Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010ACJ291; AIR2009SC2834; 2009(3)AWC3055(SC); JT2009(7)SC465; 2009(8)SCALE593; (2009)7SCC777; 2010(1)ShimLC205; 2009AIRSCW4353
R.M. Lodha, J.1. This appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1996 (for short `the Act') is at the instance of the complainant as its claim to the tune of of Rs. 35,06,000/- against the National Insurance Company Limited (for short `insurer') has not been accepted in its entirety and the National Commission in its judgment and order dated July 18, 2002 directed the insurer to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 10,47,491 only along with interest at the rate of 12% from March 1, 2000, till the date of payment after adjusting the amount already paid.2. The facts from which the controversy arises are these: The complainant, Sikka Paper Limited, is a limited company engaged in the manufacture of paper having a paper mill unit in District Muzaffarnagar (U.P.). For want of regular and continuous supply of electricity from the Uttar State Electricity Board, the complainant purchased the Diesel Generating Set of 1000 KVA of Kirloskar Cumins Limited with alternator of 1250 K...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006ACJ2672; 2009(4)AWC3376(SC); JT2009(7)SC527; 2010(1)MhLJ35(SC); 2009(8)SCALE601; (2009)7SCC330
R.M. Lodha, J.1. In this appeal by special leave, the appellant, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (for short, `PGI' ) has challenged the order dated September 29, 2000 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, 'National Commission'). By its order, the National Commission dismissed the appeal filed by PGI under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, `Act, 1986' ) and affirmed the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short, `State Commission' ) whereby it directed the PGI to pay compensation in the sum of rupees two lacs to the respondents 1 and 2 herein (for short, `the complainants') and cost of Rs. 5,000/-.2. The brief facts of the case are thus:On March 30, 1996, Smt. Harjit Kaur (wife of complainant No. 1 and mother of complainant No. 2) received accidental burns while making tea on the stove. She sustained 50% TBSA III burns involving both upper lim...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC2603; 2009CriLJ3738; JT2009(7)SC495; 2009(8)SCALE634; (2009)13SCC80; 2009(4)LHSC2175; 2009AIRSCW4526
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Leave granted.2. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal by special leave is : in a case where accused has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 304B and 306 IPC, and the death of wife is neither homicidal nor suicidal but accidental, whether the oral evidence of witnesses about what the deceased had told them against the accused about the treatment meted out to her is admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act to sustain conviction under Section 498A, IPC?3. Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads thus:32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant.-- Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured, without an amount of delay or expense which under the circumstances of the case appears to the Court unreasonable, ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC2729; 2009CriLJ3942; JT2009(7)SC491; 2009(8)SCALE801
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.8.2003 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh passed in Criminal Appeal No. 341-SB of 1988 by which the High Court has dismissed the appeal against the judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad dated 12.8.1988 and 16.8.1988 convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, or else to further undergo R.I. for six months, under Section 376 IPC and R.I. for five years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, or in default to further undergo R.I. for six months under Section 366 IPC. However, it was directed that both the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that the prosecutrix Geeta was present at her house in village Dayalpur, on the morning of 5.6.1986 when Krishna, wife of Fateh Chand (appellant herein), came there and asked her to visit Balla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. This is an appeal by one of the convicted persons, namely, Babu, who was accused No. 4 in an incident which occurred in the night of 21 st and 22nd April, 1984, in which two persons, namely Manoj and Ramu were killed and Devender was seriously injured. As many as five accused persons were tried for the offences falling under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code. In the concerned incident, two persons lost their lives. They were Manoj and Ramu. One of the persons was seriously injured, he was Devender.2. The prosecution case was that in between the night of 21st and 2nd April, 1989 all these accused persons in furtherance of their common object attacked the complainant party, who were working by the side of a tubewell in their field. The attack was made by the accused persons who were armed with various weapons, like spear, Lathi, knife and Balkati (probably a sharp-edged weapon). In the said attack, as has been stated earlier, Manoj and Ramu lost thei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009AIRSCW4365; 2009AIRSCW4365; AIR2009SC2735; 2009(4)AWC3665(SC); 2009(5)BomCR290; JT2009(8)SC224; 2009(6)MhLJ886(SC); 2009(8)SCALE654; (2009)7SCC444
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This appeal arises out of a Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench while disposing of a second appeal filed by the appellant herein (Mr. Ramdas) who has been arrayed as defendant No. 3 in the original suit. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff -Sitabai (respondent No. 1 herein) seeking for a decree of partition and for delivery of possession of her share in the suit property. It was alleged in the plaint that the deceased Sukha had a son, namely Sudam who was impleaded as defendant No. 1 in the suit and a daughter (plaintiff-Sitabai). The plaintiff-Sitabai, therefore, is the sister of the defendant No. 1-Sudam.2. Sukha died on 07.12.1977 and at the time of his death he left behind him the following properties:Village Survey No. Area (H.R)=AcrePadoli 19 2.56 = = 6.40Padoli 46 5.47 = = 13.50Lakhampur 22 4.40 = = 11.00Kosara 80 2.43 = = 6.08Total 14.86 = = 37.15The aforesaid properties which are four in number constitute the suit pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(7)SC485; 2009(8)SCALE794; (2009)13SCC330; 2009(4)LHSC2430
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 21st December, 2001 of the High Court of Gauhati in Criminal Revision (P) No. 578 of 2000 by which the High Court concurred with the finding of facts, recorded by the Trial Court dated 22.12.1999 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati in Case No. G.R.1957/1997; and of the Appellate Court, the Sessions Judge, Kamrup dated 13.10.2000 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2000 that the appellant was guilty of committing the offences under Sections 494 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'I.P.C') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 498A and for 3 years under Section 494 I.P.C. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant, a Government servant, got married with Smt. Minati Das (Kalita), the complainant on 5.2.1992 as per Hindu rites. Smt. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009AIRSCW3970; 2009CriLJ3457; JT2009(7)SC521; 2009(5)KarLJ428; 2009(8)SCALE607; 2009(4)LHSC2435; 2009(5)KLJ428
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. In this appeal which has been filed by one Govindaraju, original accused No. 1 before the Trial Court (appellant herein), the challenge is against his conviction for the offence under Section 304B Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the consequent punishment of rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Initially, the appellant/accused Govindaraju was tried for offence under Section 302 and/or 304B, IPC along with his father and mother, accused Nos. 2 and 3 respectively as also his brother Vasu, accused No. 4. They were tried for the murder of Susheela, the wife of Govindaraju (present appellant) which took place on the night between 28/29 Janunay, 1987 in her matrimonial home which was No. CH.27/1, 6th Cross, Ashokapuram, Mysore.2. Eventually, we are not concerned with accused Nos. 2 and 3 and also the accused No. 4, Vasu, as the accused No. 2 Krishnaiah and accused No. 3, Eramma @ Marimadamma died during the pendency of the trial and accused No. 4 was acquitted both by Sessi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(7)SC514(1); 2009(8)SCALE628; 2009(4)LHSC2411
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This appeal is filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh whereby and whereunder the High Court acquitted the respondent - Suresh Kumar from the charges under Sections 376 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `the IPC') and also under Section 342 IPC.2. Before dealing with the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and in order to appreciate the said contentions it would be necessary to state a few facts leading to registration of the aforesaid criminal case.3. The age of the prosecutrix - Km. Kusum Lata (PW-3) was opined by PW- 7 Dr. Devinder Kaur as between 5 to 12 years on the date of examination i.e. 17.03.2000. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that she was minor at the time of commission of alleged offence of rape. The prosecutrix and the accused are the residents of the same village and in fact they were neighbourers. The responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(5)BomCR249; 2009(8)SCALE811
ORDER1. The present appeal is against the order passed by the High Court refusing to entertain the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the proceedings of complaint filed against the accused persons for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petition was filed on the ground that the appellants were not the partners and had nothing to do with the aforementioned firm which was accused No. 1 in the complaint. The learned Judge has observed that it was not possible at this stage to ascertain as to whether the concerned appellants were the partners of the partnership firm and whether there was any partnership firm in existence. When we see the complaint filed in trial Court, it is very clearly stated as under:6. The second accused is guilty, as drawer of the cheque on behalf of Accused No. 1, as its Managing Partner. The Accused Nos. 3 and 4 being partners of the Accused No. 1, were in charge of and were responsible for the conduct of the business o...
Tag this Judgment!