Skip to content


Supreme Court of India Court April 2011 Judgments Home Cases Supreme Court of India 2011 Page 1 of about 68 results (0.039 seconds)

Apr 29 2011 (SC)

Ritesh Saxena and anr. Vs. Kirti Srivastava

Court : Supreme Court of India

1. Leave granted.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the Parties.3. During the pendency of these matters, the parties were referred for mediation. At our request Mrs. Indira Jaisingh, learned Additional Solicitor General and Ms. Aparna Bhat, Advocate agreed to mediate in this matter and by their efforts, the parties have agreed to obtain a decree of divorce by mutual consent. They undertake to withdraw all the allegations made against each other in the 2proceedings. This is a part of the settlement between the parties before this Court.4. By the consent of the parties, the following cases are transferred to this Court: (i) G & WC No.189 of 2006, pending before the Family Court Judge at Bangalore; (ii) M.C. No.1941 of 2007, pending before the Family Court Judge at Bangalore; (iii) Crl. Misc. No.130 of 2008, pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate 1, Traffic Court, Mayo Hall, Bangalore;(iv) Criminal Appeal Nos.25129 & 25130 of 2009, pending before the Additional Civil & Sessions ...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 2011 (SC)

Agricultural Market Committee A.P Vs. M/S M.K.Exports, A.P.

Court : Supreme Court of India

R.M. LODHA, J.Leave granted.2. The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimavaram have preferred these eight appeals, by special leave, against the common judgment dated April 21, 2010 passed by the High Court 1of Andhra Pradesh whereby the Single Judge of that Court allowed the petitions filed by the private respondents under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short `Code') and quashed the criminal proceedings against them for non-payment of market fee assessed under Section 12-B(5) of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (for short, `the Act').3. For the sake of convenience, we shall notice the facts from one of the appeals, viz., Agricultural Market Committee, A.P. v. M/s M.K. Exports, A.P. The respondents - M/s M.K. Exports in that appeal are traders and were given licence by the appellants for doing business in prawns, a notified commodity under the Act. For the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, the assessment of market fees was do...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 2011 (SC)

Buudhu Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand

Court : Supreme Court of India

SIRPURKAR, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2007 has been filed by accused Buddhu Singh while Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2007 has been filed by his father Ledwa Singh and brother Balchand Singh. The trial court found them guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced each one of them to imprisonment for life. The High Court also affirmed the conviction and sentenced awarded by the trial court.2. The prosecution case is that the deceased Sugendra Singh was suspected to be practising witchcraft and he was aggrieved against the accused persons for not giving to him the feast which he was professionally supposed to be paid on account of getting cured of accused Balchand Singh 2from some serious illness. The incident seems to have taken suddenly without there being any previous history to it.3 The allegation is that on 30.7.1995 at about 4 p.m. deceased Surendra Singh was standing in front of house of PW5 Nagru Kharia when accused Balchand Singh pushed him down and accused Buddhu Singh is said...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 2011 (SC)

Kanwarjit Singh Kakkar Vs. State of Punjab and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals by special leave had been filed against the order dated 2.4.2009 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in two Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. M-15695/2007 and 23037-M of 2007 for quashing FIR No.13 dated 9.4.2003 which was registered for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana but were dismissed as the learned single Judge declined to quash the proceedings against the appellants. 3. Relevant facts of the case under which the two cases were registered against the appellants disclose that the appellants are Medical Officers working with the State Government of Punjab against whom first information report was registered on the statement of informant/Raman Kumar alleging that he knew the appellants Dr. Rajinder Singh Chawla who was posted as Government Doctor at Dhan...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 2011 (SC)

A.C. Muthiah Vs. Board of Control for Cricket in India and Another

Court : Supreme Court of India

Leave is granted in each petition.2. These appeals are directed against common judgment dated March 24, 2010, rendered in OSA Nos. 226 to 229 of 2009 by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, by which, the order dated July 13, 2009 in OA No. 1042 of 2008, filed in Civil Suit No. 930 of 2008 with OA Nos. 1299, 1300 and 5740 of 2008, filed in Civil Suit No. 1167 of 2008, refusing to grant four reliefs sought, namely, (1) to grant mandatory temporary injunction directing the respondent No. 1 herein to act under Clause 32(ii) of Memorandum and Rules and Regulations ("Regulations" for short) of the respondent No. 1 by appointing a Commissioner to make preliminary inquiry against the respondent No. 2 pending disposal of Civil Suit No. 930 of 2008, (2) to suspend the amendment to Clause 6.2.4 in the Regulations for players, team officials, managers, umpires and administrators and Board of Control for Cricket in India (for short "BCCI") Code 2008, which permits an admini...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 2011 (SC)

M/S. J.G.Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8.2.2005 of the Guwahati High Court allowing Arbitration Appeal No.1/2004 filed by the respondents and setting aside the judgment dated 12.12.2003 passed by Additional District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati (by which the District court had dismissed the petition filed by respondents filed under section 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and affirmed the Award passed by the Arbitrator dated 5.9.2001, with clerical corrections made on 22.9.2001). 2. On 26.3.1993 the respondents awarded the work of "extension of terminal building" at Guwahati airport to the appellant. As per the contract, the date of commencement of work was 10.4.1993 and the period of completion of the work was 21 months, to be completed in different stages. As the appellant (also referred to as the `contractor') did not complete the first phase of the work within the stipulated time, the respondents terminated the contract by order dated 29.8.1994. The termination ...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 26 2011 (SC)

M/S. Bansal Wire Industries Ltd. and anr Vs. State of U.P. and ors

Court : Supreme Court of India

1. Leave granted.2. The issue that falls for consideration in these appeals is, as to whether the `stainless steel wire falls under the category, "tools, alloys and special steels of any of the above categories" enumerated in entry no. (ix) of clause (iv) of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short the "Central Act") and therefore the following question emerges for our consideration:- "Whether stainless steel wire, a product of the appellant, on a proper reading of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act along with the qualifying words `that is to say' would fall under the category "tools, alloy and special steels of any of the above categories" enumerated in entry no. (ix) of clause (iv) or under entry no. (xv) Of same clause (iv)"3. In all these appeals identical issues are involved. We therefore, proceed to dispose of all these appeals by this common Judgment and Order. In order to arrive at a finding on the issue raised, it will be necessary to set out certain facts...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 26 2011 (SC)

Consumer Online Foundation. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

1. Application for permission to file SLP in SLP [C] No.11799/2011 [CC No.1066/2010] is allowed and delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. These are appeals against the judgment and order dated 26.08.2009 of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in public interest litigations upholding the validity of levy of development fees on the embarking passengers by the lessees of the Airports Authority of India at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi and the Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai. Relevant Facts:4. The Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 (for short `the 1994 Act') came into force on 01.04.1995 and under Section 3 of the 1994 Act, the Central Government constituted the Airports Authority of India (for short `the Airports Authority'). Section 12 of the 1994 Act enumerates the various functions of the Airports Authority. By the Airports Authority of India (Amendment) Act, 2003 (for short `the Amendment Act of 2003'), Sections 12A and 22A were inserted i...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 26 2011 (SC)

Urviben Chiragbhai Sheth Vs. Vijaybhai Shambhubhai Joranputra and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

1.Delay condoned.2.Leave granted. 3. On 18.5.1990, the appellant and others were going in a Fiat car (No. GGG 792), owned by the second respondent, from Surat to Ubhrat. The said car was driven by the first respondent, who lost control of the car and dashed the car with full force against a milestone, after which the car turned turtle thrice. As a result, the occupants of the car sustained serious injuries.4. The appellant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. At the time of the accident, she was aged 30 years and she claimed to be earning Rs.1,500/-to Rs.1,600/-per month from running a business in the name of Contessa Beauty Parlour at Ahmedabad.5. Before the MACT it was established that the first respondent was absolutely liable for the accident in view of his careless, rash and negligent driving. Thus, the first respondent(driver),second respondent(owner of the car) and the third respondent(insurance company ...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 26 2011 (SC)

Banda Development Authority, BandA. Vs. Moti Lal Agarwal and Others.

Court : Supreme Court of India

1. Leave granted.2. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court was justified in entertaining and allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No.1-Moti Lal Agarwal in 2008 for nullifying the acquisition of his land by the State Government vide notification dated 8.9.1998 issued under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") which was followed by declaration dated 7.9.1999 issued under Section 6(1) read with Section 17(1) on the ground of non passing of award within the time prescribed under Section 11A.3. By the notifications referred in the preceding paragraph, the State Government acquired 103 bighas land situated in Ladakapurwa and Bhawanipur villages, Pargana and District Banda for Tulsi Nagar Residential Scheme of the Banda Development Authority (for short, "the BDA"). Both the notifications were published in the manner prescribed under Section...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //