Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6254 OF2010SUBHASH MALHARI MUNESHWAR & ANR. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS ARVINDE ANANDRAO KADAM & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S) R. BANUMATHI,J.JUDGMENT1 This appeal arises out of the Judgment dated 08.04.2005 in Second Appeal No.360 of 1988 passed by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in and by which the High Court reversed the judgment of the First Appellate Court holding that the Exhibit P-33/document in question was a sale with condition to repurchase.2. The case of the appellants-plaintiff(s) is that an amount of Rs.3,000/- was borrowed from the respondent and in security the property was mortgaged under Exhibit P-33 (15.02.1975) with condition that if the amount is paid on or before 15.03.1980, the property can be redeemed. The appellantsplaintiff(s) filed the suit for redemption of the mortgage alleging that the document (Exhibit P-33) was a mortgage by conditional sale and not a sale with conditio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1305 OF2008Bilal Hajar @ Abdul Hameed .Appellant(s) VERSUS State Rep. by the Inspector of Police Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 08.11.2006 passed by the High Court of Madras in Criminal Appeal No.1200 of 2003 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by appellant herein. 2 2. In order to appreciate the issues involved in this appeal, it is necessary to set out the facts of the case in detail hereinbelow.3. The case of the prosecution may be briefly stated as follows.4. In all nine persons were tried for commission of various offences in Session Trial No.239 of 2000 by the Additional Court of Sessions (Fast Track No.111) Coimbatore.5. The details of the offences under the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) for which the accused were tried are set out herein below: (1) A 1 to A 9 Section 120B, IPC (2) A1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL No.10379 OF2018(Arising out of SLP(C) No.8586 of 2016) MOHD. SAHID AND OTHERS .Appellants VERSUS RAZIYA KHANAM (D) THR. LRs AND ANOTHER .Respondents JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal arises out of the order dated 15.10.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Second Appeal No.819 of 2015 in and by which the High Court affirmed the order of the First Appellate Court dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and declining to condone the delay of 349 days in filing the appeal.3. Respondent No.1-Raziya (since dead) filed a Civil Suit No.591 of 1979 against the appellants No.1 to 3 for cancellation of sale deeds dated 17.02.1979 and 17.05.1979 in favour of the appellants and for relief of permanent injunction against them over the suit land. Respondent No.1-Raziya (since dead) contended that appellants No.1 1 to 3 forged documents and execute...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1192 OF2018(arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6225 of 2017) PRADEEP BISOI @ RANJIT BISOI APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF ODISHA RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.This appeal has been filed by the accused against the judgment of Orissa High Court dated 25.01.2017. The Orissa High Court vide the impugned judgment has dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant questioning his conviction under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment awarded by the trial court.2. The prosecution case as is revealed from the record is that Bhaskar Sahu (deceased) on 28.11.1990 in the morning at 7.00 A.M. was going near Belapada by a bicycle. Near the Belapada bridge, the accused threw a bomb towards the deceased, which hit the right leg of Bhaskar Sahu, the deceased, due to which he fell down on 1 the road. Bhaskar Sahu when started running to save hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10352 OF2018( @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [C]. NO.23284 OF2018) MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA APPELLANT(S) VERSUS LORD BUDDHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT ARUN MISHRA, J.1. The background of the case indicates that the College was established pursuant to the directive issued by the Oversight Committee vide letter dated 20.8.2016. The negative recommendation was made by the MCI to the Government of India. However, in view of the Oversight Committees letter dated 20.8.2016, conditional permission was granted by the Government of India to set up a medical college w.e.f. the academic year 201617 with an annual intake capacity of 150 MBBS students. The conditions stipulated that during the subsequent inspection if it was found that the College was 2 deficient then the medical college shall be debarred for two academic years.2. On 7/8.11.2016, the assessment was carried out by a team of the MC...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION NON-REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1268/2018 (ARISING FROM SLP (CRL) NOS.391/2018) PRAKASH CHAND MEENA APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.Leave granted.2. The appellant approached this Court aggrieved by the denial of protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in respect of FIR No.202 dated 05.10.2017 registered at Police Station Banipark, District Jaipur (West).3. This Court, on 23.01.2018, passed the following order:- Issue notice. In the event of the petitioner being arrested in connection with FIR No.202 dated 05.10.2017 registered at Police Station Banipark, District Jaipur (West), he shall be released on execution of bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) with two solvent sureties for the like amount. We make it clear that this order is passed subject to other conditions under 1 Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION NON-REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1267/2018 (ARISING FROM SLP (CRL) NOS.587/2017) DWARIKA DAS RATHI APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.Leave granted.2. The appellant approached this Court aggrieved by the denial of protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The appellant is an accused in Crime No.123 of 2016 registered at Police Station Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh for offences punishable under Section 420 and 409 of the IPC read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The crux of the accusation is that the appellant who was running a rice mill did not return the required quantity of rice after custom milling. The deficit, according to the Investigating Officer, is to the tune of Rs.2,71,34,937/-. When the matter came be before this Court, on 25.01.2017, this Court passed the following order:- Issue notice. On deposit of 1 Rs.2,71,34,937/- with the State Governm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1276 OF2010Dashrath Singh Chauhan .Appellant(s) VERSUS Central Bureau of Investigation .Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 20.07.2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.447 of 2001 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and upheld his conviction and sentence awarded by 1 order dated 31.05.2001 passed by the Special Judge, Delhi in C.C. No.53 of 1995 acquitting him of the charge under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and convicting him for the charges under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the PC Act) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/ under Sections 7 and 13(2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1276 OF2010Dashrath Singh Chauhan .Appellant(s) VERSUS Central Bureau of Investigation .Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 20.07.2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.447 of 2001 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and upheld his conviction and sentence awarded by 1 order dated 31.05.2001 passed by the Special Judge, Delhi in C.C. No.53 of 1995 acquitting him of the charge under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and convicting him for the charges under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the PC Act) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/ under Sections 7 and 13(2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1129 OF2012SUSHIL KUMAR AGARWAL .....Appellant .....Respondents MEENAKSHI SADHU & ORS. Versus JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J1 The present appeal1 is from the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta2. The appellant, who is a builder, instituted a suit for specific performance of a development agreement, against the respondents, who are owners of the premises. The suit was dismissed by the City Civil Court. The High Court dismissed the first appeal. 1 Leave was granted on 12 January 2012. 2 The High Court delivered judgment on 18 February 2009. 1 2. The subject matter of the suit for specific performance is a development agreement dated 14 April 1992, entered into by the appellant with the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents (Late Kalidas Sadhu)3 in respect of premises situated at 243N, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, P.S. Burtolla, Kolkata 700 006. The agreement recit...
Tag this Judgment!