Court : Supreme Court of India
NON- REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6220 OF2008FAHIM AHMAD & ORS. ... APPELLANTS VERSUS UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT N.V. RAMANA,J.1. The short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is who is liable to pay the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udham Singh Nagar (for short, the Tribunal) in M.A.C.P. No.98/2003 vide Award dated 06.08.2004.2. Brief facts of the case are thus : On 06.03.2003, the deceased Atma Singh, the husband of appellant - 3. No.1 and the father of appellants No.2 and 3 herein, was going from Kashipur crossing towards Tada Ujjain. When he reached the Station Road in front of godown, suddenly one tractor having registration No.UP-21-H-4596 coming at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased from behind, as a result of which, he became seriously injured and died on the spot. Thus, the appellants-claiman...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.213 OF2006Mannalal Chamaria & Anr. ....Appellants Versus State of West Bengal and Anr. ...Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.215 OF2006AND CRIMINAL APPEAL No.217 OF2006JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The question arising for consideration in these appeals relates to the alleged failure (and consequential effect) of Pradip Sarkar to specifically state in his complaint filed under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that the appellants/accused persons were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of M/s. Heritage Herbs Ltd. of which they were said to be Directors.2. In a complaint filed on 31st March, 2001, Pradip Sarkar alleged that Heritage Herbs had made an offer for collecting money from the market with a view to allot land to the intending investors. On the basis of the offer made, Pradip Sarkar invested an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and Herita...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.444 OF2008VIJAY SINGH & ANR. APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH RESPONDENT JUDGMENT CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD,J.In the present appeal by way of special leave, we are concerned with appellants Vijay Singh and Hari Singh. According to the prosecution, on 16th of June, 1992 at about 6.30 A.M., a report was lodged by the informant, Pohap Singh (PW-1), alleging that while he was at his house, his father Bhagirath (deceased) was returning home after answering the natures call and at that time, 11 accused persons including appellant No.2 Hari Singh armed with farsa and appellant No.1 Vijay Singh armed with a ballam and other accused armed with axes surrounded him. Seeing this, according to the informant, his mother Prema Bai (PW-2), his wife Sheela (PW-3) and grandfather Jagannath (PW-6) went to rescue him, whereupon informant Pohap Singh was assaulted by lathi by one of the accused. Meanwhile...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1027 OF2008Union of India Appellant Versus Sheo Shambhu Giri Respondent JUDGMENT Chelameswar, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.359 of 2003 of the High Court of Patna, the instant appeal is preferred by the Union of India.2. By the judgment under appeal, three appeals came to be preferred by the three different accused who were convicted for different offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the NDPS Act) by the Court of 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mothari of East Champaran District in Excise Case No.31 of 2001 by its judgment dated 12th June, 2003. By the judgment under appeal, the conviction of all the appellants was set aside. It is not very clear whether any appeals are preferred against the acquittal of the other two accused except the respondent herein.3. The sole respondent along with two other accused was tried ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.36518 of 2013 Sheela Jawarlal Nagori & Anr. ..Petitioners Versus Kantilal Nathmal Baldota & Ors. Respondents AND SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.37456 of 2013 JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The question before us is whether a landlord can maintain a suit for eviction of his tenant even after an award has been passed in respect of the tenanted property under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In our opinion, the answer must be in the affirmative.2. The petitioners in both special leave petitions are the tenants of the respondent landlord. For convenience we have taken the facts from SLP (C) No.37456 of 2013, but note that the issue that arises in both the cases is the same and the hearing proceeded on this basis.3. The landlord had instituted Civil Suit No.433 of 2000 in the Court of the 5th Additional Small Cause Judge and Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune for va...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4001 OF2014[Arising out of S.L.P. [C]. No.26135/2013]. Smt. Savita Appellant Vs. Bindar Singh & Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated April 16, 2013 passed by the High Court of Uttrakhand affirming the award dated December 3, 2012 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Haridwar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.75/2011. The Tribunal directed the respondent Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay a sum of [pic].4,28,000/- to the claimant. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, this appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant.3. Briefly the facts of this case are as follows:3. 1 One Sandeep Chauhan died in an accident on November 26, 2010 due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of a truck bearing registration No.HR-56-6047 between Ram Nagar and Dhandhera. The claim petition was filed under S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4002 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.15664 of 2010) Jacinta De Silva Appellant vs. Rosarinho Costa & Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order passed by the High Court wherein the High Court was pleased to set aside the order passed by the Executing Court in connection with an execution application. The Executing Court held that the decree passed by the Civil Court was without any jurisdiction and thereby it is a nullity and accordingly dismissed the said execution proceedings.3. The facts revealed in this case are that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the owners of the property known as Madel situated at Curtorim, Salcete, Goa, which was allotted to them by a Deed of Partition registered before the Notary Public. In the property exists a residential house and a mundkarial house (suit h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.4003 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8578 of 2011) Soumik Sil Appellant vs. Subhas Chandra Sil Respondent JUDGMENT Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the High Court dated February 10, 2011 whereby the application filed by the respondent herein under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) was allowed and the plaint was rejected. The High Court set aside the order passed by the Trial Court refusing such prayer.3. The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows :3.1) A suit was filed for declaration and injunction by the appellant along with Smt. Ashima Sen, mother of the present appellant. The appellant herein and plaintiff No.1 (the mother) filed a suit being Title Suit being No.2430 of 2007 before the City Civil Court at Calcutta, and the following reliefs were prayed for in the said s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.6609-6613 OF2014Brijesh Kumar & Ors. Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & Ors. Respondents ORDER1 These petitions have been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 22.11.2013, passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing the Civil Misc. Applications in RFA No.5793 of 2012 for condonation of delay of more than10 years in filing the appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The land of the petitioners alongwith the lands of others admeasuring 134 acres, 5 kanals and 10 marlas situate in revenue estate of village Manakpur, Hadbast No.386, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar stood notified under Section 4 of the Act on 8.9.1993. In respect of the same, the award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 8.10.1997 assessing the market value of the land of the petitioners @ Rs.1,75...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 5698-5699 OF2009State of Punjab and Others .Appellants Versus Dhanjit Singh Sandhu ..Respondent JUDGMENT M.Y. EQBAL, J.:1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 8.1.2009 passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No.8864 of 2007 and also order dated 27.3.2009 passed in Review Petition No.112 of 2009, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed and the order dated 23.12.2004 passed by appellant no.3 rejecting the application for refund of the extension fee received by the appellant in excess of the rates mentioned in Rule 13 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (in short 1995 Act) in the light of the judgment passed in C.W.P. No.13648 of 1998 (Tehal Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors.) along with up-to-date interest has been set aside.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.3. The respondent was allotted ...
Tag this Judgment!