Court : Supreme Court of India
NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.877 OF2011Mukhtyar Jabbar Tadvi ..Appellant Versus State of Maharashtra ..Respondent JUDGMENT MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.The judgment dated 18.11.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No.509 of 2007 is called in question in this appeal. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has confirmed the judgment dated 18.09.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case No.150 of 2006 convicting the appellant herein for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of 1 Rs.5,000/, and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased Munir and his wife Madina (PW8) were residing on the backside of the house of the informant Qutuboddin Sandu Tadvi (PW7); the informant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No(s). 567 OF2010STATE OF HARYANA Appellant(s) VERSUS SUNDER PAL AND ORS. Respondent(s) BANUMATHI, J.: JUDGMENT (1) Being aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents- accused under Section 364-A I.P.C., State of Haryana has preferred this appeal. (2) Case of the prosecution is that Complainant-Amit Kumar son of Madan Mohan aged nine years was kidnapped on 29.05.1996 at around 01.30 pm when he went out to play. On 02.06.1996, accused-Yashpal came to Madan Mohan and demanded ransom amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. Madan Mohan, Sanjay Jain and Fakir Chand decided not to report the matter to police and arranged a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- in the denomination of Rs.500/-, Rs.100/- and Rs.50/-. First and the last note of the bundles were initialed by Madan Mohan as 'MM'. On 03.06.1996, the currency of the Rs.10,00,000/- was handed over to Yashpal and on 04.06.1996, Yashpal brought back Amit Kumar and he was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION NO.1330 OF2018CRIMINAL APPEAL (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.2440 of 2018) REENA HAZARIKA ....APPELLANT(S) STATE OF ASSAM ...RESPONDENT(S) VERSUS JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J.Leave granted.2. The appellant is the wife of the deceased convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/ and in default, imprisonment for one month.3. The deceased resided along with the appellant and his minor daughter CW1, Miss Puja Hazarika, aged about 9 years, in the tenanted premises belonging to PW1 Manoj Kumar Deka, PW2 Dipen Deka and PW3 Bhrigumoni Deka, who are brothers. The appellant is stated to have assaulted the deceased 1 in the intervening night of 10.05.2013/11.05.2013. PWs. 1, 2 and 3 are stated to have heard noises and on going there, found the deceased with head injury attributed to a fall, but that the deceased was otherwise alright. They were unable to take him to the hospital becau...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1568 OF2015REPORTABLE KAMIL ..Appellant VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH ..Respondent JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 28.07.2014 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.1047 of 1989 in and by which the High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant thereby affirming his conviction under Section 302 IPC and for other offences and sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him passed by the trial court.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.01.1986 at about 09.00 AM, complainant-Baboo Khan (PW-3) who is the maternal uncle of deceased Akhlaq was informed by his father that his sisters daughter Parveen had gone to fetch water from the tank where accused Rashid (A1) and Adil (A3) had misbehaved with her. 1 However, no further action was taken by them to save their reputation. On the same day, at around 04.00 PM, when complainant/PW-3 along wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10853 of 2018 (arising out of SLP (C) No.18959 /2017) NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SHEELA RAMCHANDRA TIKHE ..RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN,J.Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed by Nagpur Improvement Trust, challenging the judgment dated 14.03.2017 of High Court of Judicature Bombay at Nagpur in Second Appeal No.122 of 2015, by which judgment the Second Appeal filed by the respondent has been allowed by setting aside the judgment of lower appellate court and restoring the judgment of trial court decreeing the suit.3. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noted for deciding this appeal are: 2 The Nagpur Improvement Trust, the appellant has been constituted under the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936. For the purposes of Drainage and Sewerage Scheme PartII, notification under Section 39 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936 was issued on 27.11.1953 for acquiring...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10824 OF2018(Arising out of SLP (C) No.26686/2016) SUSHILA N. RUNGTA (D) THR. LRS. Appellant(s) VERSUS THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER-16(2) AND ORS. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.10830 OF2018(Arising out of SLP (C) No.29640/2016) CIVIL APPEAL No.10829 OF2018(Arising out of SLP (C) No.29613/2016) CIVIL APPEAL No.10831 OF2018(Arising out of SLP (C) No.29641/2016) CIVIL APPEAL No.10825 OF2018(Arising out of SLP (C) No.29552/2016) CIVIL APPEAL No.10833 OF2018(Arising out of SLP (C) No.29796/2016) CIVIL APPEAL No.10832 OF2018(Arising out of SLP (C) No.29740/2016) CIVIL APPEAL No.10826 OF2018(Arising out of SLP (C) No.29559/2016) CIVIL APPEAL No.10827 OF2018(Arising out of SLP (C) No.29601/2016) CIVIL APPEAL No.10828 OF2018(Arising out of SLP (C) No.29602/2016) C.A. No.723/1973 2 JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.Civil Appeal No.723/1973:1. In this appeal, an order dated 03.01.1970 was passed by the Collector of Ce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7326-7327 OF2018STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROMOTION & ORS. APPELLANT RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7328-7329 OF2018JUDGMENT R.F. NARIMAN, J.1. The present civil appeals raise a challenge to certain clauses of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation) notified on 3.3.2017 and the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) 1 Services (Eighth) (Addressable Systems) Tariff Order, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Tariff Order) dated 3.3.2017 made under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the TRAI Act). Since regulations made under the TRAI Act were under challenge, a writ petition was filed before the Madras High Court in which the main issues that arose before the Division Bench were as follows:- a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2299 OF2009STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) .Appellant VERSUS PANKAJ CHAUDHARY AND ORS. .Respondents With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2298 OF2009JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 05.05.2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.384 of 2000 in and by which the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondents/accused thereby setting aside their conviction under Section 376(2)(g) IPC passed by the trial court and the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them. By the impugned judgment, the High Court also issued direction to lodge a complaint against the appellants-police officials (CA No.2298/2009) for prosecuting them under Sections 193 and 195 IPC. 1 2. Case of prosecution is that the accused/respondents who were living in the neighbourhood of the prosecutrix (PW-1) at Shaheed Bhagat Singh Jhuggi Camp, Katwaria Sarai, entered her jhuggi at about 0...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1322 OF2018(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.10290 of 2015) STATE OF MIZORAM .Appellant VERSUS DR. C. SANGNGHINA .Respondent JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal arises out of the order dated 13.08.2015 passed by the High Court of Assam in Criminal Revision Petition No.6 of 2014 in and by which the High Court affirmed the order of the Special Court declining to take on file the charge sheet filed under Section 13(1)(c)(d)(e) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the ground that it was barred under the principles of double jeopardy.3. Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are that a complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police, Mizoram, Aizawl against the accused/respondent on 17.02.2009 by the 1 President of PRISM alleging misappropriation/mismanagement of public money. On the basis of the complaint, the Superintendent of Police, ACB conducte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.856 OF2012MANAGEMENT, HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOLS LTD. ...Appellant(s) VERSUS GHANSHYAM SHARMA Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 18.12.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1417 of 1997 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent. 1 2. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They are stated infra.3. The appellant is a Government company engaged in manufacture of certain items. It is now declared as a sick company.4. The respondent (workman) claimed that he worked with the appellant Company as a casual helper in its manufacturing plant from 10.06.1976 to 30.07.1977. He complained that by an oral order; the appellant on 31.07.1977 terminated his services and, therefore, since 31.07.1977 he is no longer in the employment of the appellant.5. The term...
Tag this Judgment!