Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1451 OF2009Uma Shankar Gautam .. Appellant versus State of Madhya Pradesh .. Respondent JUDGMENT C. NAGAPPAN, J.This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.8.2008 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.1537 of 1998. The appellant herein is accused no.1 and he along with five other accused were tried in Sessions case no.193/1995 on the file of Sessions Judge, District Shahdol and the trial court convicted them for the commission of offences under Section 147 and Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the first offence and each of them to undergo imprisonment for life for second offence. Aggrieved by the same all the accused preferred Criminal Appeal no.1537 of 1998 to the High Court of judicature at Jabalpur. During the pendency of appeal appellant no.2/accused no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10836 OF2014[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.30832 OF2011 Narinder S. Chadha & Ors. ... Appellants VERSUS Municipal Corporation of ... Respondents Greater Mumbai & Ors. WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10837-10839 OF2014[Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 31048-31050 OF2011 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.10840 OF2014[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.33140 OF2011 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10841-10843 OF2014[Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.33141-33143 OF2011 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10844-10845 OF2014[Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.19247-19248 OF2012 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.10846 OF2014[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.8143 OF2014 JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. Leave granted.2. In this batch of matters, we are concerned with the Municipal Corporations of various cities implementing the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply & Distribution) Act, 2003. In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7130 OF2002South Central Railway Employees Co-Op. Credit Society Employees Union ... Appellant Versus B. Yashodabai and others ... Respondents JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No.1683 of 1998 on 14th August, 2002, this appeal has been preferred by the South Central Railway Employees Co-Op. Credit Society Employees' Union.2. It is necessary to know the circumstances which gave rise to the present litigation, which has put the employees of the appellant-union to undue hardship and long-drawn litigation.3. The South Central Railway Employees Co-Op. Credit Society (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society'), had framed rules governing service conditions of its employees and the said rules had been approved by the Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. This Court, in Civil Appeal No.4343 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10620 OF2013Dr. Subramanian Swamy Appellant Versus State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL NO.10621 OF2013Sabhayanagar Temple Appellant Versus State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL NO.10622 OF2013T. Sivaraman & Ors. Appellants Versus State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.1. All these appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 15.9.2009 passed in Writ Appeal No.181 of 2009 by the High Court of Madras affirming the judgment and order dated 2.2.2009 of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No.18248 of 2006 rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner Podhu Dikshitars to administer the Temple. In Civil Appeal No.10620/2013, the appellant has raised the issue of violation of the constitutional rights protected under Article 26 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1152 OF2009Kanchanben Purshottambhai Bhanderi .....Appellant Versus State of Gujarat .....Respondent JUDGMENT SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.The sole appellant, Kanchanben is the mother-in-law of the deceased and is facing conviction under Section 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) with sentence of RI for eight years and penalty of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. She has also been convicted under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act with simple imprisonment for five years and penalty of Rs.3,000/- with default clause. For conviction under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, she has been inflicted with simple imprisonment of six months and penalty of Rs. 500/-. The sentences have to run concurrently. For the offence in question in which the daughter-in-law of the appellant namely Hina died a suicidal death after consuming poison within seven months of her mar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2587 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.8469 of 2014) Neeru Yadav ... Appellant Versus State of U.P and another ...Respondents JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.Leave granted. The present appeal, by special leave, calls in question the legal substantiality and defensibility of the order dated 22.09.2014 passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.31078 of 2014 whereby the learned Judge, in exercise of power under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) had admitted the 2nd respondent to bail in Crime No.237 of 2013 instituted for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 394, 411, 454, 506, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). As the impugned order would reveal, it was contended on behalf of the 2nd respondent that similarly placed co-accused, Ashok, had already been enlarged on bail by the High Court by order dated 23.9.2013 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1002 OF2010VISHWANATH PRASAD JAISWAL .......APPELLANT VERSUS SATYA NARAIN SHARMA ......RESPONDENT JUDGMENT J.S.KHEHAR, J.This is an appeal filed at the behest of the landlord, whose plea for eviction against the respondent-tenant was turned down, by the impugned order dated 03.12.2007, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as `the High Court'). It is essential to record, that eviction at the behest of the appellant was sought under Section 20(2)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as `the 1972 Act'). Section 20(2)(c) aforementioned of the 1972 Act is being extracted hereunder: "20(2) A suit for the eviction of a tenant from a building after the determination of his tenancy may be instituted on one or more of the following grounds, namely: (a) XXX XXX XXX (b) XXX XXX XXX (c) that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10784 OF2014@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.24652 OF2013NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD .... Appellant Versus GENUS POWER INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. .... Respondent JUDGMENT Uday U. Lalit, J.1. Leave granted. This appeal challenges the order dated 30.05.2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Arbitration Petition No.212 of 2011 appointing an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the present parties. The respondent has a manufacturing unit for which it had purchased a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy ('policy' for short) from the appellant on 17.04.2009, which policy was for a period of one year and the total sum assured was Rs.91 crores and 10 lacs only. On 29.10.2009 there was a fire explosion in the adjoining Indian Oil Corporation Terminal causing extensive damage to the manufacturing unit of the respondent. On being notified, the appellant appointed a category ".A". License...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10785 OF2014@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.22941 OF2014DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD. .... Appellant Versus UOI AND OTHERS .... Respondents ORDER Uday U. Lalit, J.1. Leave granted. This appeal seeks to challenge the order dated 30.07.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No.4274 of 2010 to the extent it directed the appellant to bear the cost for the bank guarantee furnished by the present Respondent No.5.2. The appellant and the Airport Authority of India entered into an Operation, Management and Development Agreement (".OMDA". for short) dated 04.04.2006 whereby the appellant, undertook inter alia, to perform the functions of the operation, management, development and design, upgradation, modernization, finance and management of the Indira Gandhi International Airport at Delhi and to perform Aeronautical Services and Non- Aeronautical Services. The appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3872 OF2009Karedla Parthasaradhi Appellant(s) Versus Gangula Ramanamma (D) Through L.Rs. & Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Appeal Suit No.1842 of 1996 which in turn arises out of judgment and decree dated 15.03.1996 passed by the IInd Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, in O.S. No.15 of 1985.2. By impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the first appeal filed by defendant No.1 (respondent No.1 herein), reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court, which had decreed plaintiff's suit for ejectment against defendant No.1 in relation to the suit house and in consequence dismissed the plaintiff's suit.3. So the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the High Cou...
Tag this Judgment!