Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-25-2023
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2023INSC644CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4642 OF2023(@SLP(C) No.3623 OF2021 HEM RAJ .. APPELLANT(S) VS. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT NAGARATHNA J.Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed by the insured seeking indemnification of the total amount of INR1036,500/- from the respondent-insurance company, being aggrieved by the Order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC for short).3. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant is the owner of a Mahindra Pick-up Vehicle bearing registration No.PB-19H-2461 which is used by him for his personal use. That the appellant had purchased an insurance policy No.36060231130100003910 by paying the premium on the policy to the respondent-insurer covering the territory of India initially and later Nepal also. The period of the policy was from 2 21.03.2014 to 20.03.2015. On 11.09.2014, the vehicle was driven by Amritpal alongwith othe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-06-2023
1 REPORTABLE2023NSC605 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1269 OF2013MOHD. NAUSHAD APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1270-1271 OF2013AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. @ SLP (CRL.) NOS.64476451 OF2013JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL J.Prosecution Case.........................................................................................8 High Court and Trial Court Findings..........................................................16 Submissions of Counsels...........................................................................36 Submissions on behalf of A3, Mohd. Naushad.........................................36 Submissions on behalf of A9, Javed Ahmed Khan...................................45 Submissions on behalf of A5 and A6.......................................................46 Submission on behalf of the State (NCT of Delhi)....................................47 Prosecution Witnesses...............
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-16-2023
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE16H DAY OF JUNE, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7067 OF2021BETWEEN:1. . AIYAPPA M.B., AGED ABOUT33YEARS S/O BHEEMAIAH R/AT NO.20/1, ELEGANT PRABHA G.F001 6TH CROSS GURUMURTHAPPA GARDEN J.P.NAGARA, 1ST PHASE BENGALURU 560 078. 2 . SMT. RATHU PONNAMMA @ PONNAMMA M. B., AGED ABOUT63YEARS W/O BHEEMAIAH R/AT SHANTHINAGARA PONNAMPETE, VIRAJPETE TALUK KODAGU 571 218. 3 . BHEEMAIAH AGED ABOUT63YEARS S/O LATE BELLIYAPPA R/AT SHANTHINAGAR PONNAMPETE, VIJRAJPETE TALUK KODAGU 571 218. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.R.C.MANOHAR, ADVOCATE) 2 AND:1. . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY J.P.NAGAR POLICE BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU 560 001. 2 . xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. K.S.KARTHIK KIRAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : May-30-2023
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE30H DAY OF MAY, 2023 PRESENT THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1610/2017 BETWEEN: RANGARAJU @ VAJAPEYI, S/O. KARIYANNA, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, R/AT GOLIGENA HALLI VILLAGE, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI HANUMANTHARAYA C. H. ADVOCATE, ALONG WITH Ms. ABHINAYA K, SRI K.V.MANOJ, AND SRI NITHIN RAMESH, AMICUS CURIAE) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SIRA POLICE STATION, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. RESPONDENT (BY SRI KIRAN S JAVALI, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR-I A/W SRI VIJAYKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) 2 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION3742) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BY THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED0908.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, IN S.C.No.82/2015- CONVICTING T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-01-2023
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) No.1118 OF2014SHILPA SAILESH ..... PETITIONER VERSUS VARUN SREENIVASAN ..... RESPONDENT W I T H TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.96 OF2014TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.339 OF2014TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.382 OF2014TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.468 OF2014A N D TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 1481-1482 OF2014JUDGMENT SANJIV KHANNA, J.Background. T.P. (C) No.1118 of 2014 & Ors. Page 1 of 61 The issues before this Constitution Bench, as adumbrated below, arise primarily from the order dated 12.05.2010 passed in T.P. (C) No.899 of 2007, Neeti Malviya v. Rakesh Malviya, wherein a bench of two judges had doubted the view expressed in Anjana Kishore v. Puneet Kishore1 and Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel2 that this Court, in exercise of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, cannot reduce or waive the period of six months for moving the second motion as stipulated in sub-section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-28-2023
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.575 OF2011SANTOSH @ BHURE Appellant VERSUS STATE (G.N.C.T.) OF DELHI Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.576 OF2011STATE Appellant VERSUS NEERAJ Respondent JUDGMENT MANOJ MISRA, J.1. These two appeals preferred against the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court (for short the High Court) dated March 5, 2009 in two connected appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos.682 of 2008 and 316 of 2008 are being decided by a common judgment. Criminal Appeal No.575 of 2011 Etc. Page 1 of 792. Two persons, namely, Santosh @ Bhure (appellant in Criminal Appeal No.575 of 2011) and Neeraj (respondent in Criminal Appeal No.576 of 2011) were tried for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC). The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi (for short the Trial Court) vide order dated 27.02.2008 found them guilty for offence punishable...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-17-2023
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE17H DAY OF APRIL, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.15800 OF2022(GM RES) BETWEEN: SRI SUDARSHAN V. BIRADAR (PRESIDENT CHINCHOLI BAR ASSOCIATION) AGED ABOUT47YEARS, S/O VEERASHETTY HAVING OFFICE AT R/AT: NEAR AATREYA CLINIC MAIN ROAD, CHINCHOLI TALUK KALABURGI 585 307. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI P.P.HEGDE, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE) AND:1. . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001. 2 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PLANNING PROGRAMME MONITORING2AND STATISTICS DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001. 3 . UNION OF INDIA BY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL INDIA V.S.DIVISION WEST BLOCK-I R.K.PURAM, NEW DELHI 110 066. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.V.KRISHNA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on : Apr-05-2023
- 1 - RFA No.1659 of 2007 C/W RFA.CROB No.101 of 2008 R ` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE5H DAY OF APRIL, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1659 OF2007(PAR-) C/W RFA CROSS OBJ NO.101 OF2008IN RFA NO.1659/2007 BETWEEN:1. SMT. THIRAKAVVA W/O KANNAPPA NARASAGOUDAR, AGE:51. YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: BASAVANGUDI NAGAR, RANEBENNUR 581115.2. SMT. ROOPA W/O ISHWARAPPA HALIYANNAVAR, AGE:32. YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BASAVANGUDI NAGAR, RANEBENNUR 581115. APPELLANTS (BY SRI. N.P. VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE) AND:1. RATNAVVA W/O SURESH KALLEDEVARA, AGE:34. YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: RANEBENNUR. PIN:58111. .2. SHANTAVVA W/O KANNAPPA NARASAGONDRA, AGE:55. YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: KANCHAGARA ONI, BASAVANAGUDI NAGARA, RANEBENNUR- 581115.3. LAKSHMAVVA W/O SHIVAPUTRAPPA GOLANNANAVARA, AGE:48. YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MEDLERI ROAD, - 2 - RFA No.1659 of 2007 C/W RFA.CROB No.101 of 2008 RANEBENNUR 581115....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on : Apr-05-2023
- 1 - RFA No.1659 of 2007 C/W RFA.CROB No.101 of 2008 R ` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE5H DAY OF APRIL, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1659 OF2007(PAR-) C/W RFA CROSS OBJ NO.101 OF2008IN RFA NO.1659/2007 BETWEEN:1. SMT. THIRAKAVVA W/O KANNAPPA NARASAGOUDAR, AGE:51. YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: BASAVANGUDI NAGAR, RANEBENNUR 581115.2. SMT. ROOPA W/O ISHWARAPPA HALIYANNAVAR, AGE:32. YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BASAVANGUDI NAGAR, RANEBENNUR 581115. APPELLANTS (BY SRI. N.P. VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE) AND:1. RATNAVVA W/O SURESH KALLEDEVARA, AGE:34. YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: RANEBENNUR. PIN:58111. .2. SHANTAVVA W/O KANNAPPA NARASAGONDRA, AGE:55. YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: KANCHAGARA ONI, BASAVANAGUDI NAGARA, RANEBENNUR- 581115.3. LAKSHMAVVA W/O SHIVAPUTRAPPA GOLANNANAVARA, AGE:48. YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MEDLERI ROAD, - 2 - RFA No.1659 of 2007 C/W RFA.CROB No.101 of 2008 RANEBENNUR 581115....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-28-2023
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF2023[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO(S). 915 OF2023 MOHD MUSLIM @ HUSSAIN APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE (NCT OF DELHI) RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. Special leave granted. With consent of counsel for parties, the appeal was heard finally.2. Long back, in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar1 this court had declared that the right to speedy trial of offenders facing criminal charges is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 as interpreted 1 [1979]. 3 SCR1276 (1980) 1 SCC812 by this Court. Remarking that a valid procedure under Article 21 is one which contains a procedure that is reasonable, fair and just it was held that : Now obviously procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of liberty cannot be reasonable, fair or just unless that procedure ensures a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person. No procedure which does n...
Tag this Judgment!