Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(1)SCC694; 2012(1)SCC(Cri)752
A.K. PATNAIK, J. Criminal Appeal No.2323 of 2011 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 666 of 2010) 1. Leave granted. 2. This is an appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the order dated 05.12.2009 of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.23839 of 2009 of the appellants. 3. The relevant facts as stated in the Special Leave Petition briefly are that the appellants studied M.B.B.S. course in the Santosh Medical College at Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh and respondent No.2 is the Chairman of the Maharaji Educational Trust which has established the medical college. The appellant No.1 filed Writ Petition No.33 of 2009 in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution complaining of harassment by respondent No.2 and by the police and on 13.05.2009, this Court passed orders directing issue of notice in the writ petition. On 22.05.2009, the Registrar of this Court directed that the notice be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(2)SCC150; 2012(1)SCC(Cr)697; AIR2012SCW509; 2012CriLJ998
T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad has by its order dated 13th September, 2010 allowed Criminal Misc. -- Application No.9119/2010 and enlarged the respondent, Ganga Maldebhai Odedara on bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The present Special Leave Petition has been filed by the complainant assailing the said order. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that 14th January, 2007, being Makar Sankranti Day, the complainant-Jetha Bhaya Odedara, the petitioner before us, was sitting at the house of one Abha Arjan, along with Navgan Arasi, Rama Arasi Jadeja, Suresh Sanghan Odedara and a few ladies of the house, named, Aarsi Munja, Maliben and Puriben. At around 8.00 p.m. one Ramde Rajsi Odedara, one of the accused persons is alleged to have come to the place where the complainant was sitting and started using abusive language. He was asked not to do so, thereupon he left the place only to return a few minutes later with accused Punja Ram, Lakha Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(1)KLT44(C.No.46)(SN); 2012(1)LLN2; 2012(2)MLJ998; AIR2012SCW484; 2012(2)SCJ42
T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Two questions fall for our determination in this appeal by special leave, which arises out of a judgment and order dated 2nd April, 2008, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa whereby Writ Appeal No.11 of 2003 filed by respondent No.1 has been allowed, order dated 26th September, 2003, passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in O.J.C. No.2225 of 2001 set aside and order of termination of the services of respondent No.1. quashed. 3. The questions are: 1. What was the true nature of the appointment of the respondent? In particular, was the appointment regular or simply contractual in nature? and 2. If the appointment was contractual, was the termination thereof vitiated by any legal infirmity to call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution? 4. Before we advert to the questions and possible answers to the same, we may briefly set out the facts in the backdrop: 5. The appellant-Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (`GRIDCO'...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2012SC541; 2012(1)ALT19; 2012(1)SCJ197; AIR2012SCW291; 2012(1)KCCR21(SC)(SN);
T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. These Special Leave Petitions arise out of an order dated 6th May, 2011, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No.441 of 2008 whereby the High Court has set aside order dated 13th August, 2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Revision Applications No.449, 460 and 853 of 2007 and restored that made by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai taking cognizance of offences allegedly committed by the petitioners. 2. Respondent No.1, Rajeev Sawhney filed Criminal Complaint No.20/SW/2007 before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B of 2 IPC by the petitioners. The complaint set out the relevant facts in great detail and made specific allegations to the effect that petitioners had entered into a conspiracy to defraud him and for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(1)SCC699; 2012(1)KLT52(C.No.58); 2012(1)KLJ331; 2012(1)KarLJ331; 2012(1)SCC(Cri)767; AIR2012SCW766; 2012(1)LW(Crl)353; 2012CriLJ1248; 2012(1)BCR(Cri)737
T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. These Special Leave Petitions arise out of an order dated 6th May, 2011, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No.441 of 2008 whereby the High Court has set aside order dated 13th August, 2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Revision Applications No.449, 460 and 853 of 2007 and restored that made by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai taking cognizance of offences allegedly committed by the petitioners. 2. Respondent No.1, Rajeev Sawhney filed Criminal Complaint No.20/SW/2007 before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B of 2 IPC by the petitioners. The complaint set out the relevant facts in great detail and made specific allegations to the effect that petitioners had entered into a conspiracy to defraud him and for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(2)SCC16; 2012(2)SCJ193; 2012(3)MLJ134; 2012(1)CWC841; 2012(2)LW769
T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals arise out of an order dated 7th October, 2011 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, whereby Special Civil Application No.9485 of 2011 has been dismissed and order dated 20th July, 2011 as modified by order dated 24th August, 2011 issued by the Western Regional Committee under Section 17 of the National Council of Teachers' Education (for short `NCTE') Act, 1993 withdrawing the recognition of the B.Ed. College established by the appellant upheld. 3. The appellant-Trust has established a college under the name and style Shri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavni Mandal Sanchalit MSKM B.Ed. College, Rajkot. The college had the benefit of recognition granted in its favour in terms of an order dated 29th May, 2007 under Section 14 (3)(a) of the NCTE Act for offering a B.Ed. with an annual intake of 100 2 students. Shortly after the grant of the said recognition, the NCTE issued a notice dated 27th July, 2008 to the appellant to show cause wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(1)KLT19(SN); 2012(1)LW231; 2012(2)SCJ249; 2012(2)MWN(Civil)104
1. This appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 8.4.2003 rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 1338/1983. The learned Single Judge has allowed the said second appeal by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (contesting respondents and original plaintiffs), who had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement entered into with the appellant (original defendant No. 1). Although various questions of law are sought to be raised in this appeal, the relevant questions for our determination are mainly two viz. (a) whether the High Court has erred in applying the provisions of Sections 12, 14 and 20 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 (hereinafter referred as `the act' for short), and (b) whether the agreement in question being vague in nature was incapable of being performed? Facts leading to this present appeal are as follows:- 2. On 12.1.1977 the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(1)KLT43(SN),2012(2)SCC34; 2012(1)SCC(Cri)717; AIR2012SCW524; 2012CriLJ1050
T.S. THAKUR, J.1. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 29th June, 2006, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Gauhati whereby Criminal Appeal No.133 of 2005 filed by the appellants has been dismissed and the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to them by the trial Court for offences punishable under Sections 448, 324 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC upheld.2. The appeal was initially heard by a Division Bench of this Court comprising S.B. Sinha and H.S. Bedi, JJ., who differed in their conclusions. While S.B. Sinha, J. acquitted the appellants giving them the benefit of doubt, Bedi, J. upheld their conviction and sentence and consequently dismissed the appeal. The appeal has, in that backdrop, been listed before us to resolve the conflict.3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that at about 10.00 p.m. on December 14, 1992, Mohd. Taheruddin (PW2) a resident of village, Changmazi Pathar situate within the limits of Police Station Doboka, District ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(1)SCC725; 2012(1)SCC(Cri)757; AIR2012SCW293,AIR2012SC326; 2012(2)KCCR35SN; 2012ALLMR(CRI)376; 2012(1)BCR(Cri)790
1. The Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 were married to each other according to Hindu rites at Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan on 20th February, 2007. A girl child, Mannat, was born prematurely to the couple on 3rd April, 2008, and had to be kept in incubator for about three weeks. It is the Petitioner's grievance that while they were on their honeymoon in Mauritius, the Respondent No.1, husband, began to treat her with physical and mental cruelty. Even during her pregnancy, she was ill-treated. Ultimately, being unable to withstand the physical and mental cruelty inflicted both on the Petitioner and her minor daughter, the Petitioner was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and return to her parents on 7th October, 2008. 2. On 6th December, 2008, the Respondent No.1, husband, filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Case No.609 of 2008) against the Petitioner, for restitution of conjugal rights. Unable to bear the shock of the incidents, which had ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(1)KLT20(SN); 2012(2)SCC25; 2012(1)LW881; 2012(2)MLJ826; AIR2012SCW587; 2012(2)SCJ99; 2012(3)CTC102
1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal, by grant of special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 19/8/2009 passed by the High Court at Calcutta dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. 3. The appellant, which is a private limited company was entrusted by seventeen joint owners of the premises known as Industry House at No.10, Camac Street, Calcutta - 700 017 (for short, the said premises), to look after the day- to-day management and maintenance of the said premises as also to initiate proceedings for and on their behalf. The seventeen joint owners include respondents 6, 7 and 8 herein and one Pilani Investment (hereinafter referred to as owner companies for convenience). They are seized and possessed of certain floors of the said premises. The State of West Bengal requisitioned the said floors under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947 (for short, the 1947 Act). Under the 1947 Act, the maximum period of re...
Tag this Judgment!