Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5209 OF2018[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 17905 OF2012 D.SUBBA RAO (D) BY LRS. & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS D. SADASHIVA RAO & ORS. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellants approached this Court, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 10.01.2012 in Regular First Appeal No.681 of 2005 on the file of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka. Finding that there is a possibility of 3. settlement, this Court requested the parties to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement, to which they willingly agreed. Accordingly, they were referred to the Bangalore Mediation Center. The Bangalore Mediation Center has forwarded a report dated 17.04.2018 along with Memorandum of Settlement dated 16.04.2018, duly signed by the Power of Attorney Holders of the parties. We find that the disputes between the parties have been settled. The 2 Memorandum of Settlemen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.747 OF2018[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.1628 OF2017 M V AMREETH Appellant(s) VERSUS K VENKATA KRISHNA & ANR. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.Leave granted.1. The appellant is aggrieved since the High Court, 2. while admitting the revision against the conviction in respect of an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, imposed a condition of deposit of 1/4th of the cheque amount. This was in addition to the fine which the appellant had already remitted.3. 02.03.2017, the following order was passed :- When the matter came up before this Court, on It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner and we have verified too that the sentence of fine was only Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) by the learned Magistrate, which was affirmed in the appeal and that the said amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) has already been remitted. 2 No doubt, the Revisiona...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4853 OF2018[Arising out of SLP(C) No.33680/2013]. GURMEET PAL SINGH .APPELLANT Versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .RESPONDENTS WITH Civil Appeal No._4856 of 2018 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.3826/2014]. Civil Appeal No.4857 of 2018 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.8431/2014]. Civil Appeal No.4858 of 2018 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.31833/2014]. Civil Appeal No.4854 of 2018 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.36660/2013]. Civil Appeal No.4855 of 2018 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.2997/2014]. JUDGMENT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.1. In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Punjab Superior Judicial Service 1 Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) were notified on 31.08.2007 duly published in the Gazette of 03.09.2007 for regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of the persons appointed to the Punjab Superior Judicial Service. The method of appointment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.795 OF2011MANOJ KUMAR APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.796 OF2011SURINDER SINGH VERSUS APPELLANT STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH RESPONDENT CRIMINAL APPEAL No.797 OF2011RANGEEL SINGH APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH RESPONDENT JUDGMENT N.V. RAMANA, J.2 1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment dated 20th November, 2009 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.312 of 2006 whereby the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence against the appellants as awarded by the learned Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 341 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).2. The facts necessary to deal with these appeals, as culled out from the prosecution case, are that as per the revenue records one Jaram Singh (PW1) and others are the owners of land bearing Khata...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.58 OF2007Rupinder Singh Sandhu Appellant Versus State of Punjab & Others Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.59 OF2007CRIMINAL APPEAL No.60 OF2007JUDGMENT Chelameswar, J.1. Around 1.45 pm on 27.12.1988, First Information Report No.244 came to be registered by SubInspector Kaka Singh (PW5) of Police Station Kotwali of Patiala District of the State of Punjab on the basis of information given by one Shri Jaswinder 1 Singh (PW3). From the narration in the FIR, it appears that the incident which eventually culminated in the death of Gurnam Singh could have simply passed off as yet another incident of road rage but for the death of Gurnam Singh. According to the FIR, around 12.30 p.m., an incident occurred at the traffic light of Battian Wala Chowk in front of the State Bank of Patiala, Patiala City. Jaswinder Singh (PW3), Avtar Singh (PW4) and the deceased Gurnam Singh were travelling in Maruti Car...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.21834 OF2017SELVI Appellant Versus GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR (D) THR. LRS. AND ORS. ...Respondents JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 13.04.2006 passed by the High Court of Madras at Madurai Bench in Second Appeal No.255 of 2005 in and by which the High Court set aside the final decree passed by the trial court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court by holding that the appellant/plaintiff cannot lay a claim in respect of Survey No.988 which the first respondent/second defendant claims entitled to.2. Brief facts as seen from the Plaint averments are as follows:- The suit properties that is plaint A Schedule property and Plaint B Schedule property belonged to Kali Pillai, Krishna Pillai and others of Varukkapilavila Veedu, which was outstanding on a mortgage. On 27.12.1088 M.E.(11.08.1913) Kali Pillai, Krishna Pillai, Champakakutty 1 Pillai alias Bhagvathi Pillai and Kaly...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.872 OF2015KHURSHID AHMED APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT N.V. RAMANA, J.This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11th March, 2015 passed by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu in Criminal Appeal No.36 of 2012. By the said judgment, the High Court reversed the order of acquittal passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Bhaderwah against the appellant, and convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 302/341 of the Ranbir Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as RPC) and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302, RPC and 2 to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 341, RPC, with the direction to realize the fine amount from his estate.2. The brief facts, as culled out from the prosecution case are that on 18th May, 2006 a shop keeper of hardw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NOS.7281-7282 OF2017SUSHILA AGGARWAL & ORS. PETITIONER (S) VERSUS STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) KURIAN, J.ORDER1 Whether an anticipatory bail should be for a limited period of time is the issue before us on which there are two divergent views. The line of judgments that anticipatory bail should not 2. be for a limited period places its reliance on the Constitution 1 Bench decision of this Court in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab 1. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of 3. 2 is a very detailed judgment by a Maharashtra and others Bench of two Judges on the scope and object of an anticipatory bail. In Mhetre (supra), this Court took the view that the Constitution Bench has held that anticipatory bail granted by the court should ordinarily continue till the trial of the case. To quote: 94. The proper course of action ought to be that after eval...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION NON-REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5150-5151/2018 (ARISING FROM SLP (C) NOS.4696-4697/2018) PATNI HUSHENBHAI SIDIBHAI KOTVALA (DECEASED) THR. LRS & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A. NOS. 5152-5153/2018 @ SLP(C) Nos. 7318-7319/2018 C.A. NOS. 5154-5155/2018 @ SLP(C) Nos. 7321-7322/2018 JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.Leave granted.2. The issue raised in these appeals pertains to the claim for enhancement of compensation. Similar and connected matters came up for consideration before this Court, out of the same impugned judgment leading to the judgment dated 14.11.2017 passed in C.A. No.18744-18745/2017 and batch. The appeals were disposed of with the following directions:- 1 (i) The compensation in respect of the land acquired from the appellants shall be worked out only on the basis of the calculation based on the return from the fruit-bearing trees, as calculated by the Reference Court. (i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5148-5149/2018 (ARISING FROM SLP (C) NOS.433-434/2015) NON-REPORTABLE SHYAMALI CHATTEREJEE APPELLANT(S) VERSUS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BHILAI RESPONDENT(S) KURIAN, J.Leave granted. JUDGMENT2 The appellant is before this Court aggrieved by the reduction of one-time compensation in lieu of reinstatement on account of the alleged illegal termination. It is fairly clear from the facts that the appellant had worked for about 15 years as a daily wager. The Labour Court had granted Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs) whereas the High Court reduced it to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs).3. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appellant should be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand).4. Therefore, these appeals are disposed of directing the respondent/Municipal Corporation to pay, within a period of two months, Rs.1,50,000/...
Tag this Judgment!