Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1664 OF2005Pallav Sheth ..Appellant Versus Canara Bank ..Respondent JUDGMENT SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.This is an appeal under Section 10 of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, directed against the final judgment and order dated 17.10.2005 of the Special Judge in Special Case No.1 of 2002. In view of nature of the order proposed to be passed in this appeal, it is not necessary to go into the details of the evidence. It would suffice to notice that there was no serious dispute raised on behalf of the appellant that he was liable to pay the agreed price of Rs.83,00,000/- for 20000 shares which were not returned to the respondent-bank. In fact the appellant had admitted the liability and issued cheques to meet it but the cheques were not honored. The defence of the appellant that such liability was only a civil liability without any criminal intention ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1020 OF2011RAJ KUMAR APPELLANT Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 28.07.2008 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.5349 of 2008, whereby the High Court dismissed the said Writ Petition filed by the appellant in limine and upheld the termination order dated 22.08.2008 passed against the appellant by the Delhi School Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) on the ground that the appellant, who was a driver, had been retrenched from his services by the respondent-Managing Committee, DAV Public School by following the procedure laid down under Sections 25F (a) and (b) of Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ID Act). The brief facts of the case required to appreciate the rival legal contentions advanced on beha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2118-2119 OF2009SHEIKH SINTHA MADHAR @ JAFFER @ SINTHA ETC. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2117 OF2009SHAHJAHAN APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.These appeals, by special leave, have been directed against the judgment and order dated 22.02.2008 passed by the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, in Criminal Appeal No.1736 of 2003 and Criminal Appeal No.1807 of 2003, whereby the High Court dismissed the criminal appeals filed by the appellants and confirmed their conviction and sentences for various offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC). The brief facts necessary to dispose of these appeals are that after the Coimbatore serial blasts, a conspiracy was hatched to do away with Dr. Sridhar (d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4543 OF2016(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.538 of 2014) RISHABH CHAND JAIN & ANOTHER ... APPELLANT (S) VERSUS GINESH CHANDRA JAIN ... RESPONDENT (S) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.: Leave granted. An Interlocutory Application filed in a pending suit for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the same is barred by Res Judicata and that there is no cause of action, was allowed by the trial court before commencement of the trial. The plaintiff filed a revision before the High Court of Judicature at Patna taking the position that no appeal is maintainable as the suit has been dismissed without framing an issue. The High Court, as per the impugned order dated 14.08.2013, took the view that the approach taken by the trial court was not proper; an issue should have been framed on maintainability and the same should have been tried, and thereafter only, the suit could have been dismissed, in case the court upheld the contentions of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4270-4271 OF2016(Arising out of SLP(C) No.23923-23924/2012) Pragati Builders & Promoters & Ors. Appellant(s) Versus M/s Ram Murty Pyara Lal & Ors., etc. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2611-2612 OF2012JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE, J.1. Leave granted.2. Application for substitution is allowed.3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment.4. Looking at the facts of the case, in our opinion, the amount of interest awarded by the High Court to the appellants is on lower side. We, therefore, direct that instead of simple interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, the appellants should be paid simple interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date on which the appellants had paid the amount for purchase of the property in question to the respondent bank.5. The respondent bank shall calculate the amount of interest payable to the appellants at the rate of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3896-3897 OF2016[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) 29633-29634 OF2015]. SAU. JAYASHRI BHASKAR GOSAVI Appellant (s) VERSUS VISHWANATH KRISHNATH PANKE & ORS. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. The dispute raised in these cases essentially pertains to a claim by the appellant that she belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community named, 'Hindu Gosavi'. There is no dispute that her husband belonged to Hindu Gosavi Scheduled Tribe. The allegation was that, on the basis of the caste status of her husband, the appellant had procured a certificate to the effect that she belonged to the Scheduled Tribe community namely, Hindu Gosavi.3. There cannot be any dispute that a wife cannot claim the tribal status of her husband. The tribal status should be based on one's independent roots.4. The Caste Scrutiny Committee, namely, Regional Caste Certificate Verification Committee No.1 for SC, ST, VJNT, OBC a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3778-3780 OF2016(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 8038-8040 of 2011) |KEDAR MISHRA | Appellant | VERSUS |THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. | .Respondents | | | | JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.Leave granted.2. These appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissing Writ Petitions being C.W.J.C. Nos.10339, 10355 and 10356 of 1999 on the ground that there has been no sufficient compliance of the requirement of Rule 19 of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Rules 1963 and Form L.C. 13 of the Rules and declining to interfere with the order passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue dated 31.08.1999 and thereby negativing the appellants claim of right of pre- emption.3. Lands involved in all the three cases belonged to one Ram Kailash Mishra, who died leaving behind his three sons, namely, Ramadhar Mis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.299 OF2016(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2866 of 2011) AMANULLAH AND ANR. APPELLANTS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.Leave granted. This criminal appeal by special leave is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 08.12.2010 in Crl. Misc. No.5777 of 2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna whereby it allowed the said criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the respondent nos.2 to 9 herein, by setting aside the cognizance order dated 10.11.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera, Bihar in Singhia Police Case No.37/2008 and quashed the criminal prosecution. Brief facts of the case are stated hereunder to appreciate the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties: The case of the prosecution is that on 29.03.2008, the informant-Mukhtar went to the house of his relative at village-Navdega and stayed th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3785 OF2016[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.25784 of 2013]. Kusum Harilal Soni .. Appellant Versus Chandrika Nandlal Mehta and Anr. .. Respondents JUDGMENT ARUN MISHRA, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant has questioned the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in relation to Chamber Summons No.1249 of 2009 arising out of Execution Application No.318 of 2005 thereby setting aside the attachment of Flat No.408, Saidham Co-operative Society Sodawala Lane, Borivli (West), Mumbai.3. The appellant had filed a suit for eviction with respect to Flat No.F-201, Building No.4, Prem Nagar, Mandpesbwar Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai against respondent No.1 as license had expired on 1.11.1994. Thereafter the premises were not vacated, nor the compensation was paid. The competent authority passed an order directing the respondent No.1 to handover vacant possession to the appellant along with compensat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3789 OF2016(Arising out of SLP (C) No.5502/2014) PAWAN KUMAR AGGARWAL APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT KURIAN,J.1. Leave granted.2. It is not in dispute that though an award was passed in respect of the land belonging to the appellant, the appellant has not been dispossessed and hence the appellant is entitled for the protection under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In fact, we find that in respect of the same very acquisition Notification in a situation where the possession is still retained by the owner, this Court by Judgment dated 22.01.2015 in C.A.No.7424 of 2013 titled Karnail Kaur & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in 2015 (3) SCC206has quashed the Notification, therefore, this appeal is allowed. Proceedings for acquisition in respect of the land belonging to ...
Tag this Judgment!