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 : Nov-03-2020
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.1648 of 2019 Rajesh @ Sarkari & Anr. ...Appellants Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent JUDGMENT Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J1The appellants Rajesh alias Sarkari and Ajay Hooda have been convicted, 1 together with a co-accused for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 2 34 of the India Penal Code and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. 3 2 On 26 December 2006, a ruqqa was received at the Police Post, PGIMS from PGIMS, Rohtak about Sandeep Hooda, son of Azad Singh Hooda, having 1 Pehlad Singh alias Harpal 2 IPC1been brought dead there. ASI, Meha Singh met Azad Singh, the complainant, at the emergency ward in PGIMS, Rohtak. Azad Singh made a statement which 4 was reduced into writing upon which a First Information Report being FIR No.5 781 was registered under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code at Police Station Sadar, Rohtak. The complainant stated that his elder s...
Tag this Judgment!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 : 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 : 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 : Sep-22-2020
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPORTABLE1CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO.4116 OF2020National Alliance for Peoples Movements & Ors. . Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. . Respondent(s) JUDGMENT1 The petitioners herein were before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay claiming to be in Public Interest (PIL CJLDVC No.44/2020) seeking that the decision of the High Powered Committee (HPC for short) dated 25.03.2020 to the extent of Clauses (iii), (iv) and (vii) of paragraph 8, decisions/minutes of HPC meeting dated 11.05.2020 excluding certain categories of offences provided in 2 paragraph 5(i) and 5(ii) for the purpose of grant of interim bail and corrigendum dated 18.05.2020 of the Minutes of the Meeting of HPC dated 11.05.2020 to the extent of clarification that the class and/or category of offences determined by the HPC for temporary release be not read as a direction made by it for mandatory release of prisoners falling in that categor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-28-2020
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.635 OF2020(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.393 of 2020) MAHESHWAR TIGGA ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J.Leave granted.2. The appellant assails his conviction under sections 376, 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC) sentencing him to seven years, one year and one month respectively with fine and a default stipulation.3. The prosecutrix, PW9 lodged FIR No.25 of 1999 on 13.04.1999 alleging that four years ago the appellant had 1 outraged her modesty at the point of a knife. He had since been promising to marry her and on that pretext continued to establish physical relations with her as husband and wife. She had also stayed at his house for fifteen days during which also he established physical relations with her. Five days prior to the lodging of the F.I.R, the appellant had established physical relations with her on 09.04.1999. T...
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!