Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURTG OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRL.) No.147 OF2013SAURABH KUMAR THROUGH HIS FATHER PETITIONER VERSUS JAILOR, KONEILA JAIL & ANR. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT N.V. Ramana, J.This habeas corpus petition is filed by one Saurabh Kumar who is in Koneila Jail, Dalsingsarai, District Samastipur (Bihar).2. In brief the case of the petitioner is that he was XII pass and wanted to leave the village in search of a decent job. In that connection he made an application for passport. On 30.6.2013 the police had called the petitioner to the Police Station for enquiry on his application for passport and after reaching inside the police station he was locked up. Thereafter on 1.7.2013 early morning, the petitioner was taken to the residence of one Shri Tripathi, Judicial Magistrate who is arrayed as 6th respondent in this writ petition. There, the petitioner was beaten with lathi by DSP, Manish Kumar Suman, who is arrayed as 9th respondent herein, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I.A. NOS. 8-9 & 10-12 OF2014IN CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.412 OF2012IN CIVIL APPEAL No.9813 OF2011S.E.B.I. Appellant Versus Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Respondents WITH I.A. NOS. 8-9 & 10-12 OF2014IN CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.413 OF2012IN CIVIL APPEAL No.9833 OF2011AND I.A. NOS. 10-12 OF2014IN CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.260 OF2013IN CIVIL APPEAL No.8643 OF2012JUDGMENT T.S. Thakur, J.1. By our order dated 4th June, 2014 we had, while declining the prayer made by the contemnors for modification of the terms on which they were granted interim bail, partially modified order dated 21st November, 2013 passed by this Court and that passed by SEBI on 13th February, 2013 so as to enable Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited (SIRECL) and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited (SHICL) (hereinafter referred to as Saharas for short) to deposit with SEBI the maturity value/sale consideratio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1515 OF2014[Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.5654 of 2014 CRLMP No.8191 of 2014]. Shyam Narain Pandey Appellant (s) Versus State of U.P. Respondent (s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.: Delay condoned. Leave granted. Scope of stay of conviction under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.PC), is the subject matter of this appeal. Appellant was tried along with six others by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh. He was convicted under Sections 147, 148, 302/144 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as IPC) read with Section 120B IPC with life imprisonment and fine. He was granted bail by order dated 29.08.2012 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application for staying the judgment of conviction which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 07.08.2013. By a separate orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1516 OF2014[Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.261 of 2013]. Atul Tripathi Appellant (s) Versus State of U.P. and another Respondent (s) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1517-1518 OF2014[Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos. 262-263 of 2013]. JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.: Leave granted. At the post conviction stage, whether the appellate court, while considering the release of the convict on bail, should give an opportunity to the public prosecutor for showing cause in writing against such release where the conviction is on an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or for a term not less than ten years, is the issue falling for consideration in these appeals. All the private respondents have been convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh under Sections 147, 148, 149 read with Sections 302, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and Section 7 of Cr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2014(arising out of SLP(C)No.26223 of 2013) G. MOHANASUNDARAM APPELLANT VERSUS R. NANTHAGOPAL AND ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8th July, 2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No.5508 of 2013. Initially, the appellant herein challenged the Government notifications dated 10th February, 2012 and 13th April, 2012 whereby 1st respondent was promoted and appointed to the Indian Administrative Service, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench by filing OA No.249 of 2012 and the same was allowed by order dated 18th February, 2013. By the impugned judgment the High Court set aside the said order dated 18th February, 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: The appellant and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10645 OF2010Union of India & Ors. ..Appellants Versus Hitender Kumar Soni ..Respondent JUDGMENT SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.As Appellants the Union of India and its concerned officials are aggrieved by the judgment and order under appeal dated 11.12.2008 passed by a Division Bench of High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Civil Writ Petition No.41 of 2001 whereby the High Court allowed the Writ Petition preferred by the sole Respondent and set aside the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 15.5.2000. The High Court held the Respondent entitled for reinstatement in service to the post of Investigator. The Government was directed to decide the admissibility and entitlement of leave, arrears of pay and allowances and other service benefits of Respondent upon his reinstatement after affording full opportunity to the Respondent, of hearing as well as leading evidence. Before adverting to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1205 OF2014Yogendra Yadav & Ors. Appellants Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. Respondents JUDGMENT (SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.1. The appellants are original Accused Nos.1 to 3 respectively in P.S. Meharma Case No.155 of 2004 registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC). The FIR was lodged on 23/09/1994 by complainant Anil Mandal alleging that the appellants assaulted him and his men on 22/09/2004. On the same day the appellants also filed FIR in respect of the same incident dated 22/09/2004 alleging that complainant Anil Mandal, Baldev Mandal and others assaulted them. This FIR was registered at P.S. Meharma being Case No.156 of 2004 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 341, 323 and 380 of the IPC.2. In both the cases, after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. While the cases were going on before t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.92 OF2009Hussein Ghadially @ M.H.G.A Shaikh & Ors. Appellants Versus State of Gujarat Respondent With Criminal Appeals No.110 of 2009, 303-304 of 2009, 305 of 2009, 432-433 of 2009, 658-659 of 2009 JUDGMENT T.S. THAKUR, J.1. Common questions of law arise for consideration in these appeals which were heard together and shall stand disposed of by this common order. The appeals arise out of two separate judgments delivered by the Designated Court at Surat both dated 4th October, 2008 whereby the Designated Court has while acquitting some of the accused persons convicted the rest and sentenced them to imprisonment for different periods ranging between 10 to 20 years. In Criminal (TADA) case No.41 of 1995 disposed of with Criminal (TADA) case No.1 of 2000 arising out of C.R. No.70 of 1993 relevant to Criminal Appeals No.92 of 2009 and 658 of 2009, the Designated Court has convicted the appellants...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ITEM No.1A Court No.3 SECTION XIIA (For Judgment) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL No.4195 OF2008RENIKUNTLA RAJAMMA (D) BY LRS.. Appellant (s) VERSUS K.SARWANAMMA Respondent (s) Date :17. 07.2014 This Petition was called on for judgment today. For Appellant (s) Mr. Nitin S.Tambwekar, Adv. Mr. B.S.Sai, Adv. Mr. K.Rajeev, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. V.R.Anumolu, Adv. Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S.Thakur pronounced Judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.Naggapan The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. (Shashi Sareen) (Veena Khera) Court Master Court Master Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file. REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4195 OF2008Renikuntla Rajamma (d) by LRs. Appellants Versus K. Sarwanamma Respondent JUDGMENT T.S. THAKUR, J.1. An apparent conflict between two ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1523 OF2014[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.8783 of 2013]. M/s. Ajeet Seeds Ltd. Appellant Vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah Respondent JUDGMENT (SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant is the complainant. He has challenged the judgment and order dated 21/03/2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Writ Petition No.1131 of 2012 whereby the High Court has quashed the complaint filed by him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the NI Act) being SCC No.4118 of 2007 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad.3. For the purpose of disposal of this appeal, it is not necessary to narrate all the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the complaint was filed alleging that the cheque issued by the respondent-accused for repayment of a legally recoverable debt bounced. On 17/6/20...
Tag this Judgment!