Court : Supreme Court of India
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Sky Impex Limited (as buyer) entered into an agreement with JCE Consultancy (as seller) on 1.12.2001. The sale consideration for the products to be supplied by JCE Consultancy was determined at US$13,70,000 (approximately Rs.9 crores). The product was to be delivered no later than 30.1.2002. The buyer was to confirm receipt and certify quality and quantity. As per the agreement, the product was to be further transferred by the buyer (Sky Impex Limited) to Samsung Gulf Electronics, Dubai (hereafter referred to as Samsung, Dubai), a wholly owned subsidiary of Samsung Corporation, South Korea (hereinafter referred to as Samsung, South Korea). Consequent upon supply of the product under the contract/agreement dated 1.12.2001, Samsung Dubai was to issue a bill of exchange valued at US$14,32,000, in favour of the buyer Sky Impex Limited. Sky Impex Limited was to further endorse the bill of exchange in favour of the seller (JCE Consultancy). Withi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2010)1GLR466(SC); JT2010(1)SC99; 2010(1)SCALE306; (2010)2SCC200; 2010(1)LC423(SC)
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. Acting on a letter written by the writ petitioner, Rubabbuddin Sheikh, to the Chief Justice of India about the killing of his brother, Sohrabuddin Sheikh in a fake encounter and disappearance of his sister-in-law Kausarbi at the hands of the Anti Terrorist Squad (ATS) Gujarat Police and Rajasthan Special Task Force (RSTF), the Registry of this Court forwarded the letter to the Director General of Police, Gujarat to take action. This letter of the Registry of this Court was issued on 21st of January, 2007. After about six months and after several reminders, the Director General, Police, Gujarat, directed Ms. Geetha Johri, Inspector General, Police (Crime), to inquire about the facts stated in the letter. A case was registered as Enquiry No. 66 of 2006. From 11th of September, 2006 to 22nd of January, 2007 four Interim Reports were submitted by one V.L. Solanki, Police Inspector, working under Ms. Johri.2. In the present writ petition, the writ petitioner seeks a d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC201; 2009CriLJ4642; JT2009(10)SC590; 2009(11)SCALE573; (2009)9SCC682:2009AIRSCW5848
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by grant of special leave is directed by the appellant, assailing the judgment and order dated 3.1.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 18838 of 2004 by which the High Court dismissed the petition for quashing the criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 916 (c) of 2003 pending on the file of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna.3. The brief factual matrix of the case is as under:On 21.12.1998; Punjab National Bank, Patna City sanctioned a loan amount of Rs. 5 lakhs to M/s. Nirmala Alankar House, Patna City, a proprietary concern owned by one Jatinder Mohan. The said Jatinder Mohan furnished security of five guarantors including the respondent- complainant who in turn deposited Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) worth Rs. 50,000/-, each duly signed authorizing the bank to appropriate the proceeds of FDRs along with interest if the timely payments are not made by the borrowe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.1. Leave granted.2. On 7/12/2009, one Prashant Kapil, In-charge, Electronics Cell, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur lodged a First Information Report alleging that one Dhoom Singh in connivance with the appellant was collecting money from people on the pretext that he would get them recruited in the police department. After his arrest, one mobile phone was seized from Dhoom Singh. As the police wanted to verify whether the recorded conversation, which is in their possession, is between accused Dhoom Singh and the appellant, they needed voice sample of the appellant. The police, therefore, filed an application before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janpad Saharanpur, praying that the appellant be summoned to the court for recording the sample of his voice. On 8/1/2010, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur issued summons to the appellant to appear before the investigating officer and give his voice sample. The appellant approached the Alla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(57)BLJR2938; 2009CriLJ2957; JT2009(6)SC352; 2009(4)MPHT339(SC); 2009(7)SCALE19; (2009)6SCC652; 2009(7)LC3473(SC); 2009AIRSCW3469; 2009(3)LHSC2010; 2009(4)KCCRSN260; 2009CriLJ2957
Altamas Kabir, J. 1. In this Special Leave Petition we are called upon to consider whether a default sentence can be imposed when compensation is awarded under Sub-section (3) of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. In the instant case, the petitioner stood convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court-II, Pathanamthitta, of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a sum of Rs. 8,25,000/- as compensation to the complainant/Respondent No. 1 herein under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (Cr.P.C.in short) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. On appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 41/2006), the Additional District and Sessions Judge by her order dated 27th March, 2007 confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate. In revision, being Criminal Revision Petition No. 1836 of 2007-D, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009AIRSCW3251; AIR2009SC3232; JT2009(4)SC522; 2009(3)SCALE604; (2009)5SCC528; 2009AIRSCW3251; 2009(2)LHSC961
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Effect of pendency of a probate proceeding vis-`-vis a criminal case involving allegations of forgery of a Will is the question involved in this appeal. It arises out of a judgment and order dated 23.7.2005 passed by a learned single judge of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision No. 184 of 2005. 3. Before embarking on the said legal question, we may notice the factual matrix involved herein.One Shamim Amna Imam (testatrix) indisputably was the owner of the properties in question. Allegedly, she executed a Will in favour of the appellants on 3.5.1998. She expired on 23.5.1998.Her legal heir was one Smt. Syeda Mehndi Imam (`Syeda' for short), the mother of the testatrix.On or about 23.1.1999, Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam (`Askari' for short) filed an application before the office of the Sub- Registrar Hazaribagh in the State of Jharkhand for registration of the said Will dated 3.5.1998. He also applied before the Delhi Development Authority (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2023INSC1071IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.3838 Of 2023 (Arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11129 Of 2023) Afjal Ansari .Appellant(s) versus State of UP .Respondent(s) JUDGEMENT SURYA KANT, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.07.2023, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter, High Court), partially allowing the application filed by the Appellant under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, CrPC), for the stay on the sentence and conviction, awarded by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, MP/MLA Court, Ghazipur (hereinafter, Trial Court) vide judgement and order dated 29.04.2023. The High Court, has through the impugned order, Page 1 of 19 suspended the Appellants sentence and granted him bail but the stay on conviction has been declined. FACTS:3. At this juncture, it is imperative to delve into the factual matrix to set out ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2023 INSC1066IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT/ CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Curative Petition (C) No.44 of 2023 in Review Petition (C) No.704 of 2021 in Civil Appeal No.1599 of 2020 IN RE: INTERPLAY BETWEEN ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS UNDER THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT1996AND THE INDIAN STAMP ACT1899And With Arbitration Petition No.25 of 2023 1 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI A. Reference .................................................................................................................. 5 B. Submissions ........................................................................................................... 12 C. Maintainability ........................................................................................................ 18 D. The Indian Stamp Act 1899 .................................................................................... 22 i. Overview ...................................................................................
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.967 OF2021Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya Appellant(s) Versus Anand Athabhai Chaudhari & Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1.0. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 09.05.2019 passed by the High Court of Gujarat passed in Special Criminal Application No.5670 of 2017, by which, the High Court has allowed the said Special Criminal Application and has quashed and set aside the FIR being M Case No.2 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 325, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Atrocities Act) and also quashing and setting aside the order of issuance of summons dated 15.02.2017 passed by the Page 1 of 29 learned JMFC, Jhalod in Criminal Inquiry No.108 of 2013 as well as all consequential ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.1021 of 2022 Varsha Garg ...Appellant Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents WITH MA1144of 2022 In SLP (Crl) No.2239 of 2022 1 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J1A Single Judge of the Indore Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh rejected, by a judgment dated 8 April 2022, a petition instituted by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 19731 registered as Misc. Criminal Case No.57152 of 2021. 2 The petition addressed a challenge to the correctness of an order dated 13 November 2021 of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, District Indore rejecting an application under Section 311 CrPC seeking to summon the nodal officers of certain cellular entities along with the decoding register to trace the mobile location of accused Vikas, Mangilal and Suresh. 3 The appellant is the spouse of an advocate who was brutally murdered outsi...
Tag this Judgment!