Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-05-2020
..... no.6195, 6196 & 6199 but banshilal, pyarelal s/o late har lal, hitesh verma s/o sh. pyarelal, pawan verma s/o banshilal, uma verma w/o pyarelal and their nepali domestic help raju from past 6 months are not allowing the applicant to work on her fields. all the above persons used to abuse the applicant her husband and other .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-06-2020
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.541 OF2020REEPAK KANSAL ..PETITIONER VERSUS SECRETARYGENERAL, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ORS. ..RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ARUN MISHRA, J.1. The petitioner, who is an Advocate practicing in this Court, has filed the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India against various officers of the Registry of this Court and the Union of India. Prayer has been made to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to give preference to the cases filed by influential lawyers/ petitioners, law firms, etc. Prayer has been made to direct the respondents to give equal treatment to the cases filed by ordinary lawyers/ petitioners and not to point out unnecessary defects, refund the excess court fee and other charges, and not to tag the cases without order or direction of the Court with other cases. A prayer has also been made to direct the S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-31-2020
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION REPORTABLE SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) NO.1 OF2020IN RE: PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANR. JUDGMENT1 Heard Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General for India, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Shri Dushyant Dave, Shri C.U. Singh, learned senior counsel, and the contemnorShri Prashant Bhushan.2. After having adjudged Shri Prashant Bhushan, Advocate, guilty of contempt vide judgment dated 14.08.2020, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan and Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the contemnorShri Prashant Bhushan raised the following arguments: (i) That the copy of the petition on the basis of which the suo motu cognizance was taken by this Court with respect to first tweet, filed by Shri Mahek Maheshwari, was not furnished, in spite of the application having been filed by the contemnor. Thus, it could not be ascertained whether the complaint was mala fide or even personally or politically motivated. 1 (ii) The factors relevant for sentencing are t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-29-2020
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.152 OF2013TOFAN SINGH Appellant Versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1750 OF2009CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2214 OF2009CRIMINAL APPEAL No.827 OF2010CRIMINAL APPEAL No.835 OF2011CRIMINAL APPEAL No.836 OF2011CRIMINAL APPEAL No.344 OF2013CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1826 OF2013CRIMINAL APPEAL No.433 OF2014SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.6338 OF2015CRIMINAL APPEAL No.77 OF2015CRIMINAL APPEAL No.90 OF2017CRIMINAL APPEAL No.91 OF2017SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.1202 OF2017JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1.These Appeals and Special Leave Petitions arise by virtue of a reference order of a Division Bench of this Court reported as Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 16 SCC31 The facts in that 1 appeal have been set out in that judgment in some detail, and need not be repeated by us. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court recorded that the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.152 of 2013 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-02-2020
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.763-764 OF2016SHATRUGHNA BABAN MESHRAM Appellant VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent JUDGMENT Uday Umesh Lalit, J.1. These appeals by Special Leave challenge the common judgment and order dated 12.10.2015 passed by the High Court1 in Criminal Appeal No.321 of 2015 and Criminal Confirmation Case No.1 of 2015 affirming the judgment and order dated 14.08.2015 passed by the Trial Court2 in Special Case (POCSO Act3) No.11 of 2013 and confirming the Death Sentence awarded to the Appellant on two counts i.e. under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short) and under Section 376A of IPC. 1 The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. 2 The Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal 3 The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 22. The victim in the present case was a girl of two and half years of age and the First Information Report was lodged at 09.25 p.m. on 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-14-2020
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2402 OF2019VIDYA DROLIA AND OTHERS ..... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DURGA TRADING CORPORATION ..... RESPONDENT(S) W I T H SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 5605-5606 OF2019AND SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION No.11877 OF2020JUDGMENT SANJIV KHANNA, J.This judgment decides the reference to three Judges made vide order dated 28th February, 2019 in Civil Appeal No.2402 of 2019 titled Vidya Drolia and Others v. Durga Trading Corporation,1 as it doubts the legal ratio expressed in Himangni Enterprises v. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia2 that landlord-tenant disputes governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property 1 2019 SCC OnLine SC3582 (2017) 10 SCC7061 Act, 1882, are not arbitrable as this would be contrary to public policy.2. A deeper consideration of the order of reference reveals that the issues required to be answered relate to two aspects that are distinct and yet interconnected, namely: (i) meaning of non-arbitr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-19-2020
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.72407248 OF2009THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, CALICUT Appellant Versus M/S. CERA BOARDS AND DOORS, KANNUR KERALA ETC. ETC. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL Nos.86158620 OF2009CIVIL APPEAL Nos.22362253 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL Nos.32273230 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL Nos.32313233 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL Nos.65646567 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL Nos.99889991 OF20112 JUDGMENT V. Ramasubramanian,J.Introduction 1. All the appeals on hand are by the Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax of different Commissionerates, filed under Section 35L(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), questioning the correctness of the orders passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Bangalore (CESTAT) in seven different batches of cases, but arising out of similar facts and raising identical questions.2. For the purpose of convenience,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-28-2020
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.5440 OF2020[@ DIARY No.1476 OF2020 District Bar Association, Dehradun through its Secretary .. Petitioner Versus Ishwar Shandilya & Ors. .. Respondents JUDGMENT M. R. Shah, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 25.09.2019 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition (PIL) No.31 of 2016, the District Bar Association, Dehrarun, through its Secretary, has preferred the present SLP. That by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court in the writ petition (PIL) filed by the private respondent herein has issued the following directions: The District Bar Associations of Dehradun, Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar shall, forthwith, withdraw their call for a strike, and start attending Courts on all working Saturdays. All the District 2 Bar Associations in the State shall forthwith refrain from abstaining from Courts beca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-30-2020
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.7369 of 2019 Satish @ Sabbe ..... Petitioner(s) VERSUS The State of Uttar Pradesh .....Respondent(s) WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.8326 of 2019 Surya Kant, J: JUDGMENT1 These petitions, which were heard through video conferencing, have been filed by Satish and Vikky @ Vikendra alias Virendra, seeking special leave to appeal against a common order dated 28.04.2017 of the Allahabad High Court through which their appeal against conviction under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, IPC) and consequential sentence of life imprisonment, was turned down. Page | 1 FACTS2 The undisputable facts of the case are that on the evening of 12.06.2002, when one Vishal Sarawat (the victim) was on his way to meet a friend, he was stopped by an acquaintance Ramvir Rana who asked him for a lift to his house. The unsuspecting victim walked into Ramvirs house where he was th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-06-2020
Civil Appeal No.5808 of 2017 SK. MD. Rafique vs. Managing Committee, contai Rahamania High Madrasah and Others IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA1Reportable CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL/INHERENT JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5808 OF2017Sk. Md. Rafique VERSUS Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania High Madrasah and Others Appellant Respondents WITH C.A. No.6098/2017 CONMT.PET.(C) No.670/2017 In SLP(C) No.6661/2016 CONMT.PET.(C) No.669/2017 In SLP(C) No.6661/2016 CONMT.PET.(C) No.828/2017 In SLP(C) No.6661/2016 C.A. No.5809/2017 C.A. No.5826/2017 C.A. No.5817/2017 C.A. No.5814/2017 CONMT.PET.(C) No.583/2016 In SLP(C) No.6661/2016 C.A. No.5829/2017 W.P.(C) No.723/2016 CONMT.PET.(C) No.846/2016 In SLP(C) No.6661/2016 Civil Appeal No.5808 of 2017 SK. MD. Rafique vs. Managing Committee, contai Rahamania High Madrasah and Others 2 CONMT.PET.(C) No.1509/2017 in C.A. No.5808/2017 W.P.(C) No.629/2017 CONMT.PET.(C) No.1798/2017 in C.A. No.5808/2017 CONMT.PET.(C) No.937/2018 in C.A. No.5808/2017 CONMT.PET.(C)...
Tag this Judgment!