Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC925
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 755 of 2001 has been filed by the State while Criminal Appeal No. 756 of 2001 has been filed by the informant.2. Challenge in both the appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court directing acquittal of the respondents who faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') so far as the respondents 1 to 4 are concerned and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1915 (in short the `Arms Act') so far as respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4 are concerned. Learned Sessions Judge, Tirunvelli held them guilty and sentenced them to imprisonment for life for the first offence but no separate sentence was imposed for the later offence.3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:Ruby is the elder sister of P.W.l. Thiraviya Nadar (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') was her husband. P.W.3 is the mother of P.Ws.l and 5. P.W.5 was employed as a dr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2009]152CompCas335(SC); 2008(15)SCALE578
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court allowing the application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Cr.P.C.'). Prayer in the petition was to call for the records in Crime No. 576 of 2005 in the file of the Inspector of Police Team IV, Central Crime Branch, Chennai, and to quash the same. The respondents 1 to 4 were booked for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 379, 468, 471, 420, 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') based on the reference made by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, on the complaint presented by the present appellant under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.3. In the complaint essentially it was stated as follows:3. The first accused is M/s. Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd., the second accused is A.R. Santhanakrishnan, Director of the first accused-company, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2009(121)FLR399]; (2009)IILLJ535SC; 2008(15)SCALE450; (2009)1SCC743; 2009(3)SLJ132(SC):2009(2)LHSC908:2009AIRSCW687
Aftab Alam, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties2. Leave granted3. In times of fast shrinking employment opportunities, trade apprentices who have completed their training staked their claim on an old practice, long discontinued, under which the Calcutta Port Trust in the port's Mechanical Engineering department used to make recruitment of trained apprentices and wards of employees dying in harness in the ratio of4. Three hundred and twenty one trained apprentices (respondents before this Court; hereinafter referred to as `the trained apprentices') joined together and approached the Calcutta High Court in WP No. 21877(W)/99. They made the grievance that in disregard of the practice earlier followed, the Calcutta Port Trust was giving appointments only on compassionate grounds to the wards of their employees dying in harness and had completely stopped the recruitment of trained apprentices. They sought appropriate directions from the High Court asking the Calcutta Port Trust to appoint tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(1)AWC5(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. This transfer petition was taken up at the Supreme Court Lok Adalat on 6th September, 2008. After hearing the parties the following order was passed:The wife, her father, her husband and his father have appeared in person and presented a joint petition of settlement duly signed by all of them. They have been represented through their counsel. The parties have agreed to settle their dispute on the following terms as enumerated in the petition:(a) All criminal cases/complaints/FIRs/DDRs, filed by either party would be quashed.(b) Marriage between the parties would be dissolved by mutual consent divorce.(c) Abhinav, his parents, his brother and Bhabi and his two Mamas would collectively appear before an Aggarwal Sabha and acknowledge their wrongs committed on Shilpa.(d) In case any of these above seven persons fails to appear before the Sabha, Shilpa can revive her complaints.(e) The husband and father in law Shri Ashok Gupta will pay Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(57)BLJR260; 2009(1)BomCR72; (2009)ILLJ546SC; 2008(15)SCALE606; (2009)2SCC81
Aftab Alam, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. Leave granted.3. In an industrial dispute concerning the termination of service of the appellant (the workman) the Second Labour Court, Thane, Maharashtra gave an ex-parte award in Reference (IDA) No. 224 of 1994 in favour of the appellant on 12 June 1998 directing his reinstatement with full back wages and continuity in service. The award was made after taking evidence (ex- parte) led on behalf of the appellant. It was published on 5 August 1998. On 29 January 1999 respondent No. 1 filed a petition (Misc. Application [IBA] No. 2 of 1999) before the Labour Court making a prayer for recall of the award. It was stated on behalf of the respondent that no notice was served on him and he was not aware of the proceedings before the Labour Court. He came to know about the matter only on 27 January 1999 on receiving a copy of the award sent to him by the court. And then without any loss of time he filed the petition for recall of the award. Aft...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2009(1)JCR130(SC)]
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC'). The appellants who were A-1, A-2, A-5, A-8, A-11 and A-12 have been found guilty of various offences. A-1, A-2 and A-8 were found guilty of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. A-5, A-11 and A-12 were found guilty of offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. A-9 was acquitted by the High Court by the impugned judgment. A-3 died during the course of appeal. A-4, A-6, A-7, A-10 and A-13 to A-19 were found to be not guilty of the charged offences and they were acquitted by the trial Court.2. Factual scenario giving rise to the present appeals is as follows:There are political grudges and ill feelings...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1045; (2009)1SCC633:2008AIRSCW188:2008(16)SCR540
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) against the judgment dated 8.12.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Election Petition No. 16 of 2002.2. The facts which are necessary to dispose of the appeal are recapitulated as under:The Election Petition No. 16 of 2002 was filed by the defeated candidate appellant Baldev Singh Mann who lost the election from 87-Dirba (Punjab) Assembly Constituency which was held on 13.2.2002. 3. The appellant Baldev Singh Mann filed his nomination papers as a candidate of Shiromani Akali Dal (B) (for short 'SAD'), whereas respondent Surjit Singh Dhiman filed his nomination papers as an independent candidate. In the election, respondent Surjit Singh Dhiman got 35,099 votes and appellant Baldev Singh Mann got 34,103 votes and consequently, the respondent was declared elected.4. The appellant filed this election ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2475(SC); JT2009(1)SC528; 2009(1)SCALE107; 2009(3)SLJ67(SC)
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. Leave granted. The respondents though served, remain unrepresented.2. The appellant was enrolled/registered with the Board of Indian Medicine, Uttar Pradesh on 23.7.2003. He got his name deleted from the State Register of Indian Medicine so as to enroll himself in another State. He again sought re-enrolment in Uttar Pradesh which was granted with prospective effect from 23.8.2007. He was denied interview for selection by the respondents to the post of Medical Officer, as his re-enrolment did not fulfil the eligibility requirements. He therefore wanted his registration to be restored with retrospective effect from the date of original enrolment. He filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking a direction to respondents to call him for interview for the post of Medical Officer (Ayurved/Unani). In the said petition, an interim order was granted on 31.10.2007, permitting him to appear in such interview. By making use of the said interim order, he secu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(6)LHSC4219
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court which by the impugned judgment upheld the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') while setting aside the conviction under Section 398 IPC as done by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore, in connection with Sessions trial No. 6 (1) of 1997.2. Prosecution case in a nutshell is as follows:On 1st August, 1996, at about 11.40 in the night the present appellant along with others came in a white Ambassador car having fake number plate in front of the grocery shop under the name and style 'Prabhat Stores' situated at 7/1, Bampass Road, Calcutta-29. The persons who came in the Ambassador car were armed with weapons like pistol, nepala etc. and they entered into the grocery shop and demanded key of the cash box from the proprietor of the shop namely Gulab Mehata (hereinafter referred to as the `dece...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1535; 2009(57)BLJR507; 2008(6)LHSC4290
Aftab Alam, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties2. Leave granted3. Appellant No. 1 is the informant of the case and appellant No. 2 is his father, the injured victim of the offence. They filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 18 August 2005 passed by the Gwalior bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in criminal appeal No. 283 of 1998. Before the High Court there were three appellants (respondents before this Court) who were convicted by the trial court under Section 307 of Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of rupees 1000=00 each; in case of default in payment of fine they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The High Court, by the judgment coming under appeal, acquitted Dault Singh (Appellant No. 2 before the High Court) and altered the conviction of Kishan Singh and Devilal(appellants 1 and 3 before the High Court and respondent 1&3 before this Court) from Section 307 to Section 326 of the Penal Code and ...
Tag this Judgment!