Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.420 OF2012SURESH & ANR. ..... APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ..... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J.1. This appeal has been preferred against conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 302 read with Sections 34, 364-A, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.2. Case of the prosecution is that on 18th December, 2000, the deceased Devender Chopra and his son deceased Abhishek Chopra had left their factory for their house in D.L.F., Gurgaon but did not reach their house. At about 9.41 P.M., PW-12 Pooja Chopra, daughter of Devender Chopra gave a call to her father to find out as to why he was late. She learnt that her father and brother had been kidnapped and ransom of rupees fifty lacs was demanded for their release. She contacted her father's business partner informing him that Devender Chopra and Abhishek Chopra were kidnapped and the kidnappers had demanded a ransom a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.420 OF2012SURESH & ANR. ..... APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ..... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J.1. This appeal has been preferred against conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 302 read with Sections 34, 364-A, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.2. Case of the prosecution is that on 18th December, 2000, the deceased Devender Chopra and his son deceased Abhishek Chopra had left their factory for their house in D.L.F., Gurgaon but did not reach their house. At about 9.41 P.M., PW-12 Pooja Chopra, daughter of Devender Chopra gave a call to her father to find out as to why he was late. She learnt that her father and brother had been kidnapped and ransom of rupees fifty lacs was demanded for their release. She contacted her father's business partner informing him that Devender Chopra and Abhishek Chopra were kidnapped and the kidnappers had demanded a ransom a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2494 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.2307 of 2012) K. Ravi Kumar Appellant(s) Versus State of Karnataka Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 27.01.2010 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore whereby Criminal Appeal No.689/2006 filed by the appellant herein arising out of judgment and order dated 01.02.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore in S.C. No.306/2004 has been dismissed thereby upholding the appellant's conviction for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ".the IPC".) and the sentence of imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- awarded to him. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of six months. The appellant h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10592 OF2014(Arising Out of SLP (C) No.16780 of 2011) S. BHASKAR REDDY & ANR. ...APPELLANTS Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE & ANR. ...RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.Leave granted.2. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 07.02.2011 passed in W.P. No.28464 of 2008, by the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, the appellants have filed this appeal, framing certain questions of law, urging various legal grounds in support of the same and praying to set aside the impugned order and restore the order dated 27.11.2008 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (in short ".the Tribunal".) passed in OA No.2767 of 2007.3. Brief facts of the case are stated hereunder for the purpose of examining the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties and to find out whether the impugned judgment warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10592 OF2014(Arising Out of SLP (C) No.16780 of 2011) S. BHASKAR REDDY & ANR. ...APPELLANTS Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE & ANR. ...RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.Leave granted.2. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 07.02.2011 passed in W.P. No.28464 of 2008, by the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, the appellants have filed this appeal, framing certain questions of law, urging various legal grounds in support of the same and praying to set aside the impugned order and restore the order dated 27.11.2008 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (in short ".the Tribunal".) passed in OA No.2767 of 2007.3. Brief facts of the case are stated hereunder for the purpose of examining the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties and to find out whether the impugned judgment warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3906 OF2009M.P. Singh Bargoti .....Appellant Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. .....Respondents JUDGMENT SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.This appeal is directed against final judgment and order dated 15.10.2007 passed in Writ Petition No.4449 of 2001 whereby the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the writ petition of the appellant and declined to interfere with order of the M.P. Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated 26.02.2001 passed in O.A.No.1122 of 2000. The simple case of the appellant is that he has been deprived of benefits of timely consideration and promotion from the post of Inspector to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police although there was a direction of the Tribunal in cases filed by others and disposed of on 15.06.1993 and 03.11.1997 and also in a case filed by the appellant along with 29 others bearing O.A. No.893 of 1997 allowed on 11.03.1998...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3906 OF2009M.P. Singh Bargoti .....Appellant Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. .....Respondents JUDGMENT SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.This appeal is directed against final judgment and order dated 15.10.2007 passed in Writ Petition No.4449 of 2001 whereby the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the writ petition of the appellant and declined to interfere with order of the M.P. Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated 26.02.2001 passed in O.A.No.1122 of 2000. The simple case of the appellant is that he has been deprived of benefits of timely consideration and promotion from the post of Inspector to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police although there was a direction of the Tribunal in cases filed by others and disposed of on 15.06.1993 and 03.11.1997 and also in a case filed by the appellant along with 29 others bearing O.A. No.893 of 1997 allowed on 11.03.1998...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A.NOS. 3-4 OF2014IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.3872 OF2010RAM KISHAN & ORS .........APPELLANTS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS .........RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.I.A. No.4 for exemption from filing official translation is ordered. I.A. No.3 in Civil Appeal No.3872 of 2010 is filed by the applicants/appellant Nos. 24-28 (for short 'the applicants') seeking direction and appropriate orders for disposal of this appeal in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short 'the Act of 2013'). The appellant-land owners have come to this Court questioning the correctness of the judgment and order dated 13.03.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.3823 of 2008, wherein the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the same was not maintainable after passing of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3673 OF2009Government of Andhra Pradesh and another ...Appellant (s) versus K. Varalakshmi and others ...Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J.: This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.3.2004 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh whereby appeal preferred by the plaintiffs was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in the suit instituted by the plaintiffs has been set aside.2. The factual matrix of the case is that the suit schedule property admeasuring about five acre in Survey No.71/3 of Paradesipalem was Poramboke land. One Sagiraju Bangaramma was in possession and enjoyment of the said land by raising agricultural crops since 1950. By virtue of her possession, the suit property was assigned to her by the first defendant/appellant through a rough patta in R.C.No.4118 of 1961. She continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10856 OF2010CIMCO BIRLA LTD. .........APPELLANT Vs. ROWENA LEWIS .........RESPONDENT JUDGMENT V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.The appellant-employer has questioned the correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 29.1.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.28316 of 2009 in affirming the judgment and order dated 15.6.2009 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.3135 of 2009 whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. The writ petition was filed by the appellant-employer herein against the order dated 16.4.2007 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in complaint (ULP) No.588 of 1996 filed by the respondent-workman.2. The brief facts of the case in nutshell are stated as under :- The respondent-workman filed the complaint (ULP) No.339 of 1987 before the Labour Court, Mumbai under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of T...
Tag this Judgment!