Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1508 OF2005ASHOK RAI APPELLANT Versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT (SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.1. There were eight accused. They were Bashisht Rai-A1, Jai Prakash Rai-A2, Ashok Rai-A3, Awadh Narain Rai-A4, Hirdaya Narain-A5, Umesh Chandra Rai-A6, Loknath-A7 and Ramnath Rai-A8. All of them were tried in Sessions Trial No.215 of 1979. Bashisht RaiA1 was tried for the offences under Sections 148, 302 and 449 of the IPC. Ashok Rai-A3 and Umesh Chandra Rai-A6 were charged under Sections 148, 449 and 302 read with Sections 34 & 149 of the IPC. They were alternatively charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Rest of the accused were charged under Sections 147 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC.2. According to the prosecution deceased Kailash Rai, the material witnesses and the appellant belong to one family being descendants of a common ancestor. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4470 OF2014(arising out of SLP(C)No.32091 of 2012) MADHUKAR APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 23.04.2012 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ Petition No.4736 of 2011. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court refused to grant pension to the appellant and dismissed the writ petition. Apart from the ground of delay, the High Court dismissed the case on merit on the ground that the resignation in the previous service was not tendered by appellant with prior permission.-.3. The appellant was appointed on 21.6.1950 in the Food Department at Dongargaon in District of Durg; the then Madhya Prant Warhad State and worked till 20.12.1954. Thereafter, he was appointed as Assist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.369 OF2006Dharam Deo Yadav . Appellant Versus State of U.P. . Respondent JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. We are, in this case, concerned with the gruesome murder of a 22 year old girl by name Diana Clare Routley (hereinafter referred to as Diana), a New Zealander, for which the trial Court awarded death sentence to the appellant, which was affirmed by the High Court.2. Diana came to India as a visitor in the year 1997. After visiting Agra, she reached Varanasi on 7.8.1997 and stayed in room No.103 of the Old Vishnu Guest House, Varanasi. She left the guest house on 10.8.1997 at about 7.00 a.m. for Darjeeling by train from Varanasi Cantt. Railway Station. Later, she was found missing and her father Allan Jack Routley, having got no information about his daughter, informed the authorities about the missing of Diana. Raghvendra Singh, SHO, Police Station, Laksa, along with a team of police offici...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2111 OF2009Mahinder Dutt Sharma . Appellant versus Union of India & others . Respondents JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.1. By an office memorandum dated 26.10.1995, departmental action was initiated against the appellant who was then holding the post of Constable. He was then posted in the IInd Battalion, Delhi Armed Police, Delhi. The aforesaid action was initiated against the appellant on account of his continuous absence from duty with effect from 18.1.1995. He was served with absentee notice dated 25.5.1995 on 10.6.1995, wherein he was required to resume his duty. Failing which, he was informed that departmental action would be taken against him. The appellant neither resumed his duties, nor responded to the above absentee notice dated 25.5.1995. He was thereupon, issued a second absentee notice dated 24.8.1995, which was served on him on 10.9.1995. It is not a matter of dispute, that after ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.885 OF2007State of Rajasthan ...Appellant Versus Manoj Kumar ...Respondent With CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1073 of 2007 State of Rajasthan ...Appellant Versus Raju @ Raj Kumar & Anr. ...Respondents JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.The present appeals, by special leave, have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 14.2.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.396 of 2000 and D.B. Criminal Appeal No.1011 of 2003, wherein the High Court has partly allowed the appeal of Raju @ Rajkumar by converting his conviction under Section 302 IPC to one under Section 304 Part I of IPC and further confirming his conviction under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further six months rigorous imprisonment. Hemant Kum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1272 OF2012Periyasami s/o. Duraisami Novanagar Appellant Vs. State represented through the Inspector of Police, Q Branch CID, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu. Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.787 OF2013Senthilkumar Appellant Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Respondent JUDGMENT (SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.1. The present appeals filed under Section 19 of the Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (the TADA) are directed against the judgment and order dated 27/06/2012 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge and Designated Judge under the TADA, for Tiruchirapalli in Calendar Case No.45 of 1995 in Crime No.307 of 1992 of Vridhachalam Railway Police Station. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.787 of 2013 is Senthilkumar @ Kumar (A1-Senthilkumar for convenience). The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1272 of 2012 is Periyasami (A2-Periyasami for convenience).2. According to the prosecuti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4469 OF2014[Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.16312 of 2010]. Annapurna ..Appellant Versus Mallikarjun & Anr. ..Respondents JUDGMENT SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.1. Leave granted.2. The matter relates to an Execution Proceeding in which the Executing Court put a house bearing CTS No.1610/B to auction and after rejecting the objections raised by the judgment-debtor, Respondent no.1 herein, confirmed the Court Sale by issuing Certificate of Sale in favour of the auction purchaser, the Appellant. Against the order dated 18.12.2004 passed by the Executing Court dismissing his application under Order XXI Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) the judgment-debtor preferred an appeal being Miscellaneous Appeal No.1/2005 before Civil Judge (Sr. Division). That appeal was dismissed on 26.7.2006 with a finding that the appeal was not maintainable. The judgment-debtor then preferred Writ Petition No.10550 of 2006 bef...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 4465-4468 OF2014(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.22912-22915 of 2009) M/s Nathu Ram Ramesh Kumar Appellant Versus Commr. of Delhi Value Added Tax Respondent JUDGMENT Anil R. Dave, J.1. Leave granted.2. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the High Court of Delhi in STC Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 and CM Nos.2161 and 2162 of 2008, these appeals have been filed by the appellant assessee. The assessee has been aggrieved by the assessment orders as well as the orders of penalty. As both the appeals pertain to the assessee-appellant, at the request of the learned counsel, they were heard together.3. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, are as under : The appellant - assessee has been registered under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as well as under the Delhi Value Added Tax, 2004 and is carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of swee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4454 OF2014(arising out of SLP(C)No.30146 of 2012) NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD, MIHONA AND ANR. APPELLANTS VERSUS RAMNATH AND ANR. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants-Nagar Palika Parishad, Mihona (hereinafter referred to as Nagar Palika) against the judgment dated 11th April, 2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwalior in Second Appeal No.568 of 2009. By the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the Second Appeal and affirmed the judgments passed by the first appellate court and the trial court.3. The case of the appellantNagar Palika is that on finding that respondent No.1 plaintiff has made encroachment on a public road, namely, Khitoli Road, a notice under Section 187 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred o as Act, 1961) dated 26th November, 1982 was issued to respondent No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4453 OF2014(arising out of SLP(C)No.3909 of 2012) JACKY . APPELLANT VERSUS TINY @ ANTONY & ORS. .RESPONDENTS J UD G M E N T SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and order dated 27.10.2011 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in O.P. (C) No.1792 of 2011. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court while exercising its power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, set aside the plaint and further proceedings initiated on the basis of the plaint in the suit, quashed the order passed by the Munsiff Court and imposed cost of Rs.25,000/- on the appellant for payment in favour of the respondent-writ petitioner.3. The only question which is required to be determined in this case is whether the High Court while exercising its power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of In...
Tag this Judgment!