Show the cases, Nominal/Party Name wise
Show the cases, Date of Decision wise
LATEST CASES
(for last one month)
Total No. of Cases: 19

2014 SCCL.COM 165(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 833 of 2014 Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 7700 of 2007 with Criminal Appeal No. 834 of 2014 Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 20 of 2008  )
M/s. Haryana State Coop. Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. Appellant versus M/s. Jayam Textiles & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/7/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble The Chief Justice P. Sathasivam, Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi  .
Subject Index: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — section 138, 140 — amount not paid — the appellant-Federation filed complaints under Section 138 and 140 of the N.I. Act read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 — if the Courts below were not satisfied, an opportunity ought to have been granted to the appellant-Federation to place the document containing authorisation on record and prove the same in accordance with law. This is so because procedural defects and irregularities, which are curable, should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice — procedure, a hand-maiden to justice, should never be made a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice, by any oppressive or punitive use — Supreme Court of the opinion that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, an opportunity should be given to the appellant- Federation to produce and prove the authorisation before the Trial Court, more so, when money involved is public money.

2014 SCCL.COM 179(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 4412-4415 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.27082, 28373, 28399 and 28437 of 2012))
Hitendra Singh S/o Bhupendra Singh & others Appellants versus Dr. P.D. Krishi Vidyapeeth by Reg. & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/4/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C Nagappan  .
Subject Index: Services termination — the establishment of a Selection Board and formulation of proper procedure to be followed by the Board will go a long way in making the process of selection and recruitment objective, fair and reasonable apart from bringing transparency to the norms and the process by which such recruitments were made — the process of amendment of relevant statute is expedited by the University and concluded as far as possible within six months from today and process of filling up of posts of SRAs and JRAs currently held by the petitioners and those that were advertised in terms of advertisement dated 23rd March 2012 undertaken in accordance with such procedure — the appellants shall also be allowed to apply and participate in the selection process against the vacancies so advertised in relaxation of the upper age limit prescribed for such recruitment — such of the appellants who do not compete for the selection or are not selected for the posts that may be advertised shall stand ousted from service on completion of the period of six months hereby granted.

2014 SCCL.COM 178(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1195 of 2007)
State of Rajasthan & another Appellants versus C.P. Singh & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/4/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh .
Subject Index: Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 — Superannuation at the age of 55 yrs. — 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 — once the State of Rajasthan, with the previous approval of the Central Government, gave an option to Respondent No.1 not confined to any particular age of retirement but to elect between Regulations and the Rules of 1951, Respondent No.1 cannot be subsequently deprived of the benefits of enhanced age of retirement accruing to him on account of amendments in the Regulations made in the year 1962 when Respondent No.1 was still in service.

2014 SCCL.COM 176(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 4126 of 2013)
T.N. Generation & Distbn. Corpn. Ltd. Appellant versus PPN power Gen. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/4/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri .
Subject Index: Electricity Act, 2003 — section 125 — statutory appeal under.  

2014 SCCL.COM 174(Case No: Criminal Appeal No............ of 2014 [Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.9014 of 2013])
Vinod Kumar Appellant versus State of Kerala Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/4/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen  .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 376 — concurrent conviction of the Appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), although the findings of the two Courts substantially differ — the High Court has set aside his conviction under Sections 417 and 419 IPC, whereas the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvanthapuram, had sentenced the Appellant to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment thereof, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years. In the Impugned Order the High Court has reduced this sentence to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four years but, while maintaining the fine of Rs.25,000/-, has ordered that in default of its deposit, the Appellant would suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for the reduced period of six months. At the commencement of the impugned Judgment, the learned Judge has aptly observed that what began as a telephonic friendship strengthened into close acquaintance between the Appellant and the prosecutrix (PW2) which later blossomed into love, eventually leading them to elope. Despite arriving at this conclusion, the learned Judge has nevertheless termed PW2 as the victim, which seems to be an incongruous factual finding leading to a misconception and consequently a misapplication of the law — the Appellant is not an innocent man inasmuch as he had willynilly entered into a relationship with the prosecutrix, in violation of his matrimonial vows and his paternal duties and responsibilities. If he has suffered incarceration for an offence for which he is not culpable, he should realise that retribution in another form has duly visited him. It can only be hoped that his wife Chitralekha will find in herself the fortitude to forgive so that their family may be united again and may rediscover happiness, as avowedly the prosecutrix has found — conviction set aside.

2014 SCCL.COM 162(Case No: Curative Petition (Criminal) No. 88 of 2013 in Review Petition (Criminal) No. 435 of 2013 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 146 of 2011)
Navneet Kaur Petitioner versus State of NCT of Delhi & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/31/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble The Justice P. Sathasivam, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya .
Subject Index: Death sentence — setting aside — by commuting the same to imprisonment for life on the ground of supervening circumstance of delay of 8 years in disposal of mercy petition — the three-Judge Bench in Shatrughan Chauhan  held that insanity/mental illness/schizophrenia is also one of the supervening circumstances for commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment. By applying the principle enunciated in Shatrughan Chauhan the accused cannot be executed with the said health condition — fit to commute the death sentence imposed on Devender Pal Singh Bhullar into life imprisonment both on the ground of unexplained/inordinate delay of 8 years in disposal of mercy petition and on the ground of insanity.

2014 SCCL.COM 161(Case No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 708-710 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8013 of 2012) with (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.159-160 of 2013))
State of Bihar & others Appellants versus Rajmangal Ram Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/31/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble The Chief Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi  .
Subject Index: Sanction for Prosecution — the criminal proceedings instituted against the respondents under different provisions of the Indian Penal Code as well as the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have been interdicted on the ground that sanction for prosecution of the respondents in both the cases has been granted by the Law Department of the State and not by the parent department to which the respondents belong.

2014 SCCL.COM 160(Case No: Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 521 and 523-524 of 2002, Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 37 and 38 of 2003, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 465 of 2005 and Civil Appeal Nos. 4248-4249 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 9558-9559 of 2010))
P. Ramakrishnam Raju Petitioner versus Union of India & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/31/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble The Chief Justice P. Sathasivam, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana  .
Subject Index: Pension — whether High Court Judges, who are appointed from the Bar under Article 217(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, on retirement, are entitled for an addition of 10 years to their service for the purposes of their pension? — petitions have been filed by former Judges of the various High Courts of the country as well as by the Association of the Retired Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts elevated from the Bar — most of the States in the country have extended various post-retiral benefits to the retired Chief Justices and retired Judges of the respective High Courts — the States who have not so far framed such scheme will formulate the same, depending on the local conditions, for the benefit of the retired Chief Justices and retired Judges of the respective High Courts as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

2014 SCCL.COM 180(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 2014 and (arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) No.9547 of 2013))
Narinder Singh & others Appellants versus State of Punjab & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/27/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri .
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, section 482 — petition under — for quashing the FIR 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 sole reason which weighed with the High Court in refusing to accept the settlement between the parties was the nature of injuries — the chances of conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings.

2014 SCCL.COM 177(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2240 of 2006)
State of Jharkhand & others Appellants versus M/s. LA Opala R.G. Ltd. Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/27/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde .
Subject Index: Tax — Payment of — by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has set aside the letter issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Deogarh Circle, dated 13.05.2004, whereby the Assessing Authority has rejected the stand of the respondent-dealer that it is eligible to pay reduced rate of tax under the notification S.O. No.25 issued by the Government of Jharkhand, dated 25.06.2001 and directed the respondent-dealer to deposit taxes in relation to inter-State sales at the rate of 4% — the respondent-dealer, a manufacturer of articles of glass, is not entitled to derive the benefit of the notification issued by the State Government, dated 25.06.2001 — the appellants not to levy penalty while recovering the difference of tax payable only for the assessment years 2002-2003 to 2005-2006.

2014 SCCL.COM 173(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 689 of 2014 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.)No.1348 of 2014])
Sundeep Kumar Bafna Appellant versus State of Maharashtra & another Respondents  
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/27/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — section 439 — bail under — the futility of the Appellant’s endeavours to secure anticipatory bail having attained finality, he had once again knocked at the portals of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, this time around for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which was declined with the observations that it is the Magistrate whose jurisdiction has necessarily to be invoked and not of the High Court or even the Sessions Judge. The legality of this conclusion is the gravemen of the appeal — while declining to grant anticipatory bail to the Appellant, this Court had extended to him transient insulation from arrest for a period of four weeks to enable him to apply for regular bail — the learned Single Judge erred in law in holding that he was devoid of jurisdiction so far as the application presented to him by the Appellant — conceptually, he could have declined to accept the prayer to surrender to the Courts’ custody, although, the Hon'ble Court presently not aware of any reason for this option to be exercised. Once the prayer for surrender is accepted, the Appellant would come into the custody of the Court within the contemplation of Section 439 CrPC. The Sessions Court as well as the High Court, both of which exercised concurrent powers under Section 439, would then have to venture to the merits of the matter so as to decide whether the applicant/Appellant had shown sufficient reason or grounds for being enlarged on bail — the impugned Order is, accordingly, set aside. The Learned Single Judge shall consider the Appellant’s plea for surrendering to the Court and dependent on that decision, the Learned Single Judge shall, thereafter, consider the Appellant’s plea for his being granted bail. The Appellant shall not be arrested for a period of two weeks or till the final disposal of the said application, whichever is later — the learned Single Judge shall remain impervious to any pressure that may be brought to bear upon him either from the public or from the media as this is the fundamental and onerous duty cast on every Judge.

2014 SCCL.COM 172(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 696 of 2009)
Mangat Ram Appellant versus State of Haryana Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/27/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 498-A and 304-B — charge — sheeted under — the trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that an offence under Section 498-A IPC was made out against the appellant, but not against the other three accused persons. The trial Court also found that no offence under Section 304-B IPC was made out against the accused persons, including the appellant — the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing the offence under Section 498-A and Section 306 IPC against the appellant — the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court, are set aside.

2014 SCCL.COM 169(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1310 of 2010)
P.C. Mishra Appellant versus State (C.B.I.) & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/27/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — section 306 and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — section 7 — whether the pardon granted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari, Delhi, under Section 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 legally sustainable?

2014 SCCL.COM 168(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 687 of 2014 and (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2634 of 2013))
Homi Rajvansh Appellant versus State of Maharashtra & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/27/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble The Chief Justice P. Sathasivam, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana .
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — section 482 — inherent power under — exercise of — the CBI filed a charge-sheet dated 15.12.2008 against the appellant herein and Respondent No.3 along with other accused for committing offence under Section 120B read with Sections 409, 411,420, 467, 468 and 471 — though the High Court possesses inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code, these powers are meant to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. This Court, time and again, has observed that extraordinary power should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. The High Court would be justified in exercising the said power when it is imperative to exercise the same in order to prevent injustice — the appellant was not impleaded/shown as one of the parties before the High Court, the specific finding against his alleged role, based on the submissions of Respondent No.3 herein without giving an opportunity of being heard, cannot be sustained — the appellant herein – Homi Rajvansh be impleaded as Respondent No. 4 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 220 of 2010 and the High Court to hear the matter afresh after affording opportunity to all the parties including the newly impleaded party.

2014 SCCL.COM 175(Case No: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 155 of 2013 with Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos. 158, 165, 170, 171, 179, 181 196, 206 of 2013, Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 11 of 2014 Contempt Petition (Crl.) No.………….of 2014 (D1372) in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 155 of 2013 Transferred Case (Civil) Nos. 123, 124 and 125 of 2013, Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos. 1750, 1825, 1826, 1827, 1828, 1829, 1830 of 2013 and Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 35402 of 2013)
Mohd. Haroon & others Petitioners versus Union of India & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/26/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble The Chief Justice P. Sathasivam, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi .
Subject Index: Constitution of India — Article 32 — writ petition under — communal riots — broke out on 7-9-2013 — around District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh as a result of communal tension prevailing in the city, which wrecked lives of a large number of people who fled from their homes out of anxiety and fear — it is the claim of the petitioners herein that the local administration instead of enforcing the law allowed the congregation not only to take place, negligently and perhaps with certain amount of complicity, but also failed to monitor its proceedings. It is asserted in the petitions that since 27.08.2013 more than 200 Muslims have been brutally killed and around 500 are still missing in the spurt of the incident in 50 villages of the Jat community dominated areas where the Muslim community is in minority. It is the stand of the petitioners that in the remote villages more than 40,000 persons have migrated under threat and have been forcibly asked to move out of the village otherwise they would be killed — directions issued.

2014 SCCL.COM 163(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 3122 of 2006)
Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Appellant versus Bishamber Dayal Goyal and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/26/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose.
Subject Index: Allotment of Plots — non-payment of the instalments — 25% only paid — the appellant called upon the respondents to make the balance payments, being 75% of the cost with interest and penalty charges as prescribed in the said allotment letter. The respondents did not pay the same and filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency of services, failure to notify the Adampur Mandi as Market Area and failure to develop and provide basic amenities in the said locality — no grounds have been made out by the appellant to interfere with the order passed by the National Commission — adequate relief has been granted even to the respondents/complainants by awarding interest @ 12 per cent per annum on the entire deposited amounts.

2014 SCCL.COM 167(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6220 of 2008)
Fahim Ahmad & others Appellants versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/25/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble The Chief Justice P. Sathasivam, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana  .
Subject Index: Motor Accident claim compensation — who is liable to pay the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udham Singh Nagar.

2014 SCCL.COM 166(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 213, 215 and 217 of 2006)
Mannalal Chamaria & another Appellants versus State of West Bengal and another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/25/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur  .
Subject Index: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — sections 138 and 141 — complaint under — there is no specific or even a general allegation made against the appellants — the complaint against the appellants deserves dismissal — it is necessary for a complainant to state in the complaint that the person accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Although, no particular form for making such an allegation is prescribed, and it may not be necessary to reproduce the language of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, but a reading of the complaint should show that the substance of the accusation discloses that the accused person was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time.

2014 SCCL.COM 164(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 4001 of 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P. [C] No.26135 of 2013])
Smt. Savita Appellant versus Bindar Singh & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/25/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose.
Subject Index: Award of Motor Accidents claims Tribunal — affirmed by the High Court of Uttrakhand — appeal against — person died in an accident due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of a truck — claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation against the respondents — the order of the High Court and Tribunal is modified — the enhanced amount should be paid to the appellant after deducting the amount already paid, within a period of four weeks from date.

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