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 : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-10-2014
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1750 OF2008Hardeep Singh Appellant Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents With CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1751 of 2008 Manjit Pal Singh Appellant Versus State of Punjab & Anr. Respondents With SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.9184 of 2008 Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria & Anr. Appellants Versus State of Gujarat & Ors. Respondents With SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.7209 of 2010 Rajendra Sharma & Anr. Appellants Versus State of M.P. & Anr. Respondents With SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.5724 of 2009 Ravinder Kumar & Anr. Appellants Versus State of Haryana & Ors. Respondents With SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.5975 of 2009 Tej Pal & Anr. Appellants Versus State of Haryana & Ors. Respondents With SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.9040 of 2010 Juned Pahalwan Appellant Versus State of U.P.& Anr. Respondents With SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.5331 of 2009 Raj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
Decided on : May-30-2014
On appeal from: North GautengHigh Court, Pretoria (Vorster AJ sitting as court of first instance): 1. The late filing of the appellants supplementary record and heads of argument is condoned. 2. The appeal is reinstated. 3. The respondents are directed to pay the costs of opposition in the reinstatement application. 4. The appeal is upheld with costs including the costs of two counsel. 5. The order of the high court is set aside and replaced with the following: (i) The defendant is directed to pay the first plaintiff the amount of R30000 being damages for unlawful arrest and detention, which amount shall bear interest at the rate of 15,5 per cent per annum from 8 February 2013 until the date of payment and in relation thereto, the defendant is directed to pay the first plaintiffs costs. (ii) The second plaintiffs claim for special damages is dismissed and in relation thereto the second plaintiff is to pay the defendants costs. JUDGMENT Theron JA (Navsa, Shongwe and Willis JJA and Legod...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court
Decided on : May-16-2014
K. Sripavan, J. The Accused Appellant Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the œAppellant?) was indicted before the High Court of Hambantota on the following two counts : Count 1. That he did on the 28th of September, 1977 kidnap one Jayamunigedera Suramya from the lawful custody of her guardian Anulawathie thereby committing an offence contrary to Section 354 of the Penal Code. Count 2 That he did commit the offence of Rape on the said Jayamunigedera Suramya during the period 28th September 1997 and 26th October 1997 thereby committing an offence contrary to Section 364(2) of the Penal Code. The High Court found the Appellant guilty on both counts at the trial and sentenced him on 28.09.2005 as follows:- Count 1 Five years Rigorous Imprisonment. Count 2 Ten years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2500/= and an order for compensation in a sum of Rs. 5000/= with a default term of six months Rigorous Imprisonment. The Court further ordered that both sentences to run concur...
Tag this Judgment!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!