Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC1005; [1968]2SCR754
Ramaswami, J.1. These appeals are brought against the judgment and decree in A. S. Nos. 223 and 224 of 1951, 264 to 273 of 1952, 275 of 1952 and 277 to 279 of 1952 of the Madras High Court dated January 10, 1956 affirming the judgment and decree in O. S. Nos. 75, 77 to 81 of 1949 and 19 to 22, 24 to 26, 28 & 30 to 31 of 1950 of the Subordinate Judge, Tanjore. 2. The appellant instituted the above-mentioned suits for recovery of possession from the respective defendants of the disputed lands and for payment of damages at the rate of Rs. 50/- per annum per acre. The case of the appellant was that the disputed lands which were purchased by him by a sale deed dated November 11, 1948 (Ex. A-145) are situated in Orathur Padugai which is attached to Pannimangalam, one of the villages comprised is what is known as the 'Tanjore Palace Estate', that the said lands are not situated in an estate as defined by the Madras Estates Land Act 1 of 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and in any e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1789; 1984(2)SCALE437; (1984)4SCC376; [1985]1SCR808; 1985(17)LC247(SC)
Misra J.1. The present appeal of the plaintiffs-appellants by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 7th April, 1978 reversing the judgment and decree of the two courts below and dismissing the suit.2. The appellants filed a suit for declaration of their right to take water from their exclusive well marked W. 1 in the site plan attached with the plaint and situate in a plot of land exclusively belonging to them, through a portion of a channel to their plots at survey Nos. 95 and 96 lying to the north of the common well W. 2 in the joint land of the parties and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from interfering with the enjoyment of the plaintiff's right to take water from W. 1 through the aforesaid channel.3. The parties are descendants from a common ancestor and they owned joint properties. A partition took place between the parties in or about 1927 whereunder survey Nos. 95 and 96 fell to the shar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1617; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)780; 1999CriLJ2281; 1999(2)Crimes354(SC); JT1999(3)SC107; RLW1999(3)SC400; 1999(2)SCALE565; (1999)4SCC111; [1999]2SCR610
ORDERG.B. Pattanaik, J.1. The appellant and two others were tried by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Hyderabad for the offences under Sections 307 & 302 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act. Accused Mohammed Sardar died during the pendency of the trial and therefore, the criminal proceeding stood abated as against him. The appellant was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000, in default to suffer R.I. for two years. He was also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000, in default to suffer R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 307 IPC and under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000, in default to suffer R.I. for three years and under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, was sentenced to R.I. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1848; 1979CriLJ1374; (1980)1SCC30; [1980]1SCR95
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. By a short order we had allowed this appeal by special leave directed against a judgment, dated March 22, 1978, of the High Court of Karnataka, and acquitted the appellant. We now give our reasons in support of that Order :2. On March 18, 1974 at about 8.30 p.m., the appellant was driving a passenger bus No. MYM-5859 on Dharampura-Hiriyur Road towards Hiriyur. When the bus reached at a place from where a kacha path bifurcates for villages Hariyabbe, a girl named Gundamma, aged 4 years, ran across the road. The appellant swerved the vehicle towards the extreme right side of the road. In spite of it, the child was hit and died at the spot. A complaint was lodged by the Patel of the village, Gunde Gowda, at Hariyabbe Police Station. The Station House Officer (P.W. 7) after registering a case, reached the spot and sent the dead body of the child for post-mortem examination, and recorded the statements of witnesses, including some of the passengers in the Bus.3. On these...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1652; 1987CriLJ1881; JT1987(3)SC1; 1987(1)SCALE844; (1987)3SCC434; [1987]2SCR953
G.L. Oza, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the State after obtaining leave from this Court against the acquittal of the respondents recorded by the High Court of Allahabad by its judgment dated 13th April 1977 hearing an appeal against the conviction of the respondents recorded by First Additional Sessions Judge, Etah convicting all the respondents under Section 302 read with 149, Section 395 and 147 and sentenced to life, 10 years and 2 years rigorous imprisonment respectively to each one of the respondents.2. The prosecution case at the trial was that on 27. 10. 1974 A.S.I. Om Prakash Sharma accompanied by two constables Gauri Shanker, P.W. 2 and Kanauji Lal, P.W. 4 went to village Nidhauli Khurd, which was at a distance of three miles from Kotwali Etah, and arrested one Laturi there at about 1 or 1.30 P.M. Virendra Nath, deceased, had helped them in arresting the said Laturi. The A.S.I. and the two constables returned to the Police Station Kotwali Etah with Laturi in custody a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC287; (1976)1SCC943; [1976]2SCR62
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. This appeal by special leave was filed by the Vulcan Insurance Co. Ltd. The general insurance business of the Company was nationalised during the pendency of this appeal and, therefore, in place of the original appellant was substituted United India Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. by Order 28-2-1975 passed in CMP No. 84/1975. For the sake of facility hereinafter in this judgment by the appellant would be meant the original appellant company. The respondent No. 1 in the appeal is Maharaj Singh, sole proprietor of Khatauli Manure Mills, Khatauli District Muzaffarnagar. Respondent No. 2 is Punjab National Bank.2. Respondent No. 1 carries a business of manufacturing Bone Manure etc in his mills at Khatauli. He entered into an arrangement with respondent No. 2 for taking advance of money on the security of the factory premises, machineries and the stock of goods. A mortgage deed was executed by him in favour of the respondent bank for that purpose. The Bank insur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2846; 2005CriLJ3117; JT2005(11)SC257; 2005(4)MPHT1; 2005(II)OLR(SC)414; (2005)5SCC413
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Since the only question involved in this Appeal is whether learned Single Judge was right. In reducing the sentence as imposed by the trial court on respondent, detailed reference to the factual aspects is unnecessary.3. The respondent faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') The respondent- accused Babbu was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation. The conviction was recorded by learned Third Sessions Judge, Betul who imposed the aforesaid sentences. The respondent-accused preferred an appeal (Crl. Appeal No. 320/2003) in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. By the impugned judgment, the High Court directed the sentence to be reduced to the period already undergone. It noted that the learned counsel for the accused person who was the appellant before the High Court did not challenge ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005ACJ1840; AIR2005SC3180; 2005(2)ALD(Cri)334; 2005(5)ALD52(SC); 2005(3)AWC2756(SC); III(2005)CPJ9(SC); 2005CriLJ3710; 2005(4)CTC540; 122(2005)DLT83(SC); 2005(85)DRJ330; (
R.C. Lahoti, C.J.1. Ashok Kumar Sharma, the respondent No. 2 herein filed a First Information Report with police station, Division No. 3, Ludhiana, whereupon an offence under Section 304A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') was registered. The gist of the information is that on 15.2.1995, the informant's father, late Jiwan Lal Sharma was admitted as a patient in a private ward of CMC Hospital, Ludhiana. On 22.2.1995 at about 11 p.m., Jiwan Lal felt difficulty in breathing. The complainant's elder brother, Vijay Sharma who was present in the room contacted the duty nurse, who in her turn called some doctor to attend to the patient. No doctor turned up for about 20 to 25 minutes. Then, Dr. Jacob Mathew, the appellant before us and Dr. Allen Joseph came to the room of the patient. An oxygen cylinder was brought and connected to the mouth of the patient but the breathing problem increased further. The patient tried to get up but the medical staff asked him t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(1997)ACC537; 1997ACJ816; AIR1997SC2049; [1997]89CompCas131(SC); 1997(2)CTC275; JT1997(4)SC180; 1997(2)KLT54(SC); (1997)2MLJ17(SC); RLW1997(2)SC177; 1997(3)SCALE228; (1997
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, CJ.1. Special Leave granted. 2. The respondent No. 1 Sujir Ganesh Nayak & Company is a registered partnership with its head office at Quilon carrying on business in import and export of cashew. It has four factories at Kunnikode, Mulavana, Perumpuzha and Ayathil for processing cashew. The respondent No. 1 obtained two fire policies from the appellant Insurance Company dated 5.11.1976 and 2.5.1977, both for a period of twelve months, and for the amounts of Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 1,20,000/- respectively. Both the policies had a Riot and Strike Endorsement to the following effect: Riot & Strike Endorsement-ln consideration of the payment of the sum of Rs...additional premium, it is hereby agreed and declared that notwithstanding anything in the written policy contained to the contrary the insurance under the Policy shall extend to cover Riot and Strike damage which for the purpose of this endorsement shall mean (subject always to the Special Conditions hereinafter contai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001IXAD(SC)472; AIR2002SC117; 2002(3)BomCR686; [2002(1)JCR228(SC)]; JT2001(9)SC525; 2001(8)SCALE174; (2002)2SCC147
D.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The interim order passed by the learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court injuncting the defendant from using the name 'Mahendra & Mahendra' in his business establishment, which order was confirmed by the Division Bench of the Court, is under challenge in this appeal filed by the defendant. 3. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., the respondent herein, instituted a Suit No. 4007 of 1998 in the Bombay High Court seeking a decree of permanent injunction against Mahendra & Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd., the appellant herein, restraining it from using in any manner as a part of its corporate name or trading style the words 'Mahendra & Mahendra' or any word which is deceptively similar to 'Mahindra' and/or 'Mahindra & Mahindra'. In the said suit the plaintiff filed an application seeking an interim order of injunction against the defendant on similar terms. 4. The case of the plaintiff, sans unnecessary details, is that it is a 'Company' incorporated and registe...
Tag this Judgment!