Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.338 OF2006Sanjay Gupta and others ... Petitioners Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others ...Respondents JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.The 10th of April, 2006, the last day of the India Brand Consumer Show organized by Mrinal Events and Expositions at Victoria Park, Meerut, witnessed the dawn of the day with hope, aspiration, pleasure and festivity at the Victoria Park, Meerut, but, as ill-fortune (man made) would have it, as the evening set in, it became the mute spectator to a devastating fire inside the covered premises of the brand show area which extinguished the life spark of sixty-four persons and left more than hundreds as injured; and with the clock ticking, the day turned to be a silent observer of profused flow of human tears, listener of writhing pain and cry, and eventually, marking itself as a dark day of disaster in human history. Some, who were fortunate to escape death, sustained serious inju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1010 OF2004Durga Burman (Roy) Appellant (s) Versus State of Sikkim Respondent (s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.: Appellant is the second accused in Criminal Case No.31 of 2001 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Sikkim at Gangtok. He was charged along with one Ranjit Roy under Sections 302, 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as IPC). According to the prosecution:These two accused persons were already in need of money for their expenses as Durga Roy (Burman) had already borrowed much cash from his master Sujit Basak before completing his works and he had nothing to get from his master for few days. The money problem became more serious when on 5.7.2001 the accused person received telephonic call from the father of Ranjit Roy stating that his mother is seriously ill at home and he should return home immediately. That night both the accused persons slept late discus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1587 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) 1487 of 2012) Bairam Muralidhar Appellant Versus State of Andhra Pradesh Respondent JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.Leave granted.2. In this appeal, by special leave, the assail is to the defensibility of the order dated 8.12.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No.1125 of 2010 whereby the learned Single Judge has concurred with the view expressed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderbad in Crl. P No.994 of 2009 in C.C. No.24 of 2007, whereunder the learned trial Judge had declined to grant permission to withdraw the case pending against the accused-appellant in exercise of the power under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code).3. The expose of facts are the appellant was arrayed as an accused for offences punishable under section 7 and 13 (1) (d) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5153-5157 OF2009Secr., Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors. ..Appellants Versus Grade-I DASS Officers Association & Ors. ..Respondents JUDGMENT SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.The Respondents in these Appeals were applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short, the Tribunal). They preferred O.A. No.579 of 2002 against the Appellants seeking quashing of the order dated 10.8.2001 and also sought a direction to grant the scale of Rs.10000-325-15200/- to them and all other members of Grade-I (DASS) Officers Association from the date they had completed 24 years of regular service or 9.8.1999, whichever is later. The aforesaid claim was founded upon the Assured Career Progression Scheme (for short, ACPS) introduced w.e.f. 9.8.1999 which, inter alia, provides for benefit of second financial upgradation on completion of 24 years of regular service to such Central Government ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.(s) 1564 OF2014(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6386 of 2012) Narinder Singh Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ..Respondent JUDGMENT M.Y. EQBAL, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 13.6.2012 and order dated 9.7.2012 pronounced by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.169 of 2008 preferred by the State, whereby learned Single Judge of the High Court setting aside the judgment and order of acquittal of the Trial Court convicted the appellant-accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the Act) and sentenced him to undergo six months imprisonment.3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 10.12.2002 at 11 AM the accused-appellant attempted to give a bribe of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant the then Additional District Magistrate, Bharmo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3198 OF2007Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Appellant Versus Bannama (D) by LRs. ..Respondents JUDGMENT M.Y. EQBAL, J.This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.10.2003 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in R.S.A.No.556 of 1997, whereby the appeal preferred by plaintiff-respondent no.1 was allowed setting aside the judgment and decree of the appellate court in RA No.12 of 1994 and confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court.2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff-respondent no.1, as set out in the trial court judgment, are that the plaintiff was an agriculturist and old lady residing at Saidapur village. Whereas, respondent no.2 (defendant no.2) was none other than the son of the plaintiff and was vice president of the appellant-first defendant society, which is a statutory body constituted and functioning under the Karnataka Agricultu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1165 OF2014Deva Ram Appellant Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. Respondents JUDGMENT (SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.1. The appellant was tried by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Didwana for offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC in Criminal Case No.41/89.2. Deceased Hardeva Ram filed complaint against the appellant on 9/8/1988 stating that since the appellant used to send persons abroad for employment, he also arranged passport for his son Arjun Ram. The appellant told him that if he wants to send his son abroad, he will have to pay him Rs.15,000/- and hand over his passport to him. The complainant gave him Rs.8,300/- but the appellant did not send his son abroad. The complainant asked for his money but the appellant refused to return the same. After investigation charge sheet was filed under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. The learned Magistrate framed charge under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) No.2 OF1994Rajeev Dhawan Petitioner Vs. Gulshan Kumar Mahajan & Ors. Respondents WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) No.4A OF1994JUDGMENT R.M. LODHA, CJI. As a result of the incidents at Ayodhya on 06.12.1992, the President of India issued a Proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution of India assuming to himself all the functions of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, dissolving the U.P. Vidhan Sabha. Initially, the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Ordinance, 1993 (No.8 of 1993) was promulgated. The said Ordinance was later on replaced by Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 (No.33 of 1993) (for short, the 1993 Act). On the same day, i.e. on 07.01.1993, when Act No.33 of 1993 was enacted, Special Reference (being Special Reference No.1 of 1993) was made to this Court by the President of India under Article 143 (1) of the Constitution of India. The constitutional valid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) No.11 OF1990Dr. Subramanian Swamy Petitioner Vs. Arun Shourie Respondent WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) No.12 OF1990JUDGMENT R.M. LODHA, CJI. In the issue of Indian Express of August 13, 1990, an editorial was published bearing the caption If shame had survived. The editorial reads as under:If shame had survived The legal opinion that the former Chief Justice of India, Mr. Y. V. Chandrachud, has given on the Kuldip Singh Commissions report is a stunning indictment. Succinct, understated to the point of being deferential, scrupulously adhering to facts and law, eschewing completely the slightest attribution of any motive to the Commission, the opinion is a model of rectitude. Nothing in the report survives it evidence that it was agreed would not be pressed relied on as a fulcrum; evidence of the one witness who was the hub of the decisions wholly disregarded; indictments framed on probable...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS83-6684 OF2014(@ SLP (C) Nos. 8854-8855 of 2010) Somnath Chakraborty and Anr. Appellants VERSUS Appollo Gleneagles Hospitals Ltd. & Ors. Respondents ORDER Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.Leave granted. These appeals are directed against a common judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court passed in F.M.A. No.2393 of 2005 and F.M.A. No.2411 of 2005 dated 08.12.2009. To briefly narrate the facts, the appeals pertain to a piece of land which is as on date in the possession of the first Respondent Appollo Gleneagles Hospitals Ltd. (hereinafter called Appollo Hospitals), which was originally owned by one Narayan Chandra Dutta. He stated to have sold the said lands to one Tilak Sundari Debi. Her title was confirmed after prolonged litigation in the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta dated 25.07.1986 in Second Appeal No.384 of 1967. When the said litigation was pending, the heirs ...
Tag this Judgment!