Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-31-2019
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1392 OF2008SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI,J.1. This appeal arises out of the impugned judgment dated 03.04.2008 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in Criminal Appeal No.1717 of 2003 in and by which the High Court has affirmed the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC and Section 3 read with 25 of the Arms Act and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him. On 17.04.2003 at around 09.45 a.m., deceased Rajendra Sahu came to the auto-stand near Baheti Hospital in his auto rickshaw. At around 12 noon when he was sitting on his auto-rickshaw, he saw one Maruti 800 bearing No.RJ-06C-3432 coming and three persons were sitting in the Car. Out of them, one of the occupants of the car opened the left front side door of the car and signalled Rajendra Sahu to come nearer to the car. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-05-2019
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3793 OF2016VINOD KUMAR APPELLANT(S) VERSUS ASHOK KUMAR GANDHI RESPONDENT(S) With C.A. No.8972-8973/2017, C.A.No.6063 of 2019(arising out of SLP(C) No.19965/2017), C.A.No.6064 of 2019 (arising out of SLP(C) No.20414/2017), C.A.Nos. 6066-6072 of 2019 (arising out of SLP(C) No.20735- 20741/2017), C.A.No.6073 of 2019 (arising out of SLP(C) No.22383/2017), C.A. No.16916/2017 and C.A.No.6075 of 2019 (arising out of SLP(C) No.28455/2017) JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.Leave granted.2. These appeals, except one where leave to defend was granted, have been filed against the judgment of Delhi High Court dismissing the Rent Control Revisions filed by the appellants in which the order passed by the Rent Controller rejecting the 2 application filed by the appellants-tenants seeking leave to defend in a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 have been challenged.3. The appellants are ten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-13-2019
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1388-1389 OF2019(DIARY No.9218 OF2016 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....APPELLANT(S) SANDEEP KUMAR ETC. VERSUS W I T H .....RESPONDENT(S) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1390 OF2019(DIARY No.7204 OF2016 A N D CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1391 OF2019(DIARY No.7205 OF2016 JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J.1)2) Delay condoned. Appeals admitted. Criminal appeals arising out of Diary No.9218 of 2016 are filed by the Union of India whereas; criminal appeals arising out of Diary Nos. 7204 of 2016 and 7205 of 2016 are filed by accused - Neeraj Kumar Dhaka and Sandeep Kumar respectively.3) The challenge in the appeals filed by the Union of India under Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 20071 is to an order passed on December 12, 2013 by the Armed Forces Tribunal2 setting aside the order of conviction & sentence and of dismissal 1 2 Act Tribunal 14) consequent to District Court Martial3 proceedings conducted against the res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-17-2019
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9828 OF2013D.A.V. COLLEGE TRUST AND MANAGEMENT SOCIETY & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) With CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 98449845 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 98469857 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL No.9860 OF2013JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.Whether nongovernmental organisations substantially financed by the appropriate government fall within the ambit of public authority under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is the issue for consideration in this case.2. The Right to Information Act (for short the Act) was enacted by Parliament in the year 2005, for the purpose of setting out a practical 1 regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information. The relevant portion of the Objects & Reasons of the Act reads as follows: AND WHEREAS democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-23-2019
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).6295 OF2015The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank ..Appellant(s) D. Visalakshi and Anr. Versus With .Respondent(s) Civil Appeal No(s) 75547555 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No(s).1243012431 of 2015) Criminal Appeal No(s) 14631464 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s).393394 of 2019) Civil Appeal No(s) 7557 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No(s) 23193 of 2019) (Arising out of Diary No(s).47134 of 2018 Civil Appeal No(s) 7558 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No(s).7121 of 2019) Criminal Appeal No(s) 1465 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s).3507 of 2019) Criminal Appeal No(s) 1478 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s).3689 of 2019) Criminal Appeal No(s) 1466 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s).4351 of 2019) Criminal Appeal No(s) 1467 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s).4293 of 2019) 2 Criminal Appeal No(s) 1468 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s).4387 of 2019) Criminal Appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-04-2019
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE/ INHERENT JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.3198231983 OF2013NUSLI NEVILLE WADIA PETITIONER(S) VERSUS IVORY PROPERTIES & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) WITH REVIEW PETITION (C) NO.2856 OF2015CIVIL APPEAL NO.3396 OF2015IN JUDGMENT ARUN MISHRA, J.1. The reference has been made by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.8.2015, doubting the correctness of the decision of this Court in Foreshore Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. Praveen D. Desai (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others, (2015) 6 SCC412with respect to the interpretation provisions contained in Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the CPC) as inserted by the Maharashtra Amendment Act, 1977. It has been opined that the word jurisdiction under Section 9A is wide enough to include the issue of limitation as the expression has been used in the broader sense and is not restricted to conventional definition under pecuniary or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-04-2019
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 937 OF2011FAINUL KHAN ...APPELLANT(S) STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER VERSUS WITH ...RESPONDENT(S) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 938 OF2011SAINUL KHAN ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 939 OF2011MIR SHAUKAT ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J.The appellants are aggrieved by their conviction under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for life, along with conviction 1 under Sections 323/149 and 147 IPC, sentencing them to varied terms of imprisonment under the same. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 01.11.1983 at about 06.30 PM. The accused were variously armed with spears and lathis. P.W. 7 and 8 are stated to be injured eye witnesses. P.W6also claimed to be an eye wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-14-2019
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10194 OF2013STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS Respondent(s) S.K. SINGH & ORS. IA No.88765/2018 WITH C.A. No.1317 of 2015 C.A. No.11307 of 2013 IA No.7/2016 JUDGMENT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.Civil Appeal No.10194/2013 1. The dispute pertains to the Irrigation Department cadre of the Uttarakhand State, for promotion from the post of Junior Engineer (for short JE) to the post of Assistant Engineer (for short AE), with two groups of these JEs arrayed on opposite sides one having the 1 qualification of Diploma and the other having the qualification of Degree in Engineering. The promotion quota (the promotion quota is for AEs - they are also being directly recruited) has carved out a provision for accelerated promotion to the extent of 7.33% for the JEs holding a more advanced qualification, of a Degree in Civil Engineering, with which the JEs holding a qualification of Diploma are aggrieved. F...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-17-2019
1 NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1560 OF2019PREM SINGH APPELLANT(S) Versus SUKHDEV SINGH & OTHERS RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1561 OF2019JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.These appeals by the victim as well as by the State are directed against the judgment dated 24.07.2013 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal of the accused and set aside the judgment of the trial court whereby the respondents herein were convicted for various offences punishable under Sections 148, 2 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, and sentenced to various terms including life imprisonment.2. We do not intend to give detailed facts of the case. The gist of the case is that on 25.05.2005, accused Jagir Singh had caused injuries to Palwinder Kaur, who is the sisterinlaw of Prem Singh (PW1). Prem Singh (PW1) had gone to the milk chilling centre at Lopoke, because his father was contesting election...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-05-2019
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8139 OF2019(DIARY No.38432 OF2017 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....APPELLANT(S) LT. COL. OM DUTT SHARMA (RETD.) DEAD THROUGH LRS & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S) VERSUS JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J.1)2) The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Jabalpur1 on 9th February, 2017 whereby, an Original Application filed by the respondent - Lt. Col. Om Dutt Sharma was allowed holding that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of One Rank One Pension2. The respondent died during pendency of the appeal. His legal heirs have been brought on record, whereas respondent Nos. 3 to 86 have been impleaded as intervenors vide order dated 14th May, 1 2 for short, Tribunal for short, OROP 1 2018 in view of the fact that the said intervenors claim the same benefit as claimed and granted to the deceased respondent. Since the issue is purely legal and the fact that large num...
Tag this Judgment!