.50,000/- iii) Medical expenses –Rs.50,000/-

iv) Pain and suffering – Rs.2,00,000/-

v) Permanent disability – Rs.4,00,000/-

vi) Loss of future earning – Rs.6,60,000/-

4. The Insurance Company preferred appeal befor

Perumal vs Janaki on 20 January, 2014
Mon, 20 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Chelameswar, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Aggrieved by an order in Crl. R.C. No.1119 of 2011 of the High Courtof Madras, the unsuccessful petitioner therein preferred the instantappeal.

3. A petition in C.M.P. No.4561 of 2010 (private complaint) undersection 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for shortreferred to as “the Cr.P.C.”) filed by the appellant herein against therespondent came to be dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate No.2 at Pollachiby his judgment dated 31st August 2010. Challenging the same, theabovementioned Crl. R.C. was filed.

4. The factual background of the case is as follows:

5. The respondent was working as a Sub-Inspector in an All-Women PoliceStation, Pollachi at the relevant point of time. On 18th May 2008, oneNagal reported to the respondent that the appellant herein had cheated her. The respondent registered Crime No.18/08 under sections 417 and 506(i) ofthe Indian Penal Code (hereinafter for short referred to as “the IPC”).Eventually, the respondent filed a charge-sheet, the relevant portion ofwhich reads as follows:


Joshinder Yadav vs State Of Bihar on 20 January, 2014
Mon, 20 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. The appellant who was arraigned as Accused 2 was tried along withfive other accused for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 readwith Sections 149 and 201 of the IPC by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge,Madhepura. The allegations against the accused, inter alia, were that theysubjected one Bindula Devi to cruelty and harassment with a view tocoercing her and her other relatives to meet their unlawful demand ofproperty and that on her failure to fulfill their unlawful demand, infurtherance of their common object, they committed her murder and that theycaused disappearance of her dead body with an intention to screenthemselves from legal punishment.

2. Bindula Devi was married to Accused 1 Jaipraksh Yadav. The appellantand Accused 3 Shakun Devo Yadav are the brothers of Accused 1 JaiprakashYadav. Accused 4 Dani Dutta Yadav is their father and Accused 5 SatyaBhama Devi is their mother. Accused 6 Fudai Yadav is brother-in-law ofAccused 1 Jaiprakash Yadav.

3. The prosecution story is reflected in the evidence of Complainant PW-9 Debu Yadav, the father of Bindula Devi. He stated that his

State Of Haryana & Ors. vs Bharti Teletech Ltd. on 20 January, 2014
Mon, 20 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Dipak Misra, J.

Calling in question the legal acceptability and propriety of the judgment and order dated 08.05.2003 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 16336 of 2002 whereby the Division Bench has quashed the order dated 26.9.2002 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana which had affirmed the orders passed by the appellate authority, namely, Joint Excise and Taxation and that of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Gurgaon), the original authority who had, upon initiation of a proceeding under Rule 28 (11) (b) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (for short “the Rules”), come to hold that the respondent-assessee herein had violated the provisions of Rule 28A (11) (a) (i) as it had failed to maintain, without convincing reasons, the requisite production and was, therefore, liable to make full payment of tax exemption benefit availed by it during the concessional period, i.e., 13.12.1991 to 12.12.1998 of sale of Electronic Push Button Telephones (EPBT), the present appeal, by special leave, has been preferred by the State of Haryana and its functionaries.


Ram Kishan vs Tarun Bajaj & Ors. on 17 January, 2014
Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

1. This Contempt Petition has been filed by the applicant that the respondents, who are alleged contemnors herein, have wilfully violated the judgment and order dated 5.7.2012 passed by this Court in C.A. No. 4985 of 2012 as the respondents failed to pay all consequential benefits of service as directed and thus, the respondents should be dealt with under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) and further, to direct the contemnors to implement the order in its true spirit and fix his pension according to the post of Joint Secretary (Legal) and provide all its retirement benefits.

2. Facts and circumstances of this petition are that the applicant while working as an Under Secretary (Legal), Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `Nigam’) was compulsorily retired vide an order dated 19.11.2003. Aggrieved, he challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No. 39

Dilbagh Singh vs State Of Uttaranchal(Now State Of ... on 17 January, 2014
Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.

2. The appellant was convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and sentenced to three years and six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- and, in default of fine, for rigorous imprisonment for another one month by the Fast Track Court, Haldwani, Uttarakhand as per Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2001. The appeal therefrom at the instance of the appellant herein was dismissed as per the Judgment dated 06.04.2013 of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital and, hence, the appeal.

3. The incident relates back to 04.11.1993. While the informant Trilok Singh along with his sister were doing work in their agriculture field in their village Rampura Kazi under Police Station Bazpur, the appellant armed with country-made pistol along with his brother Makkhan Singh who carried a country-made gun opened fire at them. The informant Trilok Singh suffered bullet injuries on the hand, shoulder and stomach, the sister suffered only minor abrasions which were later certified by the Doctor to ha

Haryana Dairy Dev. Coop. Fed. Ltd vs Jagdish Lal on 13 January, 2014
Mon, 13 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Inspite of the fact that the Parliament has amended the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 altering the provisions of Section 102 CPC providing that money recovery suit involving less than Rs. 25,000/- shall not be entertained in Second Appeal, we are being burdened with cases where the litigation cost may be hundred times more than the amount involved. It has become the definite attitude of the officials not to take any responsibility even for petty issues and would waste public money approaching this Court. Government departments would spend any amount on litigation instead of paying petty amount to the other party. In the instant case, an amount of Rs. 8,724/- is to be paid to the respondent employee as reimbursement of his medical claim and the petitioner Haryana Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited treating the litigation as luxury must have spent the amount already by filing this petition more than the total amount involved herein.

Many a time this Court has felt unhappy abo

Janatha Dal Party vs The Indian National Congress & Ors on 21 January, 2014
Tue, 21 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. We are, in this case, concerned with the ownership and possession ofPremises No. 3, Race Course Road, Bangalore, ‘A’ scheduled property,wherein, at present, the political party Office of Janata Dal (Secular) issituated. The suit property originally belonged to one Sri C. Rangaswamy,who was the resident of Property No. 54, Hospital Road, Baleput, BangaloreCity, executed a registered Gift Deed dated 22.4.1949 in favour ofBangalore City Congress Committee which was having its office at No. 142,Cottonpet, Bangalore City, which measured 5330 sq. yards. The land wasdonated by the donor for the purpose of construction of Congress House,wherein the All India Congress Party constructed a building, by name,‘Congress Bhavan’, in a portion of the suit property. In the year 1969,there was split within the Indian National Congress giving rise to twogroups, one led by late Smt. Indira Gandhi, under the Presidentship of lateSri Jagajivan Ram and the other group led by late Sri S. Nijalingappa. Thegroup led by Jagajivan Ram was then called the ‘Indian National Congress(J)’, whereas the other group led by Nijalingappa was called as

Viplav Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors. on 21 January, 2014
Tue, 21 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing for some of theDeemed Universities, raised a preliminary objection in accepting the Prof.Tandon’s report, which recommended de-notifying the Deemed Universitystatus to 44 institutions. Learned senior counsel submitted that none ofthe procedures enumerated in the draft 2008 Regulations or 2010Regulations, or the statutory procedures laid down in the UGC Act, havebeen followed by the Committee. Learned senior counsel also submitted thatunder the UGC Act, no power is conferred on the Central Government toconstitute such a Committee, overlooking the Universities Grant Commission.

2. Learned senior counsel also pointed out that the UGC itself hadexamined the question about de-notifying the University status given tovarious institutions and found only two institutions lacked th

M/S Stanzen Toyotetsu India ... vs Girish V & Ors. on 21 January, 2014
Tue, 21 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The short question that falls for determination in these appeals iswhether the High Court so also the Courts below were right in holding thatthe disciplinary proceedings initiated by the appellant-company against itsemployees (respondents herein) ought to remain stayed pending conclusion ofthe criminal case instituted against the respondents in respect of the verysame incident.

3. The appellant-company is engaged in the manufacture of automobileparts in the name and style of M/s Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. whilethe respondents are workmen engaged by the appellant in connection with thesaid business. It is not in dispute that the employees of the appellant-company including the respondents are governed by Standing Orders certifiedunder Industrial Employees (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.

4. The appellant’s case is that on 19th March, 2011 at about 10.30 p.m.the respondents with the help of other Trade Union functionaries stagemanaged an accident making it appear as if an employee by the name of Mr.Kusumadhara had slipped and fallen in the

Indo Asian Ltd. vs State Of Uttrakhand & Anr. on 21 January, 2014
Tue, 21 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The High Court while exercising its powers conferred under Section482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure quashed proceedings of Criminal CaseNo.1004 of 2010 arising out of Crime No.24 of 2010, holding that no offencehas been made out under Section 406 IPC.

3. The Appellant is a company engaged in the manufacture of copper wirehaving its factory at SIDCUL, Haridwar. The accused-Respondent No.2 isrunning his business in the name of his sole proprietorship concern by nameM/s. Dynasty India and also in the name of his company named M/s. DynastyIndia Private Limited. On 25.8.2008, a contract was entered into by theaccused-Respondent No.2 whereby it was to process the copper rods to besupplied by the Appellant Company into copper wire.

4. The Appellant submitted that during the period between 4.7.2008 toNovember, 2008, the Appellant entrusted in total copper rods weighing39,689 kgs. for processing and out of that the accused returned only33,440.10 kgs. of copper wire to the Appellant Company. Copper wei

Dipak Babaria & Anr. vs State Of Gujarat & Ors. on 23 January, 2014
Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
Dipak Babaria & Anr. vs State Of Gujarat & Ors. on 23 January, 2014
Author: H Gokhale

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL N. 836 OF 2014

(@ out of SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.36738/2012)

Dipak Babaria & Anr. … Appellants

Versus

State of Gujarat & Ors. … Respondents

J U D G E M E N T

H.L. Gokhale J.

Leave Granted.

2. This appeal by Special Leave seeks to challenge the judgmentand order dated 30.8.2012 rendered by a Division Bench of the Gujarat HighCourt dismissing Writ Petition (PIL) No.44 of 2012 filed by the appellantsherein. The Writ Petition had various prayers, but essentially it soughtto challenge the permission granted by the Collector, Bhuj, to sell certainparcels of agricultural land situated in district Kutch, which were said tohave been purchased earlier by the respondent No.4 herein, one IndigoldRefinery Limited of Mumbai, for industrial purpose in favour of respondentNo.5 i.e. one Alumina Refinery Limited, Navi Mumbai, as being impermissibleunder the provisions of the Gujarat (earlier ‘Bombay’ prior to theamendment in its application in the State of Gujarat) Tenancy andAgricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Areas) Act, 1958 (TenancyAct, 1958 for short). It was submitted that under Section 89A of this Act,agricultural land can be permitted to be sold by an agriculturist toano

World Sport Group (Mauritius) ... vs Msm Satellite(Singapore) Pte. ... on 24 January, 2014
Fri, 24 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

Leave granted.

2. This is an appeal against the order dated 17.09.2010 of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Appeal (Lodging) No.534 of 2010.

Facts:

3. The facts very briefly are that on 30.11.2007 the Board of Control for Cricket in India (for short ‘BCCI’) invited tenders for IPL (Indian Premier League) Media Rights for a period of ten years from 2008 to 2017 on a worldwide basis. Amongst the tenders submitted, the bid of World Sports Group India (for short ‘WSG India’) was accepted by BCCI. By a pre-bid arrangement, however, the respondent was to get the media rights for the sub-continent for the period from 2008 to 2010. Accordingly, on 21.01.2008 BCCI and the respondent entered into a Media Rights License Agreement for the period from 2008 to 2012 for a sum of US$274.50 million. After the first IPL season, the BCCI terminated the agreement dated 21.01.2008 between BCCI and the respondent for the Indian sub-continent and commenced ne

Pune Municipalc Corp.& Anr. vs Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & ... on 24 January, 2014
Fri, 24 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
Pune Municipalc Corp.& Anr. vs Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & ... on 24 January, 2014
Author: R Lodha

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 877 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 30283 of 2008)

Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. … Appellants

Versus

Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors. … Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 878 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 30455 of 2008)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 879 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 30470 of 2008)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 880 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 30467 of 2008)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 881 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 30465 of 2008)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 882 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 30469 of 2008)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 883 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 30543 of 2008)

WITH


Sanjay Kumar vs Ashok Kumar & Anr. on 24 January, 2014
Fri, 24 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed against the final impugned judgment and order dated 21.03.2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in MAC Appeal No.549 of 2007, urging various legal grounds and contentions for further enhancement of compensation in the case of a motor accident involving the appellant whereby the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi (in short ‘the Tribunal’) by [pic]1,52,336/- to a total sum of [pic]6,35,808/-. The Tribunal had awarded compensation of [pic]4,83,472/- under various heads along with 7% interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization of payment.

3. The brief facts of the case are given hereunder: The appellant, Sanjay Kumar received injuries in a roadside accident on 28.09.2005 due to the rash and negligent driving of the Truck No.HR-38D-9546, the offending vehicle. The appellant remained under treatment from 26.10.2005 to 10.12.2005 and due to

Anand Agro Chem India Ltd. vs Suresh Chandra & Ors. on 24 January, 2014
Fri, 24 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

C. NAGAPPAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the interim Order dated 31.7.2013passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petitionno.14936 of 2013 whereby the Division Bench rejected the prayer of theappellant to stay the arrest of the Directors and occupiers of theappellant company.

-

3. The facts in nutshell are as follows. Respondents 1 to 3 suppliedsugarcane to the sugar mill of the appellant in the year 2007-08, for whichthe appellant has not paid the price in spite of several representationsmade by the respondents 1 to 3 herein. This led to the filing of WritPetition in Writ-C no.14936 of 2013 by respondents 1 to 3 seeking forissuance of the Writ of Mandamus directing the appellant herein to releasethe sugarcane price to them. The Division Bench of the High Court afterhearing both sides directed the District Magistrate, Hathras to takeimmediate action against the Directors and occupiers of the appellant-sugarmill against whom several orders have been passed under the U.P. Sugarcane(Regulation and Supply) Act, 1913 and it further observed in the order tha

Ravutappa vs State Of Karnataka on 24 January, 2014
Fri, 24 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. This appeal is forwarded to this Court by the Jail Authorities. Itis directed against the judgment and order dated 8/10/2012, passed by theDivision Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Appeal No.1721 of2001, whereby the High Court confirmed the judgment of the Sessions Courtconvicting the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302, 323,506, 201 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and sentencing him, interalia, to life imprisonment.

2. The prosecution story could be shortly stated. Complainant Siddakkawas married to the appellant, five years prior to 25/8/2000 i.e. from thedate of the incident. After the marriage, the appellant startedsuspecting Siddakka’s fidelity and when she gave birth to a male child,he told her that the child is not of his lineage and is an illegitimatechild. Prosecution story further goes on to say that during the relevanttime, Siddakka and the appellant were staying in a hut situated in the landbelonging to the appellant along with their child. On 25/8/2000, whenSiddakka was plucking the green gram fodder along with her son and theappellant was ploughing the other portion of the field, she saw the childgoing towards the app

Montford Borthers Of St.Gabriel & ... vs United India Insurance & Ors. on 28 January, 2014
Tue, 28 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for therespondent-Insurance Company.

2. The facts relevant for deciding this appeal are not in dispute andhence noted only in brief.

3. The appellant No.1 is a charitable society registered under theSocieties Registration Act, 1960. It runs various institutions as aconstituent unit of Catholic Church. It is running various orphanages,industrial schools and other social service activities besides number ofeducational schools/institutions. Its members after joining the appellantsociety renounce the world and are known as “Brother”. Such a `Brother’severs his all relations with the natural family and is bound by theconstitution of the society which includes Article 60 quoted in paragraph 3of the order dated 10.12.2003 passed in Review Petition No.4 of 2002 and inannexure P.5 as such:

“Whatever the `Brother’ receives by way of salary, subsidies, gifts, pension or from insurance or other such benefits belongs to the community as by right and goes into the common purse.”


Lachoo Ram & Ors. vs Himachal Road Transport Corpn. on 28 January, 2014
Tue, 28 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for therespondent-Himachal Road Transport Corporation.

2. The appellants are claimants. They are aggrieved by the judgment andorder under appeal whereby the High Court reversed the findings given bythe Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II) at Shimla in MACT No. 68-S/2 of1995 and has set aside the Award dated 30.11.1998 whereby the appellantswere allowed compensation of Rs.2,74,000/- including the interimcompensation, if already awarded to them along with interest at the rate of12% p.a. from the date of the claim petition.

3. According to the learned counsel for the appellants learned HighCourt was not justified in substituting its own findings in place of thoseof the Tribunal by disbelieving statement of PW.2 Shobha Ram and PW.6Hemant Kumar. The main criticism of the High Court judgment is on theground that the case should have been decided on the basis of preponderanceof probabilities as was done by the Tribunal whereas High Court hasrequired a much higher degree of proof as if it was dealing with a criminaltrial. The order under appeal has also been criticized on t

Hanumanagouda vs United India Ins. Co. Ltd. & Ors. on 28 January, 2014
Tue, 28 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for therespondent-Insurance Company.

2. Due to accident involving a goods vehicle, a lorry, two persons diedand others received injuries. All the thirteen claim petitions weredecided by a common judgment dated 21.01.2002 by the Motor VehicleAccidents Claim Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `The Tribunal’)presided by the Principal District Judge at Raichur (Karnataka). Thisappeal relates only to claim filed by dependents and legal representativesof deceased Hanumanth which included his widow Smt. Mariyamma and threeminor children, who are respondents 2 to 4 in this appeal. The Tribunalallowed their claim in MCV No. 616 of 1999 and held them entitled forcompensation of Rs.2,55,000/- from the owner-cum-driver of the lorry, theappellant and also from respondent-Insurance Company as they were heldresponsible jointly and severally. The claim was allowed with 6% interestfrom the date of claim petition till its realization with costs fixed atRs.200/-.

3. In appeals preferred by the Insurance Company, the High Court by theorder under App

Dasan vs State Of Kerala on 27 January, 2014
Mon, 27 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In this appeal, judgment and order dated 17/1/2012 passed by theKerala High Court confirming the appellant’s conviction under Section 326of the Penal Code is under challenge. We have granted application forimpleadment of Uddesh who was examined as PW-2 as he had suffered grievousinjury at the hands of the appellant. He is, therefore, party to thepresent appeal.

3. The appellant is original Accused 1. He was tried along with sevenothers by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Thrissur in CriminalComplaint No.23 of 1997 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,148, 323, 324, 326 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code. LearnedMagistrate convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 326of the Penal Code for having caused grievous hurt by dangerous weapon to PW-2 Uddesh and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for threeyears. The appellant was also ordered to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensationto PW-2 Uddesh. In default of payment of compensation, the appellant was toundergo simple impr

Sasi Enterprises vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 30 January, 2014
Thu, 30 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. We are concerned with four Criminal Appeals No.61 to 64 of 2007, out of which two Criminal Appeals No.61 of 2007 and 63 of 2007 relate to M/s Sasi Enterprises, a registered partnership firm, of which Ms. J. Jayalalitha and Mrs. N. Sasikala are partners, which relate to the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 respectively. Criminal Appeal Nos.62 and 63 of 2007 relate to J. Jayalalitha and N. Sasikala respectively for the assessment years 1993-94. Proceedings giving rise to these appeals originated from the complaints filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Egmore), Chennai, for the willful and deliberate failure to file returns for the assessment years 1991-92, 1992-93 and hence committing offences punishable under Section 276 CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). Complaints were filed on 21.8.1997 after getting the sanction fr

Godrej & Boyce Mfg.Co.Ltd. & Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. on 30 January, 2014
Thu, 30 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
Godrej & Boyce Mfg.Co.Ltd. & Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. on 30 January, 2014
Author: ...….……………………..J.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1102 OF 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.10677 of 2008)

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. & Anr. ..….Appellants

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. …..Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1103 OF 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 10760 of 2008)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1104 OF 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11055 of 2008)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1105 OF 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11057 of 2008)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1106 OF 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11393 of 2008)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1107 OF 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11398 of 2008)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1108 OF 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11401 of 2008)

WITH


Laxmi Narain Modi vs Union Of India & Ors. on 30 January, 2014
Thu, 30 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. We, in our order dated 23.8.2012, had highlighted the extremenecessity of constituting State Committees for the purpose of supervisingand monitoring the implementation of the provisions of the Prevention ofCruelty to Animals (Establishment and Registration of Societies forPrevention of Cruelty to Animals) Rules, 2000, the Environment ProtectionAct, 1986, the Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000, thePrevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2000 etc.

2. We passed another order on 10.10.2012 and, following that order,almost all the States and Union Territories have constituted the StateCommittees. On 27.8.2013, we passed a detailed order directing thoseCommittees to implement the broad framework prepared by the MoEF, which wehave incorporated in the sa

Sheeshram & Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 January, 2014
Wed, 29 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. The appellants are original Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 respectively inS.T. No.12 of 1993. The appellants were convicted, inter alia, underSection 302 of the IPC for the murder of one Balram and sentenced to lifeimprisonment. They have challenged judgment and order dated 29/5/2003passed in Criminal Appeal No.322 of 1998 by the Rajasthan High Court,confirming their conviction and sentence.

2. One Heera son of Surajmal lodged a complaint (Ex. P-7) at JagalTan, Village Lapawali on 04/02/1991 at around 3.50 p.m., stating that on04/02/1991 at 8.00 a.m., he and his son Rameshwar accompanied his othersons Balram and Bhagwan Singh who were going to Hindaun School to see themoff. They were standing on the road near the turn between Lapawali andDhara. While they were waiting for the bus, Rajdhar of village Lapawali,along with others, arrived there in a tractor. Accused-1 Sheesh Ram,Accused-2 Radhey, Accused-3 Battu, Accused-4 Rameshwar (in S.T. No.12 of1993), Accused-Ram Kunwar, Accused-Hansey and Accused-Har Sahai (in S.T.No.350 of 1992) stopped the tractor. Accused-3 Battu exhorted “do not letthis opportunity slip

Vishal Agrawal & Anr. vs Chattisgarh State Electricity ... on 29 January, 2014
Wed, 29 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

A.K. SIKRI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. A pure question of law which arises for consideration is: whether the amendment in Section 151of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act] which empowers the Court to take cognizance of an offence upon a report made by the police under Section 173 of the Code of Civil Procedure [hereinafter referred to as the Code], would be applicable to the pending complaints filed before the aforesaid amendment. To answer this question, scope and interpretation of Section 151, as it stood prior to the amendment, also needs to be considered. This issue has arisen in the following set of facts:

3. The respondent, viz. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Board') is the supplier of electricity in the State of Chhattisgarh. The appellants are the consumers of the Electricity and getting supply thereof through the Electricity connection provided by the Board. As per the Board, the appellants were found committing theft of the

Deepak Bhandari vs H.P.State ... on 29 January, 2014
Wed, 29 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

A.K. SIKRI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Present appeal raises an interesting question of law pertaining to the starting point of limitation for filing the suit for recovery by the State Financial Corporations constituted under the State Financial Corporation Act. We make it clear at the outset itself that we are not treading a virgin path. There are two judgments of this Court touching upon this very issue. At the same time it is also necessary to point out that it has become imperative to clarify the legal position contained in two judgments and to reconcile the ratio thereof as well because of the reason that they are contradictory in nature. It necessitates wider discussion in order to avoid any confusion in the manner such cases are to be dealt with.

3. With the aforesaid preliminary introduction to the subject matter of the present appeal, we now proceed to take note of the facts which have led to the question of limitation that confronts us.

4. Respondent No. 1 viz. Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited

Sanjay Verma vs Haryana Roadways on 29 January, 2014
Wed, 29 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. This quantum appeal is by the claimant seeking further enhancementof the compensation awarded by the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital byits Order dated 27.03.2006.

2. The facts relevant for the purpose of the present adjudication maybe noticed at the outset.

On 12.08.1998 the appellant-claimant was travelling from Ambala toKurukshetra in a bus belonging to the Haryana Roadways and bearingregistration No. HR-07PA-0197. On the way the driver of the bus lostcontrol over the vehicle resulting in an accident in the course of whichthe claimant suffered multiple injuries. He was initially treated in thecivil hospital Pehwa and thereafter transferred to the PGIMER, Chandigarhon 14.08.1998. The appellant underwent surgery on 16.09.1998 andeventually he was released from the hospital and referred to theRehabilitation Centre, Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital, Aligarh. According tothe claimant, apart from other injuries, he had suffered a fracture of thespinal cord resulting in paralysis of his whole body. In thesecircumstances the claimant filed an application before the Motor AccidentClaim Tribunal claiming compensation of a total sum of Rs.

Pawan Kumar & Anr. vs M/S Harkishan Dass Mohan Lal & Ors. on 29 January, 2014
Wed, 29 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. The appellants were the claimants in the proceedings instituted foraward of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafterreferred to as “the Act”). They are aggrieved by the decision of the HighCourt of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O. Nos. 695, 407 and 408 of1995 dated 05.07.2006 by which, though their claim for compensation hasbeen upheld, the liability to pay the same has been apportioned between thedrivers/owners of the two vehicles involved in the motor accident. Theappellants contend that as they were third parties to the claim, the HighCourt ought to have made the drivers/owners of the vehicles jointly andseverally liable to pay compensation in view of their composite negligenceinstead of apportioning their liability by invoking the principle ofcontributory negligence.

2. The brief facts that will be required to be noticed may now be setout:

Deceased Yogesh (12 years) and Parshotam D. Gupta and injuredSalochna were travelling in Jeep No.PB-03-6848 from Sirsa, Haryana toVaishno Devi on 19.06.1993. The jeep which is owned by the respondent No.1and driven by the r

State Of Maharashtra vs Vijay Kumar Aggarwal & Anr. on 29 January, 2014
Wed, 29 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

A.K.SIKRI, J.

1. Delay Condoned.

2. Leave Granted.

3. Since counsel for the State of Maharashtra (Appellant) as well as Respondent No. 1, who appears in person, were ready to argue the matter finally, we heard both the parties at length.

4. The issue involved in the present case is in a very narrow compass, though actual matrix, stated in this matter, is irritatingly long. In any case, it is not necessary for us to narrate all the background facts in their entirety. Eschewing those details which are altogether unnecessary for the disposal of the present appeal, we state here under those only facts that are relevant for our purpose.

5. Having successfully cleared the Civil Services Examination and being allocated Maharashtra Cadre, as a member of the Indian Administrative Services (IAS), Respondent No. 1 joined the service in the State of Maharashtra on 1.09.1982. While, discharging duties in that capacity, he was suspended from service vide order d

N.S.Nagendra vs State Of Karnataka on 29 January, 2014
Wed, 29 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

A.K.SIKRI,J.

1. The petitioner is convicted for the offences punishable under Section302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the trial court. For offenceunder Section 302 IPC, he is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment andalso imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/-. For committing offence under Section201 IPC, the petitioner is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for7 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. Both the sentences are orderedto be run concurrently. The petitioner appealed to the High Courtchallenging the conviction. However, the High Court has dismissed saidappeal maintaining the conviction and sentence of the petitioner videimpugned judgment dated 12th January 2010. Not satisfied and undeterred,present Special Leave Petition is filed questioning the validity of theconviction, as indicted above.

2. The charge against the petitioner was of murdering a boy namedMadhusudhan (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) aged about 12 years whowas studying in a Boarding School at Bellur, Karnataka. His mother was oneSmt.Sujatha (PW6) who is the wife of PW9. It appears that because ofstrained relations developed between Sujatha and her husband,

Vinod Kumar vs State Of Haryana & Ors. on 28 January, 2014
Tue, 28 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are filed by the appellant questioning the correctness of the judgment and final Order dated 05.04.2011 passed in C.W.P. No. 7746 of 2009 and order dated 16.12.2011 passed in Review Application No. 388 of 2011 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, urging various facts and legal contentions in justification of his claim.

3. Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case of the appellant and also to find out whether the appellant is entitled for the relief as prayed in this appeal.

The appellant is the owner of 5 Kanals 6 Marlas of land out of which 934 square yards have been left out of acquisition. On 07.02.2008, under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, the Haryana Urban Development Authority issued a notice for acquisition of land including that of the appellant for public purpose namely, for the development and utilization of the land as residential

Om Prakash Chautala vs Kanwar Bhan & Ors. on 31 January, 2014
Fri, 31 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

1. Reputation is fundamentally a glorious amalgam and unification of virtues which makes a man feel proud of his ancestry and satisfies him to bequeath it as a part of inheritance on the posterity. It is a nobility in itself for which a conscientious man would never barter it with all the tea of China or for that matter all the pearls of the sea. The said virtue has both horizontal and vertical qualities. When reputation is hurt, a man is half-dead. It is an honour which deserves to be equally preserved by the down trodden and the privileged. The aroma of reputation is an excellence which cannot be allowed to be sullied with the passage of time. The memory of nobility no one would like to lose; none would conceive of it being atrophied. It is dear to life and on some occasions it is dearer than life. And that is why it has become an inseparable facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. No one would like to have his reputation dented. One would like to perceive it as an honour rather than po

Occupational Health & Safety ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 31 January, 2014
Fri, 31 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. The Petitioner, a non-profit occupational health and safetyorganization, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, hasinvoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 ofthe Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs :-

a. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the Respondents to frame guidelines with respect to occupational safety and health regulations to be maintained by various industries;

b. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents to appoint and constitute a committee for the monitoring of the working of thermal power plants in India and to keep check on the health and safety norms for the workers working in their power stations;

c. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to pay compensation to the workers who are victims of occupational h

Sanjay Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 28 January, 2014
Tue, 28 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530

1. This special leave petition has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.7.2011, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Misc. No.13116 of 2009 quashing the criminal proceedings against the respondent no.2 while allowing the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’).

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this petition are that: A. The petitioner claimed to have been appointed by the private respondent no.2 in a fake dental college as a Senior Lecturer for a period of one year and issued 12 post dated cheques for payment of his salary out of which 9 cheques had bounced. The complainant-petitioner sent legal notice to the respondent no.2 but without giving them sufficient time to file a reply, filed a complaint before the Magistrate at Danapur, Patna under Sections 34, 403, 404, 406, 408, 418, 420 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter

Sudhir Vasudev Cmd Ongc & Ors. vs M.George Ravishekaran & Ors on 4 February, 2014
Tue, 04 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Aggrieved by a direction of the Madras High Court in exercise of itscontempt jurisdiction to create supernumerary posts, this appeal has beenfiled by the respondents in the contempt proceeding.

3. Shorn off unnecessary details the core facts that would need arecital are enumerated hereinbelow.

The respondents in the present appeal were engaged as Radio Operatorson contract basis in the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (hereinafterreferred to as “the Corporation”), a Public Sector Undertaking, inter alia,engaged in on-shore and off-shore oil and natural gas exploration. By anotification dated 08.09.1994 issued under Section 10(1) of the ContractLabour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 employment of contract labourin various works in the Corporation, including the work of Radio Operators,was prohibited. A Writ Petition bearing No. 15211 of 1991 seeking adirection to the Corporation to treat the contract Radio Operators at parwith the regular Marine Assistant Radio Operators was pending before theHig

Nafis Ahmad & Anr. vs Narain Singh & Ors. on 4 February, 2014
Tue, 04 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

C. NAGAPPAN, J.

1. The petitioners have sought for punishing the respondents for willful disobeying the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2007 of this Court in Civil Appeal No.8527 of 2003.

2. The case of the petitioners is that they were put in possession of the suit property pursuant to an agreement of sale with the owners on 3.5.1950 and they filed suit for declaration of their title and permanent injunction on 12.7.1996 and the suit was decreed but on appeal it was reversed by the Appellate Court and the High Court confirmed the same in second appeal and the petitioners preferred further appeal to this Court in Civil Appeal No.8572 of 2003, and during the pendency of the appeal the matter was settled and a Compromise Petition under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC was filed and this Court disposed of the civil appeal on the terms enumerated in the compromise petitio

Pratima Chowdhury vs Kalpana Mukherjee & Anr. on 10 February, 2014
Mon, 10 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.

1. Orchestra Co-operative House Society Limited (hereinafter referred toas ‘the Society’) raised flats at 48/IE, Gariahat Road, Calcutta – 700019.Indirani Bhattarcharya became a member of the Society on 12.1.1987. Shewas issued share certificates bearing nos. 0047 and 0048. Based on theabove membership she was allotted flat no. 5D for a consideration of Rs. 4lakhs. The above flat measuring 900 sq. ft. comprised of three bed rooms,two bath rooms, one drawing-cum-dinning room, a kitchen and verandah on thefourth floor. In addition to the above, she was allotted one coveredgarage space on the ground floor. The transfer of the flat no. 5D by theSociety to Indirani Bhattacharya was approved by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies.

2. On 27.3.1991, Indirani Bhattacharya submitted her resignation fromthe Society in favour of Pratima Chowdhury (i.e., the petitioner herein).On 15.4.1991, Indirani Bhattacharya executed an agreement for transfer offlat no. 5D to Pratima Chowdhury subject to the consent of the Society andthe approval of t

Chennai Metropolitan Water ... vs T.T. Murali Babu on 10 February, 2014
Mon, 10 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.11.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 2531 of 2012 whereby the Division Bench has affirmed the judgment and order dated 21.7.2011 in W.P. No. 25673 of 2007 whereunder the learned single Judge had allowed the writ petition, and after setting aside the punishment of dismissal, directed reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service but without back wages.

3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the expose’ of facts that have been undraped are that the respondent was appointed as a Surveyor in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (for short, “CMWSSB”) and subsequently promoted as Junior Engineer in 1989. From 28.8.1995 he remained continuously absent from duty without any intimation to the employer and did not respond to the repeated memoranda/reminders requiring hi

Abp Pvt.Ltd.& Anr vs Union Of India & Ors. on 7 February, 2014
Fri, 07 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
Abp Pvt.Ltd.& Anr vs Union Of India & Ors. on 7 February, 2014
Author: . P.Sathasivam

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

1

2 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 246 OF 2011

ABP Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. .... Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union of India & Ors. .... Respondent(s)

3

4 WITH

5

6 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 382 OF 2011

7 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 384 OF 2011

8 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 386 OF 2011

9 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 408 OF 2011

10 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 510 OF 2011

11 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 538 OF 2011

12 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 514 OF 2011

13 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 546 OF 2011

14 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 87 OF 2012

15 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 264 OF 2012

16 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 315 OF 2012

17 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 817 OF 2013

18

19 WITH

20 CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 252 OF 2012 IN

21 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 538 OF 2011

22


Rajinder Kumar vs Kuldeep Singh & Ors. on 7 February, 2014
Fri, 07 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.

2. Specific performance is an equitable relief granted by the courts in

Kishore Samrite vs The State Of M.P on 7 February, 2014
Fri, 07 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

The instant review petition has been filed for review of our orderdated 8th August, 2013 dismissing Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.5911 of 2013 (Kishore Samrite vs. State of M.P.), in limine. The aforesaidspecial leave petition was filed challenging the order dated 6th May, 2013passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2010whereby the petitioner’s prayer for stay of conviction under Section435/149, 332/149, 427/149, 147 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x)of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989 was rejected. Review of the Order has been sought for mainly onthe following grounds:

“ii. BECAUSE as it has been stated herein above on 27.07.2012 the relevant order was passed for listing the another SLP of the Petitioner before a Bench of which Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad was not a member and again on 06.08.2013 similar order was passed in the Review Petition filed by the Petitioner i.e. jus

Sanjay Kumar Shukla vs M/S Bharat Petroleum Corp.Ltd.& ... on 7 February, 2014
Fri, 07 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and orderdated 16.05.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in LettersPatent Appeal Nos.1845 and 1916 of 2011. By the aforesaid impugned order,the High Court has directed that the respondent No.7 herein who was placedat serial No.2 of the select list/merit panel for award of dealership ofretail outlet under the respondent No.1, i.e. M/s. Bharat PetroleumCorporation Ltd., be offered the said dealership after completing theprocess contemplated under the selection procedure in force in theCorporation.

3. A summary of the essential facts is delineated hereinbelow:-

The first respondent Corporation issued an advertisement dated30.05.2010 for award of dealership of retail outlets in different locationsincluding Areraj, East Champaran District in the State of Bihar. Theselection was to be made in accordance with the norms laid down by theCorporation and available in a booklet published on 15.09.2008 under thecaption “procedure f

Lingaram Kodopi vs State Of Chhatisgarh on 7 February, 2014
Fri, 07 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

A.K. SIKRI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Both these appeals arise out of common order dated 8.7.2013 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, whereby applications for bail preferred by these two appellants were rejected.

3. Appellants are related to each other. The appellant Lingaram Kodopi is the nephew of the appellant Soni Sori (Lingaram's father and Soni Sori's husband were the real brothers). Both these appellants have been implicated under Sections 121, 124(1) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 8 (1) (2) (3) of the Chhattisgarh Jansuraksha Adhiniyam and Sections 10 & 13 of the Unlawful Activities of the Act. For the alleged offence under the aforesaid provisions crime No. 26/2011 with Police Station Kuakonda district Dantewada, Chhattisgarh is registered against them alongwith certain other persons. Both have been arrested in connection with the afores

M/S.S.V.A.Steel Re-Rolling ... vs State Of Kerala & Ors. on 6 February, 2014
Thu, 06 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

1 ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the common Judgment dated 24th February, 2005 delivered by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.P.(C) No.5795/2004, W.P.(C) No.5877/2004, W.P.(C) No.5984/2004 and O.P. No.9816/2001, the appellants, original petitioners before the High Court have approached this Court by way of these appeals.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeals, in a nut-shell, are as under:

The appellants are businessmen having their manufacturing units in the State of Kerala and they are manufacturing different articles with the help of electricity, which is generated/supplied by the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’). The respondent-Government was desirous of having industrial development in the State of Kerala and therefore, it had framed certain policies so as to encourage and invite businessmen for setting up their manufacturing units in

Badal Murmu & Ors. vs State Of West Bengal on 5 February, 2014
Wed, 05 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. There are eleven appellants. All of them were tried by theAdditional Sessions Judge, Burdwan for offences punishable under Section148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. They were convictedfor offences punishable under Section 148 and Section 302 read with Section149 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for causingdeath of one Jhore Soren (“deceased-Jhore Soren”). The appellants’ appealwas dismissed by the High Court. Hence, the present appeal.

2. The prosecution story could be shortly stated:

The appellants and the prosecution witnesses belong to SanthalCommunity of village Mobarakpur. In March, 1989, deceased-Jhore Sorenkilled the hen of one Bhagbat. This created a furore in Santhal community. A Salish was called and the deceased was asked to give one hen and twohandies of country liquor to Bhagbat as a penalty by the Salishman.Deceased-Jhore Soren complied with Salishman’s order. On 14/4/1989, whendeceased-Jhore Soren and PW-7 Kanka were discussing the same incident,appellant-Bhagbat overheard it and showed his displeasure to PW-7 Kanka.When PW-7 Kanka pro

State Th. Cbi New Delhi vs Jitender Kumar Singh on 5 February, 2014
Wed, 05 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. We are, in these cases, concerned with the interpretation of varioussections that appear in Chapter II read with Chapter III of the Preventionof Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the PC Act”), especially Sections 3, 4,5 and other related provisions dealing with offences and penaltiesappearing in Chapter III of the PC Act.

2. We are, in Criminal Appeal No. 943 of 2008, concerned with thequestion whether the Special Judge, after framing charges against a PublicServant under 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(b) falling under Section 3(1)of the PC Act and against private persons for offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC can go ahead with the trial of the case againstthe private persons for non-PC offences, even after the death of the solepublic servant. In other words, the question is whether, on the death ofthe sole public servant, the Special Judge will cease to have jurisdictionto continue with the trial against the private persons for non-PC offences.Further question raised is that, assuming that the Sp

Arikala Narasa Reddy vs Venkataram Reddy Reddygari & Anr on 4 February, 2014
Tue, 04 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.7.2012, as amended vide order dated 23.7.2012, of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Election Petition No.2 of 2009 and Recrimination Petition No.1 of 2009.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that:-

A. An election was held on 30.3.2009 for 18-Nizamabad Local Authority Constituency of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council wherein the appellant stood declared as successful candidate and had since then been a Member of Legislative Council (MLC).

B. The respondent no.1, defeated candidate, filed Election Petition No.2 of 2009 on the ground that certain invalid votes had been counted in favour of the appellant and certain valid votes which were cast in favour of the respondent no.1 had wrongly been declared invalid.

C. The election petition was to be decided on the basis o

Aveek Sarkar & Anr. vs State Of West Bengal And Anr. on 3 February, 2014
Mon, 03 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. A German magazine by name “STERN” having worldwide circulation published an article with a picture of Boris Becker, a world renowned Tennis player, posing nude with his dark-skinned fiancée by name Barbara Feltus, a film actress, which was photographed by none other than her father. The article states that, in an interview, both Boris Becker and Barbaba Feltus spoke freely about their engagement, their lives and future plans and the message they wanted to convey to the people at large, for posing to such a photograph. Article picturises Boris Becker as a strident protester of the pernicious practice of “Apartheid”. Further, it was stated that the purpose of the photograph was also to signify that love champions over hatred.

2. “Sports World”, a widely circulated magazine published in Indiareproduced the article and the photograph as cover story in its Issue 15dated 05.05.1993 with the caption

“Posing nude dropping out of tournaments, battling Racism in Germany. Boris Becker explains his recent approa

Suhas H Pophale vs Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd.& Anr on 11 February, 2014
Tue, 11 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
Suhas H Pophale vs Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd.& Anr on 11 February, 2014
Author: …………………………………..J.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1970 OF 2014

(@ out of SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.20625/2010)

Dr. Suhas H. Pophale … Appellant

Versus

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and

Its Estate Officer … Respondents

J U D G E M E N T

H.L. Gokhale J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave raises the question as to whetherthe rights of an occupant/licensee/ tenant protected under a State RentControl Act (Bombay Rent Act, 1947 and its successor the Maharashtra RentControl Act, 1999, in the instant case), could be adversely affected byapplication of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)Act, 1971 (‘Public Premises Act’ for short)? This question arises in thecontext of the eviction order dated 28.5.1993 passed by the respondent No.2, Estate Officer of the first respondent, invoking the provisions of thePublic Premises Act with respect to the premises occupied by the appellantsince 20.12.1972. The eviction order has been upheld by the Bombay HighCourt in its impugned judgment dated 7.6.2010, rejecting the Writ PetitionNo.2473 of 1996 filed by the appellant herein.

The facts leading to this appeal are this wise:-

3. One Mr. Eric Voller was a tenant of the Indian MercantileInsura

Dr.Purshotam Kumar Kaundal vs State Of H.P And Ors on 11 February, 2014
Tue, 11 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Madan B. Lokur, J.

Leave granted.

2. The only question for consideration is whether respondent No.5 Dr.D.D. Gupta was eligible for being considered for promotion to the post ofAssistant Professor in accordance with the Himachal Pradesh MedicalEducation Service Rules, 1999. In our opinion, the question should beanswered in the affirmative and against the appellant Dr. Purshotam KumarKaundal.

3. The eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of AssistantProfessor, as laid down in the Service Rules is as follows:-

“By promotion from amongst the lecturers who possess three years regular service or regular combined with continuous ad hoc (rendered upto 31.3.1998) service, if any, in the grade in the concerned specialty failing which by appointment (by selection from amongst the members of H.P. Civil Medical Service (General Wing) having recognized post-graduation degree or its equivalent qualification in the concerned specialty and possess at least three

Vijayander Kumar & Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr. on 11 February, 2014
Tue, 11 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.

The appellants have preferred this appeal against the dismissal oftheir petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (forbrevity `Cr.P.C.’) by the High Court of judicature for Rajasthan atJodhpur. The High Court declined to interfere with the order of learnedChief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar, dated 22.05.2000 in Case No.63/2000, taking cognizance of offence under Section 420 read with Section120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Respondent No.2, Surendra Singhla, lodged a police case against theappellants as well as one Satish Singhla on 28.04.1998. According to theaverments and allegations in the written report, the informant is a partnerof the Firm M/s. Rajshree Cotton Corporation, Sriganganagar, working asbroker as well as dealer in the sale and purchase of cotton. Theappellants are Directors of M/s. R.P. Taxfab Limited, Modi Nagar, whopurchased cotton through informant firm from time to time. As per theaccounts, the informant firm was to receive a sum of Rs.47,28,115.80/-.The accused persons without taking the informant into confidence, enteredinto an agreement for transfer of management, assets and liabilities ofM/s. R.P

Union Of India & Ors. vs S.P.Verma on 11 February, 2014
Tue, 11 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

C. NAGAPPAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The dispute in this appeal relates to the validity of an order dated 18.2.1998 of dismissal passed by the appellants against respondent. The dismissal came as a measure of punishment for proved misconduct on account of the respondent having occupied a parcel of land owned by the Indian Railways with whom the respondent was employed at the relevant point of time. The dismissal order was challenged by the respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal who quashed the same by its order dated 17.5.2007. The appellants questioned the said order of dismissal before the High Court of Allahabad in W.P. No.30501 of 2007 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of that Court by an order dated 8.2.2008. The High Court was of the view that the Tribunal committed no error in quashing the order impugned before it but gave liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to initiate departmental proceedings in accordance with law on the happening of any of the events mentioned in the order of

G. Dhanasekar vs M.D.,Metropolitan Transport ... on 12 February, 2014
Wed, 12 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.

2. Whether an accident victim is entitled to get compensation for functional disability? If so, what is the method for computation of compensation? These are the two issues arising for considerations in this case.

3. Computation of just and reasonable compensation is the bounden duty of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In view of the plethora of judgments rendered by this Court regarding the approach to be made in the award of compensation, we do not find it necessary to start with the first principles. In Rajesh and Others v. Rajbir Singh and Others[1], Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited[2] and in Rekha Jain v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others[3], this Court recently has extensively dealt with the principles governing the fixation of compensation and the approach to be made by the courts in that regard.

4. In Rekha Jain’s case (supra), this Court following the case of

M.D.Orissa S.H.W.Coop.Sty.Ltd. vs Satyanarayan Pattnaik & Anr on 11 February, 2014
Tue, 11 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

1 ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned judgment dated 14th May, 2010 delivered in W.P.(C) No. 10291 of 2006 and order dated 24th October, 2011 in R.P.No.131 of 2010 delivered by the High Court of Orissa.

3. The respondent was an employee, who had submitted his application for voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme dated 9.6.2006 floated by the appellant-employer. Before the final decision in pursuance of the said application was communicated by the appellant-employer to the respondent-employee, the respondent- employee had made a request for withdrawal of the said application and ultimately the appellant-employer had not accepted the application for withdrawal submitted by the respondent-employee and the respondent- employee was made to retire.

4. In view of the fact that his application for voluntary retirement was accepted though the respondent-employee wanted to withdraw the same, the respondent-employee had fi

Renu & Ors. vs District & Sess.Judge Tishazri & ... on 12 February, 2014
Wed, 12 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. The matter initially related to the appointment of Class IV employees in the courts subordinate to Delhi High Court as the dispute arose about the continuity of the employees appointed on ad-hoc basis for 89 days which stood extended for the same period after same interval from time to time. The matter reached the Delhi High Court and ultimately before this Court. This court vide order dated 10.5.2012 took up the matter in a larger perspective taking cognizance of perpetual complaints regarding irregularities and illegalities in the recruitments of staff in the subordinate courts throughout the country and in order to ensure the feasibility of centralising these recruitments and to make them transparent and transferable. This Court suo motu issued notice to Registrar Generals of all the High Courts and to the States for filing their response mainly on two points viz. (i) why the recruitment be not centralized; and (ii) why the relevant

Birju vs State Of M.P. on 14 February, 2014
Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. We are, in this case, concerned with the killing of a child aged one year who was in the arms of PW1, the grand-father, for which the accused was awarded death sentence by the trial court, which was affirmed by the High Court and these appeals have been preferred by the accused against the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded to him for the offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

2. The prosecution case, in short, is as follows: PW1, the complainant was standing at the grocery shop of Kamal Bansal (PW2) on 13.12.2009 at about 8.15 PM for purchasing some goods. He was holding his grandson, Arman, aged one year in his arms. PW4, Jagdish, was also standing in front of the said shop. The accused-Birju, resident of the same locality, known as Rustam Ka Bagicha, came out there on a motorcycle. After parking the motorcycle, he went to Babulal and questioned him as to why he was standing there. Babulal replied that he had come to purchase some kirana. While so, the accused-appellant demanded Rs.100

Voltas Ltd vs Rolta India Ltd on 14 February, 2014
Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions.

2. Regard being had to the similitude of controversy in both the appeals they were heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment. Be it noted, the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, by two separate judgments and orders passed on 16.8.2013 in Appeals Nos. 7 of 2013 and 8 of 2013 has set aside the judgment and order dated 1.10.2012 passed by the learned single Judge in Arbitration Petition (L) Nos. 1239 of 2012 and 1240 of 2012 respectively as a consequence of which two interim awards passed by the learned Arbitrator on 26.7.2012 in respect of two contracts between the same parties rejecting the counter claim of the respondent-herein have been annulled. For the sake of clarity and convenience we shall state the facts from Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 30015 of 2013, for the Division Bench has observed that the Appeal No. 7 of 2013 had eman

M/S. Siemens Aktiengeselischaft ... vs Dmrc Ltd. & Ors. on 14 February, 2014
Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. A Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi has by a common orderpassed in Writ Petition (C) No.1853 of 2013 filed by the appellant and WritPetition No.2615 of 2013 filed by Alstom Transport India Ltd. declined tointerfere with the award of a contract for the supply of 486 Standard GaugeCars Electrical Multiple Units meant for use in Phase-III of the Mass RapidTransit System (‘MRTS’ for short) for Delhi and its extension corridors.The High Court has taken the view that the process of evaluation of thebids received from eligible bidders culminating in the award of a contractin favour of respondent No.2-Hyundai Rotem Company (‘HR’ for short) wastransparent and did not suffer from any illegality, irregularity orperversity of any kind to warrant interference by it. The High Court heldthat the bidders were well aware of and had accepted the tender conditionswhich were free from any vagueness or uncertainty. The parameters ofevaluation conditions were also held to have been applied uniformly to allthe bidders under a procedure that was open, transparent

Enercon (India) Ltd And Ors vs Enercon Gmbh And Anr on 14 February, 2014
Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These civil appeals have been filed against the order and judgment dated 5th October, 2012, passed by the Bombay High Court in CWP Nos.7804 of 2009 and 7636 of 2009. The Bombay High Court by the impugned order dismissed both the aforesaid Civil Writ Petitions.

3. Appellants No.2 and 3 (members of the Mehra family) and the Respondent No.1 (a company incorporated under the laws of Germany, having its registered office at Aurich, Germany) entered into a joint venture business by setting up the Appellant No. 1-Company – Enercon (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “EIL”), in 1994. EIL, having its registered office at Daman, was to manufacture and sell Wind Turbine Generators (“WTGs”) in India. One Dr. Alloys Wobben is the Chairman of the Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2, a company incorporate

Gjanan Kamlya Patil vs Addl.Collector & ... on 14 February, 2014
Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. We are, in these appeals, concerned with the question whether the High Court was justified in relegating the parties to file Civil Suits to recover the lands covered by Survey No.54/4 and Survey No.53/3, both admeasuring 1870 sq. meters, situated at Village Kasarwadavli, Ghodbunder Road, Taluka and Distt. Thane, so as to get the benefit of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.

3. We may, for the disposal of these appeals, refer to the facts in Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition No.14690 of 2011, treating the same as the leading case. The Appellant herein was issued a notice dated 17.2.2005 under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘ULC Act’) for t

V.K. Verma vs Cbi on 14 February, 2014
Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.

2. Appellant is the accused in C.C. No. 205 of 1994 on the file of the Special Judge, Delhi. He was tried for offences under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The charge was that the appellant demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.265/- from a contractor by name Sanjeev Kumar Sawhney on 21.12.1984. According to the appellant, the said contractor had an axe to grind since the appellant did not budge to his demand for improper measurement of the work done by him and he was actually trapped at his instance. FIR was registered on 21.12.1984. The sessions court convicted him of the charges and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and a half years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each under the charged Sections, as per Judgment dated 10.04.2003.

3. The High Court declined to interfere with the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal as per Judgment dated 22.07.2013 and, hence, the appeal.


V.Sriharan @ Murugan vs Union Of India And Others on 18 February, 2014
Tue, 18 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

P.Sathasivam, CJI.

1) The above transferred cases which were borne out of the writ petitionsfiled by V. Sriharan @ Murugan, T. Suthendraraja @ Santhan and A.G.Perarivalan @ Arivu in the Madras High Court and which got transferred tothis Court under Article 139A of the Constitution of India raise vitalissues pertaining to violation of fundamental rights of death row convictsensuing from inordinate delay caused at the hands of executive in decidingthe mercy petitions filed under Article 72/161 of the Constitution. In allthe writ petitions, the petitioners praye

State Of Sikkim & Ors. vs Adup Tshering Bhutia & Ors. on 18 February, 2014
Tue, 18 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.

2. Integration of services means the creation of a homogenous service by the amalgamation or merger of service personnel belonging to separate services. Integration is a policy matter as far as the State is concerned. In evolving a proper coalescence of the services, there are various steps:

(i) Decide the principles on the basis of which integration of serviceshas to be effected;

(ii) Examine the facts relating to each category and class of post withreference to the principle of equivalence;

(iii) Fix the equitable basis for the preparation of common seniority listof personnel holding posts which are merged into one category.

The State is bound to ensure a fair and equitable treatment toofficers in various categories/cadres of services while preparing thecommon seniority list. Being a complicated process, integration is likelyto result in individual bruises which are required to be minimised and ifnot possible, to be ignored. These first principles on integration are tobe borne in mind wheneve

Rameshchandra Ambalal Joshi vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 18 February, 2014
Tue, 18 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

According to the complainant-respondent No. 2, the accused-petitioner, Rameshchandra Ambalal Joshi was his friend, who had taken aloan of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) from the complainant. Thepetitioner issued a cheque dated 31st of December, 2005 towards repaymentof the loan. The cheque presented for payment by the complainant on 30thof June, 2006 was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds onthe same day. A registered notice dated 25th of July, 2006 was then sentby the complainant to which the petitioner replied. The complainant thenfiled Criminal Case No. 2146 of 2006 on 5th of September, 2006 allegingcommission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in the Court of JudicialMagistrate, First Class, Borsad, who took cognizance of the offence andissued summons to the petitioner.

An application for discharge was filed by the petitioner before thetrial court inter alia contending that as a period of six months had lapsedbetween the date of drawl of the cheque on 31st of Decemb

Bhaskar Lal Sharma & Anr. vs Monica And Ors. on 18 February, 2014
Tue, 18 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. As ordered earlier, both the cases were heard together and are beingdisposed of by this common Order.

SLP (Crl.) No. 4125-4126/2008

2. Leave granted.

3. The essential facts may be noticed at the outset.

The respondent, herein, Monica, had filed a complaint under Sections498A, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafterreferred to as the “Penal Code”) against the appellants and one VikasSharma (respondent No.2). The appellants are the father and mother-in-lawof the respondent-Monica whereas the subsequently impleaded respondent No.2 is her husband.

On 21.3.2005 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, NewDelhi took cognizance of the offences alleged by the respondent in thecomplaint petition which was numbered as 287/1A and issued summons to theappellants and the second respondent herein. Aggrieved, the appellantsmoved the High Court of Delhi under Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure

Vijay Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 February, 2014
Tue, 18 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

C. NAGAPPAN, J.

1. These two appeals are preferred against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in DB Criminal Appeal No.664 of 2001.

2. The appellant Dr. Atma Ram in Criminal Appeal No.1363 of 2009 is the accused No.1 and the appellant Vijay Kumar in Criminal Appeal No.441 of 2009 is accused No.3 in the Sessions Case No.28 of 2001 (38/1986) on the file of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan and they were tried for the alleged offences under Section 120B, 302, 460 and 382 IPC. Three other accused namely A-2 Kailash Chand, A-4 Gyanchand and A-5 Radha Devi were also tried in the same case for the alleged offence under Section 411 IPC. The Sessions Court found accused Nos. 1 and 3/appellants guilty of the charges framed and sentenced them each to suffer imprisonment

Hari Nandan Prasad & Anr. vs Employer I/R To Mangmt.Of F.C.I. & ... on 17 February, 2014
Mon, 17 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

A.K.SIKRI,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The two appellants have filed one combined Special Leave Petition,which arises out of a common judgment dated 27.6.2008 passed by theDivision Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in two LPAs which had been filedby the respondent herein viz. Food Corporation of India (FCI). The twoappellants were working on casual basis with the FCI. After certain time,their services were dispensed with. Both of them raised industrial disputealleging wrongful termination which was referred to the Central Government-cum- Industrial Tribunal (CGIT). These proceedings culminated in twoawards dated 12.12.1996 and 18.12.1996 respectively passed by the CGIT. Inboth these awards, termination of both the appellants was held to beillegal and they were directed to be reinstated with 50% back wages. TheCGIT also ordered their regularization in service. FCI filed WritPetitions in both the cases challenging these awards which were initiallyadmitted sometime in the year 1988 and the operation of the awards wasstayed. However, o

M/S Shabnam Hashmi vs Union Of India & Ors. on 19 February, 2014
Wed, 19 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Recognition of the right to adopt and to be adopted as a fundamentalright under Part-III of the Constitution is the vision scripted by thepublic spirited individual who has moved this Court under Article 32 of theConstitution. There is an alternative prayer requesting the Court to laydown optional guidelines enabling adoption of children by personsirrespective of religion, caste, creed etc. and further for a direction tothe respondent Union of India to enact an optional law the prime focus ofwhich is the child with considerations like religion etc. taking a hindseat.

2. The aforesaid alternative prayer made in the writ petition appears tohave been substantially fructified by the march that has taken place inthis sphere of law, gently nudged by the judicial verdict in Lakshmi KantPandey Vs. Union of India[1] and the supplemental, if not consequential,legislative innovations in the shape of the Juvenile Justice (Care AndProtection of Children) Act, 2000 as amended in 2006 (hereinafter for short‘the JJ Act, 2000) as also The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection ofChildren) Rules promulgated in the year 2007 (hereinafter for short ‘the JJRules, 200

Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra & Ors. vs State Of Orissa & Ors. on 19 February, 2014
Wed, 19 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. Common questions of law arise for consideration in these appealswhich were heard together and shall stand disposed of by this common order.The primary issue that falls for determination touches the Constitutionalvalidity of what is described as the Orissa Service of Engineers(Validation of Appointment) Act, 2002 by which appointment of 881 ad hocAssistant Engineers belonging to Civil, Mechanical and ElectricalEngineering Wings of the State Engineering Service have been validated, nomatter all such appointments were in breach of the Orissa Service ofEngineers’ Rules, 1941. The High Court of Orissa has in a batch of writpetitions filed before it struck down the impugned Legislation on theground that the same violates the fundamental rights guaranteed to the writpetitioners under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. We shallpresently formulate the questions that arise for determination morespecifically but before we do so, we consider it necessary to set out thefactual matrix in which the entire controversy

Commercial Tax Officer, ... vs Binani Cement Ltd. & Anr. on 19 February, 2014
Wed, 19 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

H.L. DATTU, J.

1. The Revenue is in appeal before us against the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No.582 of 1999, dated 02.07.2001 whereby and whereunder the High Court has dismissed the revision petition filed by the Revenue and upheld the case of the respondent-assessee.

2. The respondent-assessee is a new industrial unit manufacturing cement situated within Panchayat Samiti, Pindwara, Rajasthan. It is an admitted fact that it started its commercial production on 27.05.1997. It is also not disputed that the respondent-assessee has fixed capital investment (for short, “the FCI”) exceeding Rs.500/- Crores and employs more than 250 employees.

3. The core issue arises out of the respondent-assessee’s application for grant of eligibility certificate for exemption from payment of Central Sales Tax and Rajasthan Sales Tax to the State Level Screening Committee, Jaipur under the “Sal

Maya Devi vs Lalta Prasad on 19 February, 2014
Wed, 19 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant herein filed an Objection Petition under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC, when the decree obtained by the respondent in Civil Suit No.407 of 2007 was sought to be executed. Suit was filed for the recovery of an amount of Rs.3,40,000/- with interest, which was sought to be realized, on the property covered by an agreement for sale dated 3.11.2003 between the judgment debtor and decree holder. The appellant claimed that she became the absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of a registered General Power of Attorney dated 12.5.2006 and that she has been in actual physical possession of the suit property. The Petition was contested by the decree holder/respondent stating that the applicant/objector had no legal right, title or interest and that the execution of the General Power of Attorney and its registration would not confer any ownership right in favour of the appellant/objector. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of this C

Polamrasetti Manikyam & Anr. vs Teegala Venkata Ramayya & Anr. on 19 February, 2014
Wed, 19 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. We are, in this case, concerned with the interpretation of Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short “the Court Fees Act”) as to whether it authorizes the valuation of the suit on the basis of the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed or to be valued on the basis of the market value of the property as on the date of presentation of the plaint for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction.

3. Learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the impugned judgment placing reliance on the Full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in Kolachala Kutumba Sastri v. Lakkaraju Bala Tripura Sundaramma & Ors. AIR 1939 Mad. 462, and the Division Bench Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Lakshminagar Housing Welfare Association v. Syed Sami @ Syed Samiuddin & Ors. (2010) 5 ALT 96, held that in a suit for cancellation of sale deed

Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph vs State Of Maharashtra on 20 February, 2014
Thu, 20 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. We are, in this case, concerned with a gruesome murder of a minor boy aged 10 years after subjecting him to carnal intercourse and then strangulating him to death.

2. The accused, Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph, was charge-sheeted with offences punishable under Sections 302, 377 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.167 of 2008 convicted the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to death and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and for the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC, he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The Appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

Syed Gulzar Hussain & Ors vs Dewan Syed Ale Rasul Ali Khan & Ors on 20 February, 2014
Thu, 20 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. We are, in these cases, primarily concerned with the resolution of adispute between the Dewan Sajjadanashin and Khadims of the Holy Shrine ofHazrat Khawaja Moinuddin Chishti at Ajmer with regard to the sharing ofNazrana offered by the pilgrims visiting the Holy Shrine. Petitionerssubmit that the High Court, while deciding the above issue, practicallyframed a Scheme for the implementation of the final decree dated 3.5.1933(as amended on 29.1.1940) in Civil Suit No. 9 of 1929 passed by theAdditional District Judge, Ajmer-Merwana, Ajmer which, according to thepetitioners, was not warranted and beyond the scope of the decree.

2. Petitioners, who claim to represent the entire group of Khadims, itis seen from the order impugned, themselves wanted the Court to make somesuitable and permanent arrangement for the purpose of implementing thedecree. Due to the long standing disputes betw

Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao vs State Of A.P.& Ors. on 20 February, 2014
Thu, 20 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

S. A. BOBDE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant/defacto complainant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 1st February, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, and acquitted the accused for the offences under Section 452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as “IPC”]. The High Court further modified the conviction and sentence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC to one -under Section 324 IPC and accordingly reduced the sentence of 10 years to rigorous imprisonment for two months each and also to fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Further, an amount of Rs. 4,000/- is directed to be paid by each of the accused collectively as compensation to P.W. 1 (Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao) – the victim. Earlier, the Trial Court convicted the accused as follows:

A-1 to A-4

Union Of India vs M/S. Pam Development Pvt. Ltd. on 18 February, 2014
Tue, 18 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

This appeal has been filed by the Union of India challenging the judgment and order of the Calcutta High Court dated 15th June, 2005 rendered in APOT NO.643 of 2003. We may notice here the bare essential facts, which would have a bearing on the legal controversy involved in the appeal. On 19th October, 1992, the appellant entered into an agreement with the respondent for construction of Industrial Covered Electrical Loco Shed. Subsequently, according to the appellant, the agreement was terminated in terms of clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract by which the agreement between the parties was governed. The twin reasons for termination of the contract were that the respondent initially delayed the commencement of the work and subsequently executed ...2/-

:2:

the work which was of inferior quality. Therefore, the

The M.D.,Chennai Metro Rail Ltd vs N. Ismail & Ors on 21 February, 2014
Fri, 21 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

1. I.A. Nos.1-2 & I.A. Nos.1-4, applications for impleadment, filed in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.26020-26021 of 2013 and Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.26199-26202 of 2013, are allowed. Registry to carry out necessary amendment.

2. Leave granted.

3. These appeals have been filed by the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Managing Director of Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. and the Principal Secretary to Government Revenue LD-1(1) Department. The issue concerned in these appeals relates to an extent of 5 Grounds and 275 sq.ft. of land in T.S. No.43/2 in Chennai District, Fort Tondiarpet Taluk, Block No.7 of Vepery Village. The abovesaid land along with another land in an extent of one Cawni 10 Grounds and 1871 sq.ft. in T.S. No.41 of the same Vepery Village, Fort Tondiarpet Taluk, Chennai District was granted by

Ripusudan Dayal & Ors. vs State Of M.P. & Ors. on 25 February, 2014
Tue, 25 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

P.Sathasivam, CJI.

1) The present writ petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution ofIndia, has been filed by the petitioners challenging the validity ofcertain letters issued by Mr. Qazi Aqlimuddin – Secretary, Vidhan Sabha(Respondent No.4 herein) on various dates against them with regard to acase registered by the Special Police Establishment (SPE) of the LokayuktOrganisation, against the officials of the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat as wellas against the concerned officials of the Capital Project Administration-the Contractor Company alleging irregularity in the construction workcarried out in the premises of Vidhan Sabha.

2) It is relevant to mention that Petitioner No.1 herein was theLokayukt of the State of Madhya Pradesh appointed under the provisions ofthe Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Uplokayukt Act, 1981 (hereinafter referredto as “the Lokayukt Act”). Petitioner No.2 was the Legal Advisor, a memberof the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service on deputation with theLokayukt and Petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 were the officers of Madhya PradeshSpecial Police Establishment.

3)

Gohil Jesangbhai Raysangbhai & ... vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 25 February, 2014
Tue, 25 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
Gohil Jesangbhai Raysangbhai & ... vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 25 February, 2014
Author: H Gokhale

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4123 OF 2012

Gohil Jesangbhai Raysangbhai & Ors. … Appellant (s)

Versus

State of Gujarat & Anr. … Respondent (s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4124 OF 2012

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4125 OF 2012

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4126 OF 2012

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4127 OF 2012

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4129 OF 2012

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4130 OF 2012

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4131 OF 2012

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4132 OF 2012

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4133 OF 2012

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4134 OF 2012

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4135 OF 2012

J U D G E M E N T

H.L. Gokhale J.

All these Civil Appeals raise the questions with respect tothe validity of Section 43 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,1948 as applicable to the State of Gujarat, now known in the State ofGujarat as Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (“Tenancy Act”for short). This section places certain restrictions on the transfer ofland purchased or sold under the said Ac

Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki vs State Of Gujarat & Ors. on 25 February, 2014
Tue, 25 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1. This special leave petition impugns the judgment and order dated 25th September, 2012 passed by the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application No.1925 of 2010. By the aforesaid judgment, the High Court has directed that the investigation into the death of Amit Jethwa (hereinafter referred to as ‘Jethwa’), a Right to Information activist be investigated by the CBI authorities and further directing that the proceedings pursuant to the charge sheet submitted by the Gujarat Police shall remain stayed.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the special leave petition out of which the present criminal appeal arises are as under: Jethwa had filed a Public Interest Litigation, SCA No.7690 of 2010, against the State of Gujarat and others with the following prayer:

“The appellant therefore prays

Rajkumar vs State Of M.P. on 25 February, 2014
Tue, 25 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 27.6.2013 passed in Criminal Reference No. 01 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal No. 397 of 2013 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur affirming the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the `IPC’) as well as confirming the death sentence awarded for the offence under Section 302 IPC by the trial court vide judgment and order dated 5.2.2013 passed in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2013.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals as per the prosecution are that:

A. On 26.12.2012, the appellant, aged 32 years, came to the house of his neighbour Iknis Jojo (PW.1) and stayed with his four children as Iknis Jojo (PW.1) and his wife Albisiya had gone to irrigate agricultural fields in the night. The appellant was on visiting terms with the family and the children used to call him “Mama” i.e. maternal uncle. On the said night, he had taken liquor and meals in the complainant’s house and when retiring for the night, the appellant

Pal Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 25 February, 2014
Tue, 25 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This special leave petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 4.7.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. D-14-DB of 2005, maintaining the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment of the petitioners under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’).

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this petition are that: A. As per the case of the prosecution, an FIR No. 69 dated 14.4.2002 was lodged at 1.00 a.m. alleging that five accused persons including the present two petitioners committed the murder of Sarabjit Singh @ Kala. Thus, on the basis of the complaint the case was registered under Sections 148, 302/149 IPC in P.S. Sadar, Phagwara, District Kapurthala.

B. In view thereof, the investigation ensued and after completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the five accused persons including the present two petitioners under Sections 148, 302/149 and 120-B IPC. The trial was concluded and the learned Sessions Court convicted all the fiv

Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs Union Of India on 25 February, 2014
Tue, 25 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

P.Sathasivam, CJI.

1) This writ petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India,has been filed by Common Cause-a Society registered under the SocietiesRegistration Act, 1860 engaged in taking up various common problems of thepeople for securing redressal, praying for declaring ‘right to die withdignity’ as a fundamental right within the fold of ‘right to live withdignity’ guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and to issuedirection to the respondent, to adopt suitable procedures, in consultationwith the State Governments wherever necessary, to ensure that the personswith deteriorated health or terminally ill should be able to execute adocument, viz., ‘my living will & Attorney authorization’ which can bepresented to hospital for appropriate action in the event of the executantbeing admitted to the hospital with serious illness which may threatentermination of life of the executant or in the alternative, issueappropriate guidelines to this effect and to appoint an Expert Committeeconsisting of doctors, social scientists and lawyers to study into theaspect of issuing guidelines regard

Radhey Shyam vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 February, 2014
Tue, 25 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. The appellant was convicted by Additional Sessions Judge Kota,Rajasthan for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. He wassentenced to life imprisonment.

2. In short, the case of the prosecution is that on 24/2/1997, theappellant cut the throats of his children Rakesh and Rajkanta with a bladein the house of his in-laws where he was staying for his treatment. He wassuffering from tuberculosis. According to the prosecution, this incidentwas witnessed by Banwari, the brother-in-law of the appellant. Banwariinformed about it to his brother Kajod, who had come from the market.Kajod found Rakesh dead. Rajkanta was alive and was in pain. Kajod tookher to the doctor and the doctor declared her dead. Kajod lodged FIR.Investigation was started. The appellant was arrested. After completionof the investigation, the appellant came to be charged under Section 302 ofthe IPC. In support of its case, prosecution examined 14 witnesses. PW-2Banwari is the eye-witness. He is a child witness. His evidence ismaterial to the prosecution. The appellant pleaded not guilty to thecharge. He stated that he was falsely implicated in the case, because hisrelations with h

2Ec.To Govt.,School Education ... vs Thiru R.Govindaswamy & Ors. on 25 February, 2014
Tue, 25 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgments and orders dated 21.11.2012 and 16.11.2012 in Writ Appeal Nos. 2402, 2403 2404, 2405 of 2012 and 2555, 2556 of 2012 passed by the High Court of Madras, by which the High Court has regularised the services of part-time sweepers (respondents herein).

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that: The respondents had been appointed as part-time sweepers by appellant from 1987 till 1993 as their initial appointments had been issued to the respondents and others on 1.12.1987, 2.5.1991, 1.4.1993, 10.4.1993, 27.5.1999 and 19.1.2001. As the respondents and

Shyamal Saha & Anr. vs State Of West Bengal on 24 February, 2014
Mon, 24 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. This appeal questions the limits of interference by the High Court inan appeal against the acquittal of an accused by the Trial Court. In ouropinion, the High Court ought not to have interfered in the appeal beforeit with the acquittal of the appellants by the Trial Court.Facts:

2. The sequence of events, as it has unfolded from the evidence of thewitnesses, is that on 19th May, 1995 a thermal plant of the CalcuttaElectric Supply Company had opened across the river Ganges in MauzaBhabanipur Char, District Hooghly, West Bengal.

3. Paritosh Saha was with his mother Bidyutprava Saha (PW-5) at about5.00/5.30 p.m. on 19th May, 1995. Thereafter, he and his nephew AnimeshSaha (CW-1) aged about 10 years went for a walk on the banks of the riverGanges where they met Gopal Saha, with whom they struck a conversation. Atthat time, the appellants Shyamal Saha and Prosanta @ Kalu Kabiraj alsocame there and called Paritosh to go across the river to see the Char(island). Animesh also expressed his desire to go to the Char but Shyamalasked him to return home.

4. When the three of them (Pa

Sujoy Kumar Chanda vs Damayanti Majhi & Anr. on 20 February, 2014
Thu, 20 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. Both these appeals are directed against Judgment and Order dated7/6/2005 passed by the Calcutta High Court in C.R.R. No.3140 of 2004 and,hence, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The facts which give rise to this judgment need to be shortly stated.

One Khagen Majhi was killed in the early hours of 30/4/1997. He wasshot dead. On the same day P.S. Kalyani registered Case No.50 of 1997 underSections 147, 148, 149, 353, 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (“theIPC”) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act against unknown persons. On17/5/1997, a complaint was filed by Smt. Damyanti Majhi, the mother ofdeceased Khagen Majhi against SI Sankar Chatterjee, ASI Ajay Roy, appellant- S.K. Chanda, appellant - S.S. Banerjee and one Kartik Sarkar underSections 302, 201 and 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC which wasregistered as Case No.138C of 1997. In this case,

State Of M.P. & Anr. vs Suresh Narayan Vijayvargiya & ... on 27 February, 2014
Thu, 27 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan

1. We are, in this contempt petition, concerned with the questionwhether the contemnors have violated the interim orders passed by thisCourt on 27.5.2009 and 27.1.2011 in Civil Appeal No. 4060 of 2009 in thematter of sharing of MBBS seats between the respondent private medicalcollege and the State Government.

2. Civil Appeal No. 4060 of 2009 was preferred by therespondents/contemnors herein, challenging the judgment of the High Courtof Madhya Pradesh dated 15.5.2009, which upheld the validity of the MadhyaPradesh (Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee) Act, 2007 (for short “AFRCAct”), empowering the State Government to fill all the seats (including theNRI seats) in all the education institutions in the State of MadhyaPradesh, including private medical and dental collages. Since seriousdisputes were raised with regard to seat sharing and fixation of quota ofseats for MBBS/BDS, this Court felt that some interim arrangement should bemade taking note of the interest of both the parties and also that of thestudents.

Mahesh Dhanaji Shinde vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 February, 2014
Thu, 27 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. The appellants, Santosh Manohar Chavan, Amit Ashok Shinde, YogeshMadhukar Chavan and Mahesh Dhanaji Shinde who were tried as accused Nos. 1,2, 3 and 6 (hereinafter referred to as A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-6) in SessionsCase Nos. 3/2005, 4/2005 and 5/2005 have assailed the impugned commonjudgment and order of the High Court of Bombay dated 17.10.2011 wherebytheir conviction in Sessions Case Nos. 3/2005 and 5/2005, inter alia, underSection 302/120B of the IPC and for offences under the Arms Act have beenupheld by the High Court. The death penalty imposed on the appellants bythe learned Trial Judge has been confirmed by the High Court by the orderunder appeal apart from the punishment imposed under different Sections ofthe Penal Code as well as the Arms Act. Insofar as Sessions Case No.4/2005 is concerned, the learned Trial Judge had acquitted accused 1, 2 and3 of the offence under Section 302/120B IPC. In the appeal by the State,the H

Sikander Mahto vs Tunna @ T.Mian @ T Mian @ M Ansari & ... on 27 February, 2014
Thu, 27 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The first respondent Tunna @ Tunnu Mian @ Tunna Mian @ Mobin Ansariwas committed to the Court of Sessions to face trial for offences underSections 302/201 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The first respondentfiled an application claiming to be a juvenile and in support thereof hehad enclosed a certificate issued by the Government Primary Urdu School,Shekhawa, Basantpur, Block Mainatand wherein his date of birth wasmentioned as 15.01.1991. The date of occurrence of the offences alleged inthe present case is 16.11.2006.

3. The learned Trial Court, for reasons not very clearly stated,recorded the finding that the certificate produced by the first respondentwas a forged one. Accordingly, the first respondent was sent for medicalexamination by a Board. Though the report of the Board was to the effectthat the first respondent was 17 years of age, the learned Trial Court tookthe view that the said opinion would admit the possibility of a variationof 2 years. Consequently, the learned Trial Court by order dated

Daljit Singh Gujral & Ors. vs Jagjit Singh Arora & Ors. on 27 February, 2014
Thu, 27 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. We are of the considered view, after hearing the senior counselappearing for the Appellant and the party-in-person, that the judgment isvitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record, which goes to thevery root of the matter in a case relating to medical negligence.

3. The Appellants herein approached the High Court of Punjab & Haryanaunder Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) forquashing complaint Case No.7506/09/11 dated 9.6.2008 and the summoningorder 26.7.2011 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class),Chandigarh.

4. The Appellants herein are in the management of a hospital named,INSCOL Multispecialty Hospital, Chandigarh. On 1.8.2005, the wife ofRespondent No.1, by name, Inderjeet Arora, approached Dr. Jayant Banerjeeand, on his advice, she was referred to the above-mentioned hospital. Shewas admitted in the ICU by Dr. Jayant Banerjee and was attended by doctorsof the hospital. Later, she was discharged from the hospital on 2.8.2005on the reque

Bharti vs State Of Haryana & Anr. on 27 February, 2014
Thu, 27 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Faridabad inSessions Case No. 12 of 2001 for an offence punishable under Section 451 ofthe Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to suffer rigorousimprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to sufferfurther rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. The appellantwas also convicted under Section 354 of the IPC and sentenced to undergorigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, tofurther suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. The substantivesentences were ordered to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the saidjudgment, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Punjab and Haryana HighCourt which came to be dismissed and, hence, this appeal.

3. During the hearing of this appeal, this Court was informed that theappellant and the complainant Smt. Mukesh w/o Shri Rakesh have entered intoa compromise. The appellant filed an application for impleadment ofcomplainant Smt. Mukesh w/o Shri Rakesh. On 27/1/2014 this Court permittedimpleadment. Thus,

Nanak Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 26 February, 2014
Wed, 26 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

C. NAGAPPAN, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of three appeals in Criminal appeal Nos.1985 of 2010 filed by the appellant Nanak Ram/Accused and Criminal Appeal No.342 of 2011 filed by appellants/Accused Mohan Ram and Surja Ram against their conviction and sentence, and Criminal Appeal Nos. 1991 of 2010, 1990 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.1992 of 2010 filed by the State of Rajasthan for the enhancement of the sentence against the above mentioned accused, respectively.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows : PW 7 Shera Ram is the younger brother of deceased Shivji Ram and they had obtained land from Gram Panchayat towards the western side of the village and obtained Pattas for the said land. Accused Bhera Ram and accused Chuna Ram are real brothers while accused Surja Ram an

Oriental Bank Of Commerce & Ors. vs S.S. Sheokand & Anr. on 26 February, 2014
Wed, 26 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
Oriental Bank Of Commerce & Ors. vs S.S. Sheokand & Anr. on 26 February, 2014
Author: H Gokhale

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3081 OF 2006

Oriental Bank of Commerce & Ors. … Appellant (s)

Versus

S.S. Sheokand & Anr. … Respondent (s)

J U D G E M E N T

H.L. Gokhale J.

This Civil Appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and orderdated 16.3.2004 rendered by a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana HighCourt in Civil Writ Petition No.18847 of 2001, allowing the said WritPetition filed by the respondent, a Senior Manager in the appellant-bank.That judgment and order quashed the disciplinary order passed by theappellant-bank reducing him in two stages in pay scale with cumulativeeffect and also directed that he be considered for further promotion.The facts leading to this appeal are this wise:-

2. The respondent at the relevant time was working as the SeniorManager in a branch of the appellant-bank at Narwana, Bahadurgarh. It wasnoticed by the bank that he had purchased third party cheques/drafts ofhuge amounts beyond the discretionary powers of lending. This was donewithout completing the pre-sanction formalities. The appellant-bank,therefore, served a show cause notice to the respondent on 26.2.1997 forcommitting these unauthorised acts. The respondent filed a detailed replydated 12.4.1997. Therein the respondent admitted committing of

Ex. Armymen'S Protection ... vs Union Of India And Ors. on 26 February, 2014
Wed, 26 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.

2. Natural justice is a principle of universal application. It requires that persons whose interests are to be affected by decisions, adjudicative and administrative, receive a fair and unbiased hearing before the decisions are made. The principle is traceable to the Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution of India. Whether any reasonable restriction or limitation or exception to this principle is permissible in the interest of national security, is the issue we are called upon to consider in this case.

3. The appellant was granted business of ground handling services on behalf of various airlines at different airports in the country. The ground handling service is subject to security clearance from the Central Government. Section 5 of the Aircraft Act, 1934 empowers the Government to make rules providing for licensing, inspection and regulation of aerodromes and, thus, Aircraft Rules, 1937 have been framed. Rule 92 proves for ground handling servi

Nand Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Ors. on 25 February, 2014
Tue, 25 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Six writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Patna which were taken up and disposed of by the High Court by a common order dated December 9, 2009. The High Court rejected the prayer made by the writ petitioners for absorption/regularisation in their posts.

3. The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows:

1. The appellants were appointed on daily wages. It is not in dispute that some of the appellants had also worked as daily wagers for a long period. It is also not in dispute that the services of said daily wagers varied from period to period. Nand Kumar, appellant, was appointed as an Accounts Clerk on daily wage basis on September 18, 1982. Similarly, others (appellants in civil appeals arising out of SLP [C] Nos.8865- 66/2010, 10876/2010, 20833-20835/2010 and 30317/2010) were also appointed, from time to time

International Conveyors Ltd. vs Commnr. Of Central Excise & ... on 25 February, 2014
Tue, 25 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

1 ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the Order No. A/1426/WZB/2004/CI dated 6th September, 2004 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zone Bench at Bombay in Appeal No.C/560/04, the appellant has approached this Court by way of this appeal.

2. In our opinion, this case hardly involves any legal issue but we feel more concerned about the hard luck of the appellant, a manufacturer of PVC Coal Conveyor Belting made from imported Nylon Yarn. We do not propose to go into the circumstances in which the litigation had started but we start from the point which gave rise to some confusion and as a result thereof the appellant was dragged to the present litigation.

3. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order and other relevant orders, we find that there was some issue with regard to imposition of duty on import of Nylon Yarn. It was held by the Central Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi by its order dated 5th April, 1991 th

Ayush Buildwell P.Ltd. vs Haryana Urban Devt.Auth. on 25 February, 2014
Tue, 25 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been filed by the present appellant -- Aayush Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. -- against the final order dated March 13, 2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No.9962 of 2007 which was disposed in terms of judgment passed in CWP No. 7790 of 2007 titled “Delhi Roadways Corporation Ltd. vs. The Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors.” and the order dated March 30, 2009 dismissing the review petition being Review Application No. 132 of 2008 in CWP No. 11501 of 2007.

3. The question which came up before this Court, as pressed by the appellant, is whether on the basis of a comparative analysis, the appellant was eligible to have allotment of a plot in its favour, and further while setting aside the process for allotment of plots, can it direct the process afresh allowing the ineligible candidates/parties to participate in the said fresh process.

4. The facts of the case briefly are as follows :-

1.

2.

Commnr. Of Central Excise, Jaipur vs M/S. Super Synotex (India) Ltd. & ... on 28 February, 2014
Fri, 28 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 16248 of 2009.

2. This batch of appeals preferred under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity, the Act) being inter-connected and inter-linked was heard together and is disposed of by a common judgment. It is necessary to clarify that the Revenue has preferred

State Of Rajasthan vs Parmanand And Anr. on 28 February, 2014
Fri, 28 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. The respondents were tried by the Special Judge (NDPS Cases),Chhabra, District Baran for offences under Section 8 read with Section 18and under Section 8 read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs andPsychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the NDPS Act).

2. The case of the prosecution was that on 13/10/1997 during Kota Campat Iklera, P.N. Meena, Sub-Inspector, Office of the Narcotics Commissioner,Kota received information at 1900 hours in the evening that the respondentswere to handover about 10 Kg opium on 14/10/1997 in the morning between4.00 a.m. to 6.00 a.m. at Nangdi-Tiraha, Iklera, Chhipabaraud Road to asmuggler. This information was entered by SI Meena in the diary and heforwarded it to the Investigating Officer J.S. Negi, Superintendent. J.S.Negi sent this information through Constable B.L. Meena to AssistantNarcotic Commissioner, Kota. Thereafter, raiding party was formed. Theraiding party was headed by Superintendent J.S. Negi. The raiding partyreached Nangdi-Tiraha by a Government vehicle. Independent witnessesRamgopal and Gopal Singh were called by SI Qureshi. Their consent wasobtained. At about 4.25

Commr.Mun.Corp.Of Gr.Mumbai vs Anil Shantaram Khoje & Ors. on 28 February, 2014
Fri, 28 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

1. Leave granted in both these petitions.

2. Although interim orders have not been granted in the appeal arisingout of SLP(C) No.15868 of 2010, in the accompanying matter it had beenordered on 01.07.2011 that any promotion that may be made would be subjectto the result of the petition.

3. The writ petitioners before the High Court of Bombay were working inthe Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai as Assistant MunicipalCommissioners and had prayed that their promotion to the vacant posts ofDeputy Municipal Commissioner may be effected in accordance with the Rulesframed under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (hereinafterreferred to as the “M.M.C. Act”). The relevant provisions ar

Jharkhand State Elect.Board & ... vs M/S Laxmi Business & Cement ... on 28 February, 2014
Fri, 28 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

A.K.SIKRI,J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The appellant in both the cases is Jharkhand State Electricity Board(JSEB), which is aggrieved by the common judgment dated 5th July 2011passed by the High Court of Jharkhand in two appeals. These appeals werepreferred by the appellant JSEB against the orders dated 17th February 2010passed by the learned Single Judge of that court in the two Writ Petitionswhich were filed by M/s. Laxmi Business & Cement Co. Pvt. Ltd. and M/s.Laxmi Ispat Udyog (arrayed as respondent No.1 in each appeal andhereinafter referred to as the ‘consumers’). These respondents hadquestioned the validity of the bills raised by the JSEB in those WritPetitions, primarily on the ground that the bills were contrary to and inexcess of the tariff fixed by the Jharkhand State Electricity RegulatoryCommission (hereinafte

Nisha Devi vs State Of H.P.& Ors. on 28 February, 2014
Fri, 28 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Delay condoned.

3. By means of these Appeals the Appellant/ Petitioner assails thedecision of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in C.W.P.No.4169of 2009, whereby her appointment as an Anganwadi Worker, on 11.04.2007, wasset aside. The Appeals present a picture of protracted litigation. Itappears that Respondent No.5 had successfully challenged the Appellant’sappointment before the Deputy Commissioner. The Appellant’s consequentAppeal had limited success before the Divisional Commissioner as he, byOrder dated 13.05.2008, had remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner,Kullu, for fresh consideration. This time around the Appellant hadsucceeded upto the level of the Divisional Commissioner resulting in filingof C.W.P.No.1570 of 2009 before the High Court. The previous writproceedings filed by Respondent No.5 succeeded inasmuch as it was held thatthe Divisional Commissioner had no power to review his own Order under theScheme and Guidelines relating to ‘Anganwadi Workers’. The narration ofthe complicated and convoluted sequence of events is not essential fordeciding the present Appeals for the simple reason tha

Basappa vs State Of Karnataka on 27 February, 2014
Thu, 27 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.

2. Appellant is the accused in C.C. No. 707 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Hubli, Karnataka. He was charge- sheeted under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Sections 187 and 196 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’). The accident occurred on 11.02.2004 at 02.30 P.M. when the appellant was allegedly driving a tractor with a trailer. The vehicle hit against a scooty and resultantly a two year old child travelling in the scooty fell down. The tractor ran over the child and she succumbed to the injury. PWs 1 to 11 were examined and seven documents were marked on the prosecution side. Two documents were marked on the side of the accused. The learned Magistrate, after elaborately discussing the evidence, came to the following conclusion at paragraph-22 of the Judgment dated 25.05.2005:

“22. Perused the evidence of PW-1 to 11 and the case file after perusal of the same, it creates doubt whether this accused was the d

Ex. Armymen'S Protection ... vs Union Of India And Ors. on 26 February, 2014
Wed, 26 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.

2. Natural justice is a principle of universal application. It requires that persons whose interests are to be affected by decisions, adjudicative and administrative, receive a fair and unbiased hearing before the decisions are made. The principle is traceable to the Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution of India. Whether any reasonable restriction or limitation or exception to this principle is permissible in the interest of national security, is the issue we are called upon to consider in this case.

3. The appellant was granted business of ground handling services on behalf of various airlines at different airports in the country. The ground handling service is subject to security clearance from the Central Government. Section 5 of the Aircraft Act, 1934 empowers the Government to make rules providing for licensing, inspection and regulation of aerodromes and, thus, Aircraft Rules, 1937 have been framed. Rule 92 proves for ground handling servi

Defence Research & Development ... vs Anjanappa & Anr on 26 February, 2014
Wed, 26 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

1. All these appeals and Special Leave Petitions have been preferred against various impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Ka

Ex. Armymen'S Protection ... vs Union Of India And Ors. on 26 February, 2014
Wed, 26 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.

2. Natural justice is a principle of universal application. It requires that persons whose interests are to be affected by decisions, adjudicative and administrative, receive a fair and unbiased hearing before the decisions are made. The principle is traceable to the Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution of India. Whether any reasonable restriction or limitation or exception to this principle is permissible in the interest of national security, is the issue we are called upon to consider in this case.

3. The appellant was granted business of ground handling services on behalf of various airlines at different airports in the country. The ground handling service is subject to security clearance from the Central Government. Section 5 of the Aircraft Act, 1934 empowers the Government to make rules providing for licensing, inspection and regulation of aerodromes and, thus, Aircraft Rules, 1937 have been framed. Rule 92 proves for ground handling servi

Ex. Armymen'S Protection ... vs Union Of India And Ors. on 26 February, 2014
Wed, 26 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.

2. Natural justice is a principle of universal application. It requires that persons whose interests are to be affected by decisions, adjudicative and administrative, receive a fair and unbiased hearing before the decisions are made. The principle is traceable to the Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution of India. Whether any reasonable restriction or limitation or exception to this principle is permissible in the interest of national security, is the issue we are called upon to consider in this case.

3. The appellant was granted business of ground handling services on behalf of various airlines at different airports in the country. The ground handling service is subject to security clearance from the Central Government. Section 5 of the Aircraft Act, 1934 empowers the Government to make rules providing for licensing, inspection and regulation of aerodromes and, thus, Aircraft Rules, 1937 have been framed. Rule 92 proves for ground handling servi

State Of H.P. vs Sunil Kumar on 5 March, 2014
Wed, 05 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. There are eleven appellants. All of them were tried by theAdditional Sessions Judge, Burdwan for offences punishable under Section148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. They were convictedfor offences punishable under Section 148 and Section 302 read with Section149 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for causingdeath of one Jhore Soren (“deceased-Jhore Soren”). The appellants’ appealwas dismissed by the High Court. Hence, the present appeal.

2. The prosecution story could be shortly stated:

The appellants and the prosecution witnesses belong to SanthalCommunity of village Mobarakpur. In March, 1989, deceased-Jhore Sorenkilled the hen of one Bhagbat. This created a furore in Santhal community. A Salish was called and the deceased was asked to give one hen and twohandies of country liquor to Bhagbat as a penalty by the Salishman.Deceased-Jhore Soren complied with Salishman’s order. On 14/4/1989, whendeceased-Jhore Soren and PW-7 Kanka were discussing the same incident,appellant-Bhagbat overheard it and showed his displeasure to PW-7 Kanka.When PW-7 Kanka protested, the appellant

Lalitkumar V. Sanghavi (D) Th ... vs Dharamdas V. Sanghavi & Ors. on 4 March, 2014
Tue, 04 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
Lalitkumar V. Sanghavi (D) Th ... vs Dharamdas V. Sanghavi & Ors. on 4 March, 2014
Author: Chelameswar

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3148 OF 2014

[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4267 of 2013]

Lalitkumar V. Sanghavi (D)

Th. LRs Neeta Lalit Kumar

Sanghavi & Anr. …Appellants

Versus

Dharamdas V. Sanghavi & Ors. …Respondents

J U D G E M E N T

Chelameswar, J.

1. Aggrieved by an order dated 24th September, 2010 in ArbitrationApplication No. 44/2008 on the file of the High Court of Bombay, theinstant SLP is filed by the two children of the applicant (hereinafterreferred to as “the original applicant”) in the above mentionedapplication. The SLP is filed with a delay of 717 days. Therefore, twoIAs came to be filed, one seeking substitution of the legal representativesof the deceased appellant and the other for the condonation of delay infiling the SLP.

2. The 1st respondent is the brother of the original appellant and theother respondents are the children of another deceased brother of theoriginal applicant. Respondents are served and they have contested boththe IAs.

3. Accepting the reasons given in the applications, we deem itappropriate to condone the delay in preferring the instant SLP and alsosubstitute the original appellant (since deceased) by his legalrepresentatives. Both th

C.B.I. vs Karimullah Osan Khan on 4 March, 2014
Tue, 04 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. We are, in this case, concerned with the legality of the order passedby the Designated Court under TADA (P) Act, 1987 for Bomb Blast Case,Greater Bombay, rejecting the application filed by the Central Bureau ofInvestigation (for short ‘CBI’) under Section 216 of the Code of CriminalProcedure (for short ‘CrPC’) for addition of the charges punishable underSection 302 and other charges under the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’)and the Explosives Act read with Section 120-B IPC and also under Section3(2) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (forshort ‘TADA Act’).

2. The city of Mumbai and its surrounding areas witnessed a series ofbomb blasts on 12.3.1993, whereby 257 persons were killed, 713 persons gotinjured and extensive damage to properties worth approximately Rs.27crores was caused. The State Police registered 27 criminal cases. On4.11.1993, a single charge-sheet was filed in the Designated Court against189 accused persons, of which 44 were shown as absconding. Investigationfrom the State Police was transferred to CBI on 19.11.1993 and the CBIregistered Case Crime No. RC 1 (S)/93/STF/BB. CBI, later, submit

Ashok Debbarma @ Achak Debbarma vs State Of Tripura on 4 March, 2014
Tue, 04 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. We are, in this case, concerned with a tragic incident in which agroup of Armed Extremists at Jarulbachai village in the night of 11.2.1997,set fire to twenty houses belonging to a group of linguistic minoritycommunity of Bengal settlers, in which 15 persons lost their lives, whichincluded women and children and causing extensive damage to theirproperties.

2. The Takarajala Police Station, West Tripura got information about theincident at about 11.00 p.m. on 11.2.1997 from Jarullabachai DAR Campstating that extremists had set on fire a number of houses at Jarulbachaivillage and that the people had been shot dead and injured grievously.Information so received was entered into the General Diary at theTakarajala Police Station in the form of Entry No.292 dated 11.2.1997.PW18 (Officer-in-Charge) of Takarajala Police Station visited theJarullabachai DAR Camp, cordoned off the area, and conducted search. Mostof the houses of the village were found gutted by fire. On the very nightof the occurrence, as many as 13 dead bodies were found lying at variousplaces and three persons were found lying injure

Panchraj Tiwari vs M.P.State Electricity Board & ... on 4 March, 2014
Tue, 04 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

KURIAN, J.:

1. Whether on integration/merger/amalgamation, is it permissible to have complete denial of promotion forever in the integrated service, is the short question arising for consideration in this case.

2. Appellant a graduate started his career as junior engineer on 23.09.1986 in the Rural Electricity Cooperative Society, Rewa. During 1995, it appears a policy decision was taken by the State Government to dissolve all such societies and merge the same with Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘MPSEB’). Accordingly, the Managing Committee of the Rural Electricity Cooperative Society, Rewa was superseded in May, 1995 and a Superintending Engineer of the MPSEB was appointed as Officer In-charge. However, it took a few years to complete the formalities of the merger. Finally the Rural Electricity Cooperative Society, Rewa was completely merged with the MPSEB w.e.f. 15.03.2002.

3. The principles of merger were clarified by the MPSEB after prolonged correspondence as per Annexure P-12 dated 15.06.2004. For the purpose of ready reference, we shall extract the contents:

“Please refer to this office order cited under refer

Rupak Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 4 March, 2014
Tue, 04 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD,J.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order whereby his prayer forquashing the order taking cognizance under Section 16(1)(a) of thePrevention of Food Adulteration Act and issuing process has been declined.

Short facts giving rise to the present special leave petitions arethat when the petitioner was posted as the Superintendent of District Jail,Bihar Sharif, the Food Inspector visited the jail premises and collectedsamples of various materials including Haldi and Rice. Those articles werestored for consumption of the prisoners. The samples so collected weresent for examination and analysis and, according to the report of thePublic Analyst, Haldi and Rice were not found in conformity with theprescribed standard and, therefore, held to be adulterated. Accordingly,two separate prosecution reports were submitted alleging commission of anoffence under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The learned Chief JudicialMagistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 16(1)(a) of

State Bank Of Patiala & Anr vs Ram Niwas Bansal (Dead) Through ... on 3 March, 2014
Mon, 03 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Dipak Misra, J.

Ram Niwas Bansal, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents 1 to 4, the legal heirs who have been brought on record after his death during the pendency of this appeal, while posted as Accountant at the Narnaul Branch of the appellant-Bank in the Officer Cadre, was served with a charge-sheet dated 20.10.1980 for certain financial irregularities. Two supplementary charge-sheets dated 15.1.1981 and 8.1.1982 were also issued to the said officer. After explanation was offered by late Ram Niwas Bansal, the disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer who, after conducting the enquiry, submitted his report to the General Manager (Operations) of the Bank holding that certain charges had been proved, some charges had been partly proved and some charges had not been proved. The disciplinary authority concurred with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and recommended for removal of the delinquent officer from the Bank’s service to the appointing authority in accord with the terms of

Phula Singh vs State Of H.P. on 3 March, 2014
Mon, 03 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

l. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.8.2011/7.9.2011, passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal No.358 of 2009 reversing the judgment and order dated 19.2.2009, passed by Ld. Special Judge, Hamirpur in Corruption Case No.1 of 2008 acquitting the appellant from the Charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The High Court has awarded the appellant sentence of one year RI and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for a period of six months.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are:

A. That on 20.6.2007, the appellant was working as Kanungo of the particular area and one Vakil Chand filed a complaint against the father of the complainant that he encroached upon the land thus, asked for demarcation. The appellant investigated the matter and found that one and half kanals of the land of Vikil Chand had been encroached upon by the complainan

Public Service Commission, ... vs Jagdish Chandra Singh Bora & Ors. on 3 March, 2014
Mon, 03 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1. These appeals have been filed by the Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal, Haridwar (hereinafter referred to as ‘PSCU’) challenging the judgment dated 2nd March, 2006 of the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital rendered in Writ Petition Nos. 149, 129, 135, 136, 137, 147, 148, 162, 169, 255, 302, 186, and 300 of 2004. By the aforesaid judgment, the High Court has given a direction to the appellant to give weightage of 10 bonus marks to the trained apprentice candidates as per the “Uttaranchal Subordinate Service [Emergency Direct Recruitment (First Amendment)] Rules, 2003” in the selection held by UPSC; and after adding 10 marks, merit list of the selected candidates be prepared and recommended for the appointment to the Government. It has also been directed that all the successful candidates shall be given appointment in the remaining vacancies of the Junior Engineers in the various departments of the Government and the in

U.O.I. vs M/S. Concrete Products & Const. ... on 3 March, 2014
Mon, 03 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals impugn the final judgment and decree dated 21st March, 2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in OSA No. 44 & 45 of 2012 and M.P. No. 1 of 2012, whereby the letters patent appeals of the Union of India were dismissed. The appellant had entered into agreements with the respondents on 30th January, 1983 and 30th March, 1984 for supply of mono block concrete sleepers (in short “Sleepers”). The agreements were renewed from time to time under which the Union of India agreed to pay specified rates for supply of each sleeper. The agreements/contracts also provided that the rates payable shall be based on certain standard rates of principal raw materials, such as cement, High Tensile Steel (HTS) wires, molded steel, etc. The contracts further provided that whenever the cost of the principal raw materials increased or decreased, the contract price for sleepers shall also correspondingly be increased or decreased with ef

Cbi,Acb,Mumbai vs Narendra Lal Jain & Ors on 28 February, 2014
Fri, 28 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) ACB, Mumbaiseeks to challenge an order dated 28.10.2005 passed by the High Court ofBombay quashing the criminal proceedings against the respondents NarendraLal Jain, Jayantilal L. Shah and Ramanlal Lalchand Jain. The aforesaidrespondents had moved the High Court under Section 482 Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) challenging the orders passed by thelearned Trial Court refusing to discharge them and also questioning thecontinuance of the criminal proceedings registered against them. Of thethree accused, Jayantilal L. Shah, the court is informed, has died duringthe pendency of the present appeal truncating the scope thereof to anadjudication of the correctness of the decision of the High Court in so faras accused Narendra Lal Jain and Ramanlal Lalchand Jain are concerned.

3. On the basis of two FIRs dated 22.03.1993, R.C. No. 21(A) of 1993 andR.C. No.22 (A) of 1993 were registered against the accused-respondents andseveral officers of the Bank of Maharashtra. The offences alleg

R.G High Court Of Madras vs R. Gandhi And Ors on 5 March, 2014
Wed, 05 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. The issue of selection and elevation to the office of a High Court Judge has engaged the attention of this Court. The issue of such selection reflecting transparency, objectivity and constitutional sustainability has engaged the attention of this Court since this cause came to be espoused and dealt with by a nine-Judge Bench of this Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India,

Ashok Kumar Aggarwal vs Sumit Bose & Anr. on 28 February, 2014
Fri, 28 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Chelameswar, J.

1. This contempt petition is filed complaining that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the order of this Court dated 22nd November, 2013 and, therefore, prayed that the respondents be punished for contempt and also direct the respondents to implement the judgment of this Court dated 22nd November, 2013 in Civil Appeal No. 9454 of 2013.

2. The brief factual background of the above Civil Appeal No. 9454 of 2013 is as follows:-

The applicant herein is an Officer of the Indian Revenue Service who was kept under suspension on certain allegations of misconduct on 28.12.1999. On the basis of the said allegations, criminal cases are also pending against the applicant. In view of the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the applicant's suspension continued for a long period. Eventually, the applicant challenged two orders dated 12.1.2012 and 3.2.2012 by which his suspension was continued in O.A. No. 495 of 2012 on the file of the Central

Ranjit Kumar Bose & Anr. vs Anannya Chowdhury & Anr. on 7 March, 2014
Fri, 07 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

Leave granted.

Facts of the Case

2. The appellants have inducted the respondents as tenants in respect of a shop room measuring 600 sq. feet at HA-3, Sector-3, Salt Lake City, Kolkata, and paying a monthly rent to the appellants. In respect of the tenancy, the appellants and the respondents have executed an unregistered tenancy agreement which has been notarized on 10.11.2003. On 06.03.2008, the appellants, through their Advocates, served a notice on the respondents terminating the tenancy and asking them to vacate the shop premises and the notice stated that after April, 2008 the relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellants and the respondents shall cease to exist and the respondents will be deemed to be trespassers liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.500/- per day for wrongful occupation of the shop. The respondents, however, did not vacate the shop premises and the appellants filed Title Suit No.89 of 2008 against the respondents for eviction, arrears of rent, arrears

Dir. Print.& ... vs Moti Lal & Ors. on 7 March, 2014
Fri, 07 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.

2. Both the appeals arise from the same judgment and hence they are disposed of by a common judgment.

3. The challenge is to the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad wherein the Director of Government Press was directed to consider regularization of daily-wage employees in Group-D as per Rules promulgated in December, 2001. The case has a chequered history.

4. The daily-wage Group-D employees were being engaged in the Government Press during 1985-1991. U. P. Group-‘D’ Employees Service Rules, 1985 consists of the following posts - Peon, Messenger, Chowkidar, Mali, Farash, Sweeper, Waterman, Bhisti, Tindal, Thelaman, Record-lifter and

K. Gunavathi vs V. Sangeeth Kumar & Ors on 7 March, 2014
Fri, 07 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. What clearly has been a long drawn tussle between under-qualifiedComputer Instructors appointed on ad-hoc basis (many of them have acquiredthe requisite qualification i.e. B.Ed. Degree in the meantime) andthe B.Ed. qualified candidates who are yet to be appointed but claim tohave been waiting for such appointment for long have surfaced once again,albeit, in a different manner. The challenge in these appeals is inrespect of the directions of the Madras High Court in the common orderunder challenge dated 18.09.2013, particularly, direction No. (vi) and(vii) contained in para 53. To b

Malathi Das(Retd)Now P.B.Mahish ... vs Suresh & Ors. on 7 March, 2014
Fri, 07 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is against the order dated 26.03.2007 passed by the HighCourt of Karnataka in a contempt proceeding registered as CCC No. 669 of2006. By the aforesaid order, the High Court, after holding theappellants, prima facie, guilty of commission of contempt has granted themtwo weeks time to comply with the order in respect of which disobediencehas been alleged failing which the matter was directed to be posted forframing of charge. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed the presentappeal.

3. It may be necessary to briefly outline the relevant facts on thebasis of which the allegations of commission of contempt have been made andthe conclusions, indicated above, have been reached by the High Court.

445 daily rated employees of the State serving in differentdepartments, including the 74 respondents herein, had instituted W.P. Nos.39117-176/1999 claiming regularization of service. By order dated15.12.1999, the High Court following an earlier order dated 10.9.1999passed in similar wri

Union Of India And Ors vs Major S.P. Sharma And Ors on 6 March, 2014
Thu, 06 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

M.Y. EQBAL, J.:

1. These appeals have been filed against the common judgment and order dated 21.12.2000 passed by Delhi High Court in L.P.A. Nos. 4, 43, 139, 148 of 1987, 21 of 1988, 77 of 1993 and 86 of 1994. By the said judgment, the High Court allowed the appeals preferred by the respondents and quashed not only their termination orders but also the General Court Martial (hereinafter referred to as ‘GCM’) proceedings held against Captain Ashok Kumar Rana and Captain R.S. Rathaur.

2. Before we proceed with the matter, it would be appropriate to highlight the factual background and brief history of the case. In February 1971, Gunner Sarwan Dass was cultivated by Pakistan Intelligence. In 1972 Captain Ghalwat and Gunner Sarwan Dass crossed the international border. In 1973 Captain Ghalwat and Gunner Sarwan Dass were posted in Babina (M.P.). In 1974 Gunner Aya Singh was cultivated by Gunner Sarwan Dass for Pak Intelligence. Captain Nagial was then cultivated by Aya Singh for Pak Intelligence. In 1975 for the first time the espionage racket came to be noticed. Aya Singh and Sarwan Dass were arrested. In 1976-77 pursuant to the inve

G.N. Verma vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr. on 6 March, 2014
Thu, 06 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
G.N. Verma vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr. on 6 March, 2014


Sushil Ansal vs State Thr.Cbi on 5 March, 2014
Wed, 05 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

T.S. THAKUR, J.

Enforcement of laws is as important as their enactment, especiallywhere such laws deal with safety and security of citizens and createcontinuing obligations that call for constant vigil by those entrusted withtheir administration. Callous indifference and apathy, extraneousinfluence or considerations and the cynical “Chalta Hai” attitude moreoften than not costs the society dearly in man-made tragedies whether inthe form of fire incidents, collapse of buildings and bridges, poisonousgas leaks or the like. Short-lived media attention followed byinvestigations that at times leave the end result flawed and a long windingcriminal trial in which the witnesses predecease their depositions orswitch sides under pressure or for gain and where even the victims or theirfamilies lose interest brings the sad saga to an uncertain end. A somewhatsimilar story is presented in these appeals by special leave arising out ofa common judgment and order dated 19th December, 2008 passed by a SingleJudge of High Court of Delhi whereby a batch of criminal appeals filed bythose convicted by the trial Co

Meera Devi & Anr. vs H.R.T.C & Ors. on 10 March, 2014
Mon, 10 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

N.V.RAMANA,J.

1. The appellants by way of this appeal has impugned the judgment dated 27.03.2006 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in FAO No. 441 of 2003 whereby the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Petition No. 58 of 2001 was reduced from Rs.3,17,200/- to Rs.1,58,600/- on the ground of contributory negligence.

2. On 31.05.2001, the deceased Upamnyu, who was the only son of the appellants herein, was driving scooter having registration No. HP- 28-215 from Mandi side towards Sarkaghat. When he reached at a place known as Nabahi, an accident took place between the said scooter and bus having registration No. HP-28-715, which was being driven by respondent No. 3 herein, namely, Gian Chand, driver in H.R.T.C., Region Sakarghat, Mandi, H.P. Since the deceased got injured in that accident, he was taken to C.HC. Sakarghat and thereafter when he was being taken to PGI Chandigarh, he died on his way.


T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 March, 2014
Wed, 12 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1. This order will dispose of the I. As. noted above.

2. Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 was filed as a PIL under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for and on behalf of the people living in and around the Nilgiri Forest on the Western Ghats. The petitioner sought to challenge the legality and the validity of the actions of the State of Tamil Nadu, the Collector, Nilgiris District and the District Forest Officer, Gudalur and the Timber Committee represented through the Collector, Nilgiris (Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 respectively), in destroying the tropical rain forest in the Gudalur and Nilgiri areas in violation of the Forest Act, 1927, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and Tamil Nadu Hill Stations Preservation of Trees Act and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. This, according to the petitioner

Sudipta Lenka vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 12 March, 2014
Wed, 12 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. A young law student of Bangalore, who belongs to the State of Odisha,has filed the present application under Article 32 of the Constitutionhighlighting what she has perceived to be a serious infringement of thefundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21 consequent to a tragic incidentwherein one Itishree Pradhan was set ablaze on 27.10.2013 at a place calledTikiri located in Rayagada District in the State of Odisha. Theunfortunate victim of the incident died on 01.11.2013.

2. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid Itishree Pradhan(hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) joined as a Siksha Sahayika(contractual government teacher) in the Tikiri Upper Primary School on18.06.2011. As she was facing difficulty in finding accommodation, oneNetrananda Dandasena, (now an accused and hereinafter referred to as “theaccused”), who was then serving as Sub Inspector of Schools at Tikiri,offered her accommodation in his own house. It appears that the deceasedwas sexually harassed by the aforesaid accused which led to a complaint bythe deceased before the local police on 18.07.2013. The petitioner allegesthat no action on the said complaint was taken by

Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan vs U.O.I. & Ors. on 12 March, 2014
Wed, 12 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been preferred, by an organisation dedicated to the welfare of inter-state migrants, in the nature of public interest seeking exercise of this court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Constitution’) to remedy the concerns that have arisen because of “hate speeches”, through the following prayers:

a. Issue appropriate writ, order, decree in the nature of mandamus declaring hate/derogatory speeches made by people representatives/political/religious leaders on religion, caste, region and ethnic lines are violative of Articles 14 (Equality before Law), 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste or place of birth), 16 (Equality in matters of public employment), 19 (Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc.), 21 (Protection of Life

Kanhaiya Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 March, 2014
Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

C. NAGAPPAN, J.

Leave granted.

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, in D.B. Crl. Appeal No.515 of 2004.

2. The appellant herein Kanhaiya Lal, is accused No.2 in Sessions Trial No.01 of 2004 on the file of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.1, Dungarpur, -

3. and he was tried for the alleged offences under Section 302 and 201 IPC and on being found guilty was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 302 IPC and further sentenced to undergo 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 201 IPC, and the sentences were ordere

Bhagwan Tukaram Dange vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 March, 2014
Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Appellant herein, accused No.1 (A-1) along with his father, accusedNo.2 (A-2) was charge-sheeted for the offences of murder of his wife underSections 302, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. A-1 andA-2 were found guilty and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life, with adefault sentence. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, theyfiled Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2000 before the High Court of Bombay and thesame was dismissed vide judgment dated 09.02.2004. A-2 later died and A-1,aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court has filed this appeal.

2. The prosecution story is as under:

A-1 son and A-2 father returned to their house on 18.10.1998 at about7.00 PM, fully drunk. On reaching home, they demanded Rs.200/- to Rs.300/-from the wife of A-1. On refusal, she was severely beaten up and asked tobring it from her parental house. A-2 then sprinkled kerosene from aplastic can over the body of the deceased and A-1 then lit a match-stickand set fire on the saree of the deceased. Deceased shouted for help androlled down on the ground and ultimately succeeded in extinguishing thefire, but by the time she had suffere

Jumni & Ors. vs State Of Haryana on 12 March, 2014
Wed, 12 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The two questions for consideration and discussion relate to thevalue of the testimony of alibi witnesses and the severability of a dyingdeclaration.

2. In the present appeals, we are of the opinion that the testimony ofthe alibi witnesses of two of the four appellants deserves acceptance andthe dying declaration so closely concerns all four appellants that it isnot possible to sever the role of the sets of appellants, resulting in ourgiving the benefit of doubt to the remaining two appellants.The facts:

3. Six relatives (by marriage) of deceased Asha Devi were accused ofhaving murdered her and thereby having committed an offence punishableunder Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons were RatiRam (father-in-law, now died), Jumni (mother-in-law and appellant inCriminal Appeal No. 1159 of 2005), Sh

Rajasthan State Tpt Corpn. & Anr. vs Bajrang Lal on 14 March, 2014
Fri, 14 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as `Corporation’) against the judgment and order dated 8.11.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 449 of 2003 upholding the judgment and decree dated 28.1.2003 in Civil Regular Appeal No. 119 of 2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Jaipur, by which and whereunder, it has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1994 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 2, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 1346 of 1988.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: A. The respondent while working as a trainee conductor on daily basis was found carrying certain passengers without tickets and, thus, an enquiry was initiated against him. Two chargesheets dated 11.3.1988 were served upon him. In the first chargesheet, it was alleged that on 24.2.1988 while he was on duty enroute Kota-Rajpura,

Phanidhar Kalita vs Saraswati Devi & Anr. on 14 March, 2014
Fri, 14 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

C. NAGAPPAN, J.

1. These appeals are preferred against the judgment and decree dated23.3.2007 in R.S.A. No.116 of 2000 and the order dated 1.4.2008 in ReviewPetition no.1 of 2008 passed by the learned single Judge of the GuwahatiHigh Court, whereby the High Court has partly allowed the Regular SecondAppeal and dismissed the Review Petition, both filed by the appellantherein.

2. The appellant/plaintiff herein filed the Title Suit no.11 of 1987against the respondent/defendant no.1 herein in the Court of Civil Judge(Junior Division) no.2, Mangaldoi for declaration of title in respect of 1katha 16 lechas of land described in schedule-1 to the plaint covered byDag no.52/575 of P.P. no.960 situated in village Mangaldoi gaon and alsofor recovery of khas possession of the suit land described in schedule-2,which is a part of the land in schedule-1 by demolishing the structure putby respondent no.1 herein/defendant no.1 and also for permanent injunctionrestraining the respondents herein/defendants from raising newconstructions on the suit land. The case of the appellant/plaintiff isthat he purchased 1 bigha of land, mentioned in schedule-1, from one Mu

Kesharbai @ Pushpabai Eknathrao ... vs Tarabai Prabhakarrao Nalawade & ... on 14 March, 2014
Fri, 14 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 23rd March, 2009 of the High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) rendered in First Appeal No.468 of 2004 whereby the High Court has partly allowed the First Appeal of the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The High Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs in respect of the agricultural lands and house property at Chikalthan and Neem Dongri. At the same time, the High Court has set aside the judgment of the trial court on Issue No.3 relating to the question as to whether house bearing No.4.13.78 bearing CTS No.4705 admeasuring 138.2 sq. meters alongwith house structure standing therein situated at Nageshwarwadi, Aurangabad is the self acquired property of deceased Eknathrao.

3. The admitted facts are that plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 to 4 are the wife and children of deceased Pr

J.Rajiv Subramaniyan & Anr vs M/S Pandiyas & Ors. on 14 March, 2014
Fri, 14 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These special leave petitions are directed against the final judgment and order dated 14th June, 2011 passed by the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) in W.A.No.417 of 2011 dismissing the aforesaid Writ Appeal filed by the appellants.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

4. Mr. Ashok Desai learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that although many issues have been raised in the SLP, he is not pressing the point that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. The point with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition was taken on the basis of a judgment of this Court in the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon & Ors.[1]. It was urged before the High Court that an a

Biswanath Ghosh(Dead By Lrs.) & ... vs Gobinda Ghosh & Ors. on 14 March, 2014
Fri, 14 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
Biswanath Ghosh(Dead By Lrs.) & ... vs Gobinda Ghosh & Ors. on 14 March, 2014


Phatu Rochiram Mulchandani vs Kar.Indusl.Area Devt.Board & ... on 12 March, 2014
Wed, 12 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

A.K. SIKRI, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. In this appeal the appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 11.2.2010 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Company Appeal which was preferred by the appellant herein against the orders dated 3.9.2009 by the Company Judge of the said court. Respondent No. 2 namely M/s. Relectronics Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company') is ordered to be wound up and liquidation proceedings are pending before the Company Court. Respondent No. 1 i.e. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') had allotted an industrial plots to the Company on lease-cum-sale basis for a period of 11 years. The Board terminated the lease. The Company Judge, on application filed by the Board, had directed the liquidator to release the said land to the Board and the appeal by the appellant against this o

Sheela Jawarlal Nagori & Anr. vs Kantilal Nathmal Baldota & Ors. on 25 March, 2014
Tue, 25 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The question before us is whether a landlord can maintain a suit foreviction of his tenant even after an award has been passed in respect ofthe tenanted property under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,1894. In our opinion, the answer must be in the affirmative.

2. The petitioners in both special leave petitions are the tenants ofthe respondent landlord. For convenience we have taken the facts from SLP(C) No. 37456 of 2013, but note that the issue that arises in both thecases is the same and the hearing proceeded on this basis.

3. The landlord had instituted Civil Suit No. 433 of 2000 in the Courtof the 5th Additional Small Cause Judge and Jt. Civil Judge, SeniorDivision, Pune for vacant possession of the ‘suit property’ being CTS Old99-B Raviwar Peth, New 767 Budhwar Peth, Pune from the tenant. Thecontention of the landlord was that the suit property was open space letout to the tenants and that it was not protected by the Mahar

Union Of India vs Sheo Shambhu Giri on 25 March, 2014
Tue, 25 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Chelameswar, J.

1. Aggrieved by the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 359 of 2003 of theHigh Court of Patna, the instant appeal is preferred by the Union of India.

2. By the judgment under appeal, three appeals came to be preferred bythe three different accused who were convicted for different offences underthe Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “theNDPS Act”) by the Court of 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge,Mothari of East Champaran District in Excise Case No. 31 of 2001 by itsjudgment dated 12th June, 2003. By the judgment under appeal, theconviction of all the appellants was set aside. It is not very clearwhether any appeals are preferred against the acquittal of the other twoaccused except the respondent herein.

3. The sole respondent along with two other accused was tried foroffences under Sections 23 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The trial court foundthe respondent herein guilty of an offence under Section 23 of the NDPS Actbut found that the charge under Section 29 of the Act is not proved againsthim. He was, therefore, convicted for an offence under Section 23 of theNDPS Act and sent

Vijay Singh & Anr. vs State Of M.P. on 25 March, 2014
Tue, 25 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD,J.

In the present appeal by way of special leave, we are concerned withappellants Vijay Singh and Hari Singh.

According to the prosecution, on 16th of June, 1992 at about 6.30A.M., a report was lodged by the informant, Pohap Singh (PW-1), allegingthat while he was at his house, his father Bhagirath (deceased) wasreturning home after answering the nature’s call and at that time, 11accused persons including appellant no. 2 Hari Singh armed with farsa andappellant no. 1 Vijay Singh armed with a ballam and other accused armedwith axes surrounded him. Seeing this, according to the informant, hismother Prema Bai (PW-2), his wife Sheela (PW-3) and grandfather Jagannath(PW-6) went to rescue him, whereupon informant Pohap Singh was assaulted bylathi by one of the accused. Meanwhile, appellant no. 2, Hari Singhinflicted an injury on the neck of the deceased with farsa upon which hefell down. Thereafter, all the accused assaulted the deceased with theweapons with which they were armed. It is the case of the prosecution thatappellant no. 1, Vijay Singh caused an injury with a ballam near the eye ofthe deceased and he died on the s

Mannalal Chamaria & Anr. vs State Of West Bengal & Anr. on 25 March, 2014
Tue, 25 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The question arising for consideration in these appeals relates to the alleged failure (and consequential effect) of Pradip Sarkar tospecifically state in his complaint filed under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that theappellants/accused persons were in charge of and responsible forthe conduct of the business of M/s. Heritage Herbs Ltd. of whichthey were said to be Directors.

2. In a complaint filed on 31st March, 2001, Pradip Sarkar alleged thatHeritage Herbs had made an offer for collecting money from the market witha view to allot land to the intending investors. On the basis of theoffer made, Pradip Sarkar invested an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and HeritageHerbs issued three receipt-cum-allotment letters for three plots of landto Pradip Sarkar. At the time of handing over the receipt-cum-allotmentletters, P

Brijesh Kumar & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 24 March, 2014
Mon, 24 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

1. These petitions have been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 22.11.2013, passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing the Civil Misc. Applications in RFA No.5793 of 2012 for condonation of delay of more than10 years in filing the appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2. The land of the petitioners alongwith the lands of others admeasuring 134 acres, 5 kanals and 10 marlas situate in revenue estate of village Manakpur, Hadbast No.386, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar stood notified under Section 4 of the Act on 8.9.1993. In respect of the same, the award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 8.10.1997 assessing the market value of the land of the petitioners @ Rs.1,75,000/- per acre.

3. Aggrieved, the petitioners and other persons interested filed references under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation and the Reference Court made the award on 7.9.2001 assessing the market value of the land @ Rs.1,85,000/- per acre and

Mohd.Haroon & Ors. vs Union Of India & Anr. on 26 March, 2014
Wed, 26 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

P.Sathasivam, CJI.

1) These writ petitions and other connected matters relate to the riotsthat broke out on the fateful day of 07.09.2013. The riots erupted in andaround District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh as a result of communaltension prevailing in the city, which wrecked lives of a large number ofpeople who fled from their homes out of anxiety and fear.

2) It is asserted in these

Haryana State Agriculatural ... vs Bishamber Dayal Goyal & Ors. on 26 March, 2014
Wed, 26 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed assailing the order dated April 13, 2005 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the National Commission”) in Revision Petition Nos. 534-537 of 2005, affirming the order dated November 10, 2004 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”), which further confirmed the order dated September 20, 2001 passed by the District Forum.

2. The facts of the case briefly are as follows :

a) By a notification dated November 16, 1971, the Haryana State Government under Section 7 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’), notified the area of New Grain Mandi, Adampur as Market Area. Subsequently, in the year 1974, the areas/limits were further extended by five kilometers. In 1980, the State Government notified a sub-market yard of New Grain Mandi, Adampur. The Colonization Department of the State by a letter dated January 24, 1986, transferred

Jacinta De Silva vs Rosarinho Costa & Ors. on 25 March, 2014
Tue, 25 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the orderpassed by the High Court wherein the High Court was pleased to set asidethe order passed by the Executing Court in connection with an executionapplication. The Executing Court held that the decree passed by the CivilCourt was without any jurisdiction and thereby it is a nullity andaccordingly dismissed the said execution proceedings.

3. The facts revealed in this case are that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the owners of the property known as “Madel” situated at Curtorim, Salcete, Goa, which was allotted to them by a Deed of Partition registered before the Notary Public. In the property exists a residential house and a mundkarial house (suit house bearing No. 1124). The said mundkarial house was in occupation of one Jose Francisco D’Silva (hereinafter referred to as ‘Jose’) prior to 1977 as a Mundkar of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and after th

Soumik Sil vs Subhas Chandra Sil on 25 March, 2014
Tue, 25 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the High Court dated February 10, 2011 whereby the application filed by the respondent herein under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) was allowed and the plaint was rejected. The High Court set aside the order passed by the Trial Court refusing such prayer.

3. The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows :

3.1) A suit was filed for declaration and injunction by the appellantalong with Smt. Ashima Sen, mother of the present appellant. The appellantherein and plaintiff No.1 (the mother) filed a suit being Title Suit beingNo.2430 of 2007 before the City Civil Court at Calcutta, and the followingreliefs were prayed for in the said suit :

“a) For a decree for declaration that the defendant, his men and agents have no right to obstruct the user of the suit flat by the plaintiffs by any means prejudicial

Savita vs Bindar Singh And Ors on 25 March, 2014
Tue, 25 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated April 16, 2013 passedby the High Court of Uttrakhand affirming the award dated December 3, 2012passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Haridwar in Motor AccidentClaim Petition No.75/2011. The Tribunal directed the respondent – OrientalInsurance Co. Ltd. – to pay a sum of [pic]4,28,000/- to the claimant. Beingaggrieved by the quantum of compensation, this appeal has been filed by theappellant-claimant.

3. Briefly the facts of this case are as follows:

3.1 One Sandeep Chauhan died in an accident on November 26, 2010 due torash and negligent driving by the driver of a truck bearing registrationNo.HR-56-6047 between Ram Nagar and Dhandhera. The claim petition was filedunder Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensationagainst the respondents.

3.2 In the claim petition, the appellant/claimant asked for compensationof [pic]20,20,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum fromthe respondents/opposite parties. The parties filed their pleadings befor

Fahim Ahmad & Ors. vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & ... on 25 March, 2014
Tue, 25 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

N.V. RAMANA,J.

1. The short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is who is liable to pay the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udham Singh Nagar (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in M.A.C.P. No. 98/2003 vide Award dated 06.08.2004.

2. Brief facts of the case are thus : On 06.03.2003, the deceased Atma Singh, the husband of appellant -

3. No. 1 and the father of appellants No. 2 and 3 herein, was going from Kashipur crossing towards Tada Ujjain. When he reached the Station Road in front of godown, suddenly one tractor having registration No. UP-21-H-4596 coming at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased from behind, as a result of which, he became seriously injured and died on the spot. Thus, the appellants-claimants claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and averred that the deceased was 49 years’ old having month

Sundeep Kumar Bafna vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 27 March, 2014
Thu, 27 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. A neat legal nodus of ubiquitous manifestation and gravity hasarisen before us. It partakes the character of a general principle of lawwith significance sans systems and States. The futility of the Appellant’sendeavours to secure anticipatory bail having attained finality, he hadonce again knocked at the portals of the High Court of Judicature atBombay, this time around for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure (CrPC), which was declined with the observations that itis the Magistrate whose jurisdiction has necessarily to be invoked and notof the High Court or even the Sessions Judge. The legality of thisconclusion is the gravemen of the appeal before us. While declining togrant anticipatory bail to the Appellant, this Court had extended to himtransient insulation from arrest for a period of four weeks to enable himto apply for regular bail, even in the face of the rejection of hisSpecial Leave Petition on 28.1.2014. This course was courted by him, inthe event again in vain,

Mangat Ram vs State Of Haryana on 27 March, 2014
Thu, 27 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. The appellant Mangat Ram, a member of SC community, married thedeceased Seema, a member of the Aggarwal community on 13.7.1993 at Ambala.Few months after the marriage, on 15.9.1993, according to the prosecution,the appellant sprinkled kerosene oil on the body of the deceased and sether on fire, having failed to meet the dowry demand. On hearing the hueand cry, neighbours assembled and took her to the Civil Hospital, Gohanaand, later, she was shifted to the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak,where she died on 17.9.1993. The appellant, along with his parents andsister, were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC.

2. The prosecution, in order to bring home the offences, examined PWs 1to 7 and also produced various documents. On the side of defence, DWs 1 to5 were examined and the accused appellant got himself examined as DW6.After the evidence was closed, the accused was questioned under Section 313of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), who denied all theincriminating statements made against him. The trial Court, afterappreciating the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion t

P.C.Mishra vs State(C.B.I) & Anr. on 27 March, 2014
Thu, 27 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. We are, in this appeal, concerned with the question whether thepardon granted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari, Delhi, underSection 306 Cr.P.C. to the second Respondent, against whom R.C. No.15(A)96 DLI dated 29.2.1996 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation, is legallysustainable.

2. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered R.C. No.15(A) 96DLI dated 29.2.1996 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 (for short “PC Act”) on receipt of a written complaint on 29.2.1996from Gulshan Sikri, proprietor of M/s Filtrex India, Nangal Raya, NewDelhi, against P.C. Mishra, the then Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax(Appeals), Appellant herein, for demanding Rs.4,000/- as bribe for settlingthe appeal filed against the order of Sales Tax Officer.

3. CBI, on 1.3.1996, laid a trap and the accused, PC Mishra, and hisReader Ravi Bhatt, second Respondent herein, were caught red-handed whiledemanding and accepting the bribe from the complainant. Both the accusedpersons were arrested by the CBI on 1.3.1996 and, during

Safai Karamchari Andolan And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 27 March, 2014
Thu, 27 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

P.Sathasivam, CJI.

1) The above writ petition has been filed by the petitioners as a PublicInterest Litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution of India prayingfor issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondent-Union of India, StateGovernments and Union Territories to strictly enforce the implementation ofthe Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines(Prohibition) Act, 1993 (in short ‘the Act’), inter alia, seeking forenforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 17, 21 and47 of the Constitution of India.

2) Brief facts:

(i) The inhuman practice of manually removing night soil which involvesremoval of human excrements from dry toilets with bare hands, brooms ormetal scrappers; carrying excrements and baskets to dumping sites fordisposal is a practice

Narinder Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 27 March, 2014
Thu, 27 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

A.K.SIKRI,J.

1. The present Special Leave Petition has been preferred against the impugned judgment/final order dated 8.10.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.27343/2013. It was a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) for quashing of FIR No.121/14.7.2010 registered under Sections 307/324/323/34,IPC, on the basis of compromise dated 22.7.2013 entered into between the petitioners ( who are accused in the said FIR) and respondent No.2 (who is the complainant). The High Court has refused to exercise its extraordinary discretion invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Code on the ground that four injuries were suffered by the complainant and as per the opinion of the Doctor, injury No.3 were serious in nature. The High Court, thus, refused to accept the compromise entered into between the parties, the effect whereof would be that the petitioners would face trial in the said FIR.

2. Leave grant

Homi Rajvansh vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. on 27 March, 2014
Thu, 27 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

P.Sathasivam, CJI.

1) Leave granted.

2) The above appeal is filed against the final impugned judgment andorder dated 29.06.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay inCriminal Writ Petition No. 220 of 2010 wherein the High Court quashed thecriminal proceedings against Alok Ranjan-Respondent No.3 herein (writpetitioner in the High Court) in C.C. No. 1036/CPW/2008 pending before theMetropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai.

3) Brief facts:

(a) The appellant, an Indian Revenue Service Officer, joined NationalAgricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. (NAFED), ondeputation on 15.07.2003 as an Executive Director.

(b) On 01.10.2003, Respondent No.3 herein–Alok Ranjan took over thecharge as the new Managing Director of NAFED and he approved the 1st Non-agricultural tie-up of NAFED on 13.10.2003 in order to diversify NAFED’sbusiness activities to cope up from severe financial crunch so that incomefrom other businesses can compensate the losses being made on trading ofagricultural items. Respondent No. 3 participated in all the mee

Western Elect.Sup.Co.Of Orissa ... vs M/S Baba Baijanath Roller & Flour ... on 26 March, 2014
Wed, 26 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against an order dated August 3, 2010 passed by the High Court of Orissa allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent, quashing the bill issued by the appellant for a sum of [pic]5,10,930/- as well the notice of disconnection dated October 5, 2010.

3. The respondent-writ petitioner is a registered company, inter alia, carrying on its business under the name and style of M/s. Baba Baijnath Roller and Flour Mill Pvt. Ltd., having installed a Mill in the district of Jharsuguda and is the consumer of the appellant herein.

4. The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows :

4.1 The respondent alleged in the writ petition that on an inspection conducted by the appellant on September 9, 2002 at t

Exec.Director Steel Auth.Of ... vs Tycoon Traders & Ors. on 26 March, 2014
Wed, 26 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated February 21, 2012passed by the High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No.38280/2011.

3. The facts of the case reveal that on February 19, 2007, SteelAuthority of India (for short ‘SAIL’) had advertised for E-auction of 1.00lakh metric tons of iron ore (fines) from Kemmanagundi mines. On March 13,2007, auction was held and respondent No.1 was declared as the successfultenderer. It would be evident from the sale order dated March 16, 2007 thatthe price was agreed upon at [pic]1,132/- per metric ton plus VAT of 4%aggregating to [pic]11,32,00,000/- plus VAT of 4%. Theappellant duly paid [pic]176 lakhs being 15% of the total sale value onMarch 15, 2007. Out of the said amount, [pic]58.86 lakhs being 5% of thetotal sale value was retained as Security Deposit and a sum of [pic]117.74lakhs was kept for adjustment along with the final instalment. The balancepayment was to be made in two monthly instalments with the gra

In Re: vs Indian Woman Says Gang-Raped On ... on 28 March, 2014
Fri, 28 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

P.Sathasivam, CJI.

1) This Court, based on the news item published in the Business andFinancial News dated 23.01.2014 relating to the gang-rape of a 20 year oldwoman of Subalpur Village, P.S. Labpur, District Birbhum, State of WestBengal on the intervening night of 20/21.01.2014 on the orders of communitypanchayat as punishment for having relationship with a man from a differentcommunity, by order dated 24.01.2014, took suo motu action and directed theDistrict Judge, Birbhum District, West Bengal to inspect the place ofoccurrence and submit a report to this Court within a period of one weekfrom that date.

2) Pursuant to the direction dated 24.01.2014, the District Judge,Birbhum District, West Bengal along with the Chief Judicial Magistrateinspected the place in question and submitted a Report to this Court.However, this Court, on 31.01.2014, after noticing that there was noinformation in the Report as to the steps taken by the police against thepersons concerned, directed the Chief Secretary, West Bengal to submit adetailed report in this regard within a period of two weeks. On the sameday, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Additional Solicitor General wasrequested to assist the Court as amicus

Sanghian Pandian Rajkumar vs Cbi & Anr on 28 March, 2014
Fri, 28 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

P.Sathasivam, CJI.

1) Leave granted in both the appeals.

2) These appeals are directed against the orders dated 20.11.2013 and10.07.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in CriminalBail Application Nos. 2002 and 1713 of 2012 respectively, whereby the HighCourt dismissed the bail applications of both the appellants pending trial.

3) The appellant - Sanghian Pandian Rajkumar (Accused No. 2), an IPSOfficer, is one of the accused persons in Special Case No. 5 of 2010 (RCBS1/S/2010/0004-Mumbai dated 01.02.2010), who was charge-sheeted, interalia, for the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections302, 364, 365, 368, 193, 197, 342, 420, 384, 201 and 34 of the Indian PenalCode, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’) and Sections 25(1B)(a) and

M/S S.F.Engineer vs Metal Box India Ltd.& Anr on 28 March, 2014
Fri, 28 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal, by special leave, by the landlord arises out of and is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.8.2010 of the Bombay High Court passed in Civil Revision Application No. 355 of 2010, allowing the respondent-tenants’ appeal and – in reversal of the concurrent findings of the courts below that there was an unauthorized subletting – dismissing appellant’s application under 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 for an order for grant of possession.

3. The appellant-plaintiff, owner of the suit premises, i.e., Flat Nos. 201 and 204 on second floor of the building known as “Marlow” and two garages Nos. 7 and 8 on the ground floor of the suit building situate at 62-B, Pochkhanwala Road, Worli, Mumbai, instituted RAE No. 45/84 of 1997 for eviction of the first respondent (defendant No. 1) and its former employee, the respondent No. 2 (defendant No. 2). For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per the rank in the suit.

4. The case of the plaintiff in the court below was that the defendant No. 1 was a

Usha Bharti vs State Of U.P. & Ors. on 28 March, 2014
Fri, 28 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) in Review Petition No.103 of 2013 on 4th July, 2013 dismissing the review petition filed by the appellant.

3. Since the issues raised in these appeals are pristinely legal, it would not be necessary to make a detailed reference to the facts, leading to the filing of the present appeals. Even otherwise, the High Court in the impugned judgment has made an elaborate survey of the facts. Therefore, it is unnecessary to repeat the same. However, the foundational facts for challenging the impugne

Dr. Subramanian Swamy And Ors. vs Raju Thr.Member Juvenile Justice ... on 28 March, 2014
Fri, 28 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

SLP (Crl.) No.1953 of 2013

1. On 16th December, 2012 a young lady (23 years in age) and her friendwere returning home after watching a movie in a multiplex located in one ofthe glittering malls of Delhi. They boarded a bus to undertake a part ofthe journey back home. While the bus was moving, 5 persons brutallyassaulted the young lady, sexually and physically, and also her friend.Both of them were thrown out of the bus. The young lady succumbed to herinjuries on 29.12.2012.

2. Five persons were apprehended in connection with the crime. One ofthem, identified for the purpose of the present case as Raju, was below 18years of age on the date of commission of the crime. Accordingly, incompliance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 ( asamended and hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) his case was referred forinquiry to the Juvenile Justice Board. The other accused were tried in aregular sessions court and have been

Bhule Ram vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 March, 2014
Fri, 28 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 8.12.2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Land Acquisition Appeal No. 154 of 2007 by which the High Court has assessed the market value of the land @Rs.6,51,000/- per acre modifying the award under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) under which the land had been assessed @Rs.5,99,850/- per acre. The appellant claimed that his land ought to have been assessed @Rs.10,00,000/- per acre.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: A. Land comprised in Khasra Nos. 752(4-16), 753(4-16), 765(4-16), in all 24 bighas, in which the appellant had 1/3rd share and Khasra Nos. 757 (6-15), 758(4-17) and 761(4-16), in all 16 bighas 8 biswas (full share), situated in revenue village Aali, Delhi, stood notified under Section 4 of the Act for the purpose of construction of Ash Pond at Badarpur Thermal Power Station on 16.10.1992 alongwith a huge tract of land belonging to other persons in different villages. B

H.C. Of Judicature At Patna Thr. ... vs Shyam Deo Singh & Ors. on 28 March, 2014
Fri, 28 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. By a communication dated 17.5.2000 issued by the Registrar General ofthe Patna High Court the respondent herein was informed that he wouldretire from the service on completion of 58 years of age. The saidcommunication of the Registrar General was, inter alia, based on a decisionof the High Court on the administrative side taken in a meeting of the FullCourt held on 6.5.2000 wherein the decision of its Evaluation Committeedated 2.5.2000 not to extend the service of the respondent beyond the ageof 58 years was approved. All the aforesaid decisions being challenged,were set aside by the High Court by its order dated 20.2.2001 and thematter was directed to be reconsidered. Aggrieved, the High Court is inappeal before us.

2. A perusal of the order under challenge goes to show that two reasons,in the main, had prevailed upon the High Court to arrive at the impugnedconclusion.

The first is that the negative remarks/adverse comments recorded inthe Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of the respondent on 15.12.1995 werenot communicated to the respondent and the foundational facts for the saidremarks are wholly unsubstant

B.Jayaraj vs State Of A.P. on 28 March, 2014
Fri, 28 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated25.04.2011 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh affirming the orderof conviction passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases,City Civil Court Hyderabad, whereby the accused appellant has been foundguilty of commission of the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d)(i)(ii)read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (forshort “the Act”). The accused appellant has been sentenced to undergorigorous imprisonment for one year for each of the offences and also to paya fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for threemonths more.

3. According to the prosecution, the accused appellant was, at therelevant point of time, working as a Mandal Revenue officer (MRO) in theRanga Reddy District of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The complainantK.Venkataiah (PW-2) had a fair price shop in Dadupally village. On8.11.1995, the complainant, it is alleged, had approached the accusedappellant for release of essential commodities against his shop for them

Sakuma Exports Ltd vs Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse ... on 28 March, 2014
Fri, 28 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.

1. After hearing the parties at length and upon going through the impugned judgment and order dated 6.8.2013 passed by Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No. 337 of 2013, filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), we are of the considered view that the impugned order is based upon proper appreciation of relevant facts and follows the law laid down by this Court correctly in arriving at the finding that in the facts of the case the courts in India have no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 34 of the Act, challenging the international commercial award of an arbitral tribunal constituted by the Refined Sugar Association, London.

S.L.P.(C)No.27404 of 2013 …. (contd.)

2. There is no dispute between the parties that the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bharat Aluminium Company etc. vs. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. etc. (BALCO)[1] overruled the earlier judgment in Bhatia International Vs.

Vijay Dhanuka Etc. vs Najima Mamtaj Etc. on 27 March, 2014
Thu, 27 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD,J.

Petitioners have been summoned in a complaint case for commission ofoffence under Section 323, 380 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IndianPenal Code, hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”. Respondent No. 1 filed acomplaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jangipur,Murshidabad on 1st of October, 2011, who after taking cognizance of thesame, transferred the complaint to the Court of Judicial Magistrate,Jangipur, Murshidabad for inquiry and disposal.

According to the allegation in the complaint petition, accused no.1Rajdip Dey is sub-broker of Karvy Stock Broking Limited; whereas otheraccused persons are its officials posted at Kolkata and Hyderabad. Thecomplainant alleged to be its investor and claimed to have purchased sharesfrom Karvi Stock Broking Ltd. through the sub-broker, accused No. 1.According to the complaint, a dispute arose over trading of shares betweenthe complainant and the accused persons and to settle the on-going dispute,the accused persons offered a proposal to the complainant who consented toit and accordingly, on 11th of September, 2011, accused persons visite

State Of Bihar & Ors. vs Rajmangal Ram on 31 March, 2014
Mon, 31 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Leave, as prayed for, is granted in both the matters.

2. The two appeals are by the State of Bihar against separate orders(dated 23.03.2012 and 03.03.2011) passed by the High Court of Patna, theeffect of which is that the criminal proceedings instituted against therespondents under different provisions of the Indian Penal Code as well asthe Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have been interdicted on the groundthat sanction for prosecution of the respondents in both the cases has beengranted by the Law Department of the State and not by the parent departmentto which the respondents belong.

3. A short and interesting question, which is also of considerablepublic importance, has arisen in the appeals under consideration. Beforeproceeding further it will be necessary to take note of the fact that inthe appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8013 of 2012 the challenge of therespondent- writ petitioner bef

P. Ramakrishnam Raju vs Union Of India & Ors. on 31 March, 2014
Mon, 31 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

P.Sathasivam, CJI.

1) The main question which arises for consideration is whether HighCourt Judges, who are appointed from the Bar under Article 217(2)(b) of theConstitution of India, on retirement, are entitled for an addition of 10years to their service for the purposes of their pension?

2) The above petitions have been filed by former Judges of the variousHigh Courts of the country as well as by the Association of the RetiredJudges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts elevated from the Bar.

3) The petitioners have prayed that the

Reliance Industries Ltd. & Ors. vs U.O.I. on 31 March, 2014
Mon, 31 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,J.

1. This petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1996, with a prayer for appointment of the third and the presiding arbitrator, as the two arbitrators nominated by the parties have failed to reach a consensus on the appointment of the third arbitrator.

2. Petitioner No.1 is a company incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956; Petitioner No.2 is a company incorporated in Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands; Petitioner No.3 is a company incorporated according to the laws of England & Wales. The Respondent herein is Union of India (hereinafter referred to as “UOI”), represented by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.

3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are as under:

4. In 1999, UOI announced a policy-New Exploration and Licensing Policy (hereinafter referred to as “NELP”). Under NELP, certain blocks of hydrocarbon reserves were offered for exploration, development and production to private contractors under the agreements which were in th

Navneet Kaur vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 31 March, 2014
Mon, 31 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

P.Sathasivam, CJI.

1) Navneet Kaur w/o Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, filed the present CurativePetition against the dismissal of Review Petition (Criminal) No.435 of 2013in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 146 of 2011 on 13.08.2013, wherein sheprayed for setting aside the death sentence imposed upon Devender Pal SinghBhullar by commuting the same to imprisonment for life on the ground ofsupervening circumstance of delay of 8 years in disposal of mercy petition.

2) Considering the limited issue involved, there is no need to traverse allthe factual details. The brief background of the case is: By judgment dated25.08.2001, Devender Pal Singh Bhullar was sentenced to death by theDesignated Judge, Delhi. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal being CriminalAppeal No. 993 of 2001 before this Court and by judgment dated 22.03.2002,this Court confirmed the death sentence and dismissed his appeal. Againstthe dismissal of the appeal by this Court, the accused preferred ReviewPetition (Criminal) No. 497

Gowri vs Shanthi And Anr. on 31 March, 2014
Mon, 31 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

A.K. SIKRI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Before we narrate the facts, we trace out below the relationship between the parties that would make it easier to understand the dispute which has arisen between them and is the subject matter of the present appeal.

CHIDAMBARAM

3. As is clear from the above, Chidambaram was the grandfather of the appellant and the two respondents. The appellant and the two respondents i.e. all three of them are the daughters of Mr. C.P. Sundaramurthy.

4. Chidambaram had one son, viz. Sundaramurthy and one daughter namely Jagdambal. Admittedly, Chidambaram was having leasehold rights over one property situated in Door No. 11(Old No. 10) Karaneeswarar Koil Garden, 2nd Street, Saidapet, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the 'Suit Property'). The owner of the said property was one Trust, managing a temple, which had given the suit land on lease. However, Mr. Chidambaram had constructed superstructure thereupon with his own funds

Kalpesh Hemantbhai Shah vs Manhar Auto Stores Thru Its ... on 1 April, 2014
Tue, 01 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellant-landlord againstthe judgment and decree dated 23rd February, 2010 passed by the SingleJudge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in WritPetition No.5521 of 2009 and the judgment and decree dated 1st October,2010 passed by the Division Bench in LPA No.150 of 2010.

3. The appellant-original plaintiff is the landlord and the respondents-original defendants are the tenants with respect to suit premises which isa shop admeasuring approximately 200 sq. ft. on the ground floor in thebuilding named “Savita Sadan” bearing New Municipal House No. 323 (2) inNew Ward No.23, Mofusil Plot, Morshi Road, Amravati.

4. After notice to the tenants to vacate the suit premises on the groundof personal use, in absence of any positive response, the appellant filedSmall Cause Civil Suit No.16 of 2007 in the Court of Civil Judge, JuniorDivision, Amravati seeking eviction of the respondents. The resp

V. Kala Bharathi & Ors. vs The Oriental ... on 1 April, 2014
Tue, 01 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

N.V.RAMANA, J.

1. The short question to be answered in this appeal is whether the amount deposited by the judgment debtor in a decree is to be adjusted first towards interest or towards principal decretal amount.

2. The facts of the case are – On account of demise of an Engineering Graduate, Mr. V. Raja Kumar on 29.04.1993 in a road accident, his legal heirs, i.e., the appellants herein filed a claim petition being M.V.O.P. 774 of 1993 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) claiming -

3. compensation to the tune of Rs.2 crores. The vehicle involved in the said accident was insured by the respondent – Insurance Company. The Tribunal vide its Award dated 29.04.1997 awarded an amount of Rs.98,40,500/- as compensation with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the petition, i.e., 25.10.1993 till the date of realization, apart from costs quantified at Rs.99,443/-.

4. Being aggrieved, the respondent – Insurance Company filed an appeal under

Ramesh Vithal Patil vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. on 31 March, 2014
Mon, 31 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. The appellant-accused no.1 was tried along with five others (originalaccused nos. 2 to 6 respectively) by the III Additional Sessions Judge,Belgaum for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B read withSection 34 of the IPC.

2. Accused no.1 is the husband of deceased Hira alias Vaishali (‘thedeceased’, for convenience). Accused no. 2 is the father of the appellant,accused nos. 3 & 4 are the brothers of the appellant, accused no. 5 is thewife of accused no. 2 and accused no. 6 is the wife of accused no. 3.

3. The appellant was married to the deceased on 27/06/1985. Accordingto the prosecution, the appellant and other accused subjected the deceasedto cruelty in their house at Kasaba Nandgad, Taluka Khanapur, DistrictBelgaum. They asked her to bring five tolas of gold and Rs.10,000/- fromher parents. On account of this unbearable cruelty, on 10/12/1987 thedeceased committed suicide by jumping in the Malaprabha River near Khanapuralong with her ten month old daughter Jyoti.

4. In support of its case the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. Theimportant witnesses who unfolded the prosecution story

Ram Niranjan Roy vs State Of Bihar & Ors. on 31 March, 2014
Mon, 31 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. A petition was filed in public interest in the Patna High Court beingC.W.J.C. No. 1311 of 2003 by Bihar Vyavsayik Sangharsh Morcha and anotherraising several issues relating to law and order problem in the State ofBihar. The State of Bihar, the Director General of Police of Bihar andothers were made party respondents. The issues raised inter alia werewhether the respondents were duty bound to provide safe and healthyatmosphere for the proper development of the State or not and whether theinaction of the respondents was violative of fundamental rights guaranteedunder Articles 19 and 20 of the Constitution of India. The petitionerinter alia sought direction to the respondents to take measures to stopexploitation of shopkeepers, dealers, artisans, labourers and industrialunits by officers and police personnel.

2. The High Court issued notices to the respondents pursuant to whichthey filed affidavits. On 14/08/2003 the High Court directed the DirectorGeneral of Police to make a list of officers from the Station HouseOfficers upto the Additional Director General of Police, of those who haveremained in their station for more

Bishnu Biswas & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 2 April, 2014
Wed, 02 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 5.4.2013, passed by the High Court of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair in W.P.C.T. Nos.607-610 of 2012 partly allowing the appeals against the judgment and order dated 24.8.2012, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta (Circuit Bench, Port Blair) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) allowing the O.A. No.124/AN/2010 and quashing the appointment orders dated 5.2.2009 and 4.6.2009.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are: A. That an advertisement dated 4.2.2008 was published by the respondent authorities calling for applications from eligible candidates as well as from those who were registered with the Employment Exchange for appointment to the 8 posts of Group ‘D’ staff. The recruitment rules only provided for a written examination having 50 maximum marks.

B. The written examination was held on 25.1.2009 which was given by 870 candidates out of which 573 candidates obtained 20 and

Naushad Anwar & Ors. vs State Of Bihar & Ors. on 1 April, 2014
Tue, 01 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of a common order dated 10th March, 2010passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna whereby CWJC No.17734 of2009 filed by the appellants has been dismissed. The short question thatarises for consideration is whether the appellants were eligible forappointment as librarians in the schools run by the

Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria & ... vs State Of Gujarat & Ors. on 3 April, 2014
Thu, 03 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Chandramauli Kr. Prasad

Before we proceed to consider the case, we must remind ourselves the maxim “judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur” which means that a Judge is condemned when guilty person escapes punishment. But, at the same time, we cannot forget that credibility of the justice delivery system comes under severe strain when a person is put on trial only for acquittal.

By Order dated 8th December, 2011, Veja Prabhat Bhutia was added as petitioner no. 2. He was an accused in the case and his grievance was that due to pendency of the present petition filed by petitioner Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria, his trial has been stayed and he is unnecessarily rotting in jail. This judgment shall, therefore, will have no bearing on him and the expression “petitioner/appellant” in this judgment would mean petitioner no.1/appellant no.1 Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria.

Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present petition are that one Mulubhai Gigabhai Modhvadiya was murdered on 16th of Novem

A.P.N.G.O'S Association vs Govt. Of A.P. & Ors. on 3 April, 2014
Thu, 03 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Chelameswar, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Aggrieved by the common judgment dated 28th January 2006 in WritPetition No.8063 of 2004 and Writ Appeal No.1035 of 2004 of the High Courtof Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, the third respondent therein preferred theinstant appeal.

3. By the said judgment, the High Court set aside the judgment dated 3rdMarch 2004 in Writ Petition No.2563 of 2002 rendered by a learned SingleJudge and quashed G.O.Ms. No.911 dated 14.12.2000 issued by the Revenue(Endowments) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh.

4. The appellant is an association of the non-gazetted officers of theGovernment of Andhra Pradesh. Sometime in the year 1995, the appellantherein requested the Executive Officer of the third respondent Temple tosell an extent of 18 acres of land (Survey No.221/1) to provide houses toits members.

5. The Administration of Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions andEndowments in Andhra Pradesh is regulated by an Act named the AndhraPradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act,19

Manmohan Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 1 April, 2014
Tue, 01 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
Manmohan Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 1 April, 2014
Author: ………………………………….…..…J.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4294 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.27829 of 2012)

Manmohan Sharma …Appellant

Versus

State of Rajasthan & Ors. …Respondents

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4295 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.28259 of 2012)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4296 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.28410 of 2012)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4297 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.28542 of 2012)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4298 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.28633 of 2012)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4299 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.28793 of 2012)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4300 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.31756 of 2012)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4301 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.31793 of 2012)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4302 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.31818 of 2012)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4303 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.31819 of 2012)

<
T.N.Generation & Distbn. Corpn ... vs Ppn Power Gen.Co.Pvt.Ltd. on 4 April, 2014
Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1. This statutory appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) is directed against the final judgment and order dated 22nd February, 2013 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (hereinafter referred to as “APTEL” or “Appellate Tribunal”), at New Delhi in Appeal No. 176 of 2011, whereby it has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant against the final judgment and order dated 17th June, 2011 of Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in D.R.P. No. 12 of 2009. The facts have been noticed in detail both by the State Commission and the APTEL, therefore, we shall make a reference only to the very essential facts necessary for deciding this appeal.

2. The respondent, a generating company, has entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with the appellant on 3rd January, 1997 for the supply of the entire Electricity to be generated by the respondent for a period of 30 years. The respondent commence

Shiv Murat (D) By Lrs. vs Satyawati & Ors. on 4 April, 2014
Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

V.Gopala Gowda, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellant questioning the correctness ofthe judgment and final Order dated 3.8.2004 passed by the High Court ofJudicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9989 of 1985urging various facts and legal contentions in justification of his claim.

2. Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case ofthe appellant and also to find out whether the appellant is entitled forthe relief as prayed in this appeal.

The land in question relates to plot no. 182/1, 184/1, 184/2 and 184/3situated in village Madhupur, Pargana Musali, Tehsil Chunar, DistrictMirzapur (now Sonbhadra). The name of the appellant was recorded as theSirdhar of these plots before the consolidation of the plots began.However, during the process of consolidation, the respondent, allegedly byfraud, got her name entered in the revenue records.

3. The appellant filed an objection under Section 12 of the U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act against the entry of the name of therespondent in the revenue records. The objection was allowed by theCon

Jagdamba Prasad (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & ... vs Kripa Shankar (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & ... on 4 April, 2014
Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellants questioning the correctness ofthe judgment and final Order dated 2.9.2003 passed by the High Court ofJudicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ No. 4688 of 1974, urgingvarious facts and legal contentions in justification of their claim.

Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the caseof the appellants and also to find out whether the appellants are entitledfor the relief as prayed in this appeal.

2. The appellants filed objections before the Consolidation Officer forthe deletion of the name of one Bhukhali (father of the respondents) sincethe appellants allege that this name has been fictitiously mentioned in therevenue records pertaining to Khata no. 63 of Village Badhaiya, ParganaKewai. The plot Nos. 552, 570 and 574 in the present case, are registeredin the names of the landowners Mahadev, Shambhu Nath and Bhukhalirespectively. Mahadev and Shambhu Nath belong to the same family whereasBhukhali was the resident of another village.

Vinod Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 4 April, 2014
Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J.

1 Leave granted.

2 In this Appeal we are confronted with the concurrent conviction ofthe Appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), althoughthe findings of the two Courts substantially differ. The High Court hasset aside his conviction under Sections 417 and 419 IPC, whereas theAdditional District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvanthapuram, had sentenced theAppellant to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fineof Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment thereof, to undergo RigorousImprisonment for three years. In the Impugned Order the High Court hasreduced this sentence to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four yearsbut, while maintaining the fine of Rs.25,000/-, has ordered that in defaultof its deposit, the Appellant would suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for thereduced period of six months. At the commencement of the impugnedJudgment, the learned Judge has aptly observed that what began as atelephonic friendship strengthened into close acquaintance between t

State Of Rajasthan & Anr. vs C.P. Singh & Ors. on 4 April, 2014
Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.

1. State of Rajasthan has preferred this Civil Appeal to assail the judgment and order dated 19.3.2004 in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.136/1995. By the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the Second Appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and decreed the Suit of Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) with a finding that Respondent No.1 had been illegally made to superannuate on 19.6.1974 at the age of 55 years, as prescribed under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1951’). The High Court has also declared that Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) was entitled to continue in service upto the age of 58 years, i.e., the age of retirement as per the Central Civil Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’). The consequent benefits like pay, increments and other service benefits have also been granted to Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff).

2. The essential facts relevant for deciding the issue raised in this appeal are not in dispute as indicated

Hitendra Singh Bhupendrasingh & ... vs Dr.P.D.Krishi Vidyapeeth By ... on 4 April, 2014
Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These app

A.T Prakashan vs The Excise Inspector & Anr on 4 April, 2014
Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of the judgment of the Kerala High Court inCrl. Appeal No.1104 of 2004, by which the High Court modified the sentenceawarded by the trial Court to that of rigorous imprisonment for one yearand to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh, and in default, simple imprisonment forthree more months for an offence committed under Section 55(a) of theAbkari Act, 1077.

3. The prosecution case is that on 15.9.1999 at 7.00 a.m., the appellantwas found in possession of 10 litres of arrack while he was transportingthe same through the road in between Mokavoor and Kypurathpalam. PW6,Excise Inspector, registered Crime No.20 of 1999 through Ext.P3 occurrencereport. After investigation, he laid the final report before the JudicialFirst Class Magistrate’s Court, Quilandy, where it was taken on file asC.P. No.19 of 2001. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Courtof Sessions.

4. Prosecution, in support of the case, examined PW1 to PW6 and Ext.P1to Ext.P5 were marked. MO1 was identified. Af

A.P.N.G.O'S Association vs Govt. Of A.P. & Ors. on 3 April, 2014
Thu, 03 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Chelameswar, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Aggrieved by the common judgment dated 28th January 2006 in WritPetition No.8063 of 2004 and Writ Appeal No.1035 of 2004 of the High Courtof Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, the third respondent therein preferred theinstant appeal.

3. By the said judgment, the High Court set aside the judgment dated 3rdMarch 2004 in Writ Petition No.2563 of 2002 rendered by a learned SingleJudge and quashed G.O.Ms. No.911 dated 14.12.2000 issued by the Revenue(Endowments) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh.

4. The appellant is an association of the non-gazetted officers of theGovernment of Andhra Pradesh. Sometime in the year 1995, the appellantherein requested the Executive Officer of the third respondent Temple tosell an extent of 18 acres of land (Survey No.221/1) to provide houses toits members.

5. The Administration of Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions andEndowments in Andhra Pradesh is regulated by an Act named the AndhraPradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act,19

Gopakumar B.Nair vs C.B.I & Anr on 7 April, 2014
Mon, 07 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is the second accused (hereinafter referred to as ‘A-2’) in CC No. 48 of 2011 (RC 27(A)/2004) in the Court of the Special Judge(SPE/CBI), Thiruvananthapuram. He is aggrieved by the refusal dated25.06.2013 of the High Court of Kerala to quash the aforesaid criminalproceeding lodged by the respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation(hereinafter for short ‘CBI’).

3. The allegations made against the accused-appellant in the FIR dated30.11.2004 are to the effect that the accused-appellant alongwith one T.K.Rajeev Kumar (A-1), Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, KillippalamBranch, Trivandrum and C. Sivaramakrishna Pillai (A-3) (since deceased) hadentered into a criminal conspiracy to obtain undue pecuniary advantage forthemselves. Specifically, it was alleged that in furtherance of theaforesaid criminal conspiracy the accused-appellant dishonestly applied fora car loan of Rs. 5 lakhs and opened a bank account bearing No. 1277 on24.08.2002 without proper introduction. Thereafter, according to theprosecution, the accused-appellant

Karnataka Power Trans. Cor. Ltd & ... vs M/S Deepak Cables (India) Ltd on 7 April, 2014
Mon, 07 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
Karnataka Power Trans. Cor. Ltd & ... vs M/S Deepak Cables (India) Ltd on 7 April, 2014
Author: D Misra

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4424 OF 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 20558 of 2013

Karnataka Power Transmission

Corporation Limited and another ... Appellants

Versus

M/s. Deepak Cables (India) Ltd. ...Respondent

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4425 OF 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 29008 of 2013)

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4426 OF 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 29009 of 2013)

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4427 OF 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 29010 of 2013)

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4428 OF 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 29011 of 2013)

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4429 OF 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 29012 of 2013)

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4430 OF 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 29013 of 2013)

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4431 OF 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.

Purnya Kala Devi vs State Of Assam & Anr. on 7 April, 2014
Mon, 07 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

P. Sathasivam, CJI.

1) This appeal is directed against the impugned final judgment and orderdated 04.01.2007 passed by the Gauhati High Court in MAC Appeal No. 30 of2003 whereby the High Court held that the claimant/appellant herein isentitled to a sum of Rs. 1,94,400/- as compensation for the death of herhusband in the motor vehicle accident and the same is payable by AbdulSalam-who was the registered owner of the vehicle at the relevant point oftime and not by the State Government.

2) Brief Facts:

a) The appellant/claimant is a widow and mother of four children. On16.02.1993, at about 10:15 a.m., the claimant’s husband died in a roadaccident by a speeding bus belonging to Md. Abdul Salam which was notinsured and was under requisition of the State Government at the relevanttime.

b) The appellant filed MAC Case No. 34 of 1993 before the Motor AccidentClaims Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’), Darrang, Mangaldai forcompensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- against the registered owner–Md. AbdulSalam. Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Udalguri and the State of Assam werealso impleded as parties in the said case.

c) The regi

Sudesh Dogra vs U.O.I & Ors on 7 April, 2014
Mon, 07 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. The petitioner in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 125 of 2013 is thePolitical Secretary of J & K National Panthers Party (JKNPP) which is apolitical party recognised by the Election Commission of India. Settingout figures and statistics of innocent people who have lost their lives inincidents of crime and terrorists acts committed from time to time in theState of Jammu & Kashmir, the persistent failure of the State Government toprevent such untoward incidents have been alleged alongwith the perceivedinefficiency of the State Government in providing adequate relief andrehabilitation measures including compensation following such incidents.Specifically, the writ petition centres around an incident that hadoccurred on 17/18 of July, 2013 at a place called Gool in District Ramban,in the course of which a large body of civilian population had attacked aBSF camp and in the exchange of fire that ensued, 4 civilians had died and44 others received serious injuries. Accordingly, the writ petition wasfiled seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) i

M/S Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd And Ors vs M/S Magnum Aviation Pvt Ltd And ... on 7 April, 2014
Mon, 07 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

R.M. LODHA, J.

Leave granted.

2. The only question that arises for consideration in this appealby special leave is, whether the post-dated cheques issued by theappellants (hereinafter referred to as ‘purchasers’) as an advance paymentin respect of purchase orders could be considered in discharge of legallyenforceable debt or other liability, and, if so, whether the dishonour ofsuch cheques amounts to an offence under Section 138 of the NegotiableInstruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the N.I. Act’). The Delhi High Court inthe impugned order has held that to be so.

3. The brief facts are these: On 19.02.2007 and 26.02.2007, thepurchasers placed two purchase orders for supply of certain aircraft partswith respondent No.1, M/s. Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referredto as ‘supplier’). In respect of these purchase orders, the purchasersalso issued two post-dated cheques dated 15.03.2007 for a sum ofRs.34,57,164/- and 20.03.2007 for a sum of Rs.15,91,820/-. The saidcheques were issued by w

Metal Powder Company Ltd. vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 7 April, 2014
Mon, 07 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. This is a plaintiff’s appeal against a decree of reversal made by theHigh Court of Madras by its judgment and order dated 28.04.2006.

2. The facts, which are not in dispute, are as follows:-

The plaintiff is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale ofmetal powders and red phosphorous having its manufacturing unit andadministrative office at Maravankulam, Thirumangalam, Madurai District.The plaintiff had purchased 15.06 metric tonnes of yellow phosphorous fromM/s. Metallgeseliachaft AG, Frankfurt, West Germany under Invoice No. 41064821 dated 06.06.1983 for a value of US$ 23,946 C&F. The said commoditywas booked through M.V. “Palam Trader” to be delivered at Bombay Port andfrom the Bombay Port to the plaintiff’s factory at Maravankulam. The goodswere insured for a sum of Rs. 2,65,000/- under Insurance Policy dated24.06.1983 with the Divisional Office of the defendant-insurance company atMadurai. The policy specifically included and covered amongst other risks“loss due to non-delivery of the goods at Maravankulam.”

3. While in transit the ship caught fire on 18.10.1983. The firstintimation of the mishap was communicated to the plaintif

Mallamma (D) By Lrs. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. on 7 April, 2014
Mon, 07 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

N.V. RAMANA, J.

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 10th August, 2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in M.F.A. No. 3842 of 2003 whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Respondent No. 1—National Insurance Company discharging it from the liability of payment of compensation to the claimants— Appellants.

2. The brief facts of the case leading to this appeal are that on 3rd April, 1997 at about 1.00 p.m., when Honniah @ Dodda Thimmaiah was returning from the field driving a tractor with the sand load on the trailor, the tractor overturned and Honnaih @ Dodda Thimmaiah died owing to the injuries sustained in the accident. Appellants herein are the claimants—legal representatives of the deceased Honniah @ Dodda Thimmaiah. The tractor involved in the accident had the registration number KA 18/717-718 and the tractor was originally registered in the name of one Gangadhara (Respondent No. 3) and the same was insured with the Respondent No. 1 while the deceased was employed as a driver with the Respondent No.

L.K.Pansare & Ors. vs B.B.Ithape & Ors. on 7 April, 2014
Mon, 07 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

1 ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered in First Appeal No. 1138 of2009 by the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad on 14.1.2010, the appellantshave approached this Court by way of this appeal.

3. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, areas under :

The appellants had filed a suit against the present respondents for adeclaration to the affect that the agreement to sell entered into betweenthe appellants and the respondents should be cancelled and the appellantsshould be put in possession of the land in question, which had been agreedto be sold in pursuance of the agreement to sell dated 17.08.1995. Certainundisputed facts in the case are to the effect that the aforesaid agreementto sell had been entered into and in pursuance of the said agreement,possession of the land in question had been handed over to the respondentsupon a payment of Rs. 1 lac, which was part of the consideration. Theconsideration for sale was Rs.10 lacs. The remaining amount of Rs.9 lacswas to be paid in two insta

T.N.Generation & Distbn. Corpn ... vs Ppn Power Gen.Co.Pvt.Ltd. on 4 April, 2014
Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1. This statutory appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) is directed against the final judgment and order dated 22nd February, 2013 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (hereinafter referred to as “APTEL” or “Appellate Tribunal”), at New Delhi in Appeal No. 176 of 2011, whereby it has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant against the final judgment and order dated 17th June, 2011 of Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in D.R.P. No. 12 of 2009. The facts have been noticed in detail both by the State Commission and the APTEL, therefore, we shall make a reference only to the very essential facts necessary for deciding this appeal.

2. The respondent, a generating company, has entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with the appellant on 3rd January, 1997 for the supply of the entire Electricity to be generated by the respondent for a period of 30 years. The respondent commence

Shiv Murat (D) By Lrs. vs Satyawati & Ors. on 4 April, 2014
Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

V.Gopala Gowda, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellant questioning the correctness ofthe judgment and final Order dated 3.8.2004 passed by the High Court ofJudicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9989 of 1985urging various facts and legal contentions in justification of his claim.

2. Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case ofthe appellant and also to find out whether the appellant is entitled forthe relief as prayed in this appeal.

The land in question relates to plot no. 182/1, 184/1, 184/2 and 184/3situated in village Madhupur, Pargana Musali, Tehsil Chunar, DistrictMirzapur (now Sonbhadra). The name of the appellant was recorded as theSirdhar of these plots before the consolidation of the plots began.However, during the process of consolidation, the respondent, allegedly byfraud, got her name entered in the revenue records.

3. The appellant filed an objection under Section 12 of the U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act against the entry of the name of therespondent in the revenue records. The objection was allowed by theCon

Jagdamba Prasad (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & ... vs Kripa Shankar (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & ... on 4 April, 2014
Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellants questioning the correctness ofthe judgment and final Order dated 2.9.2003 passed by the High Court ofJudicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ No. 4688 of 1974, urgingvarious facts and legal contentions in justification of their claim.

Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the caseof the appellants and also to find out whether the appellants are entitledfor the relief as prayed in this appeal.

2. The appellants filed objections before the Consolidation Officer forthe deletion of the name of one Bhukhali (father of the respondents) sincethe appellants allege that this name has been fictitiously mentioned in therevenue records pertaining to Khata no. 63 of Village Badhaiya, ParganaKewai. The plot Nos. 552, 570 and 574 in the present case, are registeredin the names of the landowners Mahadev, Shambhu Nath and Bhukhalirespectively. Mahadev and Shambhu Nath belong to the same family whereasBhukhali was the resident of another village.

Vinod Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 4 April, 2014
Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J.

1 Leave granted.

2 In this Appeal we are confronted with the concurrent conviction ofthe Appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), althoughthe findings of the two Courts substantially differ. The High Court hasset aside his conviction under Sections 417 and 419 IPC, whereas theAdditional District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvanthapuram, had sentenced theAppellant to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fineof Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment thereof, to undergo RigorousImprisonment for three years. In the Impugned Order the High Court hasreduced this sentence to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four yearsbut, while maintaining the fine of Rs.25,000/-, has ordered that in defaultof its deposit, the Appellant would suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for thereduced period of six months. At the commencement of the impugnedJudgment, the learned Judge has aptly observed that what began as atelephonic friendship strengthened into close acquaintance between t

State Of Rajasthan & Anr. vs C.P. Singh & Ors. on 4 April, 2014
Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.

1. State of Rajasthan has preferred this Civil Appeal to assail the judgment and order dated 19.3.2004 in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.136/1995. By the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the Second Appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and decreed the Suit of Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) with a finding that Respondent No.1 had been illegally made to superannuate on 19.6.1974 at the age of 55 years, as prescribed under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1951’). The High Court has also declared that Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) was entitled to continue in service upto the age of 58 years, i.e., the age of retirement as per the Central Civil Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’). The consequent benefits like pay, increments and other service benefits have also been granted to Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff).

2. The essential facts relevant for deciding the issue raised in this appeal are not in dispute as indicated

Hitendra Singh Bhupendrasingh & ... vs Dr.P.D.Krishi Vidyapeeth By ... on 4 April, 2014
Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These app

A.T Prakashan vs The Excise Inspector & Anr on 4 April, 2014
Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of the judgment of the Kerala High Court inCrl. Appeal No.1104 of 2004, by which the High Court modified the sentenceawarded by the trial Court to that of rigorous imprisonment for one yearand to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh, and in default, simple imprisonment forthree more months for an offence committed under Section 55(a) of theAbkari Act, 1077.

3. The prosecution case is that on 15.9.1999 at 7.00 a.m., the appellantwas found in possession of 10 litres of arrack while he was transportingthe same through the road in between Mokavoor and Kypurathpalam. PW6,Excise Inspector, registered Crime No.20 of 1999 through Ext.P3 occurrencereport. After investigation, he laid the final report before the JudicialFirst Class Magistrate’s Court, Quilandy, where it was taken on file asC.P. No.19 of 2001. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Courtof Sessions.

4. Prosecution, in support of the case, examined PW1 to PW6 and Ext.P1to Ext.P5 were marked. MO1 was identified. Af

Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria & ... vs State Of Gujarat & Ors. on 3 April, 2014
Thu, 03 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Chandramauli Kr. Prasad

Before we proceed to consider the case, we must remind ourselves the maxim “judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur” which means that a Judge is condemned when guilty person escapes punishment. But, at the same time, we cannot forget that credibility of the justice delivery system comes under severe strain when a person is put on trial only for acquittal.

By Order dated 8th December, 2011, Veja Prabhat Bhutia was added as petitioner no. 2. He was an accused in the case and his grievance was that due to pendency of the present petition filed by petitioner Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria, his trial has been stayed and he is unnecessarily rotting in jail. This judgment shall, therefore, will have no bearing on him and the expression “petitioner/appellant” in this judgment would mean petitioner no.1/appellant no.1 Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria.

Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present petition are that one Mulubhai Gigabhai Modhvadiya was murdered on 16th of Novem

A.P.N.G.O'S Association vs Govt. Of A.P. & Ors. on 3 April, 2014
Thu, 03 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Chelameswar, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Aggrieved by the common judgment dated 28th January 2006 in WritPetition No.8063 of 2004 and Writ Appeal No.1035 of 2004 of the High Courtof Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, the third respondent therein preferred theinstant appeal.

3. By the said judgment, the High Court set aside the judgment dated 3rdMarch 2004 in Writ Petition No.2563 of 2002 rendered by a learned SingleJudge and quashed G.O.Ms. No.911 dated 14.12.2000 issued by the Revenue(Endowments) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh.

4. The appellant is an association of the non-gazetted officers of theGovernment of Andhra Pradesh. Sometime in the year 1995, the appellantherein requested the Executive Officer of the third respondent Temple tosell an extent of 18 acres of land (Survey No.221/1) to provide houses toits members.

5. The Administration of Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions andEndowments in Andhra Pradesh is regulated by an Act named the AndhraPradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act,19

Bishnu Biswas & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 2 April, 2014
Wed, 02 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 5.4.2013, passed by the High Court of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair in W.P.C.T. Nos.607-610 of 2012 partly allowing the appeals against the judgment and order dated 24.8.2012, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta (Circuit Bench, Port Blair) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) allowing the O.A. No.124/AN/2010 and quashing the appointment orders dated 5.2.2009 and 4.6.2009.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are: A. That an advertisement dated 4.2.2008 was published by the respondent authorities calling for applications from eligible candidates as well as from those who were registered with the Employment Exchange for appointment to the 8 posts of Group ‘D’ staff. The recruitment rules only provided for a written examination having 50 maximum marks.

B. The written examination was held on 25.1.2009 which was given by 870 candidates out of which 573 candidates obtained 20 and

Kalpesh Hemantbhai Shah vs Manhar Auto Stores Thru Its ... on 1 April, 2014
Tue, 01 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellant-landlord againstthe judgment and decree dated 23rd February, 2010 passed by the SingleJudge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in WritPetition No.5521 of 2009 and the judgment and decree dated 1st October,2010 passed by the Division Bench in LPA No.150 of 2010.

3. The appellant-original plaintiff is the landlord and the respondents-original defendants are the tenants with respect to suit premises which isa shop admeasuring approximately 200 sq. ft. on the ground floor in thebuilding named “Savita Sadan” bearing New Municipal House No. 323 (2) inNew Ward No.23, Mofusil Plot, Morshi Road, Amravati.

4. After notice to the tenants to vacate the suit premises on the groundof personal use, in absence of any positive response, the appellant filedSmall Cause Civil Suit No.16 of 2007 in the Court of Civil Judge, JuniorDivision, Amravati seeking eviction of the respondents. The resp

V. Kala Bharathi & Ors. vs The Oriental ... on 1 April, 2014
Tue, 01 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

N.V.RAMANA, J.

1. The short question to be answered in this appeal is whether the amount deposited by the judgment debtor in a decree is to be adjusted first towards interest or towards principal decretal amount.

2. The facts of the case are – On account of demise of an Engineering Graduate, Mr. V. Raja Kumar on 29.04.1993 in a road accident, his legal heirs, i.e., the appellants herein filed a claim petition being M.V.O.P. 774 of 1993 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) claiming -

3. compensation to the tune of Rs.2 crores. The vehicle involved in the said accident was insured by the respondent – Insurance Company. The Tribunal vide its Award dated 29.04.1997 awarded an amount of Rs.98,40,500/- as compensation with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the petition, i.e., 25.10.1993 till the date of realization, apart from costs quantified at Rs.99,443/-.

4. Being aggrieved, the respondent – Insurance Company filed an appeal under

Gopakumar B.Nair vs C.B.I & Anr on 7 April, 2014
Mon, 07 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is the second accused (hereinafter referred to as ‘A-2’) in CC No. 48 of 2011 (RC 27(A)/2004) in the Court of the Special Judge(SPE/CBI), Thiruvananthapuram. He is aggrieved by the refusal dated25.06.2013 of the High Court of Kerala to quash the aforesaid criminalproceeding lodged by the respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation(hereinafter for short ‘CBI’).

3. The allegations made against the accused-appellant in the FIR dated30.11.2004 are to the effect that the accused-appellant alongwith one T.K.Rajeev Kumar (A-1), Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, KillippalamBranch, Trivandrum and C. Sivaramakrishna Pillai (A-3) (since deceased) hadentered into a criminal conspiracy to obtain undue pecuniary advantage forthemselves. Specifically, it was alleged that in furtherance of theaforesaid criminal conspiracy the accused-appellant dishonestly applied fora car loan of Rs. 5 lakhs and opened a bank account bearing No. 1277 on24.08.2002 without proper introduction. Thereafter, according to theprosecution, the accused-appellant

Karnataka Power Trans. Cor. Ltd & ... vs M/S Deepak Cables (India) Ltd on 7 April, 2014
Mon, 07 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530
Supreme Court of India
Karnataka Power Trans. Cor. Ltd & ... vs M/S Deepak Cables (India) Ltd on 7 April, 2014
Author: D Misra

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4424 OF 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 20558 of 2013

Karnataka Power Transmission

Corporation Limited and another ... Appellants

Versus

M/s. Deepak Cables (India) Ltd. ...Respondent

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4425 OF 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 29008 of 2013)

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4426 OF 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 29009 of 2013)

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4427 OF 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 29010 of 2013)

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4428 OF 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 29011 of 2013)

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4429 OF 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 29012 of 2013)

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4430 OF 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 29013 of 2013)

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4431 OF 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.

Purnya Kala Devi vs State Of Assam & Anr. on 7 April, 2014
Mon, 07 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

P. Sathasivam, CJI.

1) This appeal is directed against the impugned final judgment and orderdated 04.01.2007 passed by the Gauhati High Court in MAC Appeal No. 30 of2003 whereby the High Court held that the claimant/appellant herein isentitled to a sum of Rs. 1,94,400/- as compensation for the death of herhusband in the motor vehicle accident and the same is payable by AbdulSalam-who was the registered owner of the vehicle at the relevant point oftime and not by the State Government.

2) Brief Facts:

a) The appellant/claimant is a widow and mother of four children. On16.02.1993, at about 10:15 a.m., the claimant’s husband died in a roadaccident by a speeding bus belonging to Md. Abdul Salam which was notinsured and was under requisition of the State Government at the relevanttime.

b) The appellant filed MAC Case No. 34 of 1993 before the Motor AccidentClaims Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’), Darrang, Mangaldai forcompensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- against the registered owner–Md. AbdulSalam. Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Udalguri and the State of Assam werealso impleded as parties in the said case.

c) The regi

Sudesh Dogra vs U.O.I & Ors on 7 April, 2014
Mon, 07 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. The petitioner in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 125 of 2013 is thePolitical Secretary of J & K National Panthers Party (JKNPP) which is apolitical party recognised by the Election Commission of India. Settingout figures and statistics of innocent people who have lost their lives inincidents of crime and terrorists acts committed from time to time in theState of Jammu & Kashmir, the persistent failure of the State Government toprevent such untoward incidents have been alleged alongwith the perceivedinefficiency of the State Government in providing adequate relief andrehabilitation measures including compensation following such incidents.Specifically, the writ petition centres around an incident that hadoccurred on 17/18 of July, 2013 at a place called Gool in District Ramban,in the course of which a large body of civilian population had attacked aBSF camp and in the exchange of fire that ensued, 4 civilians had died and44 others received serious injuries. Accordingly, the writ petition wasfiled seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) i

M/S Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd And Ors vs M/S Magnum Aviation Pvt Ltd And ... on 7 April, 2014
Mon, 07 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

R.M. LODHA, J.

Leave granted.

2. The only question that arises for consideration in this appealby special leave is, whether the post-dated cheques issued by theappellants (hereinafter referred to as ‘purchasers’) as an advance paymentin respect of purchase orders could be considered in discharge of legallyenforceable debt or other liability, and, if so, whether the dishonour ofsuch cheques amounts to an offence under Section 138 of the NegotiableInstruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the N.I. Act’). The Delhi High Court inthe impugned order has held that to be so.

3. The brief facts are these: On 19.02.2007 and 26.02.2007, thepurchasers placed two purchase orders for supply of certain aircraft partswith respondent No.1, M/s. Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referredto as ‘supplier’). In respect of these purchase orders, the purchasersalso issued two post-dated cheques dated 15.03.2007 for a sum ofRs.34,57,164/- and 20.03.2007 for a sum of Rs.15,91,820/-. The saidcheques were issued by w

Metal Powder Company Ltd. vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 7 April, 2014
Mon, 07 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. This is a plaintiff’s appeal against a decree of reversal made by theHigh Court of Madras by its judgment and order dated 28.04.2006.

2. The facts, which are not in dispute, are as follows:-

The plaintiff is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale ofmetal powders and red phosphorous having its manufacturing unit andadministrative office at Maravankulam, Thirumangalam, Madurai District.The plaintiff had purchased 15.06 metric tonnes of yellow phosphorous fromM/s. Metallgeseliachaft AG, Frankfurt, West Germany under Invoice No. 41064821 dated 06.06.1983 for a value of US$ 23,946 C&F. The said commoditywas booked through M.V. “Palam Trader” to be delivered at Bombay Port andfrom the Bombay Port to the plaintiff’s factory at Maravankulam. The goodswere insured for a sum of Rs. 2,65,000/- under Insurance Policy dated24.06.1983 with the Divisional Office of the defendant-insurance company atMadurai. The policy specifically included and covered amongst other risks“loss due to non-delivery of the goods at Maravankulam.”

3. While in transit the ship caught fire on 18.10.1983. The firstintimation of the mishap was communicated to the plaintif

Mallamma (D) By Lrs. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. on 7 April, 2014
Mon, 07 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

N.V. RAMANA, J.

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 10th August, 2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in M.F.A. No. 3842 of 2003 whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Respondent No. 1—National Insurance Company discharging it from the liability of payment of compensation to the claimants— Appellants.

2. The brief facts of the case leading to this appeal are that on 3rd April, 1997 at about 1.00 p.m., when Honniah @ Dodda Thimmaiah was returning from the field driving a tractor with the sand load on the trailor, the tractor overturned and Honnaih @ Dodda Thimmaiah died owing to the injuries sustained in the accident. Appellants herein are the claimants—legal representatives of the deceased Honniah @ Dodda Thimmaiah. The tractor involved in the accident had the registration number KA 18/717-718 and the tractor was originally registered in the name of one Gangadhara (Respondent No. 3) and the same was insured with the Respondent No. 1 while the deceased was employed as a driver with the Respondent No.

L.K.Pansare & Ors. vs B.B.Ithape & Ors. on 7 April, 2014
Mon, 07 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

1 ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered in First Appeal No. 1138 of2009 by the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad on 14.1.2010, the appellantshave approached this Court by way of this appeal.

3. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, areas under :

The appellants had filed a suit against the present respondents for adeclaration to the affect that the agreement to sell entered into betweenthe appellants and the respondents should be cancelled and the appellantsshould be put in possession of the land in question, which had been agreedto be sold in pursuance of the agreement to sell dated 17.08.1995. Certainundisputed facts in the case are to the effect that the aforesaid agreementto sell had been entered into and in pursuance of the said agreement,possession of the land in question had been handed over to the respondentsupon a payment of Rs. 1 lac, which was part of the consideration. Theconsideration for sale was Rs.10 lacs. The remaining amount of Rs.9 lacswas to be paid in two insta

T.N.Generation & Distbn. Corpn ... vs Ppn Power Gen.Co.Pvt.Ltd. on 4 April, 2014
Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1. This statutory appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) is directed against the final judgment and order dated 22nd February, 2013 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (hereinafter referred to as “APTEL” or “Appellate Tribunal”), at New Delhi in Appeal No. 176 of 2011, whereby it has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant against the final judgment and order dated 17th June, 2011 of Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in D.R.P. No. 12 of 2009. The facts have been noticed in detail both by the State Commission and the APTEL, therefore, we shall make a reference only to the very essential facts necessary for deciding this appeal.

2. The respondent, a generating company, has entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with the appellant on 3rd January, 1997 for the supply of the entire Electricity to be generated by the respondent for a period of 30 years. The respondent commence

Shiv Murat (D) By Lrs. vs Satyawati & Ors. on 4 April, 2014
Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

V.Gopala Gowda, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellant questioning the correctness ofthe judgment and final Order dated 3.8.2004 passed by the High Court ofJudicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9989 of 1985urging various facts and legal contentions in justification of his claim.

2. Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case ofthe appellant and also to find out whether the appellant is entitled forthe relief as prayed in this appeal.

The land in question relates to plot no. 182/1, 184/1, 184/2 and 184/3situated in village Madhupur, Pargana Musali, Tehsil Chunar, DistrictMirzapur (now Sonbhadra). The name of the appellant was recorded as theSirdhar of these plots before the consolidation of the plots began.However, during the process of consolidation, the respondent, allegedly byfraud, got her name entered in the revenue records.

3. The appellant filed an objection under Section 12 of the U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act against the entry of the name of therespondent in the revenue records. The objection was allowed by theCon

Jagdamba Prasad (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & ... vs Kripa Shankar (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & ... on 4 April, 2014
Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellants questioning the correctness ofthe judgment and final Order dated 2.9.2003 passed by the High Court ofJudicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ No. 4688 of 1974, urgingvarious facts and legal contentions in justification of their claim.

Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the caseof the appellants and also to find out whether the appellants are entitledfor the relief as prayed in this appeal.

2. The appellants filed objections before the Consolidation Officer forthe deletion of the name of one Bhukhali (father of the respondents) sincethe appellants allege that this name has been fictitiously mentioned in therevenue records pertaining to Khata no. 63 of Village Badhaiya, ParganaKewai. The plot Nos. 552, 570 and 574 in the present case, are registeredin the names of the landowners Mahadev, Shambhu Nath and Bhukhalirespectively. Mahadev and Shambhu Nath belong to the same family whereasBhukhali was the resident of another village.

Vinod Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 4 April, 2014
Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530

VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J.

1 Leave granted.

2 In this Appeal we are confronted with the concurrent conviction ofthe Appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), althoughthe findings of the two Courts substantially differ. The High Court hasset aside his conviction under Sections 417