Show the cases, Nominal/Party Name wise
Show the cases, Date of Decision wise
LATEST CASES
(for last one month)
Total No. of Cases: 24

2014 SCCL.COM 540(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 2388 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.8852 of 2013))
Nar Singh Appellant versus State of Haryana Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/11/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T. S. Thakur and Hon'ble Ms. Justice R. Banumathi  .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 302 — conviction under — appeal is directed against the judgment dismissing the appeal of accused-appellant thereby confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/- with default clause and conviction under Section 25 (1B) of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default clause as imposed by the trial court — upon consideration of the evidence, trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and Section 25(1B) of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as aforesaid. On appeal, the High Court affirmed the conviction for both the offences and imposed sentence of imprisonment on the appellant — the appellant is in custody for about eight years. While the right of the accused to speedy trial is a valuable one, Court has to subserve the interest of justice keeping in view the right of the victim’s family and the society at large — accused is not entitled for acquittal on the ground of non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C. — the appellant is prejudiced on account of omission to put the question as to the opinion of Ballistic Expert (Ex- P12) which was relied upon by the trial court as well as by the High Court. Trial court should have been more careful in framing the questions and in ensuring that all material evidence and incriminating circumstances were put to the accused. However, omission on the part of the Court to put questions under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot enure to the benefit of the accused — the trial court shall examine the accused afresh under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in the light of the above observations and in accordance with law. The trial Judge is directed to marshal the evidence on record and put specific and separate questions to the accused with regard to incriminating evidence and circumstance and shall also afford an opportunity to the accused to examine the defence witnesses, if any, and proceed with the matter. Since the occurrence is of the year 2005, the court directs the trial court to expedite the matter and dispose of the same in accordance with law preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this judgment.  

2014 SCCL.COM 539(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 10125 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) 37619 of 2012))
Collector Singh Appellant versus L.M.L. Ltd., Kanpur Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/11/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Ms. Justice R. Banumathi .
Subject Index: Punishment of dismissal from service — whether the punishment of dismissal from service of the appellant is disproportionate to the act of misconduct proved against the appellant and whether the concurrent findings of the Courts below need to be interfered with are the points falling for consideration in this appeal — the punishment of dismissal from service is harsh and disproportionate, this Court in ordinary course would either order reinstatement modifying the punishment or remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority for passing fresh order of punishment. But the court is deliberately avoiding the ordinary course — court is doing so because nearly two decades have passed since his termination and over these years the appellant must have been gainfully employed elsewhere. Further, the appellant was born in the year 1955 and has almost reached the age of superannuation. In such circumstances, there cannot be any order of reinstatement and award of lump sum compensation would meet the ends of justice — lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- would meet the ends of justice in lieu of reinstatement, back wages, gratuity and in full quit of any other amount payable to the appellant.  

2014 SCCL.COM 537(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 2387 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2487 of 2014))
O.M. Cherian @ Thankachan Appellant versus State of Kerala & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/11/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Hon'ble Ms. Justice R. Banumathi  .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498A and 306 — conviction under — confirmed by High Court of Kerala — appeal — the allegation levelled is that in the matrimonial house, the appellant/1st accused and other accused ill-treated and tortured Lillikutty, compelling her to take the extreme step of putting an end to her life by committing suicide. During the marital life, Lillikutty had a premature delivery. When she became pregnant again in 1993, it is alleged that A-1 provided her with some tablets and Lillikutty had a miscarriage. During her marital life Lillikutty delivered a child who did not live long. On 23.2.1996 Lillikutty poured kerosene oil on herself and also drank some, which was later cleared away — on 23.2.1996, a mediation talk had been scheduled and PW-1 and the relatives of Lillikutty were also to attend the mediation talks but when the meeting was so scheduled, Lillikutty committed suicide by hanging — keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentences imposed on the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 IPC are ordered to run concurrently.

2014 SCCL.COM 538(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 10086-10087 of 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.35736-35737 of 2013])
Sau Shaila Balasaheb Kadam Appellant versus Balasaheb Hindurao Kadam and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/10/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan  .
Subject Index: Maintenance — entitlement — appellant second wife — appellant contended that the respondent No.1 duped the appellant by suppressing the factum of his first marriage and the provision under Section 18(2) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, provides for maintenance even to a second wife and the High Court without considering the contentions raised, has rejected the second appeal at the threshold by holding that no substantial question of law arises for consideration and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside — the High Court though recorded the submissions made by the counsel on both sides, have not dealt with the same in proper perspective in the impugned judgment — matter remanded to the High Court — the High Court shall frame the necessary substantial question of law and after hearing both sides shall dispose of the second appeal in accordance with law at an early date.  

2014 SCCL.COM 535(Case No: Criminal Appeal Nos. of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 2479-2487 of 2009))
E. Bapanaiah Appellant versus Sri K.S. Raju etc. Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/7/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant  .
Subject Index: Contempt of Court Act, 1971 — section 12 — conviction under — these appeals are directed against judgment and order dated 22.8.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, in Contempt Appeal Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of 2007 whereby said Court has allowed all the Contempt Appeals setting aside the order dated 3.8.2007 passed in Contempt Case No. 915 of 2002 wherein K.S. Raju, Promoter Director of M/s. Nagarjuna Finance Limited, Hyderabad, and its other directors were convicted under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and each one of them was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and were further directed to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each — no hesitation to observe that the impugned order does not require interference — It is only in respect of conviction of K.S. Raju, Promoter Director of Nagarjuna Finance Limited which requires in-depth examination — court allows the present appeal filed against respondent K.S. Raju, and set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench of High Court — if the amount is paid to the present appellant as directed by this Court within sixty days, the sentence shall be reduced to the extent of fine only. Rest of the appeals filed by the depositor in respect of all other directors, who were not impleaded by name before the High Court in the contempt Case No. 915 of 2002, and acquitted by the impugned order passed by Division Bench of High Court, are dismissed.  

2014 SCCL.COM 534(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 9996 of 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 480 of 2012])
Census Commissioner & others Appellants versus R. Krishnamurthy Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/7/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit  .
Subject Index: A) Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes — notification as to collection of information — relating to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and does not refer to any other caste — it is extremely difficult to visualize that the High Court, on the first occasion, without having a lis before it in that regard, could even have thought of issuing a command to the Census Department to take all such measures towards conducting the caste-wise census in the country so that the social justice could be achieved in its true sense — this, irrefragably, is against the power conferred on the court. The High Court had not only travelled beyond the lis in the first round of litigation, but had really yielded to some kind of emotional perspective, possibly paving the adventurous path to innovate. It is legally impermissible. B) Domain of the courts — power of judicial review — it is clear as noon day that it is not within the domain of the courts to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise and acceptable or whether a better policy could be evolved. The court can only interfere if the policy framed is absolutely capricious or not informed by reasons or totally arbitrary and founded ipse dixit offending the basic requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution — there can be opinions and opinions but the Court is not expected to sit as an appellate authority on an opinion — the High Court, to say the least, had no justification to pave such a path and the Supreme Court has no hesitation in treating the said path as a colossal transgression of power of judicial review, and that makes the order sensitively susceptible.

2014 SCCL.COM 533(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 10024 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P.(c) No. 24317 of 2013))
Dr. Balwant Singh Appellant versus Commissioner of Police & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/7/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifula and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre  .
Subject Index: Rights of the citizens — violation — intervention of the Court is called for at the instance of citizen when these rights are violated by fellow citizens or by any State agency — petitioner a retired Director General of Police; after retirement constructed his house in a residential colony which was near to Vidhan Sabha — very frequently, thousand/hundreds of people belonging to political/non-political parties would gather on the road approaching to Vidhan Sabha, which is in front of his house, with agitated mood and would undertake their “Protests March” or "Dharna" or "Procession" for ventilating their grievances. The protestors then would use indiscriminately loudspeakers by erecting temporary stage on the road and go on delivering speeches one after the other throughout the day which sometimes used to continue for indefinite period regardless of time — the respondents to ensure strict compliance of the conditions/steps — while implementing the directions, its objective should always be to ensure that the rights of the citizens are not affected adversely by any kind of nuisance.  

2014 SCCL.COM 531(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 9999 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.17291 of 2014))
State of U.P. thru. Secy. Irrigation and another Appellants versus Km. Shashi Joshi Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/3/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr Justice Anil R. Dave Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal.
Subject Index: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — dispute raised' as retrenchment compensation not given and ultimately, the Labour Court, Lucknow had held under Award dated 20th August, 1992, that termination of services of the respondent was not justified and it was directed that she be reinstated in service with back wages — being aggrieved by the award the appellants had filed the aforestated writ petition before the High Court which had been dismissed and therefore, the appellants have approached this court by way of the present appeal — in spite of the fact that petition filed by the appellants had been dismissed on 20th August, 2013, the respondent had not been taken back in service and also submitted that the respondent was prepared to forego back wages if she is re-employed in terms of the Award dated 20th August, 1992 — the appeal is allowed to the above extent with a direction that the respondent shall be reinstated within one month from today in terms of the Award dated 20th August, 1992 — if the respondent is not re-instated in service as a daily wager within one month from today, as directed by the Labour Court, the appellants shall pay to the respondent wages as a daily wager immediately after completion of one month from the date of this judgment.  

2014 SCCL.COM 532(Case No: Criminal Appeal No.1167 of 2011)
Hari Om Appellant versus State of Haryana & Another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 10/31/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre  .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 304B and 498A — conviction under — by impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant (A-1) and upheld his conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and allowed the appeals filed by the co-accused namely, Subhash, Dharam Pal, Ram Chander and Chander Kala (A-2 to A-5) and set aside their conviction and sentence — court is appeal — concerned with the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant - Hari Om (A-1) and court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would meet if sentence is reduced to 10 years — this case does not fall in the category of a "rare case" as envisaged by this Court so as to award to the appellant the life imprisonment — also notice that while awarding life imprisonment, the courts below did not assign any reasons.

2014 SCCL.COM 524(Case No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 900-902, 906, 908-914 of 2012)
Nand Kumar Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 10/31/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre  .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302 read with sections 149 and 148 — conviction and sentence under — awarded by the sessions court and upheld by Delhi High Court — whereas the High Court allowed the Criminal Appeals of other accused and acquitted them of the charges by setting aside the judgment of the Sessions Court, whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction and sentence of the present appellants.  

2014 SCCL.COM 525(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 242 of 2012 with Criminal Appeal No. 2328 of 2014 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.8457 of 2014 Crl. M.P. No.15455 of 2014))
B.D. Khunte Appellant versus Union of India & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 10/30/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Hon'ble Ms. Justice R. Banumathi  .
Subject Index: Army Act — section 69 and Ranbir Penal Code — section 302 — appellant found guilty and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life besides dismissal from service — by the Summary General Court Martial — affirmed by Delhi High Court Petition dismissed — appeal — the appellant's version that he had called halt as all Jawans on guard duty are trained to do in operational areas but when the person approaching him did not stop and when he recognised the person to be none other than the deceased shot him, clearly suggests that the deceased was not in close physical proximity to the appellant. The appellant may have been angry with the deceased for his act of misdemeanour. But any such anger would only constitute a motive for taking revenge upon the deceased. It could not be described as a grave and sudden provocation for which deceased could have been shot the moment he came in front of the appellant — the very act of appearance of the deceased near the picket/post where the appellant was on duty could not, therefore, constitute a provocation within the meaning of Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC.

2014 SCCL.COM 523(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 2327 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9751 of 2011))
Binod Kumar & others Appellant versus State of Bihar & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 10/30/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Ms. Justice R. Banumathi  .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 406 — whether the charges under Section 406 IPC and the criminal complaint for criminal breach of trust for allegedly retaining the bill amount payable to respondent No.2 is liable to be quashed — no allegations are made attracting the ingredients of Section 405 IPC. Likewise, there are no allegations as to cheating or the dishonest intention of the appellants in retaining the money in order to have wrongful gain to themselves or causing wrongful loss to the complainant. Excepting the bald allegations that the appellants did not make payment to the second respondent and that the appellants utilized the amounts either by themselves or for some other work, there is no iota of allegation as to the dishonest intention in misappropriating the property — the mere fact that the appellants did not pay the money to the complainant does not amount to criminal breach of trust.  

2014 SCCL.COM 522(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 4215-4219 of 2007)
Inbasegaran and another Appellants versus S. Natarajan (Dead) thr. Lrs. and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 10/29/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh  .
Subject Index: Specific Performance — the conclusion arrived at by the High Court that the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC cannot be sustained in law — the High Court, although formulated various points for consideration and decision, but has not considered other points in its right perspective. The High Court, being the final court of facts in a first appeal, is required to decide all the points formulated by it — the matter needs to be remanded back to the High Court to consider and decide other points formulated by it — the decision arrived at by the High Court against point no.4 holding that the suit was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the High Court to decide the appeals by recording its finding on other points formulated by it —other connected appeals, filed by the defendant against the plaintiff, stand disposed of with a direction to maintain status quo with regard to possession of the suit property till further orders of the High Court in this regard.  

2014 SCCL.COM 521(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 9947 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19555 of 2012))
Zarina Siddiqui Appellant versus A. Ramalingam alias R. Amarnathan Respondent  
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 10/29/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh  .
Subject Index: Specific Performance — efflux of time and escalation of price of the property by itself cannot be a valid ground to deny the relief of specific performance. But the Court in its discretion may impose reasonable conditions including payment of additional amount to the vendor. It is equally well settled that the plaintiff is not to be denied specific performance only on account of phenomenal increase of price during the pendency of litigation — in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the phenomenal increase in price during the period the matter remained pending in different courts, court is of the considered opinion that impugned order under appeal be set aside but with a condition imposed upon the appellant (plaintiff) to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs) in addition to the amount already paid by the appellant to the respondent. On deposit in trial court of aforesaid amount by the appellant, for payment to the respondent, within three months from today, the respondent shall execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property.  

2014 SCCL.COM 520(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1381 of 2011)
Mallella Shyamsunder Appellant versus State of Andhra Pradesh Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 10/29/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen and Hon'ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph  .
Subject Index: A) Indian Penal Code, 1868 — section 302 — conviction under — as rightly held by the Sessions Court and the High Court, setting fire on another person after pouring kerosene is an act likely to cause death of such person. It is a matter of simple and common knowledge that in the process, the victim is likely to suffer death on account of the burns — the offence of murder is complete and, hence, court has no hesitation in reaffirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of IPC. B) Dying declaration — Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire literally means no one at the point of death is presumed to lie. Nobody normally may lie and die for fear of meeting his maker — the juristic theory regarding acceptability of a dying declaration is that such declaration is made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death and when every hope of this world is gone, when every motive to falsehood is silenced, and the man is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak only the truth. Notwithstanding the same, great caution must be exercised in considering the weight to be given to this species of evidence on account of the existence of many circumstances which may affect their truth.

2014 SCCL.COM 519(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 9951 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.15445 of 2010))
HUDA & another Appellants versus Kedar Nath Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 10/29/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal .
Subject Index: Compound interest of 18% — charging of — the Courts below had become more lenient than necessary towards the respondent by permitting him to retain possession and make payment along with 10% interest on the amount due and payable by him — it was not open to the appellant to charge 18% compound interest. According to the respondent, the appellant could have charged only 10% interest on the delayed payments — it would not be proper to grant any further accommodation to the respondent, who has admittedly not paid the amount due and therefore, court allows the appeal by quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the courts below. It would be open to the appellant to take possession of the booth in question in accordance with law.  

2014 SCCL.COM 517(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 9949-9950 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.35800-35801 of 2011))
Rathnavathi & Another Appellants versus Kavita Ganashamdas Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 10/29/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre  .
Subject Index: Specific Performance — permanent injunction — the plaintiff filed two suits, one for specific performance of agreement and other for grant of permanent injunction in relation to the suit house. The trial court vide common judgment and decree dated 16.10.2001 dismissed both the suits. The first appellate court, i.e., the High Court, in appeal, by impugned judgment and decree dated 08.09.2011 reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed both the suits in appeal, against the defendants — aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the High Court, Defendants 1 and 3 have approached this Court in the instant civil appeals — whether the High Court was justified in allowing the first appeals preferred by the plaintiff, resulting in decreeing the two civil suits against defendants in relation to suit house? — just and proper to invoke court's power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and accordingly direct defendant no. 2 (owner of the suit house) to refund Rs. 4 lacs to defendant no. 1 within three months after execution of sale deed by them in favour of plaintiff pursuant to the impugned judgment/decree — failure to refund the amount within three months, would carry interest at the rate of 9% payable on the unpaid amount from the date of this order till recovery and defendant no. 1, in the event of non-payment by defendant no. 2, would be entitled to levy execution against defendant no. 2 for realization of outstanding money along with interest as awarded treating this order to be a decree in appropriate executing court in accordance with law — court given this direction because this Court alone has power to pass such directions in an appropriate case and in court's view, this is a case wherein court considers it appropriate to do so, to do substantial justice to all parties.

2014 SCCL.COM 516(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 2475 of 2009)
Munni @ Syed Akbar Appellant versus State of Inspector Of Police, Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 10/29/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre  .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498A, 302 and 201 — charge under — appellant is the husband of the deceased Gulsara Banu. Along with the appellant, his parents were also proceeded against, who were arrayed as A2 and A3. All the three accused were charged for offences under Sections 498(A), 302 and 201 of I.P.C. — A2 who was also charged under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. was acquitted of those charges. A2 and A3 have already undergone the sentence, even while the appellant’s appeal was preferred before the High Court. The High Court therefore dealt with the case of the appellant alone — the appellant having successfully carried out his evil design in the killing of the deceased with the use of M.O.8 cable, however, made an unsuccessful effort to make it appear as though the deceased was hanging from the roof top with the aid of a saree — if really the deceased had hanged herself with the aid of a saree, there was absolutely no scope for a cable mark on her neck. There was also no breaking of the hyoid bone or the trachea — the appellant having failed to clear vital circumstances found proved against the appellant, the ultimate conclusion of the trial Court as well as the confirmation by the High Court of the guilt of the appellant in the killing of the deceased falling under Section 302 of I.P.C could have been the only conclusion, more so, when the appellant was found guilty of the offence under Sections 498(A) as well as Section 201 of I.P.C.  

2014 SCCL.COM 536(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2481 of 2014)
Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck Appellant versus Gharda Chemicals Limited & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 10/28/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri  .
Subject Index: Companies Act, 1956 — Articles of Association — Article 57 — selling of shares by second respondent — this Court cannot be converted into a Court which enquires into the questions of fact for the first time — in view of the fact the High Court, though noted the contentions of the respondent herein, failed to record any conclusion thereon, court deems it appropriate to remit the matter to the High Court only for the purpose of considering the submissions of the respondent and take appropriate decision.

2014 SCCL.COM 530(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 9931 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.11990 of 2008))
New Mangalore Port Listed Workers Appellant versus The Regional Director, ESI Corporation, Bangalore, Karanataka Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 10/28/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Banumathi  .
Subject Index: Employees State Insurance Act, 1998 — applicability of the provisions — whether or not New Mangalore Port Listed Workers Managing Committee is an integral part of New Mangalore Port Trust and whether State Government is the “appropriate government” to extend the applicability of provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 to the New Mangalore Port Listed Workers Managing Committee are the points falling for consideration in this appeal.

2014 SCCL.COM 529(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2415 of 2003)
Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. Appellant versus Employees State Insurance Corpon. Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 10/28/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Banumathi  .
Subject Index: Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 — "factory" — manufacturing process — whether kitchen of the appellant-club and catering section thereon come within the meaning of “factory” and “manufacturing process” as defined in Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948?  

2014 SCCL.COM 528(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 2310 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2659 of 2012))
Sunita Kachwaha & others Appellants versus Anil Kachwaha Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 10/28/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Banumathi  .
Subject Index: Maintenance — awarded to the wife set aside by the High Court — order of maintenance awarded to the two daughters affirmed — the maintenance amount awarded to the daughters has been subsequently enhanced to Rs.10,000/- per month —  the maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- per month awarded to the wife appears to be minimal and in supreme court's view, the High Court ought not to have set aside the award of maintenance.

2014 SCCL.COM 527(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 9927-9930 of 2014 and (CC Nos.4232-4233 of 2014))
Kulwant Singh & others Appellants versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 10/28/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel  .
Subject Index: Insurance Policy — breach of conditions — whether the Insurance Company is entitled to recovery rights on the ground of breach of conditions of insurance policy when the driver possesses valid driving licence for driving light vehicle but fails to obtain endorsement for driving goods vehicle.

2014 SCCL.COM 526(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5225 of 2008)
KSL & Industries Ltd. Appellant versus M/s Arihant Threads Ltd. & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 10/27/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble The Chief Justice H.L.Dattu, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre  .
Subject Index: Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 — section 34 — interpretation of — difference of opinion having arisen the matter has been referred for decision to this Bench by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India — the present appeal is preferred by KSL & Industries Ltd. against the final Judgment and Order dated 23.02.06 passed by the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 2041-2042 OF 2006. The High Court set aside the Order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi and held that in view of the bar contained in Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 no recovery proceedings could be effected against Respondent No. 1 — held the provisions of SICA, in particular Section 22, shall prevail over the provision for the recovery of debts in the RDDB Act.

go top | go back

Home | Membership form | Journals & Books | Services | About Us | Register with us | Supreme Court Caselaw |Consumer Caselaw | Latest Cases | Food Laws | Drug Laws | Labour Laws | Consumer Laws | Municipal Laws | Law Links | Suggestions/Complaints
For any query or help, mail us