Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2024 INSC613IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION SMW (Crl) No 2 of 2024 IN RE: ALLEGED RAPE AND MURDER INCIDENT OF A TRAINEE DOCTOR IN R.G. KAR MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, KOLKATA AND RELATED ISSUES Versus Page 1 of 16 ORDER1 On 9 August, 2024, a thirty-one year old postgraduate doctor at RG Kar Medical College Hospital, Kolkata who was on a thirty six hour duty shift was murdered and allegedly raped inside the seminar room of the hospital. As horrific details have emerged in the course of media reportage, the brutality of the sexual assault and the nature of the crime have shocked the conscience of the Nation. The name and graphic images of the deceased have been widely circulated on social media without regard to her privacy or dignity.2. Writ petitions were instituted before the Calcutta High Court seeking among other things, a court-monitored investigation of the crime and the conduct of the hospital authorities, including the role of the Princi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
- 1 - WA No.100532 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE19H DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 R PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.100532 OF2023(GM-RES) BETWEEN: AGRICULTURAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIA LTD., 13TH FLOOR, AMBADEEP BUILDING, 14 K.G. MARG, CANNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110001. R/BY. ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR BY G.P.A HOLDER, REGIONAL MANAGER, A.I.C. OF INDIA LTD., NO.18, KRUSHI BHAVAN (3RD FLOOR), HUDSON CIRCLE, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. N.P. VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE) AND:1. . MAHIMACHARAN PATIL AGE. 84 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. JITTURI PLOTS, MANJUNATHNAGAR, HUBBALLI, REP. BY GPA HOLDER, RAJASHEKHAR MATTIHALLI, - 2 - WA No.100532 of 2023 AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MATTIHALLI ONI, SULLA VILLAE, TQ. HUBBALLI58002 DIST. DHARWAD.2. UNION OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, CO OPERATION AND FARMERS WELFARE, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMERS WELFARE,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - COMAP No.238 of 2024 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE19H DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.238 OF2024BETWEEN: M/S SGK AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: SURVEY No.41, 42 AND43 PATTANAGERE, BEHIND VRL, MYSORE ROAD, BENGAULRU-560059 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. K. S. GEORGE. APPELLANT (BY SRI. P.K. SHRIKARA AND SRI. ANIKETH B.C., ADVOCATES.) AND: M/S BREMELS RUBBER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: PLOT NO127 128 AND129 3RD PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU - 560058 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTORS.-. 2 - COMAP No.238 of 2024 1. MR NISCHIT B. SHETTY SON OF MR. BHASKAR R. SHETTY AGED ABOUT43YEARS, R/AT NO115A, 9TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION, SADASHIVANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560080.2. MR. ADITH B. SHETTY SON OF MR. BHASKAR R. SH...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2024 INSC607IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos. 4056-4064 of 1999 Mineral Area Development Authority & Anr. Appellants Versus M/S Steel Authority of India & Anr Etc. Respondents With Civil Appeal No.7937 of 2019 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.512 of 2018 With Civil Appeal No.7938 of 2019 With Civil Appeal No.7936 of 2019 With Civil Appeal No.6221 of 2008 With Civil Appeal No.5250 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.729 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1029 of 2019 With Special Leave Petition (C) No.16028 of 2021 With Civil Appeal No.4286 of 2023 With Civil Appeal No.5682 of 2007 With Civil Appeal No.1295 of 2008 With Civil Appeal No.874 of 2013 With Page 1 of 22 Civil Appeal Nos. 8269-8271 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.8268 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.8267 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.6135 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.8272 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.9458 of 2013 With Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18600 of 2013 With Civil ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC608Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2024(Arising out of SLP (C) No.9098 of 2018) MAHESHKUMAR CHANDULAL PATEL & ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS ..RESPONDENT(S) WITH Civil Appeal No.of 2024 (@ SLP (C) No.9272 of 2018) WITH Civil Appeal No.of 2024 (@ SLP (C) No.9974 of 2018) WITH Civil Appeal Nos. of 2024 (@ SLP (C) No.4613-4632 of 2019) WITH Civil Appeal Nos. of 2024 (@ SLP (C) Nos.5193-5212 of 2019) SLP(C) No.9098 of 2018 etc.etc. Page 1 of 27 WITH Civil Appeal No.of 2024 (@ SLP (C) Nos.5169-5188 of 2019) WITH Civil Appeal Nos. of 2024 (@ SLP (C) Nos.8484-8514 of 2019) AND WITH Civil Appeal Nos. of 2024 (@ SLP (C) Nos.10247-10261 of 2019) JUDGMENT VIKRAM NATH, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals assail the common impugned order dated 28.12.2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in LPA No.765/2017 in Special Civil Application No.3210/2016 along with other allied appeals. The LPA wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC605IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No.4 OF2024IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.645 OF2022IN RE : PATANJALI AYURVED LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ACHARYA BALKRISHNA AND BABA RAMDEV IN THE MATTER OF : INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER PETITIONERS Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..RESPONDENTS JUDGEMENT HIMA KOHLI, J.1. This order shall dispose of the suo motu contempt proceedings initiated by this Court against the proposed contemnors, Patanjali Ayurved Limited1, Acharya Balkrishna, Managing Director of Patanjali and Baba Ramdev. The circumstances leading to initiation of contempt proceedings against the aforesaid parties needs some elucidation. 1 For short Patanjali Page 1 of 41 A. BACKDROP2 Indian Medication Association2, the petitioner in the writ petition3 has invoked Article 32 of the Constitution of India for raising a grievance against Patanjali, its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna and its prim...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC601IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF2024(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.9783/2023) JAMES KUNJWAL APPELANT(S) Versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J.Leave Granted.2. Impugned in the present appeal is the final order dated 1st October 2022, passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Bail Cancellation Application No.24/2022, whereby, although the said application was dismissed, it was observed that James Kunjwal, the present appellant had intentionally filed a false affidavit before the High Court and as such, a direction was issued to the Registrar (Judl.) of the High Court to file a complaint against him. This, in a nutshell, forms the basis for this appeal. 1|Crl. Appeal a/o SLP (Crl) 9783 of 2023 3. It would be necessary to appreciate the background in which the impugned order came to be passed. Briefly stated, the facts are :- 3.1 The appellant was made an accused in FIR...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE2024INSC602IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3369 OF2024[ @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.4022 OF2022]. SRI SUJIES BENEFIT FUNDS LIMITED APPELLANT VERSUS M. JAGANATHUAN RESPONDENT JUDGMENT AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.Heard Mr B. Ragunath, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel for the respondent.2. Leave granted.3. The present appeal arises out of the Final Judgment dated 29.01.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned judgment), passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at 2 Madras (hereinafter referred to as the High Court) in Criminal Appeal No.582/ 2012, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and the judgment dated 20.06.2012 of the Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Court) in Criminal Appeal No.186/2010, was upheld. BRIEF FACTS:4. The sole Respondent (hereinafter also referred ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC604REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3173 OF2024JALALUDDIN KHAN APPELLANT VERSUS UNION OF INDIA RESPONDENT JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.FACTUAL ASPECTS1 The appellant is being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 121, 121A and 122 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC) and Sections 13, 18, 18A and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short, the UAPA). A charge sheet was filed on 7th January 2023. He is shown as accused no.2 in the charge sheet. The appellant applied for bail before the Special Court under the UAPA, which was rejected. Hence, the appellant and some co-accused applied for bail before the High Court. By the impugned judgment, the prayer for bail made by the appellant was rejected, while bail was granted to a co-accused. Criminal Appeal No.3173 of 2024 Page 1 of 22 SUBMISSIONS2 The submission of Ms Mukta Gupta, learned senior counsel, is that there is absolutely no m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC600IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.520 OF2012MAHENDRA KUMAR SONKER APPELLANT(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH RESPONDENT(s) JUDGMENT K.V. Viswanathan, J.1. The present appeal calls in question the judgment dated 14.10.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.1949 of 2007. By the said judgment, the appellants conviction under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the IPC) and sentence of six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- imposed by the Special Judge, Sagar has been confirmed. Aggrieved, the appellant is in Appeal. 12. Originally, the appellant along with his wife Mamta stood trial. While the appellant was charged for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act) as well as Sections 201 and 353 of the IPC, his wife Mamta was charged under Section 353 and 201 of ...
Tag this Judgment!