Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2010)6SCC673
P. Sathasivam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 17.04.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No. 310 of 1997 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant confirming his conviction and sentence awarded by the Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No. 131 of 1996 on 11.09.1997.2. The case of the prosecution is as under:a) The deceased-Kailas was residing in Bedre Galli at Georai along with his family. The house of appellant-accused is opposite to the house of the deceased. There was enmity between the family of the appellant-accused and the family of the deceased. It is said that they were on inimical terms with each other. On 21.07.1996, at about 11.30 p.m., when Kailas was sleeping in the front room of his house, his wife Kausalyabai (PW-2) and their children were sleeping in the rear side of the room, Balraje - the appellant had called the deceased to open the door. On hearing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(Supp.)Bom.C.R.925
P. Sathasivam, J.1. I have had the benefit of reading the erudite judgment of my learned Brother, Hon. B. Sudershan Reddy, J. I am unable to share the view expressed by him on some points and must respectfully dissent.2. Though the facts and provisions of the relevant law have been set out in the judgment prepared by B. Sudershan Reddy, J., keeping in view of the importance in the matter, I propose to refer all the details and deliver a separate judgment in the following terms:3. Leave granted.4. 'The people of the entire country have a stake in natural gas and its benefit has to be shared by the whole country.' - Association of Natural Gas and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.: (2004) 4 SCC 489 (CB)5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay dated 15.06.2009 in Appeal No. 1 of 2008 in Company Application No. 1122 of 2006 and in Company Petition No. 731 of 2005, Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. (in short 'RNRL') has filed S.L.P.(C) Nos. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, raising a question of public importance involving the interpretation of Article 156 of the Constitution, has been referred to the Constitution Bench, by a two Judge Bench of this Court on 24.1.2005.2. The writ petition is filed as a public interest litigation in the wake of the removal of the Governors of the States of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana and Goa on 2.7.2004 by the President of India on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers. The petitioner sought : (a) a direction to the Union of India to produce the entire files, documents and facts which formed the basis of the order dated 2.7.2004 of the President of India; (b) a writ of certiorari, quashing the removal of the four Governors; and (c) a writ of mandamus to respondents to allow the said four Governors to complete their remaining term of five years.The relevant constitutional provisions3. Article 153 of the Constitution provides t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
C.K. Prasad, J.1. Both the appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 9th October, 2006 passed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 946 of 1993 and Criminal Appeal No. 953 of 1993, hence, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.2. Ramesh Kumar (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2008) and Gopal Prasad (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 2008), besides Pradhuman Prasad and Dwarika Prasad were put on trial for commission of the offence under Section 341/34 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. All of them were found guilty on both counts by judgment dated 21st September, 1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 1992. All of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Sections 302/34 and 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code respectively. Ramesh Kumar as well as Dwarika Prasad, Gopal Prasad and Pra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court setting aside the acquittal of the appellants herein under Section 376 IPC and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.2. The prosecution story, briefly stated, is that on 28.4.1984 at about 8.00 p.m. one Sitarani Jha (PW-14) got down from a train at Burdwan Railway Station alone and hired a rickshaw to go to the Badamtola bus stand as she had to take a bus for Satgachia. On reaching at Badamtola bus stand she learnt that the last bus for Satgachia had already left. She then told the rickshaw puller, Bipul Samaddar (PW-6) to take her to a girl of her village who lived at nearby place, Kalna Gate. It is alleged that when the victim was about to leave Badamtala bus stand she was intercepted by four or five persons who forcibly took her to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Altamas Kabir, J.1. The petitioner appeared in the Maharashtra State Service (Main), Examination, 1990, which was held for the filling up of 22 posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police/Assistant Commissioner of Police, Class-I. In his application, the Petitioner gave his first preference for appointment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP)/ Assistant Commissioner of Police, Class-I, and his second preference for the post of Sales Tax Officer, Class-I. Having secured 604 marks, the Petitioner did not qualify for one of the vacancies in the open category and was placed immediately after the list of successful candidates. Out of the 22 vacant posts, the first 14 posts were for candidates from the open category and 8 posts were reserved for candidates from the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes categories.2. Since there were only 14 vacancies in the open category for the post of DSP, the Petitioner in keeping with his second preference, was appo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. By this judgment and order, we propose to dispose of the two appeals filed by the fourteen accused persons who have been convicted and sentenced by the 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar by judgment and order dated 10.09.2004 which has been upheld by the High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench.2. Originally, there were altogether 38 accused persons, out of which two were juveniles. Consequently, the trial Court of the 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar tried 36 accused persons and by judgment and order dated 10.09.2004 convicted 35 accused persons of the offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code [for short `IPC'] including the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and the remaining one accused person was acquitted.3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, all the 35 accused persons filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 617 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.1. Leave granted.2. The constitutional validity of Sub-rules (2) to (5) of Rule 16 of the Civil Service Examination Rules (hereinafter 'Rules') relating to civil services examinations held by the Union Public Service Commission in the years 2005 to 2007 is the subject-matter of these appeals by special leave. A three Judge Bench of this Court, by order dated 14.5.2009 has referred these cases to the Constitution Bench as it raises an important legal question as to whether candidates belonging to reserved category, who get recommended against general/unreserved vacancies on account of their merit (without the benefit of any relaxation/concession), can opt for a higher choice of service earmarked for Reserved Category and thereby migrate to reservation category.3. Selection to three All India Services (Indian Administrative Service, Indian Foreign Service and Indian Police Service) and fifteen Group 'A' Services and three Group 'B' officers in various Government de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Ganguly, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant is the Secretary of Cannanore District Muslim Educational Association, Karimbam (hereinafter referred to as the `Appellant'), which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act (Central Act 21/1860). The Appellant had established Sir Syed College in 1967 and it was imparting degree courses along with some pre-degree courses in various streams constituting 11 batches of a total of 80 students in each batch.3. The Respondents, took a policy decision to abolish the Pre-degree Courses conducted in the colleges and enacted the Pre-degree Courses (Abolition) Act, 1997.4. Subsequently, the respondents decided that those colleges which were running classes up to High School may be allowed to add classes up to the 12th standard in place of pre-degree courses. Those colleges which did not have any classes till the High school level were to be allowed to run High Schools and were also to be allowed Higher Secondary courses. Notice invit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.11.2008 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Regular First Appeal No. 465 of 2008. In the impugned judgment upon admission the High Court came to a finding that a case of ejectment was made out against the appellant on the basis of admission of the case of the plaintiff-landlord in the written statement filed by appellant. In passing the said judgment the High Court affirmed the judgment and decree of dispossession passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi on 23.09.2008 against the appellant.3. The material facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs, claiming to be the landlords/owners of the premises bearing Flat No. 205, (2nd Floor), Arunachal Building, 19, Barakhambha Road, New Delhi-110001 having area of 581 sq. ft., (super area) (hereinafter, `the suit premises') filed a suit against the appellant for recovery of possession and mesne profit. The case of the pla...
Tag this Judgment!