Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2244 OF2009STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ...APPELLANT :Versus: KESHAR SINGH ...RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. In the present case, there is concurrent decision of acquittal of the accused by the Sessions Court as well as the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The offence alleged to have been committed in this case is rape, punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short).2. The story of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix is a minor of unsound mind. On 09-11-1990 at around 8:30 a.m. when prosecutrix and her younger sister Nirmala (PW3) were going to their field with food for their father, the accused came and caught hold of the prosecutrix. He took her to some distance near a pond and committed rape on her. Prosecutrix's private parts had bled and the petticoat was blood-stained. On seeing this, PW3 Nirmala rushed to her father Gopal (PW4) and informed him of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.442 OF2010State of Madhya Pradesh Appellant :Versus: Anoop Singh Respondent JUDGMENT Pinaki Chandra Ghose 1. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.07.2008 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.924 of 2006, whereby the High Court set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court and acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against him.2. The facts of the present matter are that on 03.01.2003, at about 10:30 A.M. the prosecutrix was going to school along with her sister. On realizing that she had left behind her practical note book, she returned back and after taking the said note book she once again headed towards the school. When she reached near Tar Badi (wire fencing) near Hawai Patti, there was an Ambassador car standing there and as alleged, the accu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4916 OF2015(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.662 of 2014) SURENDRA KUMAR & ORS. APPELLANT (S) VERSUS GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. RESPONDENT (S) JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal arises out of a judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 29.10.2013 in Writ Petition No.65789 of 2011, in and by which, the High Court held that on the principles laid down in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi (3) & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC1 the appointments of the appellants were ex-facie illegal dehors Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and directed an inquiry regarding initial appointments.3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellants were initially engaged on the post of Assistant Manager (Civil) by the respondent No.1Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority on contractu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2404 OF2008UNION OF INDIA ... APPELLANT VERSUS M/S. BRIGHT POWER PROJECTS (I) P.LTD. ... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered in Appeal (Lodging) No.124 of 2006 in Arbitration Petition No.321 of 2005 dated 7th August, 2006, delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, this appeal has been filed wherein the issue is whether the appellant is liable to pay interest to the respondent though there was a provision in the contract that no interest should be paid on the amount payable to the contractor. The facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue, in a nutshell, are as under.2. The appellant and the respondent had entered into a contract whereby the respondent had to construct certain structures, which had been more particularly described in the agreement entered into by the parties on 20th January, 1997.3. In the course of execution o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
{REPORTABLE} IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5163/2012 N K RAJENDRA MOHAN ....APPELLANT Vs. THIRVAMADI RUBBER CO. LTD & ORS ..RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT Amitava Roy,J.The appellant, one of the plaintiffs in the suit instituted before Munsif Court (II), Kozhikode along with others against the respondent No.1 herein, seeking eviction of the latter from the land involved and damages for the use and occupation thereof, in his relentless pursuit for redress is before this penultimate institutional forum, having successively failed at all the intermediate tiers. The procrastinated tussle spanning over three decades eventually seeks a quietus at this end.2. We have heard Mr. A. S. Nambiar, Senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A. M. Singhvi, Senior Advocate for the respondent No.1. Incidentally, the co-plaintiffs have been arrayed as other respondents in the instant appeal.3. The salient facts, which make up the edifice of the lingering contentious dis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
{REPORTABLE} IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s) 1590/2011 Daya Ram & Ors. .....Appellant(s) VERSUS State of Haryana .....Respondent(s) JUDGMENT AMITAVA ROY, J.Having failed to secure redress against their conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short hereinafter referred to as IPC/Code) read with Section 34 of the Code, and the sentence consequential thereto, from the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh, the appellants seek the remedial intervention of this Court. By the impugned judgment and order dated 28.7.2010 rendered in Criminal Appeal No.261-DB of 2003 and Criminal Revision Petitioner No.1560 of 2003, the High Court has sustained the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Hissar passed in Sessions Case No.120/SC on 06.02.2003, sentencing the appellants, following their conviction as above, to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo further ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
{REPORTABLE} IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1630-31 OF2010Smt. Shakuntala Bai & Ors. .Appellants Versus Mr. Mahaveer Prasad .Respondent JUDGMENT AMITAVA ROY, J.1. The present appeals, mount an assailment against the judgment and order dated 25.9.2003 rendered by a Single Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, allowing SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.414/1997, preferred before it, by the Respondent No.1, Mahaveer Prasad against the verdict of the learned District Judge, Udaipur dated 24.5.1997, in Original Civil Case No.32/1992, instituted by him under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 for issuance of succession certificate in his favour, as well as the judgment and order dated 23.08.2007 passed in Division Bench Civil Special Appeal No.187/2003 rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court sustaining the decision dated 25.09.2003 above referred to. Aggrieved on both the counts, the non-applicants in the succession certif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5138-40/2007 ZUARI CEMENT LTD. ..Appellant Versus REGIONAL DIRECTOR E.S.I.C. HYDERABAD & ORS. ..Respondents JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.These appeals are preferred against the judgment dated 21.09.2007 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowing Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and thereby setting aside the order of ESI Court granting exemption to the appellant from the operation of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short the Act).2. Brief facts which led to the filing of these appeals are as under:- The appellant is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of cement situated at Yerraguntla in Cuddapah District. The said area was brought under the purview of ESI Scheme with effect from 1.03.1986. The Government of Andhra Pradesh granted exemption to the appellant-cement factory from the operation of the Act by various orders for the period from 1.03.1986 to 31.03.1993. The State Govern...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1640 of 2015 (@ SLP(C) No.12269 OF2014 State of Kerala & Ors. ... Appellants Versus A.P. Mammikutty ... Respondent JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.The respondent invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam under Article 226 of the Constitution assailing the demand of luxury tax imposed on a building that consists of 13 residential apartments. The Tahasildar who is the competent statutory authority under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (for brevity the Act) imposed luxury tax on the building on the base of Section 5A of the Act vide order dated 1.10.2003 in Ref B4-6435/03 whereby he had measured the plinth area of all the residential apartments and computed the tax treating the same as a singular building.2. The learned Single Judge opined that the levy of luxury tax of the entire building on the owner was not permissible under the Act, for the scheme is to levy luxury tax for each residential apa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8065 OF2009V. KRISHNAKUMAR .. APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS With CIVIL APPEAL No.5402 OF20101 JUDGMENT S. A. BOBDE, J.These two Civil Appeals are preferred against the judgment of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the NCDRC) rendering a finding of medical negligence against the State of Tamil Nadu, its Government Hospital and two Government Doctors and awarding a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to V. Krishnakumar. Civil Appeal No.8065 of 2009 is preferred by V. Krishnakumar for enhancement of the amount of compensation. Civil Appeal No.5402 of 2010 is preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu and another against the judgment of the NCDRC. As facts of both the appeals are same, we are disposing the appeals by this common judgment.2. On 30.8.1996, the appellant V. Krishankumar's wife Laxmi was admitted in Government Hospital for Women and Children, E...
Tag this Judgment!