Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.792 OF2014Additional District and Sessions Judge 'X' ... Petitioner versus Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh and others ... Respondents JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by a former Additional District and Sessions Judge of the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service. The factual narration in the writ petition incorporates allegations of sexual harassment aimed at the petitioner, at the behest of a sitting Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (herein after referred to as, 'the High Court'), who has been impleaded by name as respondent no.3. The authenticity of the allegations levelled by the petitioner, which have been expressly disputed by respondent no.3, would stand affirmed or repudiated only after culmination of due process. Such being the sensitivity of the matter, it would be inappropriate to disclose the identity either of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
"REPORTABLE" IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.11527 OF2014(Arising out of SLP(C) No.11684 of 2012) State of Punjab and others etc. ... Appellants versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. ... Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.11528 OF2014[Arising out of SLP(C) No 35892 CC No.14663 of 2010]. CIVIL APPEAL No.11530 OF2014[Arising out of SLP(C) No.35914 .CC No.20144 of 2010]. CIVIL APPEAL No.11531 OF2014[Arising out of SLP(C) No.35916 CC No.9303 of 2011]. CIVIL APPEAL No.11532 OF2014[Arising out of SLP(C) No.35917 CC No.15876 of 2011]. CIVIL APPEAL No.11533 OF2014[Arising out of SLP(C) No.35919 CC No.16190 of 2011]. CIVIL APPEAL No.11534 OF2014[Arising out of SLP(C) No.35920 CC No.16303 of 2011]. CIVIL APPEAL No.11535 OF2014[Arising out of SLP(C) No.35921 CC No.16309 of 2011]. CIVIL APPEAL No.11536 OF2014[Arising out of SLP(C) No.35923 CC No.16325 of 2011]. CIVIL APPEAL No.11537 OF2014[Arising out of SLP(C) No.35924 CC No.16326 of 2011]. CIVIL APPEAL...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
"Non-reportable" IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.27519 of 2014 Satendra Singh .......Petitioner versus Vinod Kumar Bhalotia ......Respondent JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.1. The petitioner before this Court, took on rent the shop in question, from the respondent-landlord, in the year 1979. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that after taking the shop on rent, the basic rental was enhanced from time to time. Finally, the rival parties executed an agreement dated 1.8.1981, whereby the shop in question, was rented by the respondent to the petitioner, for the period from August, 1981 to June, 1982. As the petitioner did not vacate the premises on the expiry of the period depicted in the rent agreement dated 1.8.1981, a suit for the eviction of the petitioner was filed by the respondent on 24.11.1982.2. In order to contest the suit filed by the respondent, the petitioner raised a variety of pleas. First...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.11604 /2014 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.15314 of 2014]. Anil s/o Jagannath Rana and others ... Appellant (s) Versus Rajendra s/o Radhakishan Rana and others ... Respondent (s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.: Leave granted. Once a judicial authority takes a decision under Section 8(1) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") declining to refer the dispute pending before it to arbitration and the said decision having become final, whether either party to the proceedings can thereafter invoke the jurisdiction of the Chief Justice under Section 11(6) of the Act, is the question arising for consideration in this case. The scope of Section 8(3) of the Act is also an ancillary issue. Appellants are defendant nos. 1, 2, 3 in Special Suit No.211 of 2009 on the file of Civil Judge Senior Division at Aurangabad, Maharashtra. The suit is filed by a partnership firm, viz., M/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
"REPORTABLE" IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5874-5875 OF2009Kumod Kumar & another ... Appellants versus State of Jharkhand & others ... Respondents JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.1. Consequent upon their selection, the appellants were inducted into the Police Department of the State of Bihar, by way of direct recruitment, as Steno Sub-Inspectors of Police. Appellant No.1 - Kumod Kumar was appointed as such on 10.4.1982. He joined his duties on 13.4.1982. Appellant No.2 - Ramesh Kumar was appointed on 11.9.1985, and he joined as such on 16.9.1985.2. On 26.8.1989 and 11.6.1991, the appellants were taken (on reversion) to the general line of the Police Department as Sub-Inspectors of Police. In this behalf it would be pertinent to mention, that induction into the general line of the Police Department from Steno Sub-Inspectors is permissible, subject to the satisfaction of the eligibility criteria, as also, consequent upon the selection and r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON- REPORTABLE [ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.11525 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P.(c) No.10968 of 2010) State of U.P. & Ors. ....Appellant(s) Versus Parmanand Shukla (Dead) Thr. L.Rs. ....Respondents(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre,J.1. Leave granted 2. This civil appeal is filed by the State of U.P. against the judgment dated 31.07.2009 passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No.854 of 2009 which in turn arises out of judgment dated 24.01.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.2479 of 2001.3. By impugned judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the intra Court appeal filed by the State and in consequence affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge who had partly allowed the writ petition filed by the original respondent herein, since dead, and now represented by his legal representatives as respondent nos. 1 to 9 to continue the lis which was the subject matte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 534-535 OF2012Banarsi Dass and others ... Appellant (s) Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent (s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.: The appellants faced trial under Section 498A read with Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). The trial court acquitted them under Section 304B of IPC but convicted them under Section 498A of IPC. The State took up the matter in appeal before the High Court against the non-conviction under Section 304B of IPC. The High Court allowed the appeal and convicted them under Section 304B of IPC also. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant no.1-father- in-law of the deceased and appellant no.2-mother-in-law of the deceased expired. Therefore, the appeals survive only in respect of appellant No.2- husband of the deceased, appellant no.3-elder brother of the deceased and appellant no.4-younger brother of the deceased. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1403 OF2011|SUDERSHAN KUMAR |.....APPELLANT(S) | |VERSUS | | |STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH |.....RESPONDENT(S) | W I T H CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1404 OF2011CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1445-1446 OF2011A N D CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1447-1448 OF2011JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.These appeals arise out of common judgment dated May 03, 2011 rendered by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The appellants in these appeals were charge-sheeted and tried for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 409, 218 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') as well as Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'PC Act'). They were arrayed as accused 1 to 4 (A-1 to A-4). After the trial, the learned Special Judge, Solan, acquitted all the four appellants of the aforesaid charges, inasmuch as, as per his findings, the charges were not proved against these appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 11486-11487 OF2014(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.30398-30399 of 2011) STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ... APPELLANTS VERSUS NOKIA INDIA PVT. LTD. ... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.Leave granted.2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellants- State of Punjab and others against the impugned orders dated 17th November, 2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. By the impugned orders the Division Bench of the High court allowed the appeals preferred by the respondent-assessee, and held that cell phone battery charger is sold as composite package along with cell phone, and hence said charger cannot be excluded from the Entry for concessional rate of tax which applies to cell phones and parts thereof.3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: The respondent-M/s. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Company") is a dealer registered under the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1203 OF2009MAHADEO NARAYAN MORE & ANR. .... Appellants Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .... Respondent JUDGMENT Uday Umesh Lalit, J.1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 26.04.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No.403 of 1991 whereby it set aside the acquittal of the present appellants and convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default whereof to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. PW-1 Sukhdeo and the present appellants are brothers and they were residing separately but in adjacent houses. PW-1 Sukhdeo had sold three lambs. The appellants were demanding their share in the proceeds from PW-1 Sukhdeo and his wife Sushila. Refusal to give them any share led to a quarrel and the appellants who had consumed l...
Tag this Judgment!