Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1333 OF2013(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.7002 of 2012) Sunil Dutt Sharma ... Appellant(s) Versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J.1. The accused-appellant was tried for offences under Sections 302 and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter for short the Penal Code) for causing the death of his wife in the night intervening 16/17.05.92. He has been acquitted of the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code on the benefit of doubt though found guilty for the offence under Section 304-B of the Penal Code following which the sentence of life imprisonment has been imposed. The conviction and sentence has been affirmed by the High Court. Aggrieved, the appellant had moved this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.2. Limited notice on the question of sentence imposed on the accused- appellant having been issued by this Court the scope of the present ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Aftab Alam, J. 1. Whether in the case of a Company, one of the Company's Directors alone can be recognised as the Occupier of the factory owned by it in terms of the amended Section 2(n) of the Factories Act or is it still open to a company to designate (by completely transferring to him the ultimate control of the factory) any of its employees, other than a Director as the Occupier of the factory? This is the question raised in these two writ petitions filed on behalf of Indian Oil Corporation (Petitioner No. 1) and one of its employees posted as the Senior Depot Manager, Namkum Depot (Petitioner No. 2). 2. On September 26, 1996, the judgment in this case was reserved after it was heard on three days. In course of hearing Mr. Arijit Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, brought to our notice a number of decisions of the different High Courts on this point. He fairly cited not only the decisions (of the High Courts of Bombay, Orissa, Karnataka, Calcutta,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2004)138PLR126
Hemant Gupta, J.1. The plaintiff is in revision petition against the order passed by the learned trial Court whereby the defendant-respondent was permitted to amend the written statement filed by his mother Mukhtiar Kaur.2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is the owner in possession of l/3rd share of suit land against his mother. Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff but before the Court could pass a decree on the basis of such admission, Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur died. The respondent herein is his son impleaded as her legal representative who filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for withdrawing the admission written statement filed on behalf of Mukhtiar Kaur alleging therein that the plaintiff has manipulated admission of defendant fraudulently and against the interest of Mukhtiar Kaur. It was also alleged that Mukhtiar Kaur could not make this admission and such admissio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:26. h May, 2017 Pronounced on:03. d July,2017 + W.P.(CRL) 856/2016 & Crl.M.A. Nos. 4702/2016, 4704/2016, 10527/2016, 12181/2016 VIRBHADRA SINGH & ANR ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mayank Jain, Mr. Madhur Jain and Mr. Parmatma Singh, Advocates versus ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC, Mr. Kunal Dutt, Ms. Karnika Singh and Mr. Vignaraj Pasayat, Advs. + W.P.(CRL) 2044/2016 & Crl.MA. Nos.10657-58/2016 CHUNNI LAL CHAUHAN ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mayank Jain, Mr. Madhur Jain and Mr. Parmatma Singh, Advocates versus ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC, Mr. Kunal Dutt, Ms. Karnika Singh and Mr. Vignaraj Pasayat, Advs. WP(C) 856/2016 & connected matters Page 1 of 101 + W.P.(CRL) 2862/20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.4634 OF2014VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY & ORS. ...PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.28394 OF2011SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.28922 OF2011SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.29273 OF2011SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.............OF2022(@ DIARY No.41063 OF2015 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.9987 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.10018 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.10019 OF20152 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.993 OF2016TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.150 OF2016TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) NOS.151-157 OF2016WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.152 OF2016SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.11839 OF2019SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.2890 OF2017SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.5487 OF2017CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1269 OF2017CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1270 OF2017CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1271-1272 O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.21762 OF2017ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) APPELLANT(S) VERSUS AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A. No.8193/2012; C.A. No.5057/2012; C.A. No.5058/2014; C.A. No.9974/2018; C.A. No.5056/2012; C.A. No.4196/2015; C.A. No.4374/2015; C.A. No.9380/2017; C.A. No.13071/2017; C.A. No.12058/2017; C.A. No.16375/2017; C.A. No.12869/2017; C.A. No.17527/2017; C.A. No.21845/2017; C.A. No.5719/2018; C.A. No.9886/2018; C.A. No.9200/2018; C.A. No.9860/2018; C.A. No.10114/2018; C.A. No.1643/2019; C.A. No.3596/2018; C.A. No.6762/2018; C.A. No.3972/2018; C.A. No.3343/2018; C.A. No.3359/2018; C.A. No.3971/2018; C.A. No.3347/2018; C.A. No.6489/2018; C.A. No.10598/2018; C.A. No.7643/2018; C.A. No.8321/2018; C.A. No.8554/2018; C.A. No.9172/2018; C.A. No.10406/2018; C.A. No.11259/2018; C.A. No.11884/2018; C.A. No.226/2019; C.A. No.170/2019; C.A. No.2047/2019; C.A. No.2335/2019; C.A....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2023 INSC1058IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL WRIT / APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Civil) No.1099 of 2019 IN RE: ARTICLE370OF THE CONSTITUTION With Writ Petition (C) No.871 of 2015 With Writ Petition (C) No.722 of 2014 With SLP (C) No.19618 of 2017 With Writ Petition (C) No.1013 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1082 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1068 of 2019 1 With Writ Petition (C) No.1037 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1062 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1070 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1104 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1165 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1210 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1222 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.396 of 2017 With Writ Petition (C) No.756 of 2017 With Writ Petition (C) No.398 pf 2018 With 2 Writ Petition (C) No.924 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No.1092 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No.1162 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No.1048 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1268 of 2019 And With Writ Petition (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC661; [1955]2SCR603; [1955]6STC446(SC)
Das, Actg. C.J.1. This appeal, filed under a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Patna, is directed against the judgment of that High Court pronounced on the 4th December, 1952 whereby it dismissed the application made by the appellant company under article 226 of the Constitution praying for an appropriate writ or order quashing 'the proceedings issued by the opposite parties for the purpose of levying and realising a tax which is not lawfully leviable on the petitioners' and for other ancillary reliefs. 2. The relevant facts appearing from the petition filed in support of the appellant company's aforesaid application are as follows : The appellant company is an incorporated company carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling various sera, vaccines, biological products and medicines. Its registered head office is at Calcutta and its laboratory and factory are at Baranagar in the district of 24 - Perganas in West Bengal. It is registered as a dealer under the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Tax Case Appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai C Bench, dated 16.8.2004 passed in I.T.A.No. 705/1996. (Judgment of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J)1. The assessee is on appeal as against the order of Tribunal for the assessment year 1983-84. The above appeal was admitted on the following questions of law.1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding amended collaboration agreement was an extension of the old agreement which was entered into before 1.4.76 and hence the tax was payable at the rate of 50%?2. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in not giving specific direction to the Assessing Officer, to grant consequential benefits if the agreement dated 21.8.81 is treated as an agreement entered into before 1.4.76?2. The assessee herein is a non resident assessee represented through its agency BHEL. The said non resident company had an agreement ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Wood - 299 U.S. 123 (1936) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123 (1936) United States v. Wood No. 34 Argued October 20, 1936 Decided December 7, 1936 299 U.S. 123 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus 1. Bias of a prospective juror may be actual or implied -- i.e., bias in fact or bias conclusively presumed as a matter of law. P. 299 U. S. 133 . 2. The Act of August 22, 1935, concerning qualifications of jurors in the District of Columbia, leaves all prospective jurors subject to examination and rejection for actual bias. Id. 3. In dealing with an employee of the Government, summoned to jury service in a criminal case, the court should be solicitous to discover whether, in view of the nature or circumstances of his employment, or of the relation of his particular governmental activity to the matters involved in the prosecution, he has actual bias. P 299 U. S. 134 . Page 299 U. S. 12...
Tag this Judgment!