Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-09-2014
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2545_OF2014(Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.4199 of 2013) The Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order-F) and another .....Appellants Versus Nabila and another .....Respondents JUDGMENT M.Y. EQBAL, J.Leave granted.2. By way of present appeal by special leave, Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Public (Law and Order-F) Department, Chennai has assailed the Order dated 26.4.2013 passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court at Madurai Bench by which order of detention passed by the appellant under Section 3 (1)(a)of the National Security Act 1980 has been quashed.3. The respondent-writ petitioner, being the wife of the detenu, by way of Habeas Corpus Petition before the High Court, challenged the detention order mainly on the ground that the detenu was detained on the solitary ground case and the sponsoring authority has failed to place any material before the detaining autho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-17-2014
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.562 OF2012Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.274 OF2009Assam Public Works ...Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.876 OF2014All Assam Ahom Association & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. A Prophet is without honour in his own country. Substitute 'citizen' for 'prophet' and you will get the gist of the various writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India assailing Section 6A of the Citizenship Act.2. It all began when the Burmese ceded Assam to the British on 24th February, 1826 as per the treaty of Yandabo, thus bringing to an end Ahom rule in Assam which had begun sometime in the 13th century. The British annexed Assam and placed it as an administrative unit of the Bengal Province...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-15-2014
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.400 OF2012National Legal Services Authority Petitioner Versus Union of India and others Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.604 OF2013JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Seldom, our society realizes or cares to realize the trauma, agony and pain which the members of Transgender community undergo, nor appreciates the innate feelings of the members of the Transgender community, especially of those whose mind and body disown their biological sex. Our society often ridicules and abuses the Transgender community and in public places like railway stations, bus stands, schools, workplaces, malls, theatres, hospitals, they are sidelined and treated as untouchables, forgetting the fact that the moral failure lies in the societys unwillingness to contain or embrace different gender identities and expressions, a mindset which we have to change.2. We are, in this case, concerned with the grievances ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-09-2014
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.820 OF2010Kunwarpal @ Surajpal & Ors. .. Appellants versus State of Uttarakhand And Anr. .. Respondents JUDGMENT C. NAGAPPAN, J.This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 18.8.1991 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.1418 of 2001. Appellants 1 to 4 stood charged for the offence under Section 302/34 in Sessions Trial No.195 of 1991 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge Roorkee and the Trial Court convicted all and sentenced them each to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500 in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No.1418 of 2001 on the file of High Court and the appeal came to be dismissed. Challenging the conviction and sentence accused Nos. 1 to 4 preferred the present appeal. During the hearing the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-09-2014
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8072-8073 OF2009GENERAL MOTORS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ..... APPELLANT VERSUS ASHOK RAMNIK LAL TOLAT & ANR. ..... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.1. These appeals have been preferred against the order dated 16th December, 2008 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the National Commission) in Revision Petition Nos.3349 of 2006 and 2858 of 2008.2. The main question raised in these appeals is whether in the absence of any prayer made in the complaint and without evidence of any loss suffered, the award of punitive damages was permissible. Apart from the said main question, the appellant has also called in question the refund ordered and other relief granted in favour of the respondent-complainant.3. In the complaint, filed before the District Forum, Ahmedabad (Rural) (for short the District Forum), the prayer of the respondent-complainant was as follows :The co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-25-2014
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION TRANSFERRED CASE (C) No.150 OF2006Madras Bar Association Petitioner(s) versus Union of India and another Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.3850 OF2006CIVIL APPEAL No.3862 OF2006CIVIL APPEAL No.3881 OF2006CIVIL APPEAL No.3882 OF2006CIVIL APPEAL No.4051 OF2006CIVIL APPEAL No.4052 OF2006WRIT PETITION (C) NO.621 OF2007TRANSFERRED CASE (C) NO.116 OF2006TRANSFERRED CASE (C) NO.117 OF2006TRANSFERRED CASE (C) NO.118 OF2006WRIT PETITION (C) NO.697 OF2007JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.The Controversy:1. All the above cases are being disposed of by this common judgment. The issue which arises for consideration before us, in the present bunch of cases, pertains to the constitutional validity of the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as, the NTT Act). Simultaneously, the constitutional validity of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 has been assailed, by asserting, that the same vio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Pakistan Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-18-2014
Dost Muhammad Khan, J: 1. This single judgment shall decide both the above titled appeals because the same have arisen out of a common judgment rendered by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No.202/1996, Criminal Revision No.245/1996 and Murder Reference No.379/1996; also because the same are the result of a single judgment given by the learned trial Judge, thus, the exercise of re-appraisal of the same evidence is to be carried out to reach at a proper conclusion. 2. Precise but relevant facts leading to the present tragedy are that on 25.08.1994 at about 8:00 pm, complainant Muhammad Sadiq (PW-6) was present in his sugarcane crushing machine, installed in his shop, opposite thereof was the shop of Muhammad Ayub, deceased, who along with his brother Abid Hussain deceased, was present there and were busy in chatting, when in the meanwhile appellants (i) Ghulam Mohay-ud-Din @ Babu, (ii) Ahmad @ Muhammad Ahmad (iii) Amanat Ali, (iv) Liaqat Ali (v) Allau-ud- Din and (vi) Neh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Pakistan Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-20-2014
1. Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.:Cricket and judicial decision making may not have much in common except that there is an umpire in the game of cricket deciding 'appeals' and judging various issues arising during the progress of the game and there may be some judges sitting in their courtrooms who may sometimes be tempted to hit the ball over the boundary rope. Likeness of a judge to an umpire in a game of cricket has already been alluded to by none other than Lord Denning in his judgment delivered in the case ofJones v. National Coal Board[(1957) 2 Q.B. 55]. His lordship had observed that "Even in England, however, a Judge is not a mere umpire to answer the question "How's that?". His object, above all, is to find out the truth, and to do justice according to law;". Another common factor between the two is that both cricket and judicial decision making are played/ practised by gentlemen, and now by noble ladies as well. All of us know that cricket has moulded itself over time and has adap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-16-2014
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLALTE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 11454-11459 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.9068-73/2010) S.SESHACHALAM & ORS. ETC. ..Appellants Versus CHAIRMAN, BAR COUNCIL OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. ..Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.11460 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.34326/2012) THE ELDER LAWYERS' ASSOCIATION & ORS. ..Appellants Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. ..Respondents JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.Leave granted.2. Whether proviso to Section 16 Explanation II (5) of Tamil Nadu Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1987 denying the payment of two lakh rupees to the kin of advocates receiving pension or gratuity or other terminal benefits would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and whether distinguishing this class of advocates from other law graduates enrolling in the Bar straight after their law degree did not have any rational basis are the points falling for consideration in these appeals.3. Similar challenge is made to Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-25-2014
Choo Han Teck J: 1. The plaintiff is a Chinese woman married to a German of Caucasian descent. They have a son conceived in 2006 through an assisted fertilisation procedure commonly known as In-Vitro Fertilisation or "IVF" for short. In October 2010 the plaintiff delivered a daughter (named "Baby P" in this action) also conceived through IVF. When the IVF procedure was carried out in respect of Baby P, a mistake was made and the plaintiff's egg was fertilised with the sperm of a third party male ("the Donor") instead of the sperm of the plaintiff's husband. The plaintiff sued the defendants in the tort of negligence and breach of contract. 2. The first defendant is the company that owned the second defendant, which was the medical centre in which the IVF procedure was carried out on the plaintiff. The third defendant was the embryologist who was responsible for the collection and storage of the bottle containing the plaintiff's husband's sperms. The fourth defendant was the Chief Embry...
Tag this Judgment!