Court : Supreme Court of India
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J. Leave granted. 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 9th March, 2007 passed by the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur in DB Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 332 of 1998 whereby the Division Bench upheld the judgment dated 13th February, 1998 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Jaipur dismissing the appellant’s petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short). 3. The facts of the case are as follows: The appellant and respondent are married to each other. The appellant preferred a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Act before the Judge, Family Court, Jaipur and brought on record the following facts: The appellant and the respondent were married according to Hindu rites on 30th October, 1990 at Jaipur. For the first few days the respondent stayed at her matrimonial home and behaved well with family members of the appellant. However...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
G.S. Singhvi, J. 1. Human life is perhaps the most precious gift of the nature, which many describe as the Almighty. This is the reason why it is argued that if you cannot give life, you do not have the right to take it. Many believe that capital punishment should not be imposed irrespective of the nature and magnitude of the crime. Others think that death penalty operates as a strong deterrent against heinous crimes and there is nothing wrong in legislative prescription of the same as one of the punishments. The debate on this issue became more intense in the second part of the 20th century and those belonging to the first school of thought succeeded in convincing the governments of about 140 countries to abolish death penalty. 2. In India, death was prescribed as one of the punishments in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the same was retained after independence. However, keeping in view the old adage that man should be merciful to all living creatures, the framers of the Constit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) D.No.16039 OF 201.Devender Pal Singh Bhullar Petitioner versus State of N.C.T. of Delhi ...Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.146 OF 201.AND WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.86 OF 201.JUDGMENT G. S. SINGHVI, J.1. Human life is perhaps the most precious gift of the nature, which many describe as the Almighty. This is the reason why it is argued that if you cannot give life, you do not have the right to take it. Many believe that capital punishment should not be imposed irrespective of the nature and magnitude of the crime. Others think that death penalty operates as a strong deterrent against heinous crimes and there is nothing wrong in legislative prescription of the same as one of the punishments. The debate on this issue became more intense in the second part of the 20th century and those belonging to the first school of thought succeeded in convincing the governments of about 140 cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 2 CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 3838-3839 OF 201.3 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 31536-31537 of 2009) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. .... Appellant (s) Versus M/s Jagannath & Co. & Ors. .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J.1) Leave granted. 2) These appeals have been filed against the final judgment and order dated 09.10.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No.26181 of 2006 and order dated 06.11.2009 in Civil Misc. Review Petition No.286203 of 2009. By judgment dated 09.10.2009, the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the contesting respondents herein and quashed the order dated 18.01.2006 passed by the Territory Manager (Retail), Meerut, BPCL terminating the dealership licence of the outlet of respondent No.1-Firm and directed restoration of their dealership. Review petition filed by the appellant herein against the said order was also dismissed on 06.11.2009 by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
P. Sathasivam, J.1) Leave granted.2) These appeals have been filed against the final judgment and order dated 09.10.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No. 26181 of 2006 and order dated 06.11.2009 in Civil Misc. Review Petition No. 286203 of 2009. By judgment dated 09.10.2009, the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the contesting respondents herein and quashed the order dated 18.01.2006 passed by the Territory Manager (Retail), Meerut, BPCL terminating the dealership licence of the outlet of respondent No.1-Firm and directed restoration of their dealership. Review petition filed by the appellant herein against the said order was also dismissed on 06.11.2009 by the High Court.3) Brief facts:a) The appellant – Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (in short “BPCL”) is a Government of India Undertaking under the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and is engaged in refining, distributing and selling ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3840/2013 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.38061 of 2012 Smt. Neena Vikram Verma ... Appellant Versus Balmukund Singh Gautam & Ors. ... Respondent (s) J U D G E M E N T H.L. Gokhale J.Leave Granted.2. This petition for Special Leave seeks to challenge the order dated 5.12.2012 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Bench at Indore) allowing the application filed by the first respondent under Order 6 Rule 16 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) being I.A No.7248/2012 for striking off certain pleadings from the Recrimination Petition filed by the Appellant herein. Facts leading to this petition are this wise:- 3. The General Elections to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly were notified by the Election Commission of India on 14.10.2008 and were held on 27.11.2008. The appellant herein contested the election from 201-Dhar (General) Constituency. She was dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
H.L. Gokhale J. Leave Granted. 2. This petition for Special Leave seeks to challenge the order dated 5.12.2012 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Bench at Indore) allowing the application filed by the first respondent under Order 6 Rule 16 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) being I.A No. 7248/2012 for striking off certain pleadings from the Recrimination Petition filed by the Appellant herein. Facts leading to this petition are this wise:- 3. The General Elections to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly were notified by the Election Commission of India on 14.10.2008 and were held on 27.11.2008. The appellant herein contested the election from 201-Dhar (General) Constituency. She was declared elected on 9.12.2008 defeating the first respondent by one vote. 4. The respondent No. 1 filed Election Petition bearing No. 11 of 2009 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Bench at Indore), challenging the election of the appellant on the ground of improper rec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.120 OF 201.RAM PAL @ BUNDA Appellant VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA Respondent ORDER 1. The sole appellant is the accused who was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 376, Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and 10 years rigorous imprisonment for committing rape and murder of one Devi (real name disguised). According to the prosecution, a telephonic intimation was received in the police station regarding the dead body of Devi resident of Mangalore within the jurisdiction of Shahzadpur police station, Ambala, lying in the fields of one Prithi Pal. On reaching the spot PW-14, SHO recorded the statement of PW-10 Sumitra Devi the mother of the deceased. It was learnt through her that she had two daughters, that the elder one was married while the younger one who went to the fields on 18.2.2005 at 6.30 p.m. to ease herself did not return and their...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1226 OF 201.LILLU @ RAJESH & ANR. Appellants VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA Respondent ORDER 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.9.2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.243-DB of 2002, by way of which the High Court has affirmed the judgment and order dated 4.3.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind in Sessions Case No.37 of 2001, by way of which the appellant No.1 has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as `IPC) and awarded the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of making payment, to further undergo imprisonment for two years. Further he has been convicted under Section 506 IPC and awarded the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences have been directed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3265 OF 201.(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.1343 OF 2009.NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPELLANT VERSUS SARVPRIYA SEHKARI AVAS SAMITI LTD. AND ANR. RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3266 OF 201.(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.23967 OF 2011.NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPELLANT VERSUS SHIVALIK SEHKARI AVAS SAMITI AND ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, hereinafter referred to as NOIDA, in these special leave petitions filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 20th of June, 2008 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.41065 of 2003 (Sarvpriya Sahakari Avas Samiti Limited v. State of U.P. through Special Secretary & Anr.) and order dated 15th of July, 2010 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.67362 of 2005 (Shivalik Sahakari Avas Samiti through Secr...
Tag this Judgment!