Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-13-2014
Chao Hick Tin JA (delivering the grounds of decision of the court): 1. These were two related appeals brought by the accused person (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellant") and the Public Prosecutor, respectively, following a trial and the finding of guilt by the High Court judge ("the Judge") against the Appellant on three sexual offence charges and the acquittal of the Appellant of a single charge of impersonation under s 170 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) ("s 170" and "the Code" respectively). CCA No 7 of 2013 ("CCA 7") was the Appellant's appeal against the convictions found against him as well as the sentences imposed. CCA No 8 of 2013 ("CCA 8") was the Public Prosecutor's appeal against the acquittal. 2. At the conclusion of the hearing, we dismissed CCA 7 but allowed CCA 8 and convicted the Appellant on the charge of impersonation. We now give our reasons. The Charges 3. The charges which were brought against the Appellant were as follows: 1st Charge: [You, the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-11-2014
Chan Wei Sern, Paul AR: 1. The plaintiff is a Singapore citizen who for many years carried on business activities in Malaysia. As a result of unsatisfied personal guarantees which he issued in favour of Malaysian companies, two separate judgments were rendered against the plaintiff by the High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur. The rights to these judgments were subsequently transferred to the first defendant. On the basis of one of these judgments, the 1st defendant petitioned for the plaintiff to be adjudged a bankrupt in Malaysia. On the basis of the other, the 1st defendant applied for the plaintiff to be adjudged a bankrupt in Singapore. On both counts, the 1st defendant was successful and the plaintiff was declared a bankrupt in Malaysia and Singapore in turn. In respect of the Singapore bankruptcy, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants were appointed as private trustees to act in place of the Official Assignee. 2. The plaintiff now seeks to annul the Singapore bankruptcy order. To persu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-19-2014
1. The facts of this case can fairly be described as exotic, but very few of them are relevant to the present appeal. Dr Williams claims to be the victim of a fraud instigated by the Nigerian State Security Services which occurred in 1986. His case is that he was induced to serve as guarantor of a bogus transaction for the importation of foodstuffs into Nigeria. In connection with that transaction, he paid $6,520,190 to an English solicitor, Mr Reuben Gale, to be held on trust for him on terms that it should not be released until certain funds had been made available to him in Nigeria. Dr Williams says that in fraudulent breach of that trust, Mr Gale, knowing that those funds were not available to him in Nigeria, paid out $6,020,190 of the money to an account of the Central Bank of Nigeria with Midland Bank in London, and that he pocketed the remaining $500,000. The Central Bank is said to have been party to Mr Gale's fraud. The Bank applied for an order setting aside the permission gi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-28-2014
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.420 OF2012SURESH & ANR. ..... APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ..... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J.1. This appeal has been preferred against conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 302 read with Sections 34, 364-A, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.2. Case of the prosecution is that on 18th December, 2000, the deceased Devender Chopra and his son deceased Abhishek Chopra had left their factory for their house in D.L.F., Gurgaon but did not reach their house. At about 9.41 P.M., PW-12 Pooja Chopra, daughter of Devender Chopra gave a call to her father to find out as to why he was late. She learnt that her father and brother had been kidnapped and ransom of rupees fifty lacs was demanded for their release. She contacted her father's business partner informing him that Devender Chopra and Abhishek Chopra were kidnapped and the kidnappers had demanded a ransom a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-28-2014
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.420 OF2012SURESH & ANR. ..... APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ..... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J.1. This appeal has been preferred against conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 302 read with Sections 34, 364-A, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.2. Case of the prosecution is that on 18th December, 2000, the deceased Devender Chopra and his son deceased Abhishek Chopra had left their factory for their house in D.L.F., Gurgaon but did not reach their house. At about 9.41 P.M., PW-12 Pooja Chopra, daughter of Devender Chopra gave a call to her father to find out as to why he was late. She learnt that her father and brother had been kidnapped and ransom of rupees fifty lacs was demanded for their release. She contacted her father's business partner informing him that Devender Chopra and Abhishek Chopra were kidnapped and the kidnappers had demanded a ransom a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-30-2014
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1102 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.10677 of 2008) Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. & Anr. ...Appellants Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.1103 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.10760 of 2008) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.1104 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.11055 of 2008) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.1105 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.11057 of 2008) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.1106 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.11393 of 2008) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.1107 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.11398 of 2008) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.1108 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.11401 of 2008) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.1109 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.11509 of 2008) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.1110 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.11622 of 2008) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.1111 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.11634 of 2008) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.1112 OF2014(Arising out of S....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-11-2014
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1970 OF2014(@ out of SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.20625/2010) Dr. Suhas H. Pophale Appellant Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Its Estate Officer Respondents JUDGMENT H.L. Gokhale J.Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave raises the question as to whether the rights of an occupant/licensee/ tenant protected under a State Rent Control Act (Bombay Rent Act, 1947 and its successor the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, in the instant case), could be adversely affected by application of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (Public Premises Act for short)?. This question arises in the context of the eviction order dated 28.5.1993 passed by the respondent No.2, Estate Officer of the first respondent, invoking the provisions of the Public Premises Act with respect to the premises occupied by the appellant since 20.12.1972. The eviction order has been upheld by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-06-2014
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.57 OF2014Subrata Roy Sahara . Petitioner versus Union of India and others . Respondents JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.I. Should we be hearing this case?. Would it not be better, for another Bench to hear this case?.1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has made the following prayers:- (a) Declare the order dated 4.3.2014 as void, nullity and non-est in the eyes of law; (b) Declare that the incarceration and the custody of the petitioner are illegal which should be terminated forthwith; (c) Issue such other writ in the nature of Habeas (corpus) or other writs, order or direction for release of the petitioner from the illegal custody. (d) Pass such further orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. A perusal of the prayers made in the writ petition reveals, that in sum and substance the petitioner has assailed the order date...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-01-2014
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2287 OF2009Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod ..Appellant Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents W I T H CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1593 OF2014[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2077 of 2009].; CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1594 OF2014[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2112 of 2009].; CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1595 OF2014[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2117 of 2009].; CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1596-1600 OF2014[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.1308-1312 of 2009].; CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1601 OF2014[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3762 of 2012].; CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1602 OF2014[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3943 of 2012].; CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1603 OF2014[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3944 of 2012].; AND CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1604 OF2014[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.59 of 2013].. JUDGMENT VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions. These Appeals raise a legal nodus of substantial public importance pertaining to Courts territorial...
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!