Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.501 OF 201.(SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CRL.)NO.9519 OF 2011.PURUSHOTTAM MEENA ...APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. ...RESPONDENTS ORDER 1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis.3. This Court, while issuing notice on 09.01.2012, passed the following order: We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice returnable within six weeks. In the meantime, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. -2/4. Having perused the records and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that our aforesaid order dated 09.01.2012 be made absolute and is made absolute, with a further direction that the appellant shall abide by the conditions as stipulated under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Criminal Appeal is disposed of accordingly. .......................J.(H.L. DATTU) ........................
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2699 OF 201.(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CIVIL) NO.31854 OF 2010.SARDARI LAL ... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS CHAIRMAN, MANGAING COMMITTEE, MEHAR CHAND POLYTECHNIC & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S) ORDER 1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in L.P.A.No.1208 of 2009 (O & M), dated 25.05.2010.3. The High Court, while allowing the appeal filed by the appellant herein, instead of re-instating the services of the appellant, has granted a lump-sum amount of Rs.3.00/- lakh. It is the correctness or otherwise of the impugned judgment and order of the High Court which is called in question by the appellant in this appeal.-.2/4. The appellant contends that he was left with another 23 years' of service and, therefore, the High Court was not justified in directing the respondents herein to pay only an amount of Rs.3.00/- lakh.5. Keeping in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2678 OF 201.(Arising out of SLP (C ) No.22430 of 2010) Dayanand Anglo Vedic (DAV) College Trust and Management Society ..Appellant(s) Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. .Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.Y. EQBAL, J.Leave granted.2. The appellant Dayanand Anglo Vedic (DAV) College Trust and Management Society has challenged the order dated 24.2.2010 passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.1053 of 2010. By the said order, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition and refused to interfere with the order dated 26.10.2009 passed by respondent No.2 (The Principal Secretary and Competent Authority, Minority Development Department, Government of Maharashtra) withdrawing the linguistic minority status of the appellant institution which was earlier granted by order dated 11.7.2008.3. The withdrawal of the recommendation for the appellant- Society as linguistic minority institut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1779 OF 200.Rakesh and Another .... Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana .... Respondent(s) 2 JUDGMENT P.Sathasivam,J.1) This appeal has been filed against the final judgment and order dated 15.05.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.575-DB of 2001 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants herein and confirmed the judgment on conviction and sentence dated 27.09.2001 and 28.09.2001 respectively, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, Haryana in Sessions Case No.39 of 1998/2001 holding the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for one year for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and a fine of Rs.500/- each and RI for l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.26 OF 200.Prakash .... Appellant(s) Versus State of Rajasthan .... Respondent(s) WITH 2 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.27 OF 200.3 JUDGMENT P.Sathasivam,J.1) These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 02.03.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.154 of 2002, whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein and confirmed the order dated 31.01.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer, Rajasthan in Sessions Case No.28 of 1998 by which the appellants herein were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 364 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each. 2) Brief facts: a) This is a case of kidnapping and murder of a 7 year old child out of enmity. b) On 16.04.1998, L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
M.Y. EQBAL, J.Leave granted.2. The appellant - Dayanand Anglo Vedic (DAV) College Trust and Management Society has challenged the order dated 24.2.2010 passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.1053 of 2010. By the said order, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition and refused to interfere with the order dated 26.10.2009passed by respondent No.2 (The Principal Secretary and Competent Authority, Minority Development Department, Government of Maharashtra)withdrawing the linguistic minority status of the appellant institution which was earlier granted by order dated 11.7.2008.3. The withdrawal of the recommendation for the appellant-Society as linguistic minority institution was on the ground that the earlier order granting recommendation was under the mistake that the trustees of the appellant were residing in the State of Maharashtra.4. The brief facts leading to this appeal are thus: The appellant-Society was formed in the year 1885; and it was ori...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
M.Y. EQBAL, J.1. Leave granted.2. Aggrieved by the order dated 22nd March, 2012 passed by the Calcutta High Court in C.O. No. 602 of 2012, the petitioner-decree-holder preferred this appeal. The High Court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India had refused to interfere with the order passed by the District Judge, Purba, Medinipur in Civil Revision No.1 of 2011, condoning the delay in filing the RevisionPetition.3. Although the Courts have always exercised discretion infavour of the person seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal or revision, but in the facts and circumstances of this case, whether theDistrict Judge was justified in condoning the delay occurred in filing the revision petition?4. The facts of the case lie in the narrow compass.5. The plaintiff- appellant filed a suit in the year 1967 being Title Suit No.483 of 1967 for declaration of title in respect of the suit property and also for a decree for permanent injunction restrainin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2683-2685 OF 201.(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30847-30849 OF 2012.Margaret Almeida & Ors. etc. Appellants Versus Bombay Catholic Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2688-2688 OF 201.(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30867-30869 OF 2012.Priti Mungrey & Ors. Appellants Versus Bombay Catholic Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. Etc. Etc. Respondents AND CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2689-2690 OF 201.(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.28256-28257 OF 2012.Anthony DSa Appellant Versus Bombay Catholic Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. Etc. Etc. Respondents JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar 1. Leave granted in all matters.2. Through the instant common judgment, we propose to dispose of the following matters which came to be filed in this Court assailing the order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (hereinafter referred to as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6918-6919 OF 201.NARINDER SINGH RAO .....APPELLANT VERSUS AVM MAHINDER SINGH RAO ....RESPONDENTS AND OTHERS 1 JUDGMENT 1 ANIL R. DAVE, J.1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment delivered in Civil Regular Second Appeal No.3937 of 2005 and Cross Objection No.9-C of 2005 dated 21st May, 2010 by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, these appeals have been filed by original defendant No.1.2. The facts giving rise to the appeals in a nutshell are as under: Rao Gajraj Singh and his wife Sumitra Devi were occupiers of the suit property. The property appears to have been constructed somewhere in 1935 and as per the municipal record, it belonged to Rao Gajraj Singh. A document was executed by Rao Gajraj Singh to the effect that upon death of himself or his wife, the suit property would be inherited by the survivor. The said writing was attested by Rao Devender Singh, the son of Rao Gajraj Sing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2735-2736 OF 200.MADHAVI AMMA & ORS. Appellants VERSUS S. PRASANNAKUMARI & ORS. Respondents JUDGMENT Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 18.12.2002 passed in CRP No.1411/1996 (C) and CRP No.833/1996(H). CRP No.1411/1996 (C) was preferred by one Appukuttan Nair along with the appellant (s) herein challenging the decision of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram dated 28.10.1995 in RCA No.133/1991 by which the eviction ordered by the Rent Control Court in its order dated 02.7.1991 in RCP No.140/1985 was confirmed. CRP. No.833 of 1996 (H) was preferred by the respondents herein challenging the order of the Appellate Authority (LR), Attingal in AA No.37/91 dated 13.11.1995 by which the order of the Land Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram dated 19.02.1991 in ...
Tag this Judgment!