Court : Supreme Court of India
RANJAN GOGOI, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 08.08.2007 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench affirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed, this appeal has been filed upon grant of special leave by this Court.2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that at about 10.30 a.m. on 13.09.2000, Hariram (PW-23), lodged a written complaint with the Police Station at Baran stating that at about 10 a.m. of the same day he along with his nephew Ramlal and some other family members were sitting on the road in order to go to Baran. According to the complainant/first informant there was an old enmity between him and one Ghasilal. In the complaint filed it was specifically stated that while they were waiting to go to Baran, Ghasilal along with his sons Ram Singh (appellant), Ramswaroop, Ramshyam and son-in-law Akheraj came in a tractor armed with different weapons including a firearm. Immediately on r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
RANJAN GOGOI, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.9.2006 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh affirming the conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him.2. On 18.4.2003 at about 10.30 a.m. PW 1, Ponnam Pedda Sathaiah, the father of the deceased, filed a FIR in the Maripeda police station stating that he had given his daughter, Vadlakonda Radha, in marriage to the accused-appellant in the year 1999. At the time of marriage a sum of Rs.50,000 was claimed to have been given by the first informant as dowry, inspite of which, according to the first informant, the accused-appellant had been demanding more dowry and on that account committing atrocities on his daughter. In the FIR filed it was alleged that in the early morning of 18.4.2003 the accused-appellant had murdered his wife while she was sleeping and had run away. It was further alleged by the first informant that on coming to kno...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
RANJAN GOGOI, J.1. Four of the seven accused persons whose conviction under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment has been affirmed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh have filed the instant appeals challenging Judgment and Order dated 30th November, 2009 of the High Court. We have heard the learned counsels for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the State.2. The short case of the prosecution is that on 05.12.2000 at about 8.55 p.m., Santosh (PW-4) lodged a FIR in the Ambikapur Police Station stating that a short while ago i.e. at about 8.40 p.m. while he was standing in front of his house alongwith deceased Vinod and Amit (PW-13), accused Gopi Ghasia(A-6) and Ranu(A-5) had come there in a state of intoxication. According to the first informant, an altercation took place in the course of which he as well as Vinod had slapped accused Gopi. Enraged, the accused persons went away threatening to kill them. According to the first informant, after about an hour, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
RANJAN GOGOI, J.1. Leave granted.2. In a proceeding registered as FIR case No. 110/94 (P.S. Connaught Place) charges under different provisions of the Indian Penal Code were framed by the learned Trial Court, inter-alia, against the accused appellants G.K. Bhatt and R.K. Arora. In the revision petition filed before the High Court (Crl. Rev. P. No. 304/2003) for quashing of the charges framed, relief has been denied to the two appellants. However, part relief had been granted to two other accused i.e. Anita Mehra (petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 2255/2003) and S.K. Khosla (Petitioner in Crl. Rev.P. No.299/2003). While denial of relief by the High Court by the impugned order dated 13th October, 2011 has been challenged in the appeals filed by the accused R.K. Arora and G.K. Bhatt, the grant of partial relief to one of the two co-accused i.e. S.K. Khosla has been challenged in the appeal filed by the complainant/ first respondent, Satish Mehra.3. The facts giving rise to the present appeals m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2013)1SCC218
Aftab Alam, J.1. In a proceeding initiated suo motu [registered as Writ Petition (Criminal) No.796 of 2007], the Delhi High Court found the contemnor guilty of suborning the court witness in a criminal trial in which he represented the accused as the senior advocate. The High Court, thus, held him guilty under clauses (ii) and (iii) of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and in exercise of the power under Article 215 of the Constitution of India the High Court prohibited him, by way of punishment, from appearing in the Delhi High Court and the courts subordinate to it for a period of four months from the date of the judgment dated August 21, 2008 leaving him, however, free to carry on his other professional work e.g. consultations, advices, conferences, opinions etc. The High Court further held that the contemnor had forfeited his right to be designated as a senior advocate and recommended to the full court to divest him of the honour. In addition, the High Court also impo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(11)SCALE140
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. In these appeals, this Court issued notice limited to the question of the sentence awarded to the appellants. They were awarded the death penalty, which was confirmed by the High Court. In our opinion, the appellants in these appeals against the order of the High Court should be awarded a life sentence, subject to the faithful implementation of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Code, 1973.The facts:2. In view of the limited notice issued in these appeals, it is not necessary to detail the facts. However, it may be mentioned that as many as six persons (including the appellants) were accused of various offences under the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC) and the Arms Act, 1959. They were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak by his judgment and order dated 13th November, 2009 in Sessions Case No. 47 of 2004/2009 of the offence of murder (Section 302 of the IPC), attempt to murder (Section 307 of the IPC), rioting, armed with a deadly weapon (Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Dipak Misra, J.1. Leave granted.2. The singular issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the first respondent, the Managing Director of the respondent No.2, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, is entitled to sustain a claim against the appellant-insurer for having sustained bodily injuries. Succinctly stated, the facts are that the respondent No. 1 met with an accident about 8.30 p.m. on 23.3.2001 while travelling in the Lancer car bearing registration No. TN 49 K 2750 belonging to the respondent No. 2, as it dashed against a bullock cart near Muthandipatti Pirivu Road-I. He knocked at the doors of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (for short "the the tribunal") in MACOP No. 357 of 2004 under Sections 140, 147 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act") claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- jointly and severally from the appellant as well as the company on the foundation that the vehicle in question was insured with the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Feeling dissatisfied with the market rate fixed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in respect of their land acquired by Ludhiana Improvement Trust (for short, 'the Trust'), the appellants have filed these appeals.2. The appellants' land was part of big chunk of land acquired by the Trust for implementing "100 Acres Development Scheme". Notification under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (for short, 'the 1922 Act') was issued on 11.8.1972 and objections were invited against the scheme. The State Government accorded sanction vide Notification dated 18.9.1973 issued under Section 42 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector divided the acquired land into two Blocks, i.e. `Block A' and `Block B' and fixed market value of land comprised in `Block A' at the rate of Rs.113 per biswansi (Rs.15 per sq. yard). For the land comprised in Block `B', he fixed market value at the rate of Rs.75 per biswansi (Rs.10 per sq. yard).3. The Land...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ANIL R. DAVE, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal arises from the judgment and final order dated 7th June, 2010, passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No.6558/2008, whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant and upheld the validity of the Circular No. 98/1/2008-ST, dated 4.1.2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Impugned Circular') issued by respondent no. 1 herein.3. The appellant had executed various contracts which were in the nature of composite construction contracts. The appellant had paid Sales Tax/ VAT on those contracts under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and other State enactments. Service tax was imposed on various services which had come into effect from different dates. Prior to 1.6.07, the appellant had paid service tax under the following categories of taxable services, namely:(a) Erection, commissioning or installation service under Section 65(105) (zzd) of the Finan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
P. Sathasivam, J.1) Delay condoned.2) Leave granted.3) These appeals are filed against the final judgment and order dated 02.05.2008 in Writ Petition (C) No. 3874 of 1995 and order dated 20.02.2009 in Review Petition No. 244 of 2008 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi insofar as rejection of salary and terminal benefits for the "intervening period" during which the appellant remained out of service.4) Brief facts:(a) The appellant herein was enrolled in the Army on 31.08.1982. In September, 1985, he was promoted to the rank of Lance Naik and in April, 1986, he was promoted to the rank of Naik. On 14.02.1990, he got further promotion to the rank of Havildar and with the said promotion, his tenure of service was extended to 24 years and his date of superannuation also got extended to 31.08.2006.(b) The Army Headquarters, Adjutant General Branch issued a letter dated 28.12.1988, laying down the procedure for removal of undesirable and inefficient candidates by way of d...
Tag this Judgment!