Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1335; 1990CriLJ1810; (1989)1GLR622; JT1989(1)SC314; 1989(1)SCALE301; (1989)1SCC678; [1989]1SCR509
G.L. Oza, J.1. These matters came up before us because of/the conflict in the two decisions of this Court:(i) T.V. Vatheeswaran v. Slate of Tamil Nadu : 1983CriLJ481 , Sher Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab : [1983]2SCR582 and observations in the case of Javed Ahmed Abdul Hamid Pawala v. State of Maharashtra : 1984CriLJ1909 . In Vatheeswaran's case : [1983]2SCR582 a Bench of two Judges of this Court held that two years delay in execution of the sentence after the judgment of the trial court will entitle the condemned prisoner to ask for commutation of his sentence of death to imprisonment for life. The Court observed that:Making all reasonable allowance for the time necessary for appeal and consideration of reprieve, we think that delay exceeding two years in the execution of a sentence of death should be considered sufficient to entitle the person under sentence of death to invoke Article 21 and demand the quashing of the sentence of death. 2. In Sher Singh's case : [1983]2SCR582 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC3532; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)696; 1996CriLJ4166; JT1996(7)SC651; 1996(6)SCALE326
ORDERS.P. Kurdukar, J.M1. A small incident of taking a turn without giving any signal by the driver of the three wheeler had initially led to a wordy exchange between Raghbir Singh (PW 2) and his brother Satbir who were riding on a scooter and Ranbir Singh (A-1) who was driving the three wheeler. Ordinarily, this incident should have ended at that stage but Raghbir Singh (PW 2) after reaching the Forest Department at Hisar where he was working, came back with his friends to the place of first incident and thereafter again there was exchange of hot words between these two groups which led to the assault by Ranbir Singh causing death of Ajit Singh.2. The broad facts of the prosecution case may be summarised as under: On 10th May, 1991 at about 7.30 a.m. Raghbir Singh (PW 2) and his brother Satbir were going to the Forest Department at Hisar on a scooter. At the same time, a three wheeler driven by Ranbir Singh (A-1) was going ahead of the scooter. A-1 without giving any indication took a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2004CriLJ2594; 2004(72)DRJ620
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is a petition for quashing of the FIR no.272/2001 registered at P.S. R.K. Puram under Sections 451, 323, 506, 509, 34 IPC arising out of disputes between the two neighbours, staying in the same premises. The complainant lodged a report that his wife and daughter were coming out for some work and after they came out of the house, the respondent Ashish Gosain was standing outside along with his driver and on seeing his daughter and wife started passing obscene comments. On hearing the noise he came outside the house and tried to stop them but both of them started beating him. They then forcibly entered his house and manhandled him. On seeing this his son telephoned the Police who reached there and registered the case under Sections 451, 323, 506 509 read with 34 IPC. 2. Since they have now amicably settled the disputes as according to the complainant due to some misunderstanding and on hearing the noise from outside he got infuriated and confronted the petitioner e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2002IVAD(Delhi)951; 2002CriLJ3268; 98(2002)DLT228; 2002(62)DRJ787
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No.101/2000 under Sections 363/366/376, IPC, P.S. Vasant Vihar (State v. Vinod James) and the proceedings thereon, pending in the Court of Ms. Mamta Sehgal, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi. 2. The accused has not been imp leaded as the party and the prayer clause of the petition reads as under :- 1. for protecting the matrimonial prospects and educational career of petitioner No.2 the FIR No.101/2000 registered at Vasant Vihar, P.S. under Sections 363/366/376, IPC be kindly withdrawn and cancelled; 2. the petitioners be exempted from appearing as PWs. in the learned trial court on 28.2.2002, and on subsequent dates, or in the alternative prosecution evidence be stayed till the final disposal of the present petition.' 3. Notice. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have been taken through the record. Learned c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 158(2009)DLT75
V.B. Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been filed by appellant under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short as Act') against the judgment and decree dated 7th November, 2007 passed by Shri Gurdeep Singh, Additional District Sessions Judge, Delhi, vide which the Trial Court has allowed the respondent's petition in his favour and against the appellant.2. Aggrieved with the impugned judgment, the appellant-wife has filed the present appeal.3. The brief facts of this case are that parties to the appeal were married on 19th November, 1956 according to the Hindu Rites and ceremonies. Respondent who had joined the Indian Police Services in 1953 was posted at Jodhpur at the time of marriage as Superintendent of Police. The respondent was the only son of his parents and his mother was ailing with high blood pressure and needed care and attention of the parties.4. The appellant since the inception of marriage did not show any inclination to remain with the respondent in the matrimonial home...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2009(1)KLJ38
K.T. Sankaran, J.1. The question involved in these Writ Petitions is whether an order of detention passed under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 by an officer authorised under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 is valid, if it is passed on the subjective satisfaction arrived at on the information received from the SHO of a police station.2. Both these Writ Petitions are filed challenging the order of detention of Ajith Kumar alias Kuttan. W.P.(Crl) No. 314 of 2008 is filed by the wife of the detenue, while W.P.(Crl) No. 316 of 2008 is filed by the mother of the detenue.3. The District Magistrate, Pathanamthitta, who is an authorised officer under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'), passed an order of detention dated 19.6.2008, under Section 3(1) of the Act on being satisfied that Ajith Kumar alias Kuttan is a 'Known goonda' and that his detention is necessary with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2009Guj100
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.1. The question, we have, been called upon to decide on a reference made by the learned Single Judge, is 'whether the time-limit of one week provided in Sub-section (3A) of Section 13 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Securitisation Act') for communicating the non-acceptance of the representation/objections made by the borrower in response to a notice issue under Sub-section (2) of Section 13, is mandatory or directory?2. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 4045 of 2007 took the view that the same is a mandatory requirement, and non-compliance of that mandatory requirement within one week of the receipt of the representation/objections filed by the borrower would vitiate the proceedings initiated by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act. When this case came up for hearing before another Judge, learned Judge took...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1952Mad95; (1951)2MLJ241
ORDERMack, J.1. All these petitioners have been convicted cinder Section 7 (1) (a) and (b), Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, by the learned Third and Seventh Presidency Magistrates. They have all been tried in pairs and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment, except petitioners in Cri. B. O. Nos. 442 and 489 of 1951 who have been sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment, The case against them is that on dates between 10th March 1951 and 4th April 1961 they went in pairs near the shop of Kishinchand Chellaram in Mount Road with placards and black flags and sought to dissuade intending customers from purchasing in this North Indian shop,2. On the first of these petitions filed cri. R. O. nO. 442 of 1951, I directed tbe release of the petitioners on bail. Then on a batch of petitions filed Cri, R. C. NOS. 484, 485, 487 and 488 to 193 of 1951 instead of granting bail I directed the production of the petitioners in this Court from-the Penitentiary. The learned Magistrate as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)8MLJ1300
ORDERG. Rajasuria, J.1. Animadverting upon the order dated 20.02.2008 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Puducherry in I.A. No. 723 of 2007 in O.S. No. 271 of 2005, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent.3. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the case of the revision petitioners as stood exposited from the record could be portrayed thus:The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 271 of 2005 before the Sub Court seeking the following reliefs:- declaring the petitioner/plaintiff as an indigent person- for declaration that the petitioner/plaintiff is the absolute owner of 'C' Schedule property which forms the eastern half of I item of 'B' schedule property and item 2 of 'B' schedule properties, i.e. 5 items of lands described in the 'B' Schedule.- for directing the respondents/defendant 9 and 10 to vacate and give vacant possession of 'C'...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2010(112)BomLR2014
Roshan Dalvi, J.1. The Plaintiff married one Nitin Kokate on 3rd December 2004. Her husband expired on 5th July 2007. Nitin Kokate held certain shares in D mat Account with the Depository Participant Cell of Defendant No. 1. Her husband executed a nomination in the prescribed form following the prescribed procedure set out by the Depository Participant, Defendant No. 1 Bank in favour of the Defendant No. 3, his nephew on 11th July 2006. The Plaintiff claims an interest in the said shares as his heir and legal representative. She claims to have them sold.2. This Suit is not concerned with the reason why she claims the sale of the shares. The Plaintiff must show her legal right, title and interest in those shares. If that is shown, the Plaintiff would be entitled to sell or transfer those shares or to hold them as her own.3. The Defendant No. 3 claims right, title and interest in the shares pursuant to the nomination executed in his favour. The nomination has been executed well prior to ...
Tag this Judgment!