Court : Supreme Court of India
1) Leave granted.2) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 18.12.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1437 of 2007 whereby the High Court directed the State of Maharashtra to handover the complaint of Farook Mohammed Kasim Mapkar-Respondent No. 1 herein dated 28.08.2006 to the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short `the CBI'), to register a case in respect of the incident dated 10.01.1993 near Hari Masjid, Mumbai, and to investigate the same.3) After the demolition of Babri Masjid on 06.12.1992, communal riots occurred in various parts of the country including Mumbai. At the material time, Respondent No.2 was the PSI attached to R.A.K. Marg Police Station, Bombay. On 10.01.1993, Respondent No.2 and his staff, while on patrol duty, received a message from Wireless Control Room that a mob of 2000 to 2500 people armed with deadly weapons is resorting to rioting and arson near Hari Masjid, Sewree, Bombay. Respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1.Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant State of National Capital Territory of Delhi against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 2.1.2008 in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 2639 of 2006 whereby the High Court has quashed the summons issued by the trial court.3. The appellant submitted that the Company had specifically stated in its letter dated 19.1.2000 that respondent Rajiv Khurana was the Regional Technical Director handling the quality control in the company. The relevant portion of the said letter is reproduced as under:"We shall be happy to cooperate with you in all such quality issues about our Mortem product range. Our quality control is handled by Mr. Rajeev Khurana, Regional Technical Director."4. It is submitted that section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 provides that:"33.Offences by companies.-(1)Whenever an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time of the offence was committed was in charge of, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1.Leave granted.2.This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.05.2004 delivered in Regular Second Appeal No.3137 of 1986 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The short grievance which has been articulated by learned senior counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge allowed the Second Appeal without formulating the substantial question of law, which is the basic requirement of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court, in a series of judgments have categorically observed that the High Courts would not be justified in entertaining the Second Appeal without formulating substantial question of law. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Koppisetty Venkatratnam (D) through LRs v. Pamarti Venkayamma, (2009) 4 SCC p.244 in this regard. In this view of the matter, we are constrained to set aside the impugned judgment and remit the case to the High Court. The High Court is requested to decide the appeal expeditiousl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1) Leave granted.2) The appeal arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 3267 of 2010 is directed against the final judgment dated 01.04.2010 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in W.A. No. 281 of 2009 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein and the appeal arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5095 of 2010 is preferred against the interim order dated 27.04.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Crl. R.C. M.P. No. 1307 of 2010 in Crl. R.C. No. 893 of 2010 staying the order dated 22.04.2010 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad rejecting the application for extension of transit bail and also recording of the fact that fraud has been played upon the Court and resultantly, non-bailable warrant was issued against respondent No.1 in this appeal for his arrest and production before JMFC, Korba, Chhattisgrarh. 3) The facts leading to the filing of these two appeals are:a) M/s SEPCO Electric Power Constr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1) Leave granted.2) This appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 11505 of 2010 is directed against the final judgment and order dated 05.04.2010 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in G.A. No. 2441 of 2009 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-Bank herein against the order of the learned single Judge dated 24.08.2009 in W.P. No. 485 of 2009 directing the appellant-Bank to return forthwith the title deeds deposited by M/s Devi Ispat Ltd., the Respondent-Company herein.3) Brief facts :a) Respondent No.1 is a Company incorporated under the name and style of M/s Devi Ispat Ltd. The Respondent-Company carries on the business of manufacturing and trading in ingots and various other types of steel and for the said purpose requires financial support from the financial institutions like the appellant- Bank. Since the very inception of the respondent- Company, it has been banking with the appellant-Bank and availing various credit facilities like Term Loan, Working Capita...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted.2. These appeals have been filed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh and Tripura, Bench at Agartala in Writ Appeal No: 53/2005 along with connected Writ Appeal No: 54/2005, wherein the Division Bench was pleased to set aside the common order of the Single Judge in W.P (C) No. 259/2004.3. We may briefly notice here the facts which are necessary to decide the legal issues raised herein: Indian Oil Corporation, respondent No.1, published a notice on 19.2.2004 for appointment of Retail Outlet Dealership in local newspapers in the State of Tripura situated at Ranirbazar and Agartala. The advertisement shows that for Ranirbazar, the type of dealership offered was "Dealer owned". The advertisement further indicates that dealership at both the locations were for women. At Ranirbazar the dealership was only for Open Category (Women). The last date for submission of applications was 19.03.2004...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2010)8SCC233
1.These appeals are directed against the judgment of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dated 05.08.2009. By the said judgment, the High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal of the appellant passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, and convicted the appellant, Arul Raja under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"), and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of 5000/- in default to suffer three months' rigorous imprisonment. He was also convicted under Section 307, read with Section 120- B of the IPC and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years. 2.The appellant was convicted for murder, attempted murder, and criminal conspiracy to commit the aforesaid crimes in connection with the death of Sri Aladi Aruna, a former law minister of Tamil Nadu, which occurred on 31.12.2004. The facts in this regard go back to the alleged animosity between the appellant and Aladi Aruna over the year...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. These Special Leave Petitions arise out of an order dated 11th September, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Contempt Petition No.123/09 arising out of an order passed on 9th September, 2008, in Writ Petition No.5732/08.2. The Respondent No.1, Charu K. Mehta, is a permanent Trustee of the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust. She had filed an application under Section 41D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, against the Petitioner herein and the Respondent Nos.2 - Vijay K. Mehta, Respondent No.3 - Dr. Amritlal C. Shah, Respondent No.4 - Niket V. Mehta, and Respondent No.5 - Sushila V. Mehta in SLP(C)No.35164/09, for their removal from Trusteeship of the aforesaid Trust on the ground of malfeasance, misfeasance, misappropriation of Trust funds, breach of Trust, etc. An interim application was also filed for the removal/ suspension/dismissal of the colluding Trustees. Charges were framed against the Petitioner and the aforesaid Respondents by the Join...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted.2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 2.8.2005 passed in Writ Appeal No. 5014 of 2004 and dated 22.3.2006 passed in Review Petition Nos. 593, 594 and 632 of 2005 in Writ Appeal No. 5014 of 2004 by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore3. By this judgment, we propose to decide the cases of both the appellants Dr. Basavaiah and Dr. D. Manjunath, because exactly similar issues have been raised in both the appeals. But, for the sake of convenience, the facts of Civil Appeal No. 6057 of 2010 arising out of SLP (C) No. 9473 of 2006 are recapitulated.4. The short controversy which needs to be adjudicated in these cases is whether the appellants Dr. Basavaiah and Dr. D. Manjunath were qualified to be appointed as Readers in Sericulture?5. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the appeals are recapitulated as under:6. The appellants in both the appeals were appointed as Readers in Sericulture in the year 1999 on the basis of the qualificat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court dismissing the appeal of the appellant Dasrath. He was convicted by the Trial Court of the offence under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default directed to suffer further imprisonment for one year. He was also convicted for the offence under Section 201, IPC and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer three month's further imprisonment.2. Initially, as many as three accused persons came to be tried by the Sessions Judge, they being accused No.1, Kalyan, accused No.2, Dasrath and accused No.3, Smt. Usha. While accused No.2, Dasrath is the present appellant, accused No.1, Kalyan Singh and accused No.3, Smt. Usha are his father and sister, respectively. The Trial Court had also convicted Kalyan Singh for the same offence. However, it acquitted ...
Tag this Judgment!