Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-08-2008
Reported in : JT2008(8)SC650; 2008(11)SCALE233; 2008AIRSCW6322
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Challenging the order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 19.9.2002 in Criminal Appeal No. 812 of 1980 acquitting Kishanpal Singh, Suresh Singh, Mahendra Singh @ Neksey Singh, Jaivir Singh, Sheodan Singh and Bahar Singh (Accused Nos. 2, 4, 7, 8, 9 & 10), the State of Uttar Pradesh has filed this appeal.2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:On 21.6.1978 at 3.30 p.m., the sixteen accused persons gathered at the door of Gyan Singh and made a criminal conspiracy for killing Kaptan Singh and Raj Mahesh as they were harassing them unnecessarily. At about 4.00 P.M., Onkar Singh, Kishanpal Singh, Vijaipal Singh, Suresh Singh, Naresh Singh, Daulat Singh, Mahendra Singh @ Neksey Singh, Jaivir Singh, Sheodan Singh and Bahar Singh (Accused Nos. 1to10) reached at the place of occurrence with firearms. Onkar Singh (Accused No. 1), Naresh Singh (Accused No. 5), Daulat Singh (Accused No. 6) and Sheodan Singh (Accused No. 9) had guns while others had country-ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-12-2008
Reported in : AIR2009SC944; 2009CriLJ7872; 2008(16)SCALE158; 2009AIRSCW1; 2008(6)LHSC4417
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 14.5.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1472 of 1981 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the appellant herein against a judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.6.1981 passed by Sri R.K. Mishra, III Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 418 of 1980 holding that the appellant was guilty for commission of offences under Sections 148, 452 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months, 18 months and life imprisonment respectively, was dismissed.2. Appellant was prosecuted in respect of commission of offences, the incident whereof took place on or about 15.8.1979 at about 9.30 p.m. in the house of one Mewa Ram. Janamashtami festival was being celebrated on that night. Dinesh Kumar and Girish Kumar, the sons of the informant Mewa Ram, Smt. Ramlali, his wife, so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-29-2008
Reported in : 153(2008)DLT92
P.K. Bhasin, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the two appellants, who are real brothers, against the judgment dated 21.11.2001 and order dated 22.11.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Session Case No. 90/2000 whereby they were convicted under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' in brief) and sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to a fine of Rs.5000/- each, with a default stipulation, for the murder of one Kapil and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.5000/-each, with a default stipulation, for the attempted murder of his mother. 2. The incident leading to the prosecution of the two appellants(hereinafter to be referred to as the accused persons) was narrated by PW-2 Santosh Sharma in her first information statement to the police(Ex.PW- 2/A) on 12th December,1998 when the incident had taken place. She had claimed that that day i.e. 12th December, 1998, her sons Kapil(the deceased) and Anuj(PW-5) ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-29-2008
Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj382
Prakash Tatia, J.1. These three D.B. Criminal Appeals have been preferred to challenge the judgment and order dated 29.9.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge.Bali passed in Sessions Case No. 61/99 (39/02), by which the trial Court convicted the appellant Bhanwar Singh @ Chhatar Singh and Madho Singh under Section 302, IPC as well as under Section 302/120B, IPC, whereas convicted appellant Kishan Chand under Section 302/120B as well as under Section 302.115, IPC. The accused Kishan Chand has been acquitted of charge under Section 302/34, IPC. The accused Bhanwar Singh @ Chhatar Singh and Madho Singh have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302, IPC with fine of Rs. 20,000/- to each and in default thereof, to undergo sue months rigorous imprisonment. They have also been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302/120B, IPC with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default thereof, to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. Kishan Chand has been sente...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-13-2008
Reported in : (2008)5MLJ261
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 09.6.2005 made in O.A. No. 1027 of 2004, the petitioners, who are the Chairman, Commissioner of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti [for short, 'NVS'] functioning under the Ministry of HRD at New Delhi as well as the Deputy Director of NVS at Nongriss Hills, Shillong at Meghalaya State, have filed the present writ petition. 2. By the aforesaid order, the CAT set aside the order of termination of the first respondent dated 13.6.2003, confirmed by the order dated 31.8.2004 passed by the appellate authority, and directed reinstatement of the first respondent with all consequential benefits.3. This Court admitted the writ petition on 11.10.2006 and also granted an interim stay on the same day. When the first respondent filed M.P. No. 2 of 2006 to vacate the stay order, this Court confirmed the stay and dismissed the vacate stay application. It directed the disposal of the main writ petition at an earl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-05-2008
Reported in : 2009(241)ELT338(Mad)
ORDERS. Nagamuthu, J.1. A Notification bearing No. 25 (Re-2007)/2004-2009 dated 29.08.2007 issued by the second respondent / Director General of Foreign Trade and Ex-Officio Additional Secretary to the Government of India in exercise of powers conferred by Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with paragraph 2.1 of the Foreign Trade Policy - 2004 - 09 is under challenge in all these writ petitions. All the writ petitions were heard together and they are disposed of by means of this common order. 2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are either importers or traders of betel nuts. They claim that they are in the practice of importing betel nuts in substantial quantities every year from South East Asian countries like Indonesia and Thailand. According to them, they can conveniently import the same through anyone of the ports on the Eastern Cost. But, the respondents issued the impugned Notification, there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-25-2008
Reported in : (2008)2CALLT468(HC),2008(3)CHN507
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. Passion and prejudice are two charlatans that lie in stealthy wait to waylay any quasi-judicial adjudication, however noble the purpose of the exercise. To the two original limbs of natural justice of audi alteram partem (nobody shall be condemned unheard) and nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa (nobody shall be judge of his own cause), has been added a third: the duty to assign reasons. A quasi-judicial order is founded on reason, not instinct. An order made on impression is erroneous in form and substance.2. The petitioner in the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges a decision made on the recommendation of an enquiry commission set up by the University to look into the charges of alleged malpractice involving two theses submitted for PhD degrees under the faculty of science of the University. The full report has been disclosed in the University's affidavit. The one-man enquiry commission has begun the report by rec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-13-2008
Reported in : 2008(4)CHN386,2008CriLJ3725
Partha Sakha Datta, J.1. The victim aged 16 years belonging to a poor family under Pathar Pratima police station was offered a Job of maidservant at Delhi by the appellant against monthly remuneration of Rs. 1,000/-. Accordingly, with the consent of her parents she was taken by the appellant to Delhi on or about 14th December 2003 but at Delhi she was not given any job in the house of the appellant and after she had spent a few days in the house of the appellant the appellant told the victim to go to different men and if she could please them she would be given handsome amount in return. She was not agreeable to the proposal but she was forced to go to different men so as to fulfill their carnal desire. Things went like this for months but she could not bear It any more and the appellant was compelled to take her to her mother on 15-2-04. Thus allegedly the appellant took the victim to Delhi with the temptation to find out a job for her but tortured her physically and mentally and ruin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-02-2008
Reported in : AIR2008Cal255,2008(4)ARBLR567(Cal),2008(4)CHN477
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. The instant appeal has been preferred from the judgment and order dated 21st March, 2005 passed by a learned single Judge of this Hon'ble Court on the application filed by the appellant herein under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. By the said application, appellant herein challenged the legality and validity of the award dated August, 30, 1990 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator.2. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the learned single Judge has modified the award made by the learned Sole Arbitrator and virtually passed a new award in respect of the disputes between the parties. The learned Senior Counsel representing the appellant referred to the concluding portions of the judgment under appeal and submitted that the learned single Judge had observed that the learned Arbitrator might have for a noble cause directed payment of costs to the Army Central Welfare Fund, but the awarding of costs to a non-party is not permis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : International Court of Justice ICJ
Decided on : May-23-2008
1. By joint letter dated 24 July 2003, filed in the Registry of the Court on the same day, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Malaysia and the Republic of Singapore (hereinafter œSingapore?) notified to the Registrar a Special Agreement between the two States, signed at Putrajaya on 6 February 2003 and having entered into force on 9 May 2003, the date of the exchange of instruments of ratification. 2. The text of the Special Agreement reads as follows : œThe Government of Malaysia and the Government of the Republic of Singapore (hereinafter referred to as the Parties) ; Considering that a dispute has arisen between them regarding sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge; Desiring that this dispute should be settled by the International Court of Justice (hereinafter referred to as the Court) ; Have agreed as follows : M. S. Tiwari, Principal Senior State Counsel au cabinet de lAttorney-General de la Rpublique de Singapour, M. Lionel Yee,...
Tag this Judgment!