Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(4)SCC510; 2012(2)SCC(Cri)455
1. Notice. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing the personal bond of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer subject to the condition that he will join investigation as and when required and shall abide by the provisions of Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT (Satish v. State of Haryana, Criminal Miscellaneous No.M.26433 of 2011 (CRM-M 26433 of 2011), order dated 16-9-2011 (P&H). The judgment of the High Court has merged in the judgment of the Supreme Court as per the doctrine of merger: See Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359. Since the details in the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court are limited, the impugned order is being published as a part thereof.The Judgment of the High Court was delivered byM.M.S. Bedi, J.The petitioner seeks conc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(1)SCC122; 2012(4)SCJ76
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.2. The appellant was appointed on ad hoc basis on the post of Assistant Teacher by the Management of the Adarsh Balika Higher Secondary School, P. Road, (Gandhi Nagar) Kanpur Nagar, U.P. against leave vacancy. Her appointment was not approved by the District Inspector of Schools and it was communicated to the management vide letter dated 15.10.1996 mentioning therein that if the appellant is allowed to continue in service, her salary will have to be paid by the management. The appellant made a representation to the respondents upon which no action was taken.3. The appellant thereafter filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which was dismissed by the High Court. The learned Single Judge of High Court found that the appellant was appointed for a short term by the management and since Smt. Manju Lata Bajpai, Assistant Teacher, who was on long leave had retired, substantive vacancy occurred and against the substantive v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(1)SCC223; 2012(1)SCC(Cri)519; AIR2012SCW733; 2012(1)ALD(Cri)819; 2012(3)KCCR116(SN); 2012(1)BCR(Cri)343
Leave granted.This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 23rd March, 2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Revision Case No.1433 of 2007. By the impugned Jugement and Order, the High Court has confirmed the Judgment and Order dated 13th August, 2007 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court No. 2, Coimbatore, which had confirmed the Judgment and Sentence of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Pollachi, dated 21.11.2006 in C.C.No. 202 of 2004, whereby the appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "the Act") and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant had entered into a compromise with the complainant and the complainant has appeared through the learned counsel, who stated that the entire money ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2012SCW413; AIR2012SC534; 2011(10)SCC634; 2011(2)TNMAC641; 2011(8)SCJ923; 2011(6)CTC904; 2012(1)SCC(Cri)120; 2012(2)MLJ250; 2011(4)KLT136(C.No.146)(SN)
1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. Feeling dissatisfied with the enhancement granted by the High Court in the amount of compensation awarded by 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karwar (for short, `the Tribunal'), the appellant has filed this appeal.4. The appellant sustained serious injuries on the head, nose, back and lower region of abdomen including the pelvic region when the tempo in which he was travelling met with an accident on 23.4.2000. He was taken to Vijayashree Orthopaedic Centre for first aid and was then shifted to Kasturba Hospital, Manipal. He remained in the hospital from 23.04.2000 to 05.06.2000.5. The appellant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, `the Act') and claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest and cost. He pleaded that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tempo by its driver Shri Raju; that he had suffered serious injuries in the accident; that he rema...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2011(4)KLT112(C.No.125)(SN); 2012(1)CTC206; 2012(1)SCC510; 2012(1)ALT40; 2012(1)SCJ660; AIR2012SCW353
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court whereby he allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.1, reversed the judgment and decree passed by Ist Additional Civil Judge, Mangalore (hereinafter referred to as, `the trial Court') and decreed the suit filed by her for partition and separate possession of her share in the suit property.2. The suit property was owned by Singa Gujaran, father of respondent No.1, appellant and respondent Nos. 2 to 6. About 3 months and 10 days before his death, Singa Gujaran executed Will dated 25.5.1987. He bequeathed the property specified in item No.1 of the Schedule attached to the Will to one of his four daughters, namely, Kalyani (respondent No.3) and the property specified in item No.2 jointly to the other daughters, namely, Dayanandi (appellant), Rukma (respondent No.1) and Deena (respondent No.2).3. After one year of the demise of Singa Gujaran, respondent No.1 filed suit for partition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2011(10)SCC292; 2012(1)SCJ107; AIR2011SCW6359
1. The challenge in this batch of appeals is to the final judgments and orders delivered by the High Court of Delhi in W.P. No.13940/2009 and the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Central Excise Appeal Nos.163/2007 and 124 of 2008. The core issue which confronts us in all these appeals relates to the question of commencement of the period for the purpose of payment of interest, on delayed refunds, in terms of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short “the Act”). In short, the question is whether the liability of the revenue to pay interest under Section 11BB of the Act commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application for refund or on the expiry of the said period from the date on which the order of refund is made?2. As aforesaid, in all these appeals the question in issue being the same, these are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, in order to appreciate the controversy in its proper perspective, a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2012SC37; 2011(10)SCC158; 2012(1)SCC(Cri)218; AIR2011SCW6486; 2012CriLJ621
1. Both these appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 4.5.2009 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.278 of 2002, by which it has affirmed the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court dated 14.12.2001 in Sessions Case No.24 of 2001 in which the appellants got convicted under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called "IPC") and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- each.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are :- (a) That Shri Bharat Rajendraprasad Trivedi (PW.1) lodged the complaint on 21.9.2000 that the complainant, deceased along with both the appellants had gone to see the land in their two cars. The complainant (PW.1) and deceased were in one car, while appellant No.1 in another car being driven by the appellant No.2. Thereafter, they came back and decided to meet the owner of the land Smt. Jadaavben Ambalal Parmar (PW.3). Thereafter, at a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2011(4)KLT110(C.No.120)(SN); 2012(1)SCC425; 2012(1)SCJ91; AIR2011SCW6567; 2012(2)MLJ627; 2012(2)CTC876
1) Leave granted.2) These appeals are filed against the common final judgment and order dated 24.09.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal (RSA) Nos. 4473 and 4776 of 2004 whereby the High Court dismissed both the appeals filed by the appellant herein. 3) Brief facts:a) Jaswant Singh-appellant herein filed a Civil Suit being No. 3 of 1997 in the court of Civil Judge, (Jr. Division) Hoshiarpur for declaration to the effect that he was the owner and in possession of land measuring 101 kanals 16 marlas situated in village Simbli, H.B. No. 272, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur and for correction of the revenue entries in Column No. 4 of Jamabandi Register wherein the respondents herein had been wrongly shown to be the owners. It was claimed in that suit that one Shri Hazara Singh, s/o Shri Nihal Singh was the owner of the properties in village Simbli, Bajraur and Chabbewal and after his death on 06.12.1972, by virtue of a Will dated 05.12...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2011(10)SCC173; 2012(1)SCC(Cri)230; 2012(1)MLJ(Crl)356; AIR2012SCW494; 2012(1)MWN(Cri)184; 2012CriLJ1043
1) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 19.12.2003 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 241-DBA of 1993 whereby the High Court while reversing the judgment dated 17.12.1992 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ambala allowed the appeal filed by the State and convicted the appellant herein under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `IPC') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.2) Brief facts:(a) According to the prosecution, the accusation against the appellant-accused was that he was on visiting terms to the house of Inder Pal (PW-7), husband of Kamlesh Rani (since deceased), who was working at Mullana and keeping his family at Naraingarh, Dist. Ambala, Haryana. The appellant-accused had been visiting Inder Pal's house and developed illicit relationsh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2011(6)CTC452; 2011(4)KLT140(C.No.150)(SN); 2012(1)LW305; AIR2011SCW6333; 2012(2)SCJ224; AIR2012SC41; 2012(3)MLJ815
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 03.01.2003 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in FAO(OS) No. 551 of 2001 (for short `the impugned order').2. The facts very briefly are that the appellants and the respondent No.1 entered into a contract for construction of PMT Complex for NSG at Manesar. The contract contained an arbitration clause for resolving disputes between the parties. As disputes arose between the parties, the respondent No.1 invoked the arbitration clause and an arbitrator was appointed. The arbitrator published his award on 17.06.1996 and on 08.07.1996, the respondents filed a petition in the High Court of Delhi under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short `the Act') for filing the award and for making the award a rule of the court and for passing a decree in terms of the award. The petition was registered as Suit No.1673-A/1996. After the award was filed, notice of the filing of the award was directed to be issued to the...
Tag this Judgment!