Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1880 OF2011MOHAN LAL ....APPELLANT(S) THE STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT(S) VERSUS JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J.The appellant assails his conviction under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as the NDPS Act), sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees one lakh only), with a default stipulation. 1 2. An F.I.R. was lodged on 03.02.1997 by PW1, Chand Singh, SubInspector of Balianwali Police Station, that while on patrol duty, he was accompanied by Darshan Singh, Sarpanch and Assistant SubInspector Balwinder Singh. The witness entertained doubts about the appellant upon seeing him. PW4, Shri Rajinder N. Dhoke, IPS, a gazetted officer, was called and the appellant was searched, leading to recovery of 4 kg of opium in a bag carried by him. The consent memo, Exhibit PB was signed by Darshan Singh and PW1. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No(s). 283/2014 BHAGWAN DASS & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s) WITH Criminal Appeal No(s). 284-285/2014 BISHAMBER DAYAL Appellant(s) VERSUS BHAGWAN DASS AND ANR. ETC. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.Criminal Appeal No.283 of 2014: (1) Being aggrieved by the conviction under Sections 326, 331, 343 and 346 I.P.C. and the sentence of imprisonment of two years imposed upon them, the appellants - Bhagwan Dass and Magan Singh have preferred this appeal. (2) The appellants, Bhagwan Dass and Magan Singh, were working as Sub-Inspector/SHO and Assistant Sub-Inspector respectively at the relevant point of time. The allegations against the appellants is that PW-25, Bishamber @ Bishamber Dayal, was kept in illegal detention by the appellants at Police Station, Dharuhera, from 07.10.1992 to 10.10.1992. It is alleged that the said Bishamber was subjected to custodial torture b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4332/2009 SWADESHI COMMERCIAL CO. LTD. AND ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.The appellants are before this Court, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.11.2006 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in A.P.O. No.361 of 2004 in W.P. No.892 of 2002. Except for the divesting part, the judgment is in favour of the appellants.2. During the course of hearing, we have ascertained that the respondents will surrender vacant possession by 31.03.2020 and will clear all the dues within a period of one month from today and will continue to pay the same amount which was being paid towards use and occupation charges till 31.03.2020. Ordered accordingly.3. In that view of the matter, the appeal is disposed of leaving the question of law open. 1 4. However, we direct the respondents to file an undertaking before this Court to this effect within one month fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.2100-2101/2017 STATE OF KERALA Appellant(s) VERSUS A.A. ALI Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 12.04.2017 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl. M.C. No.2601 of 2017 and Crl.M.C. No.2231 of 2017, the State of Kerala has preferred this appeal.2. The issue pertains to an order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thrissur on an application filed under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) 3. The vehicle (Tata Hitachi Model EX200Hydraulic Excavator) under the custody of the Court was sought to be released by the respondent - a contractor engaged for the purpose of widening the National Highway. :2. :4. The learned Magistrate by order dated 20th February 2017 permitted the release of the vehicle on furnishing of security by a self-bond for Rs.40,00,000/- together with two solvent sureties ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1133- 1135 OF2010STATE OF KARNATAKA ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS A.B.MAHESHA ETC. ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI,J.1. The appeals by the State of Karnataka are against the acquittal of the respondents/accused.2. The case of the prosecution revolves around the following circumstances:- (i) deceased Jagdeesha was last seen alive in the Company of A1 to A3- respondents; (ii) recovery of Car having Registration No.MEC8344and (iii) recovery of material objects from the houses of accused one golden chain (MO-8) at the behest of A1, one Rado watch (MO-6) at the behest of A2 and one golden ring (MO-7) at the behest of A3.3. The trial Court convicted all the accused under Section 302, 201, 392 and 397 IPC and sentenced to them, inter alia, to undergo life imprisonment. The High Court by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal 2 and set aside the conviction and acquitted all the accused.4. We have h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8258 OF2018(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.32593 of 2016) Versus LALLI PATEL STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS Respondent(s) Appellant(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. 2. Whether deposit of security along with the presentation of Leave granted. an election petition is to be made by way of payment before the Specified Officer or whether it is sufficient to deposit the amount in the name of the Specified Officer in the Bank, is the question arising for consideration in this case.3. The appellant filed an election petition under Section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 before the Specified Officer/Presiding Officer, Collector, Rewa. 2 The contesting respondent filed an application under Rule 4. 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Members) Rules, 1995 stating that the election petition was not maintainable si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8253 OF2018[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CIVIL) No.34621 OF2016 STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS APPELLANTS (S) VERSUS STATE (TRYSEM) LIVE STOCK INSPECTOR SANGHA AND OTHERS RESPONDENT (S) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. In direct recruitment to a post, whether qualification is to be seen, with reference to the date of occurrence of vacancy or at the time of recruitment, is the question arising for consideration in this case. The Orissa Non-Gazetted Veterinary Technical Service 3. (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, notified on 4th January, 1984 (referred to in the impugned Judgment as 1983 Rules), provides for recruitment to two cadres - Veterinary Technician and Livestock Inspector. 90 per cent of the posts of Livestock Inspector is to be filled-up by direct recruitment and the remaining 2 10 per cent by promotion of Class IV field employees who are matriculates and have field experienc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL No.8251 OF2018(Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.3852/2017) UNION BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS ... APPELLANT (S) VERSUS C.G. AJAY BABU AND ANOTHER ... RESPONDENT (S) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.: Leave granted. Whether forfeiture of gratuity, under The Payment of 2. Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is automatic on dismissal from service, is the issue for consideration in this case. The respondent was an employee of the appellant-Bank.3. While serving as a Branch Manager, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the following charges: a) Failure to take all steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank. b) devotion, diligence, honesty and integrity. c) Doing acts unbecoming of an Officer Employee. Failure to discharge his duties with utmost 1 On the charges being duly established, the respondent was 4. dismissed from service on 03.06.2004. The order of dismissal has attained finalit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.6740 of 2018 (Diary No.20446 of 2018) Imtiyaz Ramzan Khan State of Maharashtra Versus WITH Petitioner ... Respondent SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.6747 of 2018 (Diary No.21026 of 2018) Ramhit Patel .. Petitioner State of Chhattisgarh . Respondent Versus JUDGMENT Uday Umesh Lalit, J.1. Though these two special leave petitions are completely unconnected but they present one common feature and as such we propose to deal with these two special leave petitions by this common Judgment.2. Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.________ (D.No.20446 of 2018) of 2018 challenges the decision dated 30.08.2013 of the High Court of 2 Judicature at Bombay dismissing Criminal Appeal No.986 of 2005 preferred by the petitioner and thereby affirming his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life. The prosecution principally relied on the t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3595 OF2018STATE BANK OF INDIA APPELLANT VERSUS V. RAMAKRISHNAN & ANR. RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.4553 OF2018JUDGMENT R.F. NARIMAN, J.1. The present appeals revolve around whether Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which provides for a moratorium for the limited period mentioned in the Code, on admission of an insolvency petition, would apply to a personal guarantor of a corporate debtor.2. The factual backdrop of the present appeals is that the Respondent No.1 is the Managing Director of the corporate debtor, 1 namely, the Respondent No.2 Company, and also the personal guarantor in respect of credit facilities that had been availed from the Appellant. The Guarantee Agreement entered into between the Appellant and the Respondent No.1 is dated 22.02.2014.3. As the Respondent No.2 Company did not pay its debts in time, the account of Respondent No.2 was classified as a non-p...
Tag this Judgment!