Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2146 OF2009BHIM SINGH & ANR. ... APPELLANTS :Versus: STATE OF UTTARAKHAND ...RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.: This appeal, by special leave, has been filed against the judgment and order dated 23.03.2009 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.1706 of 2001 whereby the High Court while acquitting the two co-accused (appellant Nos.2 & 3 herein), upheld the conviction and sentence of appellant Nos.1 & 2 herein, as awarded by learned Special Judge (CBI)/Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, and dismissed their appeal. The learned Special Judge (CBI)/Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, by its judgment and order dated 25.04.2000 passed in Sessions Trial No.36 of 1998 convicted appellant Nos.1 & 2 herein under Section 304-B of IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life, and further convicted all the appellants under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 285-287 OF2015[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.300-302 of 2013]. Sonu Gupta .....Appellant Versus Deepak Gupta & Ors. .....Respondents JUDGMENT SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.Leave granted. The parties have been heard in detail and they have also filed written submissions. Appellant is wife of respondent no.1 and is complainant in Criminal Complaint No.1213/2011 before Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur. The respondents are accused in this Complaint Case which was filed on 07.12.2010 for alleged offences under Section 464, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant and respondent no.1 are undergoing a protracted matrimonial dispute. It is the case of appellant as well as respondent no.1 that they were married in February 1997. A girl child was born to the appellant in May 1998 and in 2001 the appellant gave informations on various dates to several police authorities regardin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.269 OF2015(ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.) NO.10134/2010) M/S BENNET COLEMAN & CO. LTD Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.270 OF2015(ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.) NO.1884/2011) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.271/2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL) No.1956/2011), CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.272/2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL) No.1957/2011, CONMT.PET.(C) No.171/2012 In SLP(CRL) No.1957/2011, CONMT.PET.(C) No.172/2012 In SLP(CRL) No.1884/2011 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.269 OF2015(ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.) NO.10134/2010) 1. Leave granted.2. Whether the appellant is liable to be prosecuted under Section 25U read with Section 29 and under Serial No.13 of the Fifth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the I.D. Act') is the question arising for consideration in this case. The allegation is that the recommendations of the Manisana Wage Board have not been proper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1662 OF2015(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.5097 OF2012 KHURSHEED AHMAD KHAN ...APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been preferred against final judgment and order dated 1st March, 2011 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in W.A. No.36738 of 2008.3. The question raised for consideration relates to validity of order dated 17th June, 2008 removing the appellant from service for proved misconduct of contracting another marriage during existence of the first marriage without permission of the Government in violation of Rule 29(1) of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 (for short "the Conduct Rules") .4. The appellant was employed as Irrigation Supervisor, Tubewell Division, Irrigation Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh and posted at IVth Sub Division, Hasanpur. He was served with a charge sheet alleging ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1651 OF2015[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.27080 of 2013]. M/S ANVIL CABLES PVT LTD Appellant(s) VERSUS COMMNR.OF CENTRAL TAXES & SERVICE TAX Respondent(s) JUDGMENT PER ANIL R. DAVE, J.Leave granted. Looking at the peculiar facts of the case, in the interests of justice, we direct that upon payment of Rs. 25,000/- by way of costs to the sole respondent within two months from today, the impugned Judgment shall be set aside and Tax Appeal No.3 of 2013 shall be restored to its original number and shall be heard on merits by the High Court. With the above directions, the Civil Appeal is allowed with the abovesaid costs. It is clarified that if the amount is not deposited within the stipulated time, this order shall not operate and the impugned Judgment shall remain in force. .......................J.[ANIL R. DAVE ]. .......................J.[SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]. New Delhi; February 06, 2015. ITEM NO.3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8224 OF2012PROFESSOR RAMESH CHANDRA ...APPELLANT VERSUS UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the impugned judgment dated 1st March, 2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.2547 of 2010. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upheld Para 6 of the Annexure to Ordinance XI of University of Delhi and refused to interfere with the show cause notice issued on the appellant and the memorandum(s) by which the appellant was punished and removed from the service of the Delhi University.2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:- The appellant was a Professor in the University of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the, 'University'). According to the appellant while serving in the University he wrote a letter dated 1st December, 1990 addresse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2323 OF2014BHAVANBHAI BHAYABHAI PANELLA ...APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF GUJARAT ...RESPONDENT ORDER ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 25th March, 2011 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.1298 of 2005.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19th September, 2004 at 1330 hrs., the appellant took the prosecutorix aged eleven years near Khojawadi plot in village Jasvantgadh, Taluka and District Amreli and committed rape. He also threatened the prosecutorix that he would kill her if she would disclose the facts to anyone. However, she informed her mother about the occurrence who in turn informed her husband on his return to the house in the night. In the next morning, the prosecutorix was taken to the Government Hospital by her parents and First Information Report was lodged in the Police Station by the mot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.61 OF2012VIVEK RAI & ANR. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare Rule 159 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and provisions of Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C."). The rule in question is as follows: "In the case of revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 arising out of conviction and sentence of imprisonment, the petitioner shall state whether the petition shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the relevant order. If he has not surrendered the petition shall be accompanied by an application seeking leave to surrender within a specified period. On sufficient cause i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3962 OF2007S.T. SADIQ ... APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3963 OF2007JUDGMENT R.F. NARIMAN, J.1. These petitions raise questions as to the constitutional validity of the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), which has been placed in the 9th Schedule to the Constitution of India, being entry 148 thereof. This Act came into force on 19th November, 1974 and Section 3 thereof enabled the State Government to acquire in public interest cashew factories under certain circumstances. Section 3 is set out hereunder: "3. Order of Acquisition:- (1) The Government may, if they are satisfied - (a) that the occupier of a cashew factory does not conform to the provisions of law relating to safety, conditions of service or fixation and payment of wages to the workers of the factory; or (b) that raw cashewnuts allotted t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS...1440-1441 OF2015(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS.35365-35366 OF2012 M/S. CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN SERVICES ...APPELLANT VERSUS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ...RESPONDENT JUDGMENT ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals have been preferred against final judgment and order dated 10th February, 2012 in RFA(OS) No.35 of 2010 and dated 1st June, 2012 in R.P. No.369 of 2012 in RFA (OS) No.35 of 2010 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.3. The question raised for our consideration is when and to what extent can the stipulated liquidated damages for breach of a contract be held to be in the nature of penalty in absence of evidence of actual loss and to what extent the stipulation be taken to be the measure of compensation for the loss suffered even in absence of specific evidence. Further question is whether burden of proving that the amount stipulated as damages for breach of contract was ...
Tag this Judgment!