Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4722-4723 OF 201.(Arising out of SLP (C) No.19152-53 of 2013) Sambhavana ... Appellant Versus University of Delhi ...Respondent JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.Leave granted.2. The appellant-organisation invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.2982 of 2013 for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent-University to make provisions to introduce a bridge course for students with vision impairment in the first year of four years under graduate programme so that they can easily pursue the foundation course and become part of mainstream education system; issue a direction to the respondent to introduce a foundation course in the second year of the four years for under graduate programme; command the respondent to provide accessible reading materials and to make provisions for training of the teachers who will teach the students in Mathematics and Science and Life in the four y...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4665 OF 201.G. Jayalal ...Appellant Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.In this appeal, the pregnability of the order dated 17.2.2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No.61 of 2012 affirming the order dated 30.11.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short the Tribunal) in O.A. No.1290 of 2011 is called in question.2. The facts, as have been exposited, are that advertisements were issued to fill up the posts of Director General in All India Radio and Doordarshan on 20.10.2010 and 20.12.2010 respectively. A Committee headed by the Chairperson, Prasar Bharati Board, was constituted to make the recommendations for appointment to the aforesaid two posts. Names of nine persons including that of the appellant and the fourth respondent herein were recommended to be interviewed by the Selection Committee. The recommendations of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.248 of 2007 Bhadragiri Venkata Ravi Appellant Versus Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad Respondent JUDGMENT Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13.9.2006, passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.863 of 2004, by way of which the High Court reversed the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, Vijianagaram dated 19.10.2001, passed in Sessions Case No.40 of 2001, by way of which and whereunder the appellant stood acquitted of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC).2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: A. The appellant had developed intimacy with Ratna Kumari (deceased) and got an inter caste marriage, registered on 26.10.1991 under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Their married life was not very ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1430 OF 201.Arun Kumar Yadav ...Appellant Versus State of U.P. Thru Dist. Judge ...Respondent ORDER This appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment and order dated 17.08.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Contempt No.13 of 2006, by way of which the High Court has convicted the appellant for committing the contempt of court under Section 12 of the Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two weeks. On 5.9.2005 the appellant moved an application to surrender Chhandra Pal @ Badara s/o Shri Mathura under various sections of the Indian Penal Code in pursuance of the order passed under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) by the learned Jud...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.387 OF 200.Engineering Export Promotion Council ...Appellant Versus Usha Anand and another ...Respondents JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.In this appeal challenge is to the orders dated 1.6.2006 and 4.7.2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal M.C. No.540 of 2004 in Crl. M. (M) No.3009 of 2003 and Crl. M. No.6349 of 2006 in Crl. M. (M) No.3009 of 2003 respectively.2. The facts which are essential to be exposited are that the husband of the Ist respondent, late Yash Pal Anand, was a merchant exporter of automotive components and was carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Anand Craft Centre. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered six cases against him for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468/471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) in the year 1994. Identical cases of equal numbers were registered against his brothers, namely, Ashok, Satish and Subhash. The allegations ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.896 of 2011 Rohtash Kumar Appellant Versus State of Haryana Respondent JUDGMENT Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 5.2.2009 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.862-DB of 2006, by which it has affirmed the judgment and order of the Sessions Court, by way of which and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as `the IPC), and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 302 IPC; and was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for thre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 3.OF 200.State of Rajasthan ... Appellant Versus Bheru Lal ...Respondent JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.The present appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 9.4.2004 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.659 of 2002 whereby he has reversed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS cases, Chittorgarh on 7.8.2002 and acquitted the respondent of the offences punishable under Sections 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act).2. The broad essential facts leading to trial of the respondent are that on 4.4.2001 about 5.45 p.m. Parveen Vyas, temporary in-charge S.H.O., Police Station Chittorgarh, received information from a reliable informer that the respondent would come with illegal opium on his Hero Honda Motor Cycle No.5902 from Phkhliya to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2038 of 2011 Ravirala Laxmaiah Appellant Versus State of A.P. Respondent JUDGMENT Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.7.2010, passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.302 of 2007, concurring with the judgment and order dated 5.2.2007 of the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, Andhra Pradesh, in Sessions Case No.83 of 2006, whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as `the IPC), and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of which, simple imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 302 IPC; and for the offence punishable under Section 404 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years, w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.642 OF 200.Kusti Mallaiah ...Appellant Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh ...Respondent JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.Calling in question the legal propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in Criminal Appeal No.990 of 2005 by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh whereby the Division Bench has concurred with the conviction and the imposition of sentence by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy in S.C. No.79 of 1998 wherein the learned trial Judge, after finding the appellant along with one Koninti @ Yerrolla Veeraiah, A-1, guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 404 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC), had sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life on the first count and three years on the second score.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution as unfolded is that on 9.2.1997 in the m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2345 OF 200.State of Maharashtra Through C.B.I. ...Appellant Versus Mahesh G. Jain ...Respondent JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.The singular question that emanates for consideration in this appeal is whether the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Application No.2648 of 2007 is justified in refusing to grant leave to file an appeal by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Mumbai (for short the CBI) to assail the judgment and order dated 8th September, 2006 in Special Case No.62 of 2000 by the Court of Special Judge for Greater Bombay whereby the learned Special Judge had acquitted the respondent No.1 under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) read with 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (For brevity the Act) principally on the foundation that the sanction granted by the competent authority was defective and illegal as there was non-application of mind which would show lack of satisfac...
Tag this Judgment!