Show the cases, Nominal/Party Name wise
Show the cases, Date of Decision wise
LATEST CASES
(for last one month)
Total No. of Cases: 33

2014 SCCL.COM 190(Case No: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 619 OF 2010)
M.K. GOPINATHAN versus J. KRISHNA & ORS.
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/17/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice of India P. SATHASIVAM, Hon'ble Mr. Justice RANJAN GOGOI and Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. RAMANA.
Subject Index: Motor Accident Claims Appeal — Appellant Employed in Malaysia — Came to native town — suffered severe injuries, namely a crush injury on his upper right arm which had to be - amputated. The appellant was treated as an in-patient in the hospital for 42 days and during which time four surgeries were conducted on him — filed claim for compensation of Rs. 75,00,000/- — the Tribunal, passed award on 28.02.2004, awarding compensation to the appellant to a tune of Rs.5,15,700/- in all — the compensation awarded is not in consonance with the income and status of the appellant. On the date of accident, the appellant was a Tool and Die Engineer on permanent rolls of a company in Malaysia and was getting salary of Rs.50,000/- p.m. — taking into consideration the undisputed fact of his qualification, and particularly his working in overseas Company, it will be just and reasonable to consider his monthly income as Rs. 8,000/-.

2014 SCCL.COM 194(Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.872 OF 2014)
LICIL ANTONY versus STATE OF KERALA & ANR.
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/15/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD and Hon'ble Mr. Justice PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE.
Subject Index: Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act,1974 — detention order passed under — High Court declining to quash the order — the detaining authority after scrutiny and evaluation of the proposals and the documents, decided on 25th of January, 2013 to place the proposals before the screening committee and forwarded the same to it on 1st of February, 2013. The proposals of the detenu’s detention along with two others were considered by the screening committee which concurred with the recommendation of the sponsoring authority — Supreme Court is in agreement with the High Court that the bail order passed by the trial court in Andhra Pradesh is not a crucial and vital document and the omission by the detaining authority to consider the same has, in no way affected its subjective satisfaction — Supreme Court does not find any error in the order of detention and the order passed by the High Court, refusing to quash the same.

2014 SCCL.COM 193(Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 666 OF 2009)
Karan Singh & another versus State of Haryana
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/15/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304-B and 306 —  whether the appellants are guilty of an offence punishable under Section 304-B or under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) — they are guilty of an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.

2014 SCCL.COM 191(Case No: Writ Petition (Civil) No.400 of 2012 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.604 of 2013)
National Legal Services Authority versus Union of India and others
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/15/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri.
Subject Index: Transgender Community — grievances of the members — who seek a legal declaration of their gender identity than the one assigned to them, male or female, at the time of birth and their prayer is that non-recognition of their gender identity violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India — Hijras/Eunuchs, who also fall in that group, claim legal status as a third gender with all legal and constitutional protection — non-recognition of the identity of Hijras, a TG community, as a third gender, denies them the right of equality before the law and equal protection of law guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution and violates the rights guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution of India — TGs are deprived of social and cultural participation and hence restricted access to education, health care and public places which deprives them of the Constitutional guarantee of equality before law and equal protection of laws — declared that Hijras, Eunuchs, apart from binary gender, be treated as “third gender” for the purpose of safeguarding their rights under Part III of our Constitution and the laws made by the Parliament and the State Legislature — Transgender persons’ right to decide their self-identified gender is also upheld and the Centre and State Governments are directed to grant legal recognition of their gender identity such as male, female or as third gender — Centre and the State Governments to take steps to treat them as socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and extend all kinds of reservation in cases of admission in educational institutions and for public appointments etc. etc.

2014 SCCL.COM 192(Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.885 and 1073 OF 2007)
State of Rajasthan versus Manoj Kumar & Anr.
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/11/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. S. Radhakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 and 304 Part I — Converting the Conviction of Raju under Section 302 to under Section 304 Part I IPC and further confirming his conviction under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further six months rigorous imprisonment — the right of private defence had only been exceeded by Rajkumar. In such a case, the guilt of each of the accused, who had exceeded the right of private defence, has to be dealt with separately. The matter would have been totally different, had the right of private defence did not exist at all or the accused persons had done any overt act — the constructive liability, as envisaged under Section 34 IPC, is not attracted.

2014 SCCL.COM 181(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1672 of 2010)
Purnya Kala Devi Appellant versus State of Assam & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/7/2014.
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: Compensation — motor vehicle accident — whether payable by the registered owner and not by the State Govt.? — the High Court failed to appreciate that Section 146 of the 1988 Act requires that no person shall use or cause or allow any other person to use a motor vehicle in a public place without an insurance policy meeting the requirements of Chapter XI of the 1988 Act and the State Government has violated the statutory provisions of the 1988 Act. The Tribunal also erred in accepting the allegation of Respondent No. 2 that the vehicle was released on the date of the accident at 10.30 a.m. and the accident occurred at 10.30 a.m. without any evidence — the appellant/claimant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 1,94,400/- as fixed by the High Court with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and the same is payable by the State of Assam.

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 188(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 735 of 2014 (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9184 of 2008))
Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria & another Appellants versus State of Gujarat & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/3/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose  .
Subject Index: Evidence — in the case in hand, excepting apprehension, there is nothing in the note. No circumstance of any transaction resulting in the death of the deceased is found in the note — the other evidence sought to be relied for summoning the appellant is the alleged conversation between the appellant and the accused on and immediately after the day of the occurrence. But, nothing has come during the course of trial regarding the content of the conversation and from call records alone, the appellant’s complicity in the crime does not surface at all — it is evident that no evidence has at all come during the trial which shows even a prima facie complicity of the appellant in the crime. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the trial court summoning the appellant, as affirmed by the High Court, cannot be allowed to stand.

2014 SCCL.COM 182(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 4383 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.4926 of 2006))
A.P.N.G.O.’s Association Appellant versus Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/3/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar  .
Subject Index: Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religion Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 — section 80 — the approach of the Division Bench is not in tune with the language of Section 80. The purpose of making an endowment in favour of a deity is to generate income for the various services required to be rendered to the deity — the prospect of getting a higher income is certainly relevant consideration than the possibility of an appreciation in the value of the asset endowed — the entire higher annual income accruing as interest on the sale proceeds of the asset need not be utilised every year only for the services but part of it can always be reinvested in proper asset to beat the inflation — the Division Bench erred in interfering with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

2014 SCCL.COM 187(Case No: Arbitration Petition No. 27 of 2013)
Reliance Industries Ltd. & others Petitioners versus Union of India Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/31/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar  .
Subject Index: Arbitration Act, 1996 — section 11(6) — petition under — 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 — the apprehension expressed by the Respondent Union of India seems to be imaginary and illusory — upon due consideration, Supreme Court appoints Honourable James Spigelman AC QC, former Chief Justice and Lieutenant Governor of New South Wales, Australia as the third Arbitrator who shall act as the Chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal.

2014 SCCL.COM 184(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1240 of 2004)
Ram Niranjan Roy Appellant versus State of Bihar and others Respondents  
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/31/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Prakash Desai and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur.
Subject Index: Constitution of India — Articles 19 and 20 — whether the respondents were duty bound to provide safe and healthy atmosphere for the proper development of the State or not and whether the inaction of the respondents was violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 20 of the Constitution of India — petitioner inter alia sought direction to the respondents to take measures to stop exploitation of shopkeepers, dealers, artisans, labourers and industrial units by officers and police personnel — the High Court cannot be faulted for punishing the appellant for contempt of court. No interference is necessary with the impugned order — also concerned with the contempt of this Court committed by the appellant — the appellant to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-. The fine shall be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks from today, failing which the appellant shall suffer simple imprisonment for seven days.

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 189(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1027 of 2008)
Union of India Appellant versus Sheo Shambhu Giri Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/25/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar  .
Subject Index: NDPS Act, 1985 — section 23 and 29 — trial under — the trial court found the respondent herein guilty of an offence under Section 23 of the NDPS Act but found that the charge under Section 29 of the Act is not proved against him. He was, therefore, convicted for an offence under Section 23 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh for an offence under Section 23 of the NDPS Act — the High Court, allowed the appeal of the respondent and set aside his conviction under Section 23 of the NDPS Act — appeal — the Central Government is authorized to make rules which may permit and regulate various activities such as cultivation, gathering, production, possession, sale, transport, inter-state import or export of various substances like coca leaves, poppy straw, opium poppy and opium derivatives etc., while the Parliament used the expression transport in the context of inter-state import or export of such material in sub- Section 1(a)(vi), in the context of importing to India and export out of India, Parliament employed the expression transhipment in Section 9(i)(a)(vii) — the High Court rightly concluded that the conviction of the respondent under Section 23 of the NDPS Act cannot be sustained.

2014 SCCL.COM 186(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 444 of 2008)
Vijay Singh & another Appellants versus State of Madhya Pradesh Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/25/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar  .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 147, 148, 302/149 — charge under — the Sessions Judge acquitted 9 of the 11 accused and convicted the appellants herein for commission of offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life — on appeal, the High Court confirmed their conviction and sentence — the appellants had caused grievous injuries on the person of the deceased. Hence, they may not be held guilty under Section 302 or 302 read with Section 34 IPC, but surely their acts come within the mischief of Section 326 IPC — the appeal is partly allowed, the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302 IPC is set aside, instead they are convicted under Section 326 IPC.

2014 SCCL.COM 183(Case No: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 36518 and 37456 of 2013)
Sheela Jawarlal Nagori & another Petitioners versus Kantilal Nathmal Baldota & others 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: Eviction — whether a landlord can maintain a suit for eviction of his tenant even after an award has been passed in respect of the tenanted property under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — the answer must be in the affirmative — even though the High Court trusts a litigant before it to comply with its orders, sometimes a litigant does not take the High Court seriously. This is unfortunate and undermines the authority of the Court — the recurrence of a situation as has happened in these cases needs to be avoided. Therefore, the High Court would be well advised to consider having the tenant first file an undertaking and placed on record before granting any interim order after dismissal of the tenant’s petition.

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.

2014 SCCL.COM 185(Case No: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 6609-6613 of 2014)
Brijesh Kumar & others Petitioners versus State of Haryana & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/24/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — section 54 — delay of more than 10 years in filing appeal under — condonation of delay — dismissal of application — in the instant case, after considering the facts and circumstances and the reasons for inordinate delay of 10 years 2 months and 29 days, the High Court did not find sufficient grounds to condone the delay — no fault in the impugned judgment.

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