Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) No.59 OF2013Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim and Ors. Appellant(s) Versus Union of India and Anr. Respondent(s) WITH WRIT PETITION (C) No.1283 OF2021Rapden Lepcha and Ors. Appellant(s) Versus Union of India and Anr. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. By way of this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the respective writ petitioners Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim and Others have prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order 1 striking down Section 10(26AAA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1961), more particularly, the definition of Sikkimese in Section 10 (26AAA) to the extent it excludes Indians who have settled in Sikkim prior to the merger of Sikkim with India on 26.04.1975. The petitioners have also prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction striking down the Proviso to Section 10(26AAA) of the Act, 1961, insof...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.869 OF2022ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) No.1157 OF2022(@ DIARY No.2575 OF2022 ABHISHEK . APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. . RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Dinesh Maheshwari, J.Leave granted.2. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 16.12.2021, as passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Writ Petition No.667 of 2020 whereby, the High Court has rejected his challenge to the order dated 05.11.2020, as issued by the Additional Director General of Police and Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City1 under Section 23(2) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 19992 sanctioning prosecution of the appellant with five other accused persons in Crime No.251 of 2020 of Sadar Police Station, Nagpur City for varying offences 1 Hereinafter also referred to as the sanctioning authority. 2 For short, MCOCA. 1 under the I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.852 OF2018SARTAJ KHAN .. Appellant VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND .. Respondent JUDGMENT UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.1. This appeal under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Government Appeal No.139 of 2016.2. The case of the prosecution as set out in the judgment under appeal was as under: 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that at 11:00 AM, S.I. Manju Pandey, In-charge Human Trafficking Unit Shadra Bairaj, Banbasa along with other police officials reached at Sharda Bairaj near Indo-Nepal border towards eastern side to check the illicit human 2 trafficking. One volunteer namely Meera Sauda was also with them. They were checking the people coming from Nepal b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.707 OF2020(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) No.3585 OF2020 HITESH VERMA .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR. .....RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J.1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital on 20.7.2020 whereby the petition filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 for quashing the charge-sheet as well as the summoning order dated 25.6.2020 was dismissed.2. The FIR No.173 in question was lodged by the respondent No.2 on 11.12.2019 at 23:24 hours in respect of an incident alleged to have occurred on 10.12.2019 at 10:00 hours against the appellants and others. The FIR was lodged for the offences under Sections 452, 1 For short, the Code 1 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(e) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19892. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + CRL.A. 31/2016 Judgment delivered on:25. 11.2019 NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU versus LEE WEI QI .....Appellant ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For the Respondent : Mr Subhash Bansal, Standing Counsel, : NCB with Mr Shashwat Bansal, Advocate : for NCB. : Mr Maninder Singh, Mr Dinhar Takiar and : Mr Sarthak Garg, Advocates. CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning a 1. judgment dated 22.11.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi acquitting the respondent in a complaint case filed under section 20(b)(ii)(C) and 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereafter NDPS Act) for possession and attempt to export of 7 kg of Hashish recovered from check-in baggage of the respondent( accused).2. The case set up by prosecution is as under: CRL.A. 916/2016 Page 1 of 22 The prosecution cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.427 OF2014RANJIT KUMAR HALDAR .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF SIKKIM .....RESPONDENT(S) W I T H CRIMINAL APPEAL No.458 OF2015JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J.1)2) The present appeals arise out of common judgment dated November 25, 2011, maintaining conviction and sentence on the appellants for causing death of Netai Mohanta. An FIR was lodged by Bhola Mohanta (PW-1), brother of the deceased, on December 28, 2004. The original FIR was lodged in Bengali language (Exh. 1), which was later translated in Nepali language. Bhola Mohanta (PW-1) in his statement has stated that his brother had gone to Rabom Power House at Lachung along with Page 1 of 163) his family with the accused Ranjit Haldar to work as Carpenter. He further stated that his deceased brother, Netai Mohanta, was murdered by accused Ranjit Haldar along with his nephew Puran Bandhu Mondal and Mamta Mohanta, wife of the deceased. He also stated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.5824 OF2019CIVIL (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.30035 OF2016 West Bengal Central School Service Commission & Ors. Appellants VERSUS Abdul Halim & Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT Indira Banerjee, J.Leave granted. Heard Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned senior counsel for the 2. Appellants and Mr. Debal Banerji, learned senior counsel for the Respondent No.1.3. This appeal is against a final Judgment and order dated 27.6.2016 of a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court dismissing an appeal being FMA No.3324/2015 filed by the Appellants against an order dated 19.4.2010 passed by the Single Judge allowing Writ Petition No.21512(W) of 2009 filed by Respondent No.1 inter alia cancelling the candidature, empanelment and selection of the 2 Respondent No.1 for the post of Assistant Teacher in Arabic (Pass) in Jiaruddintola High School, a Bengali medium school in District Malda in West Bengal, hereinafter referred to as School. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * + W.P.(C) 5447/2019 & CM APPL. 28313-28314/2019 Judgment reserved on:02. 07. 2019 JIGYASA JAIN & ORS Date of decision :04. 07.2019 ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Vikrant Pachnanda and Mr. Nipun Katyal, Ms. Naina Pachnanda, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. AK Sharma, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Arjun Mitra, Adv. for IIT, Roorkee, JEE (Advanced) + W.P.(C) 5701/2019 And MS. TARINI SHRIVASTAVA THROUGH HER FATHER SHRI SANJEEV SHRIVASTAVA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Vipul Agrawal, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC, Ms. Shruti Dutt, Adv. for R- 1/MHRD Mr. Amit Bansal, Adv. for R-2. Mr. Arjun Mitra, Adv. with Prof. Kaushik Ghosh for IIT Roorkee (JEE Advanced) WP (C) 5447 & 5701/2019 Page 1 of 26 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA JUDGMENT ANU MALHOTRA, J.1. The petitioners of WP (C) 5447/2019 and the petitioners of WP (C) 5701/2019 vide their petitions filed on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:21. t July, 2018 Pronounced on:8. h January, 2019 + CRL.A. 831/2014 % 1. DEEPAK SHAMSHER THAPA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Yogesh Saxena, Mr. Sikander Azam Khan and Mr. Aditya Vikram (DLSA), Advs. versus ..... Respondent Through Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP STATE for the State ASI Yasin Khan, PS Crime Branch in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT This appeal assails judgment, dated 13th May, 2014, whereby the learned Special Judge (NDPS-02) convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20(C) of the Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act), as well as the consequent order, dated 24th May, 2014, whereby the learned Special Judge sentenced the appellant, for the said offence, to undergo 12 years rigourous imprisonment with fine of 1 lakh, and default simple imprisonment of 6 months. CRL.A. 831/2014 Page 1 of 10 2. The case of the prosecu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:19. h July, 2018 Decided on:15. h November, 2018 CRL.A. 692/2017 ANIL CHAUHAN @ SANDEEP ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. Islam Khan, Advocate. versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for the State with SI Narasi Prasad, PS Hazrat Nizamuddin. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. By the present appeal, Anil Chauhan @ Sandeep challenges the impugned judgment dated 8th May, 2017 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 186/307/174A IPC read with Sections Arms Act and the order on sentence dated 15th May, 2017 directing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 186 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 30...
Tag this Judgment!