Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC462; 2008(1)ALD(Cri)157; 2008(1)ALT(Cri)391; 2008CriLJ690; JT2007(12)SC452; 2007(13)SCALE37; 2007AIRSCW7282
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the conviction of appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation in terms of the judgment of learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:One Gali Krishnaiah (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') Gali Seethaiah and the appellant are brothers and the relation between them was strained. Prior to the incident, the appellant threatened the deceased that he would kill him. While so, on 13.09.1999, at about 8.30 a.m. the appellant with an intent to kill the deceased, armed with a knife, went to him, pulled him and stabbed on his left side of the chest and caused vital stab injury, besides causing another cut injury over middle of the left forearm. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC391; 2008(1)ALD(Cri)131; 2008(56)BLJR242; 2007(13)SCALE51; 2007AIRSCW7126; (2008)3SCC(Cri)319; 2008(1)AICLR302
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court dismissing the appeals filed by the appellants and upholding the conviction for offences punishable under Sections 364 and 396 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). In fact, the High Court disposed of two appeals both directed against the judgment of conviction dated 16th July, 2002 and 23rd July, 2002 passed in Sessions Trial No. 156/1997. As noted above, the trial Court found both the accused appellants guilty and awarded the sentence of imprisonment for life for the offences punishable under Sections 364 and 396 IPC. However, no separate sentence under Section 120B was awarded, while the co-accused Laxmi Prasad was further sentenced to the period already undergone for offence punishable under Section 412 IPC. 3. The High Court did not find any substance in the appeals and dismissed the same as noted above. 4. Backgr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC630; 2008(1)CTC268; [2008(1)JCR218(SC)]; JT2008(1)SC69; (2008)1MLJ251(SC); RLW2008(2)SC1288; 2007(13)SCALE370
ORDERLeave granted.1. Respondent herein filed a suit for permanent injunction against the appellant. The suit was marked as Civil Suit No. 226 of 1987. A decree for permanent injunction was passed by the learned trial Judge on 19.1.1989, the operative portion whereof reads as under:This suit comes today before me (Balbir Singh PCS, Addl.Senior Sub Judge Jagraon) for final disposal, in the presence of the counsel for the parties, it is ordered that: ________(illegible) the suit of the plaintiff is decreed against the defendant for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from planting tree on the Khasra No. 17/2 on the one side and Khasra No. 218/1 and 17/1 on the other side situate in the area of village Abbupura Tehsil, Jagraon, District Ludhiana peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to their own costs. 2. The decree holder filed an application for execution of the decree praying, inter alia, for removal of the tree from the lands in question. A Commissioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(12)SCALE781; 2008(2)SLJ149(SC)
ORDERSd/- M.S. Srinivasan,Mg. Director.6. The aforesaid amendments were subsequently altered by the Board on 10th March, 1995 whereby some of the benefits which had been extended to the employees of the Board having a graduate Degree in Engineering for proceeding on study leave for acquiring a post graduate engineering qualification, particularly the one in clause (11)(c), were rendered nugatory. 7. The amendment of 1995 gave rise to disputes which resulted in the filing of writ petition No. 11053 of 1996 by the appellants in these appeals in the High Court of Judicature at Madras.8. In order to appreciate the cause of dispute the provisions of Regulation 9 of the MMWSS Board Employees (Leave) Regulations, 1978, as amended by the Board in its Resolution dated 27th February, 1995, is reproduced hereinbelow:Existing Provision(After amendment earlier)Permanent provision(i) The existing Regulation 9 on Study leave willbe retained and shall be applicable to employees of the Board other than...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. The respondent, Rashtriya Sakhar Kamgar Union has filed a writ petition before the High Court of judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. The Court after hearing counsel passed an interim order in the writ petition. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order filed a Letters Patent Appeal No. 94 of 2007 before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench passed the following order:The order passed by the learned Single Judge as reflected in para 7 of the impugned order to the extent of bracketed portion in red ink 'till the completion of the terms of the existing Board of Directors, whichever is earliest' would stand stayed. The parties are at liberty to move the learned Single Judge for grant of early date of hearing. We may further clarify that the order directing Respondent No. 5 to accept two nominees namely Kisan Nivruti Chatter and Laxman Baburao Warpe on the Board of Directors of the Karkhana till the disposal of the writ petition is not stayed.The petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(1)ALD(Cri)140; 2008(1)ALT(Cri)454; [2008(1)JCR133(SC)]; 2008(2)MhLj484; 2008(I)OLR(SC)204; 2007(12)SCALE667; (2008)1SCC231; 2007AIRSCW7142; (2008)1SCC(Cri)186
ORDERK.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.1. The petitioner claims that the respondent was her mother's counsel in a number of matrimonial and maintenance cases filed by her mother against her father. She alleges that she is in her twenties and engaged to one Parminder Singh. She claims that the respondent had advised the petitioner to file a petition under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act against her father, seeking the expenses of her forthcoming marriage and in that behalf, took signatures from her on several blank papers. Thereafter, respondent having evil designs on her started pressurizing her to break off her engagement and marry him, though he was 48 years of age and already married having two children. The petitioner and her mother warned the respondent that he should not harbour such feelings. The respondent became furious and threatened the petitioner that he would not allow her to live in peace. 2. According to her, with a view to spoil her marriage prospects, the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(1)BomCR572; (2008)2CompLJ83(SC); 2008CriLJ452; 2007(5)CTC876; JT2007(12)SC495; 2007(4)KLT977(SC); 2008(4)MhLj365; 2008(1)MPHT146(SC); RLW2008(1)SC549; 2007(12)SCALE662; AIR2008SC3111; 2008(2)SCC321; (2008)1SCC(Cri)703; 2008(1)CivilLJ796; 2008(1)AICLR296; 2008(1)ICC284
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Failure on the part of the appellant to serve a proper notice strictly in terms of proviso appended to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') whether would lead to quashing of a criminal proceedings initiated by II Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch on a complaint made by the appellant herein is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 22.11.2004 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Misc. Criminal Case No. 2924 of 2004.2. Appellant is a partnership firm. Respondent No. 1 entered into a contract with it for construction of a building and factory premises. Appellant executed the said contract. It submitted bills for execution of contractual work for a sum of Rs. 26,46,647/-. Respondent No. 1 had made payments of Rs. 17,74,238/- and a balance of Rs. 8,72,409/- was said to be outstanding. A cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- drawn on Federal Bank Limited, Indore was issued by Respondent No. 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC397; 2008(1)ALD105(SC); 2007(123)ECC93; 2007(149)LC93(SC); 2007(218)ELT167(SC); 2007(12)SCALE754; 2007AIRSCW7139
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The short but interesting question as to whether Refrigerator is a 'packaged commodity' falls for consideration in this appeal. The appellant is engaged in manufacturing Refrigerators. The Central Government issued a Notification No. 9 of 2000 dated 1.3.2000 under Section 4A(1) & (2) of Central Excise Act (for short 'the Act') and specified the goods mentioned in Column 3 of the said notification. Entry No. 48 pertains to the refrigerators whereby the Refrigerators invited valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act with the abatement of 40%. Section 4A(1)&(2) of the Central Excise Act require that any goods included in the notification shall be valued on the basis of the Maximum Retail Price (for short 'MRP') which is required to be printed on the packages of such goods. The five conditions for inclusion of the goods are:i) The goods should be excisable goods;ii) They should be such as are sold in the package;iii) There should be requirement in the SWM Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008CriLJ444; 2007(12)SCALE669; 2007AIRSCW6988
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. A circular letter issued by the State of Haryana laying down criteria for pre-mature release of the prisoners has been declared to be unconstitutional by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by reason of the impugned judgment.2. Respondents herein are life convicts. They were chargesheeted for commission of an offence of murder of Ran Singh, Rattan Singh and Satbir Singh. They have been found guilty thereof by a judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25.01.1988. Indisputably, their appeals before the High Court as also this Court [since reported in : (1995)5SCC187 had been dismissed. 3. The State of Punjab in exercise of its power conferred upon it under the Prisons Act, 1894 made rules. They have statutory force. Sub-rules (a), (b), (c), (d) and (f) of Rule 2 read as under:(a) 'prisoner' includes a person committed to prison in default of furnishing security to keep the peace or be of good behavior;(b) 'class I prisoner' means a thug, a robber by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC640; 2008(1)AWC505(SC); 2008(1)KarLJ11; 2007(12)SCALE680; 2007AIRSCW7730; AIR2008SC640; 2008(1)CivilLJ839; 2008(1)LH(SC)520; 2008(1)ICC288; 2008(2)KLJ11
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This case has a chequered history. It is alleged that despite orders of this Court in Civil Misc. Petition No. 5513 of 1972 in Civil Appeal No. 514 of 1971 dated 30th August, 1972, (about 35 years ago) there has been a willful disobedience and defiance of the order of this Court. It is further alleged that there is also non- compliance of order dated 5th December, 2005 passed by this Court in SLP (C) No. 24199 of 2005. 2. Brief facts which are relevant to dispose of this contempt application are recapitulated as under:The applicants M/s YS Setty & Sons were the owners of land admeasuring 20 acres and 3 guntas which was acquired by the State of Karnataka on 19.1.1961 under the Land Acquisition Act. The disputed land bearing Survey No. 76/2 measuring 2 acres and 5 guntas being part of the total land.3. The applicants filed several representations in the year 1962-63 before the Government of Karnataka for recovery of only 2 acres 5 guntas in survey no.76/2 in favour...
Tag this Judgment!