Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.OF2014(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.814 of 2014) A.T. Prakashan . Appellant Versus The Excise Inspector & Anr. . Respondents JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal arises out of the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Crl. Appeal No.1104 of 2004, by which the High Court modified the sentence awarded by the trial Court to that of rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh, and in default, simple imprisonment for three more months for an offence committed under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, 1077.3. The prosecution case is that on 15.9.1999 at 7.00 a.m., the appellant was found in possession of 10 litres of arrack while he was transporting the same through the road in between Mokavoor and Kypurathpalam. PW6, Excise Inspector, registered Crime No.20 of 1999 through Ext.P3 occurrence report. After investigation, he laid the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1195 OF2007State of Rajasthan & Anr. ..Appellants Versus C.P. Singh & Ors. ..Respondents JUDGMENT SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.1. State of Rajasthan has preferred this Civil Appeal to assail the judgment and order dated 19.3.2004 in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.136/1995. By the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the Second Appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and decreed the Suit of Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) with a finding that Respondent No.1 had been illegally made to superannuate on 19.6.1974 at the age of 55 years, as prescribed under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1951). The High Court has also declared that Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) was entitled to continue in service upto the age of 58 years, i.e., the age of retirement as per the Central Civil Service Regulations (hereinafter referred...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4126 OF2013T.N. Generation & Distbn. Corpn. Ltd. Appellant VERSUS PPN power Gen. Co. Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent JUDGMENT SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.1. This statutory appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the final judgment and order dated 22nd February, 2013 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (hereinafter referred to as APTEL or Appellate Tribunal), at New Delhi in Appeal No.176 of 2011, whereby it has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant against the final judgment and order dated 17th June, 2011 of Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in D.R.P. No.12 of 2009. The facts have been noticed in detail both by the State Commission and the APTEL, therefore, we shall make a reference only to the very essential facts necessary for deciding this appeal.2. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5766 OF2007SHIV MURAT (D) BY LRS. APPELLANTS Vs. SATYAWATI & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT V.Gopala Gowda, J.This appeal is filed by the appellant questioning the correctness of the judgment and final Order dated 3.8.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.9989 of 1985 urging various facts and legal contentions in justification of his claim.2. Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case of the appellant and also to find out whether the appellant is entitled for the relief as prayed in this appeal. The land in question relates to plot No.182/1, 184/1, 184/2 and 184/3 situated in village Madhupur, Pargana Musali, Tehsil Chunar, District Mirzapur (now Sonbhadra). The name of the appellant was recorded as the Sirdhar of these plots before the consolidation of the plots began. However, during the process of consolidation, the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4457 OF2005SHRI JAGDAMBA PRASAD (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS. APPELLANTS VS. KRIPA SHANKAR (DEAD) THR. LRS.& ORS. ... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.This appeal is filed by the appellants questioning the correctness of the judgment and final Order dated 2.9.2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ No.4688 of 1974, urging various facts and legal contentions in justification of their claim. Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case of the appellants and also to find out whether the appellants are entitled for the relief as prayed in this appeal.2. The appellants filed objections before the Consolidation Officer for the deletion of the name of one Bhukhali (father of the respondents) since the appellants allege that this name has been fictitiously mentioned in the revenue records pertaining to Khata No.63 of Village Badhaiya, Pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.OF2014[Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.9014 of 2013]. VINOD KUMAR ..APPELLANT ...APPELLANT Versus STATE OF KERALA ..RESPONDENT JUDGMENT VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J.1 Leave granted. 2 In this Appeal we are confronted with the concurrent conviction of the Appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), although the findings of the two Courts substantially differ. The High Court has set aside his conviction under Sections 417 and 419 IPC, whereas the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvanthapuram, had sentenced the Appellant to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment thereof, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years. In the Impugned Order the High Court has reduced this sentence to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four years but, while maintaining the fine of Rs.25,000/-, has ordered that in default of its deposit, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4412 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.27082 of 2012) Hitendra Singh S/o Bhupendra Singh & Ors. Appellants Versus Dr. P.D. Krishi Vidyapeeth by Reg. & Ors. Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL No.4413 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.28373 of 2012) Pramodini Ambadas Lad Appellant Versus Chancellor Dr. P.D.K. Vidyapeeth & Ors. Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL No.4414 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.28399 of 2012) Parikshit Vinayak Shingrup & Ors. Appellants Versus Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth & Ors. Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL No.4415 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.28437 of 2012) Prashant Dinkarrao Peshattiwar & Ors. Appellants Versus Chancellor Dr. P.D.Krishi Vidyapeeth & Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT T.S. THAKUR, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals arise out of a common Judgment and Order dated 16th August, 2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4383 OF2014(Arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.4926 of 2006) A.P.N.G.O.s Association Appellant Versus Government of Andhra Pradesh Respondents & Others JUDGMENT Chelameswar, J.1. Leave granted.2. Aggrieved by the common judgment dated 28th January 2006 in Writ Petition No.8063 of 2004 and Writ Appeal No.1035 of 2004 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, the third respondent therein preferred the instant appeal.3. By the said judgment, the High Court set aside the judgment dated 3rd March 2004 in Writ Petition No.2563 of 2002 rendered by a learned Single Judge and quashed G.O.Ms. No.911 dated 14.12.2000 issued by the Revenue (Endowments) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh.4. The appellant is an association of the non-gazetted officers of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Sometime in the year 1995, the appellant herein requested the Executive Officer of the third res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.735 OF2014(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.9184 of 2008) BABUBHAI BHIMABHAI BOKHIRIA & ANR. ..... APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. .... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT Chandramauli Kr. Prasad Before we proceed to consider the case, we must remind ourselves the maxim judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur which means that a Judge is condemned when guilty person escapes punishment. But, at the same time, we cannot forget that credibility of the justice delivery system comes under severe strain when a person is put on trial only for acquittal. By Order dated 8th December, 2011, Veja Prabhat Bhutia was added as petitioner No.2. He was an accused in the case and his grievance was that due to pendency of the present petition filed by petitioner Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria, his trial has been stayed and he is unnecessarily rotting in jail. This judgment shall, therefore, will have no bearing on h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 4255-58 of 2014 Bishnu Biswas & Ors. ... Appellants Versus Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents JUDGMENT Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.1. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 5.4.2013, passed by the High Court of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair in W.P.C.T. Nos.607-610 of 2012 partly allowing the appeals against the judgment and order dated 24.8.2012, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta (Circuit Bench, Port Blair) (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) allowing the O.A. No.124/AN/2010 and quashing the appointment orders dated 5.2.2009 and 4.6.2009.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are: A. That an advertisement dated 4.2.2008 was published by the respondent authorities calling for applications from eligible candidates as well as from those who were registered with the Employment Exchange for appointment to the 8 posts of Group ...
Tag this Judgment!