Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2009]150CompCas518(SC); JT2009(8)SC299; 2009(6)MhLJ922(SC); 2009(8)SCALE499; (2009)7SCC521; [2009]92SCL335(SC); 2009(4)LC1866(SC):2009AIRSCW5338
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 29.1.2008 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in RFA No. 982 of 2007 whereby and whereunder judgment and decree dated 21.12.2006 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, decreeing the suit being OS No. 728 of 2002 filed by the respondent was affirmed.3. A partnership firm known as M/s. Kashmiri Rice Industries has its place of business at Hangal. The said firm entered into a contract for supply of paddy husk with the appellant. Inter alia, on the premise that appellant herein, despite supply of the agreed quantity of paddy husk, failed and/or neglected to pay the price therefor, the respondent filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,61,696/- in the Court of Civil Judge, Hangal.One of the contentions raised by the appellant in the said suit was that as the appellant-company has become a sick industry within the meaning of the provisions of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1003; 2007CriLJ1427; JT2007(2)SC382; RLW2007(3)SC2264; 2007(2)SCALE196; (2007)2SCC574
G.P. Mathur, J.1. The appellant Navjot Singh Sidhu along with co-accused Rupinder Singh Sandhu was tried for charges under Section 302 IPC and Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC, but was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala, by the judgment and order dated 22.9.1999 which order was challenged by the State of Punjab by filing an appeal in the High Court which has been allowed and the appellant has been convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC and has been sentenced to 3 years R.I. and a fine of rupees one lakh. The co- accused Rupinder Singh Sandhu has also been convicted under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC and has been sentenced to 3 years R.I. and a fine of rupees one lakh. He has further been convicted under Section 323 IPC and has been sentenced to 3 months R.I. The appellant filed special leave petition in this Court in which leave has been granted on 12.1.2007 and he has been released on bail and thus the execution of the sentence imposed upon him has b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(1)ALD(Cri)581; 2005CriLJ1422; (2005)3GLR2269; JT2005(2)SC411; 2005(I)OLR(SC)499; (2005)3SCC277; 2005(2)LC1163(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The Appellant herein was convicted for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life as also a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof to undergo additional three months' simple imprisonment. He was prosecuted along with three others for sharing common intention for causing death of one Siddique Ahmed Patel and causing simple hurt with sharp cut weapon to Yusuf Adam Patel (PW-3).2. At about 5.45 p.m. on 29.11.1993, the deceased was allegedly going to a mosque for offering prayer (Namaz). When he was passing by the house of the accused persons situated at village Sarod, all the four accused persons were standing there. A quarrel ensued between them, when the deceased Siddique was asked as to why he had entered into a transaction of the house instead of land to which he answered that he had entered into a transaction with his maternal uncle, whereupon t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1300; [1964]6SCR1001
Subba Rao, J. 1. These two appeals raise the question of the validity of the court sale held in contravention of s. 35 of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940 (Bengal Act X of 1940), hereinafter called the Act. 2. The facts in both the appeals may be briefly stated. In Civil Appeal No. 85 of 1961, Sudhir Chandra Ghosh, respondent No. 1, executed a first mortgage in favour of one Provash Chandra Mukherjee, since deceased, for a sum of Rs. 12,000/-. Respondent No. 1 executed a second, third and fourth mortgages in favour of the appellant for a total sum of Rs. 7,700/-. He also executed another mortgage in favour of the 9th respondent. In the year 1948 respondents 2 and 3, representing the first mortgagee's estate, filed Title Suit No. 8 of 1948 in the 7th Additional Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore, for enforcing the first mortgage. To that suit the puisne mortgagees were also made parties. On May 24, 1948, a preliminary decree by consent was made in the suit whereunder the judgme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC467; 1973CriLJ671; (1973)3SCC469
1. The appellant was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Manjeri Division at Kozhikode, for causing the death of one Karingodan Muhammad alias Bappu by stabbing him with a knife on January 23, 1971. He was found guilty and convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellant challenged this conviction and sentence before the Kerala High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 1971. The State tiled criminal Revision Petition. No. 380 of 1971 for enhancement of the sentence. The High Court by its judgment and order dated 12-10-1971 confirmed the appellant's conviction. Regarding the sentence, the High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the State and enhanced the sentence to one of death. This Court, by its order dated 19-4-1972 granted special leave, limited to the question whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the discretion exercised by the Trial Court in imposing the lesser penalty.2. As the on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(2)ALD(Cri)79; 2000(48)BLJR1560; 2000CriLJ2199; JT2000(4)SC293; 2000(3)SCALE137; (2000)4SCC298; [2000]2SCR1073
G.B. Pattanaik, J.1. The two appellants, Rajendra Singh and Triloki Singh have assailed their conviction and sentence passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Saran in Sessions Trial No. 189 of 1981, which has been upheld in Appeal by the High Court of Patna in Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 1985. Before the learned Trial Judge in all there were nine accused persons but six of them were acquitted and only two appellants alongwith one Prabhunath Singh were convicted but said Prabhunath died during the pendency of appeal in the High Court, and as such, there are two appellants in this Court. The prosecution case in nutshell is; that on 4th July, 1977 an incident occurred in village Jaidpur Tola Pilui in the district of Saran and one Kameshwar Singh was murdered. Satyanarain PW 8 gave the First Information Report at 6.00 p.m. at Sadar Hospital, Chapra where he was lying injured, alleging therein that at 11.45 a.m. while the informant was getting his field ploughed by a tractor which he ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(1)ALD(Cri)384; 2001CriLJ485; RLW2001(1)SC55; 2000(8)SCALE41; 2001(1)LC255(SC)
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal No. 147/85 acquitting the respondent-Hanuman of the charge under Section 302 IPC on setting aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer, in Sessions Case No. 49/1983.2. Shorn of unnecessary details the prosecution case may be stated thus:3. On 9.10.1982 at about 6.00 p.m. when Panchu the deceased tried to draw water from the common well to irrigate his lands and change the course of the water towards his fields the respondent-Hanuman and co-accused Ganesh and Ram Kumar forbade him from doing so. Ganesh caught hold of Panchu and Hanuman gave three blows on his head with an axe held by him. When Smt. Badam, wife of Panchu and his sister Chhoti intervened to save him from the assault of Hanuman. Ram Kumar assaulted them with a Kassi. On hearing the cry of Chhoti. Arjun came to the spot from the f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC4263; 1997(2)ALD(Cri)830; 1998CriLJ495; JT1997(8)SC677; 1997(6)SCALE489; (1998)1SCC581
M. Jagannadha, J.1. These three appeals arise out of the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 1982 dated 21-2-1986. By that judgment, the conviction and sentence of eight accused, has been confirmed. Aggrieved thereby Sudhir Samanta (Accused 4) has filed Criminal Appeal No. 296 of 1987 and S.K. Ejahar alias Asgar Hossain (Accused 9) has filed Criminal Appeal No. 298 of 1987. Six others, namely, Supriya Paria (Accused 1), Gajendra Nath Mondal (Accused 2), Biswanath Bhowmick (Accused 3), Kalachand Ghorai (Accused 5), Nemai Das (Accused 7) and Jagannath Mondal (Accused 8), filed Special Leave Application No. 1656 of 1986 and in that petition, by order dated 13-7-1987, leave was refused for Nemai Das and Biswanath Bhowmick (Accused 7 and 3 respectively). Leave was granted to others and the appeal has been registered as Criminal Appeal No. 297 of 1987, leaving Supriya Paria (Accused 1), Gajendra Nath Mondal (Accused 2), Kalachand Ghorai (Accused 5) and Jagann...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3063; JT2006(8)SC445; 2006(8)SCALE469; (2006)11SCC434
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The Appellants herein are brothers. They were charged with commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of one Devaji and for committing an offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing hurt to Mina Yenurkr and her brother Dilip Yenurkr. 2. The deceased admittedly was the uncle of the Appellants. Injured Dilip and Mina are his son and daughter. He had three other sons, viz., Jaywanta, Umakant and Navin Nischal as also a daughter by the name of Hemlata. The incidence took place on 11.12.95 at about 7 a.m. Dilip was allegedly going to a Pan Shop early in the morning. When he crossed some distance, Appellant No. 2 allegedly came out with a stick and hurled some blows on him. Mina (PW-1) seeing this is said to have raised hue and cry. The deceased Devaji came out thereafter and made endeavours to rescue him. At that time Surendra Appellant No. 1 all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(1999)ACC483; 1999ACJ781; AIR1999SC1398; (1999)3CALLT34(SC); [1999]97CompCas443(SC); 1999(2)CTC473; JT1999(2)SC622; (1999)122PLR274; RLW1999(3)SC385; 1999(2)SCALE491; (199
K. Venkataswami, J.1. An important question of law under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the Act') has arisen for our consideration in this appeal.2. The question is whether the Insurance Policy lapses and consequently the liability of the insurer ceases when the insured vehicle was transferred and no application/intimation as prescribed under Section 103A of the Act was made/given.3. We find from the case law cited before us at the bar that there are conflicting views among the High Courts on this issue. Three different High Courts' Full Bench judgments were brought to our notice. The High Courts of Delhi and Karnataka had answered the issue in the affirmative while the High Court of Andhra Pradesh (all Full Bench judgments) had answered the issue in the negative. Brief facts are the following:4. The appellant herein had purchased the motor vehicle (bus) from the fourth respondent on 15.8.74. However, neither the appellant (transferee) nor the fourth respondent (tran...
Tag this Judgment!