Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8835 of 2015 PREM SINGH GILL APPELLANT(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.Heard the appellant, who is present in the Court and Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondents, who is ably assisted by Mr. R. Balasubramanian, learned counsel.2. Having extensively heard the appellant-in-person and the learned counsel for the respondents, we do not think it necessary to refer to the factual matrix involved in this case.3. Having regard to the background of the disability of the appellant, we are of the view that this is a fit case for invocation of Article 142 of the Constitution of India and fix disability at 75% from the date of retirement. Ordered accordingly.4. Needless to say that the consequential benefits will be computed accordingly and the arrears due to the appellant will be paid, within two weeks from today, wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4925 OF2017[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.10567 OF2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C).....CC. No.6025/2017]. SURENDRA WAMANRAO DESHMUKH APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. In the nature of order we propose to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice.4. It is not in dispute that the appellant was removed from service on compulsory retirement. According to the appellant, he is entitled to compassionate pension in terms of Rule 100 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. It is also submitted that similarly situated persons have been granted relief. But the High Court declined to look into the matter.5. The appellant is permitted to make an appropriate representation before Respondent No.1, within a period of one month from today. In the event of such a representation being filed, the same shall be cons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4747 OF2017(ARISING FROM SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.8886 OF2017 C.R. YADAV, HCS (RETD) APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.Leave granted.2. In the nature of order we propose to pass in this appeal, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents.3. The appellant retired from service in the year 2000. He had already filed a writ petition disputing the seniority in the High Court in the year 1993 being Civil Writ Petition No.13601 of 1993. But it appears that the writ petition was taken up for hearing only in the year 2016 and the same was disposed of on 11.07.2016 holding that there is no point in deciding the case at that distance of time.4. We are of the view that the High Court was not justified in rejecting the writ petition on the ground of retirement of the appellant. The writ petition had been pending when he retired. The judgment dated 11....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I A Nos 4-6, 7-9, 10-12, 13-15, 16-18, 19-21, 22-24, 25-27, 28-30, 31- 33, 34-36, 37-39, 40-42 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS1216412166 OF2016THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP.BY SEC. AND ORS ..Appellants VERSUS K. BALU AND ANR. ..Respondents WITH I A NOS5 6 AND7IN C A NO12169OF2016WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO12170OF2016AND OTHER UNREGISTERED I.A.s ON BOARD ORDER Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J On 15 December, 2016, this Court delivered judgment in a batch of Civil Appeals originating from the State of Tamil Nadu and the States of Punjab and Haryana. The decision of this Court is reported as State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Vs. K.Balu[1]. . The issue which the Court addressed was the presence of liquor vends on national and state highways across the country. Official figures of road accidents, with their attendant fatalities and injuries provided the backdrop for the intervention of this Court. This Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.246 OF2017|BINOY KUMAR MISHRA |.....APPELLANT(S) | |VERSUS | | |STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER |.....RESPONDENT(S) | W I T H CRIMINAL APPEAL No.247 OF2017CRIMINAL APPEAL No.248 OF2017A N D CRIMINAL APPEAL No.249 OF2017JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.An unfortunate incident occurred in PK-1 Unit of Kusunda Colliery, Dhanbad (Jharkhand) on 05.01.1996 at about 06:40 AM when a gang of seventeen loaders was engaged in loading coal at Junction 9, East Level of Two Dip, Bottom Section. Combined Seam of the aforesaid unit of the Colliery, coal roof measuring about 7.6 m x 6.1 m x 0.20 m fell from a height of 2.8 m on the aforesaid seventeen loaders. This mishap resulted in the death of four persons and serious bodily injuries to five persons whereas remaining eight loaders escaped unhurt. On reporting of this accident, Director of Mines Safety, Dhanbad (Jharkhand) (respondent No.2 herein) commenced inquiry/i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.577 OF2017(ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.) No.287 OF2017 VINEET KUMAR & ORS. .... APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ANR. .... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 16.12.2016 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing the Application filed by the appellants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Appellants had filed Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the judgment and order dated 03.08.2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Moradabad summoning the appellants for an offence under Section 452, 376(d) and 323 IPC, as well as order dated 22.10.2016 passed by the District Sessions Judge, Moradabad dismissing the Criminal Revision filed by the appellants. The appellants shall hereinafter be referred to as accused and respondent No.2 as complainant. The facts of the case as emerged from the records need to be noted for de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4403/2017 SURESH THAKAR APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DR. ADITYA PARAKH AND ORS RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A. No.4404/2017 JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. On the question of law, as to whether the State of Chhattisgarh could have enacted a law providing for an appeal straight to this Court, bypassing the High Court of the State, we are not inclined to go into that question in the peculiar facts of these cases. Findings are concurrent against the appellants. It is also not in serious dispute that there is wilful default in payment of rent.2. In that view of the matter, these appeals are dismissed leaving the question of law open.3. On the request of the learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants are granted time to vacate till 31.10.2017 on a condition that the appellants will file usual undertaking before this Court within a month from today. Towards use and occupation charges, the appellants will continue to p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.615 OF2017[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) No.2406 OF2017 RANI DUDEJA APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. In the nature of order we propose to pass in this appeal, it is not necessary to issue notice, since we propose to send the matter back to the High Court.3. The appellant approached the High Court with a petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. By the impugned order dated 7.3.2017, the petition was rejected on the ground that the appellant had filed a petition earlier and the same had been withdrawn and, therefore, the appellant cannot be allowed to re-agitate the matter on merits.4. We are afraid, the stand taken by the High Court cannot be appreciated. The petition was for anticipatory bail and the one which had been filed earlier might have been withdrawn in a given situation, without inviting the Court to consider the same on meri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION SUO MOTU WRIT(CRL.) NO.1 OF2017IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS ORDER During the course of hearing of Criminal Appeal No.400/2006 and connected matters, Mr. R. Basant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants-complainant, pointed out certain common inadequacies and deficiencies in the course of trial adopted by the trial court while disposing of criminal cases. In particular, it was pointed out that though there are beneficial provisions in the Rules of some of the High Courts which ensure that certain documents such as list of witnesses and the list of exhibits/material objects referred to, are annexed to the judgment and order itself of the trial court, these features do not exist in Rules of some other High Courts. Undoubtedly, the judgments and orders of the trial court which have such lists annexed, can be appreciated much better by the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.400 of 2006 KATTUKULANGARA MADHAVAN (DEAD) THR. LRS. .... Appellant(s) Versus MAJEED & ORS. .Respondent(s) With CRIMINAL APPEAL No.661 OF2006KATTUKULANGARA MADHAVAN (DEAD) THR. LRS. .... Appellant(s) Versus SIDDIK & ORS. .Respondent(s) And CRIMINAL APPEAL No.141 OF2007STATE OF KERALA .... Appellant(s) Versus ABOOBACKER @ ARABI ABOOBACKER & ORS. .Respondent(s) JUDGMENT L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.The Sessions Court, Thrissur convicted A1 to A4, A14, A15, and A18 under Section 302 read with 149 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. They were also convicted for offences under Section 143, 147, 148, 341, 342 and 324/149 IPC. A5 to A13, A16 and A17 were acquitted. A1 to A4, A14, A15 and A18 who were convicted, filed an Appeal before the High Court of Kerala. The State of Kerala and the complainant (father of the deceased) also filed appeals ...
Tag this Judgment!