Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2878; 2008(9)SCALE638; (2008)11SCC785; 2008CriLJ3520; 2008AIRSCW4751
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused').3. Challenge before the High Court was to the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh. The trial Court had found the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') but found the co-accused, namely, Kashi and Dev Kumar to be not guilty. The appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for life and fine with default stipulation.4. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:On 10.11.1997 Gyan Singh (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') went to Ramkhilawan's house for collecting kanda (eatable bulb). When he did not come back till evening, his father Heeralal went in search of the deceased to the house of Ramkhilawan in the evening at around 7.00 p.m. Heeralal along with Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2873; (2008)4CALLT5(SC); (SCSuppl)2008(4)CHN89; 2008(9)SCALE647; 2008AIRSCW4744
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. These appeals have been filed by CESC Ltd. questioning correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court disposing of three appeals filed by the present appellant challenging common judgment and order of learned Land Acquisition Judge by which he disposed of three references from the award of the Collector. The acquisition of these lands took place under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (in short the West Bengal Act') and not under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 'Act').2. Cross appeals have been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of rent and higher rate of interest.3. The number of claimants was quite large and about 20. They were booked in three sets. The land was acquired under the West Bengal Act in May 1995. The requisition was made in 1995 and the Notification was issued on 3.5.1995. The total area was more than 3 bighas. One bigha is 20 cottahs and 1 cottah is 720 sq.ft. The l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2819; 2008CriLJ3502; 2008(9)SCALE652; 2008AIRSCW4669
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the appellant's conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') for committing murder of one Gottapu Adilakshmi (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') by strangulating her with a towel on 22.2.2001. Learned VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Machilipatnam had found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and fine.2. Prosecution case as unfolded during trial is as follows:Kusuma Ankama Rao (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') was a resident of Pedaveedhi of Gudivada Town. He was a fruit vendor. Sankara Rao (PW-1) and Rama Swamy (PW-2) are the son and husband of the deceased respectively. The deceased stayed with her family in the house of M. Simhachalam (PW-3) in Padamata Veedhi at Gudivada. Accused was having illegal intimacy with the deceased. On 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2831; 2008(2)ALD(Cri)178; 2008CriLJ3514; 2008(9)SCALE633; 2008AIRSCW4685; AIR2008SC2831; 2008CriLJ3514; 2008(3)Crimes89
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing the criminal appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused'). The accused was convicted by learned Special Judge (E.C. Act) Banda in Special Case No. 3 of 1985 for offence punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act'). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation. He was also convicted for offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Sri Rajendra Singh Kushwaha, Assistant Agriculture Inspector of Rajkiya Krishi Sadhan Purti Bhandar Badokhar Buzurg, Banda moved an application before the District Magist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(4)ALD135(SC); 2008(5)ALT8(SC); 2008(4)AWC3793(SC); [2009(1)JCR19(SC)]; 2008(5)KarLJ460; (2008)6MLJ615(SC); (2009)153PLR500; 2008(9)SCALE666; 2008AIRSCW4857; 2008(4)CivilLJ1; 2008(5)KLJ460; 2008(5)AIRKarR176
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowing the appeal filed in terms of Section 96 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the `C.P.C').3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The respondent T.G. Seshagiri Rao who after his death has been substituted by his legal heirs, had filed a suit with inter alia prayer to declare him as an absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and to direct the defendant (appellant herein) to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property. The suit property is a residential house bearing No. 257/1, 5th Cross, Kempegowda Nagar, Bangalore measuring East West 15' x 5' and north south 35'.4. The case set out by the parties is as follows:The schedule premises was purchased by Kate T.G. Seshagiri Rao along with his uncle one T.K. Vasudeva Murthy under a registered sale deed dated 5.6.1963 for a valuable sale consi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(5)BomCR277
ORDER1. The appellant sought permission to start a new secondary school for girls in Nagaj. On 29.5.1999, permission was granted to the appellant to run a co-education school. The first respondent, who was already running a secondary school at Nagaj, challenged the grant of such permission. The Bombay High Court, by its judgment dated 19.7.2000, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 29.5.1999 with a direction to consider the appellant's application by giving a hearing to the appellant as well as the first respondent and then pass appropriate orders. Thereafter, the third respondent heard the parties and by order dated 20.4.2001, cancelled the permission granted to the appellant. However, later, the State Government by order dated 20.7.2001 withdrew the cancellation.2. Feeling aggrieved, the first respondent again approached the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 854/2002. During the pendency of the said petition, the district level Committee reconsidered the application an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The respondent No. 1 herein, Shri Mittalal Jain, founded the Sayarbai Educational and Charitable Trust on 9th October, 1997. By a supplementary deed dated 12.2.2001, he became the Chairman-cum-Managing Trustee for life of the Trust. Subsequently, on 12.5.2005, the appellant and his two sons were also made Trustees. Subsequently, in a meeting held on 13.5.2008, the appellant, as alleged by him, is said to have been made the Managing Trustee of the Trust. Thereafter, disputes arose with regard to the management of the Trust and the Institution being run by it which led to the filing of two suits, being OS No. 83/2007 filed by the respondent No. 1, in the Court of Principal District Judge, Vellore. The appellant also filed OS No. 76/2007 and in both the suits applications were made for grant of interim orders.3. Ultimately, the prayer for interim order made by the appellant in his suit was allowed and that of the respondent No. 1 was refused. Against the said orde...
Tag this Judgment!