Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2924 - 2925 OF2014Phanidhar Kalita .. Appellant(s) -vs- Saraswati Devi & Anr. .. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT C. NAGAPPAN, J.1. These appeals are preferred against the judgment and decree dated 23.3.2007 in R.S.A. No.116 of 2000 and the order dated 1.4.2008 in Review Petition no.1 of 2008 passed by the learned single Judge of the Guwahati High Court, whereby the High Court has partly allowed the Regular Second Appeal and dismissed the Review Petition, both filed by the appellant herein.2. The appellant/plaintiff herein filed the Title Suit no.11 of 1987 against the respondent/defendant no.1 herein in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) no.2, Mangaldoi for declaration of title in respect of 1 katha 16 lechas of land described in schedule-1 to the plaint covered by Dag no.52/575 of P.P. no.960 situated in village Mangaldoi gaon and also for recovery of khas possession of the suit land describe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4104 of 2007 Rajasthan State TPT Corpn. & Anr. Appellants Versus Bajrang Lal Respondent ORDER Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as `Corporation) against the judgment and order dated 8.11.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.449 of 2003 upholding the judgment and decree dated 28.1.2003 in Civil Regular Appeal No.119 of 2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Jaipur, by which and whereunder, it has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1994 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No.2, Jaipur in Civil Suit No.1346 of 1988.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: A. The respondent while working as a trainee conductor on daily basis was found carrying certain passengers without tickets and, thus, an enq...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3865 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.24915 of 2011) J.Rajiv Subramaniyan & Anr. Appellants VERSUS M/s. Pandiyas & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.3866 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.25448 of 2012) JUDGMENT SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,J.1. Leave granted.2. These special leave petitions are directed against the final judgment and order dated 14th June, 2011 passed by the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) in W.A.No.417 of 2011 dismissing the aforesaid Writ Appeal filed by the appellants.3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.4. Mr. Ashok Desai learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that although many issues have been raised in the SLP, he is not pressing the point that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. The point with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition was tak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3867 OF2014(Arising out of SLP (C) No.27916 of 2009) Kesharbai @ Pushpabai Eknathrao Nalawade (D) by LRs. & Anr. Appellants VERSUS Tarabai Prabhakarrao Nalawade & Ors. ...Respondents JUDGMENT SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 23rd March, 2009 of the High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) rendered in First Appeal No.468 of 2004 whereby the High Court has partly allowed the First Appeal of the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The High Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs in respect of the agricultural lands and house property at Chikalthan and Neem Dongri. At the same time, the High Court has set aside the judgment of the trial court on Issue No.3 relating to the question as to whether house bearing No.4.13.78 bearing CTS No.4705 admeasuring 138.2 sq. meters alongwith house structure standing therein situate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.734 OF2014[CRLMP No.6247 of 2014 in SLP (Crl.) No.6775 of 2010-Jail Petition]. Saroj @ Suraj Panchal & Anr. Appellant(s) versus State of West Bengal Respondent(s) JUDGMENT C. NAGAPPAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in C.R.A. no.207 of 2002.3. The appellants herein are accused nos.1 and 3 respectively in Sessions Trial Case no.XXX(April) of 2000 on the file of Fourth Additional Sessions Judge at Howrah and they were tried along with two other accused and all of them were convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence accused nos.1 to 4 preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal no.207 of 2002 and the High Court by im...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.595 OF2014[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.3634 of 2013]. Kanhaiya Lal Appellant(s) versus State of Rajasthan Respondent(s) JUDGMENT C. NAGAPPAN, J.Leave granted.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, in D.B. Crl. Appeal No.515 of 2004.2. The appellant herein Kanhaiya Lal, is accused No.2 in Sessions Trial No.01 of 2004 on the file of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.1, Dungarpur, - 3. and he was tried for the alleged offences under Section 302 and 201 IPC and on being found guilty was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 302 IPC and further sentenced to undergo 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500 in default to undergo simple imprisonmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1823 OF2008Bhagwan Tukaram Dange . Appellant Versus State of Maharashtra . Respondent JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Appellant herein, accused No.1 (A-1) along with his father, accused No.2 (A-2) was charge-sheeted for the offences of murder of his wife under Sections 302, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. A-1 and A-2 were found guilty and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life, with a default sentence. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, they filed Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2000 before the High Court of Bombay and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 09.02.2004. A-2 later died and A-1, aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court has filed this appeal.2. The prosecution story is as under: A-1 son and A-2 father returned to their house on 18.10.1998 at about 7.00 PM, fully drunk. On reaching home, they demanded Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- from the wife of A-1....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) No.157 OF2013Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan ..Petitioner VERSUS Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents JUDGMENT Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.1. The instant writ petition has been preferred, by an organisation dedicated to the welfare of inter-state migrants, in the nature of public interest seeking exercise of this courts extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution) to remedy the concerns that have arisen because of hate speeches, through the following prayers: a. Issue appropriate writ, order, decree in the nature of mandamus declaring hate/derogatory speeches made by people representatives/political/religious leaders on religion, caste, region and ethnic lines are violative of Articles 14 (Equality before Law), 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste or place of birth), 16 (Equality in matters of public ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.957 OF2013SUDIPTA LENKA ... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF ODISHA ORS. ... RESPONDENT (S) JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J.1. A young law student of Bangalore, who belongs to the State of Odisha, has filed the present application under Article 32 of the Constitution highlighting what she has perceived to be a serious infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21 consequent to a tragic incident wherein one Itishree Pradhan was set ablaze on 27.10.2013 at a place called Tikiri located in Rayagada District in the State of Odisha. The unfortunate victim of the incident died on 01.11.2013.2. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid Itishree Pradhan (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) joined as a Siksha Sahayika (contractual government teacher) in the Tikiri Upper Primary School on 18.06.2011. As she was facing difficulty in finding accommodation, one Netrananda Dandasena, (now an a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I.A. NOS. 2143 WITH2283 3088, 3461, 3479, 3693 IN2143 827, 1122, 1337, 1473 AND1620AND1693IN1473AND3618IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.202 OF1995T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Petitioner(s) VERSUS Union Of India & ORS. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.1. This order will dispose of the I. As. noted above.2. Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995 was filed as a PIL under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for and on behalf of the people living in and around the Nilgiri Forest on the Western Ghats. The petitioner sought to challenge the legality and the validity of the actions of the State of Tamil Nadu, the Collector, Nilgiris District and the District Forest Officer, Gudalur and the Timber Committee represented through the Collector, Nilgiris (Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 respectively), in destroying the tropical rain forest in the Gudalur and Nilgiri areas in violation of the Forest Act, 1927, Forest (Conservatio...
Tag this Judgment!