Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION1WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.521 OF2002P. Ramakrishnam Raju .... Petitioner (s) Versus Union of India & Ors. .... Respondent(s) 2 3 WITH45 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.523 OF20026 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.524 OF20027 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.37 OF20038 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.38 OF20039 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.465 OF200510 AND11CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4248-4249 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 9558-9559 of 2010) JUDGMENT P.Sathasivam, CJI.1) The main question which arises for consideration is whether High Court Judges, who are appointed from the Bar under Article 217(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, on retirement, are entitled for an addition of 10 years to their service for the purposes of their pension?.2) The above petitions have been filed by former Judges of the various High Courts of the country as well as by the Association of the Retired Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts elevated from the Bar.3) T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION No.27 OF2013Reliance Industries Ltd. & Ors. Petitioners Versus Union of India .Respondent JUDGMENT SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,J.1. This petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1996, with a prayer for appointment of the third and the presiding arbitrator, as the two arbitrators nominated by the parties have failed to reach a consensus on the appointment of the third arbitrator.2. Petitioner No.1 is a company incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956; Petitioner No.2 is a company incorporated in Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands; Petitioner No.3 is a company incorporated according to the laws of England & Wales. The Respondent herein is Union of India (hereinafter referred to as UOI), represented by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are as under:4. In 1999, UOI announc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION CURATIVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.88 OF2013IN REVIEW PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.435 OF2013IN WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.146 OF2011Navneet Kaur ... Petitioner(s) versus State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. ... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P.Sathasivam, CJI.1) Navneet Kaur w/o Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, filed the present Curative Petition against the dismissal of Review Petition (Criminal) No.435 of 2013 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.146 of 2011 on 13.08.2013, wherein she prayed for setting aside the death sentence imposed upon Devender Pal Singh Bhullar by commuting the same to imprisonment for life on the ground of supervening circumstance of delay of 8 years in disposal of mercy petition.2) Considering the limited issue involved, there is no need to traverse all the factual details. The brief background of the case is: By judgment dated 25.08.2001, Devender Pal Singh Bhullar was sentenced to death by the Designated Judge, Delhi. Therea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.708 OF2014(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.8013 OF2012 STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ... APPELLANT (S) VERSUS RAJMANGAL RAM ... RESPONDENT (S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.709-710 OF2014(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.159-160 OF2013 JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J.1. Leave, as prayed for, is granted in both the matters.2. The two appeals are by the State of Bihar against separate orders (dated 23.03.2012 and 03.03.2011) passed by the High Court of Patna, the effect of which is that the criminal proceedings instituted against the respondents under different provisions of the Indian Penal Code as well as the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have been interdicted on the ground that sanction for prosecution of the respondents in both the cases has been granted by the Law Department of the State and not by the parent department to which the respondents belong.3. A short and inter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1240 OF2004Ram Niranjan Roy Appellant Versus State of Bihar and Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT (SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.1. A petition was filed in public interest in the Patna High Court being C.W.J.C. No.1311 of 2003 by Bihar Vyavsayik Sangharsh Morcha and another raising several issues relating to law and order problem in the State of Bihar. The State of Bihar, the Director General of Police of Bihar and others were made party respondents. The issues raised inter alia were whether the respondents were duty bound to provide safe and healthy atmosphere for the proper development of the State or not and whether the inaction of the respondents was violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 20 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner inter alia sought direction to the respondents to take measures to stop exploitation of shopkeepers, dealers, artisans, labourers and indus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4245 / 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.259 of 2012]. Gowri ....... Appellant (s) Versus Shanthi and Anr. .......Respondent (s) JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.1. Leave granted.2. Before we narrate the facts, we trace out below the relationship between the parties that would make it easier to understand the dispute which has arisen between them and is the subject matter of the present appeal. CHIDAMBARAM3 As is clear from the above, Chidambaram was the grandfather of the appellant and the two respondents. The appellant and the two respondents i.e. all three of them are the daughters of Mr. C.P. Sundaramurthy.4. Chidambaram had one son, viz. Sundaramurthy and one daughter namely Jagdambal. Admittedly, Chidambaram was having leasehold rights over one property situated in Door No.11(Old No.10) Karaneeswarar Koil Garden, 2nd Street, Saidapet, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the 'Suit ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.56 OF2006Ramesh Vithal Patil Appellant Versus State of Karnataka and Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT (SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.1. The appellant-accused no.1 was tried along with five others (original accused nos. 2 to 6 respectively) by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 of the IPC.2. Accused no.1 is the husband of deceased Hira alias Vaishali (the deceased, for convenience). Accused No.2 is the father of the appellant, accused nos. 3 & 4 are the brothers of the appellant, accused No.5 is the wife of accused No.2 and accused No.6 is the wife of accused No.3.3. The appellant was married to the deceased on 27/06/1985. According to the prosecution, the appellant and other accused subjected the deceased to cruelty in their house at Kasaba Nandgad, Taluka Khanapur, District Belgaum. They asked her to bring five t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLAE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4250-4252 OF2014(arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 23157-23159 of 2012) FASEELA M. Appellant(s) VERSUS MUNNERUL ISLAM MADRASA COMMITTEE & ANR. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT R.M. LODHA, J.Leave granted.2. Sections 6 and 7 of the Waqf Act, 1995 (for short, 'Act') provide for determination of certain disputes regarding auqaf only by the Waqf Tribunal. These provisions as amended by Act 27/2013 read as under :Section 6. Disputes regarding auqaf.- (1) If any question arises whether a particular property specified as waqf property in the list of auqaf is waqf property or not or whether a waqf specified in such list is a Shia waqf or Sunni waqf, the Board or the mutawalli of the waqf or any person aggrieved may institute a suit in a Tribunal for the decision of the question and the decision of the Tribunal in respect of such matter shall be final: Provided that no such suit shall be entertained by the Tribuna...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.696 OF2014(Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No.2085 of 2012) B. JAYARAJ ... APPELLANT (S) VERSUS STATE OF A.P. ... RESPONDENT (S) JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.04.2011 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh affirming the order of conviction passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, City Civil Court Hyderabad, whereby the accused appellant has been found guilty of commission of the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d)(i)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act). The accused appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for each of the offences and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months more.3. According to the prosecution, the accused appellant was, at the relevant point...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.27404 of 2013 Sakuma Exports Ltd. ..Petitioner Versus Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse S.A. ..Respondent JUDGMENT SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.1. After hearing the parties at length and upon going through the impugned judgment and order dated 6.8.2013 passed by Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No.337 of 2013, filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), we are of the considered view that the impugned order is based upon proper appreciation of relevant facts and follows the law laid down by this Court correctly in arriving at the finding that in the facts of the case the courts in India have no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 34 of the Act, challenging the international commercial award of an arbitral tribunal constituted by the Refined Sugar Association, London. ...
Tag this Judgment!