Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-05-2009
Reported in : AIR2009SC1881; JT2009(7)SC566; 2009(5)KarLJ257; 2009(7)SCALE6; (2009)6SCC61; 2009AIRSCW3378
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore. Learned Sessions Judge have found the accused appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short the `IPC').2. Background facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant are as follows:On 13/14.2.1994 Smt. Mythradevi (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') was done to death in the bedroom of the matrimonial home of the deceased. According to 'the investigation reports by about 6 a.m. on 14.2.1994 the inmates of the matrimonial home of the deceased learnt about the suspicious death of the deceased. By 9.30 a.m. on the very same day parents of the deceased came to the matrimonial home of the deceased after hearing the news of death of their daughter Mythradevi. Father of the deceased (P.W.6) informed the same to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-17-2009
Reported in : JT2009(15)SC227; 2009(14)SCALE604; (2010)2SCC190
J.M. Panchal, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against judgment dated May 25, 2007, rendered by the learned single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 5819 of 2006, by which the finding recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Sessions Trial Case No. 271 of 2000, decided on September 7, 2006 that the appellants are not guilty under Section 308 IPC but are guilty under Section 324/149 IPC and are entitled to be released on probation of good conduct, is set aside and the case is remanded to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge with a direction to pass fresh order of conviction of the appellants in the light of observations made in the judgment and impose sentence on them in accordance with law.3. The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under:The respondent No. 1, i.e., Kant Pandey, resides at village Tikara, District Jaunpur. On May 16, 1999, the appellants formed an unlawful assembly, common ob...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-17-2009
Reported in : 2010(1)AWC752(SC); JT2009(15)SC363; 2009(14)SCALE682; (2010)2SCC107
J.M. Panchal, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against judgment dated March 29, 2007 rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Bench at Gwalior in Civil Revision No. 122 of 2005, by which order dated May 5, 2005, passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Gwalior in MJC No. 3 of 2004 allowing the application filed by the respondent No. 1 under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confirmed and order dated December 16, 2003 in MJC No. 35 of 2001 (new number 29 of 2003) dismissing the said case for default as well as order dated August 23, 2001 dismissing MJC No. 25 of 1998 for default are set aside and Civil Suit No. 3A of 1996, which was dismissed as withdrawn on February 28, 1997, is restored.3. The relevant facts emerging from the record of the case are as under:Late Mr. Shankar Lal, who was father of the respondent No. 1, filed Civil Suit No. 11 of 1955 for partition of the joint properties....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-16-2009
Reported in : 2010(2)BomCR77; JT2009(15)SC354; 2009(14)SCALE613; (2010)2SCC261
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 3.3. Only short issue involved in these appeals is with regard to interpretation of the directions issued by this Court by its order dated 7th November, 2006 in I.A. Nos. 2-5 & 8 in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10281 of 2006. It is submitted by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the order passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition Nos. 1589/2007, 1075/2007 and 1036/2007 on 17th of September, 2009 is contrary to the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid order dated 7th November, 2006. In order to appreciate the submissions made by Mr. Rohatgi, it would be necessary to reproduce the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 7th November, 2006 and the directions issued by the High Court in the impugned order dated 17th of September, 2009. On 7t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-16-2009
Reported in : 2010(2)ALT17(SC); 2010(1)AWC750(SC); JT2009(15)SC391; 2009(14)SCALE690; (2010)2SCC250
P. Sathasivam, J.1. These civil appeals were directed against the judgment and order dated 14.05.2002 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. Nos. 4 & 5 of 2001, in and by which the High Court, by separate orders, confirmed the findings recorded by both the Courts below and dismissed the second appeals.2. Heard Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned Counsel for the appellant.3. In view of the questions raised and the course which we are going to adopt, there is no need to refer all the factual matrix in both the second appeals. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, though substantial questions of law that arose for consideration before the High Court was to the validity of the Wills dated 07.12.1979 and 11.08.1986, the High Court without adverting to factual details, salient features and validity of those wills dismissed the second appeals without giving adequate reasons.4. It is seen from the materials placed that one Natha Singh owned two houses - one in Punjab a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-16-2009
Reported in : AIR2010SC618; 2009(14)SCALE724; (2010)1SCC679
Altamas Kabir, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed by the H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') against the judgment and order dated 3rd July, 2006, passed by the Madras High Court in Crl.M.P. No. 3784 of 2006 and Crl.C.P. No. 15217 of 2006, allowing the application filed by the Respondent No. 1 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to him.3. According to the Bank, the Respondent No. 1 in his capacity' as the Managing Director of the Mannan Construction Corporation Private Limited, a company engaged in the execution of Highway Contracts and contracts of the Public Works Department (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'), along with one M/s. Immanuel Projects Private Ltd.., applied for a loan of Rs. 2,03,40,000/- (Rupees Two Crores, three lakhs and forty thousand) only, for purchase of 6 Krishna Electronic Sensor Paver Finishers from one M/s. Krishna Engineering Works in Ahmedabad. The said loan ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-15-2009
Reported in : JT2009(15)SC384; 2010(I)OLR(SC)159; 2009(14)SCALE609
ORDERSurinder Singh Nijjar, J.1. Leave granted.2. The application filed by the appellant seeking anticipatory bail has been rejected for the third time by the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench. On the basis of the complaint made by one Karan/Karani Singh an FIR has been registered against the appellant i.e. FIR No. 107/2007 dated 3.5.2007 Jaipur City, Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar under Section 420, 467, 468, 120B IPC. It is alleged that the complainant agreed to purchase the flats being Flat Nos. 101 and 101A from the appellant and his father the necessary consideration was received by the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The same flats were subsequently sold to somebody else. It is, therefore, alleged that the appellant has committed offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 120B IPC. Amar Nath Saxena (father of the Appellant); the Appellant i.e., Ravindra Saxena; Shrimati Sharada Devi and Pradeep Maheshwari and accused numbers 1 to 4 in the FIR. According to the appellant the investigation i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-15-2009
Reported in : 2010(1)ALT52(SC); 2010(1)AWC921(SC); 2009(14)SCALE665; (2010)2SCC77
Altamas Kabir, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13th October, 2008, passed by the Gwalior -Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing Miscellaneous Appeal No. 478 of 2007 filed by the appellant herein. The said Miscellaneous Appeal had been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 14th February, 2007, passed by 5th Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in Civil Suit No. 08A of 2006 filed by the appellant rejecting the appellant's application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. The appellant herein had filed the above-mentioned suit for declaration and permanent injunction and also mandatory injunction in respect of the suit property situated at Nadigate Jayendra Ganj, Lashkar, Gwalior, bearing Survey No. 37/903 on the ground that the suit property was the ancestral property of his father, Bapu Saheb Kante, who had died intestate on 13th May, 1976. The application for ad-interim injunction had be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-15-2009
Reported in : AIR2010SC336; JT2009(15)SC388; 2009(14)SCALE692; (2010)2SCC222
Altamas Kabir, J.1. This Special Leave Petition has been filed by the Union of India and its officers in the Ministry of Defence against the judgment and order dated 1st September, 2005, passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in Writ Petition (S) No. 2569 of 2005, dismissing the same. The respondent, who was working as a Civilian Motor Driver-II in the establishment of the Senior Quality Assurance Officer, Senior Quality Assurance Establishment (Armaments) in the Gun Carriage Factory at Jabalpur, was suspended pending inquiry on 10th August, 2002. Under Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 amended by Notification dated 23rd December, 2003, Sub-rules (6) and (7) were inserted. As the same are relevant to the facts of this case, the same are extracted hereinbelow:(6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rules shall be reviewed by the authority competent to modify or revoke the suspension, before expiry of ninety days from the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-15-2009
Reported in : 2010(1)ALT45(SC); 2010(1)AWC926(SC); JT2009(15)SC379; 2009(14)SCALE695; (2010)2SCC124; 2010(1)LC231(SC)
Altamas Kabir, J.1. One Bhavani Shankar, the father of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Subhash Paliwal and Gopal Paliwal, was the owner of several properties, including the disputed shop room. After his demise, on 3rd January, 1998, Subhash Paliwal and Gopal Paliwal filed a suit against the petitioners for their eviction from the shop room in question on the ground of personal necessity and bonafide necessity of Sandeep, son of Subhash Paliwal, for his painting business. On 22nd July, 1998, the petitioners filed an application under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for a direction upon the respondents to produce on record the Will said to have been executed by their late father, Bhavani Shankar, on 21st July, 1989, whereby he was alleged to have bequeathed the disputed shop room to his younger son, Gopal Paliwal, thereby asserting that Subhash Paliwal was not the owner of the suit shop room and the suit for eviction for the bonafide need of his son was not, t...
Tag this Judgment!