Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5282 OF2004M/S. IVRCL INFRASTRUCTURE & PROJECTS LTD. ...APPELLANT VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI ...RESPONDENT JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. The facts necessary to decide this appeal are as follows. The appellant entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with M/s Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Limited for the purpose of construction of roads in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Joint Venture was awarded a contract by the National Highways Authority of India for construction of roads as a part of the Golden Quadrilateral, Phase-2 Project in Andhra Pradesh.2. Vide a notification dated 1.3.2001, in exercise of powers under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, certain items were exempted from payment of customs duty and additional duty leviable under the Customs Tariff Act. We are concerned with serial No.217 of this notification which reads as follows:"17. 84 or any other Goods specified in List 11 Nil Nil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.637 OF2015(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1632 of 2015) K. Anbazhagan ...Appellant Versus State of Karnataka and Ors. ...Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.638 OF2015(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.2013 of 2015) K. Anbazhagan ...Appellant Versus Selvi J.Jayalalitha and Anr. ...Respondents JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J.Leave granted.2. The question for consideration is whether Mr. G. Bhavani Singh appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor in the trial of the case against Ms. Jayalalithaa and other accused persons in the Special Court in Bengaluru was entitled to represent the prosecution in the appeals filed in the Karnataka High Court by the accused persons against their conviction.3. My answer to this question is in the negative on an appreciation of earlier directions given by this court, on a reading of the notification appointing Mr. Bhavani Singh as a Special Public Prosecutor and on an inte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1969-1970 OF2010Prasad Shrikant Purohit ...Appellant VERSUS State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondent With Criminal Appeal No.1971 of 2010 Criminal Appeal Nos.1994-98 of 2010 Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2011 Criminal Appeal No.636 of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.8132 of 2010 Criminal Appeal Nos. 639-40 of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) Nos.9370-71 of 2011 SLP (Crl.) 9303 of 2011 SLP (Crl.) No.9369 of 2011 JUDGMENT Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) No.8132 of 2010 and SLP (Crl.) Nos.9370-71 of 2011. As in all the above appeals the issue that arises for consideration is the applicability of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter called "MCOCA"), all these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. Criminal Appeal Nos.1969-70/2010 have been preferred by Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit challenging the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.867 of 2009 which was dispo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.129 OF2013Inspector of Police and another ... Appellant (s) Versus Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam and another ... Respondent (s) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.124 OF2013WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.125 OF2013WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.126 OF2013WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.127 OF2013WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.128 OF2013WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.130 OF2013WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.131 OF2013AND CRIMINAL APPEAL No.132 OF2013JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.: Whether sanction under Section 197 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') is required to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of offences under Sections 420, 468, 477A, 120B read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), is the question arising for consideration in these cases. The District Registrar, Vijayawada lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, CBCID Vijayawada on 07.07.1999. The main allegation agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.592 OF2015(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.4425 of 2014) Ganga Dhar Kalita ... Appellant Versus The State of Assam and others ...Respondents JUDGMENT Prafulla C. Pant, J.This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 20.3.2014, passed by the Gauhati High Court in Criminal Petition No.287 of 2009, whereby said Court has dismissed the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") and declined to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. Brief facts of the case are that a First Information Report dated 25.1.2009 was got lodged by respondent No.3 Rabindra Nath Kalita at Police Station, Panbazar, District Kamrup, Assam. It is alleged in said report that Kaustav K. Kalita is minor son of respondent No.3. He (Kaustav K. Kalita), respondent No.4 Rishi Raj Borgo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.621 OF2013C. CHANDRASEKARAIAH .... Appellant Versus STATE OF KARNATAKA .... Respondent JUDGMENT Uday Umesh Lalit, J.1. This appeal by special leave challenges the judgment and order dated 13.05.2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.1501 of 2007 setting aside the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court and convicting the appellant under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the Act, for short) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year on each of the aforesaid two counts and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- on the aforesaid two counts respectively, in default whereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for periods of 2 months and 3 months respectively. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. This matter arises out of complaint Ext. P -8...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A. No.6/2015 & I.A.No.7/2015 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).226-227/2015 SWAPNA SUKUMAR & ORS. Appellant(s)/ Applicant(s) VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ORS. Respondent(s)/ Applicant(s) ORDER I.A. NO.6 Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant does not want to press this I.A. The I.A. is, accordingly, dismissed as not pressed. I.A. NO.7 I.A. No.7 is allowed in terms of prayer 'a'. ................................J.[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA]. ................................J.[SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]. NEW DELHI; APRIL10 2015....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C)NO.129 OF2006LAXMI ...PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS ORDER Pursuant to our order dated 06.02.2015, the Ministry of Home Affairs has filed an affidavit dated 8th April, 2015. We have heard learned counsel for the parties in considerable detail. A meeting was convened by the Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and the Secretary in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India with all the Chief Secretaries/their counterparts in the States/Union Territories on 14.03.2015. From the affidavit, the provisional figures for 2014 indicate that there were 282 acid attacks in all the States. The majority of acid attacks were in the States of Uttar Pradesh (185), Madhya Pradesh (53) and Gujarat (11). As far as the Union Territories are concerned, Delhi is the only Union Territory where acid attacks have taken place and the total number of such at...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION (CIVIL) NO.3 OF2008PAYAL CHAWLA SINGH ...PETITIONER (S) VERSUS THE COCA-COLA CO. & ANR. ...RESPONDENT (S) JUDGMENT The petitioner is a former employee of Coca-Cola India, Inc., the respondent No.2 herein. At the time of joining the respondent company an agreement dated 20.09.1995 was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No.2, relevant features of which will be noticed in due course. It appears that while in employment in the respondent company, the petitioner had complained of gender discrimination and harassment primarily on account of the service conditions relating to pay and emoluments. The complaint of the petitioner was sought to be redressed by the respondent company by appointing an independent investigator and thereafter through mediation proceedings which did not yield any result. With effect from 28.07.2004, the petitioner's resignation from service in the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2082 of 2008 State of Rajasthan .... Appellant Versus Sampat Ram and others .... Respondents JUDGMENT Uday Umesh Lalit, J.1. This appeal by special leave seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 11.02.2008 in DB-Criminal Appeal No.338 of 1983 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur acquitting the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 302 read with Section 149 IPC.2. The matter arises out of reporting made by PW3 Lalaram at 11.30 pm on 21.05.1982 that at about 8.30 pm while returning from his field he had stayed at piao of Padmaji for having water and smoke. That time he saw Bhagirath, resident of Tausar ploughing his field with a tractor driven by PW4 Ramkaran. He also saw "one child" sitting on the tractor, whose name he did not know. While so sitting at piao he saw that the respondents- accused and one more person armed with lathis and ka...
Tag this Judgment!