Court : Supreme Court of India
NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1232 OF2018(arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.308 of 2018) AMRISH RANA ....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J.Leave granted.2. The appellant stands convicted under Section 307 and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced for ten years along with fine and default stipulation.3. Learned counsel for the appellant Shri Gaurav Agrawal submits that the testimony of PW11 Naresh Kumar, implicating the appellant is unreliable. The witness, in his court statement deposed that he knew the appellant from before as an inmate of the Kanda Jail. There was no animosity between them. Yet, the witness did not name the appellant in the FIR, and named 1 accused Gurjant Singh alone, accompanied by four unknown persons. Despite claiming to know the appellant from before, the witness has made omnibus allegations ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 10076 OF2018(Arising out of SLP(C)No.24645 of 2018) P.S. AYUB Appellant(s) VERSUS ASIF JAGIRDAR Respondent(s) JUDGMENT BANUMATHI, J.: (1) Leave granted. (2) The respondent has filed Civil Suit bearing O.S. NO.25571/2012 for eviction on the ground: (i) Future payment of rent; (ii) Termination of tenancy. (3) In the said suit, the appellant herein did not appear and the suit was decreed ex-parte on 4th February, 2013. The appellant herein has filed an application, Misc. Petition No.25164/2013, under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 24th November, 2016 on the ground that the appellant has not shown sufficient reason for his non-appearance. (4) Being aggrieved, the appellant has approached the High Court and the High Court vide Order dated 28th November, 2017 has directed the appellant to deposit the arrears of rent, 2 namely, Rs.2,73,000/- (Rupees Two Lak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.373 OF2006Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. The State of Kerala & Ors. VERSUS Petitioner(s) Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, CJI (for himself and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.) Introduction The irony that is nurtured by the society is to impose a rule, however unjustified, and proffer explanation or justification to substantiate the substratum of the said rule. Mankind, since time immemorial, has been searching for explanation or justification to substantiate a point of view that hurts humanity. The theoretical human values remain on paper. Historically, women have been treated with inequality and that is why, many have fought for their rights. Susan B. Anthony, known for her 2 feminist activity, succinctly puts, Men, their rights, and nothing more; women, their rights, and nothing less. It is a clear message.2. Neither the said message nor any kind of philosophy has opened up the large popul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.260 OF2018Romila Thapar and Ors. :Versus: Union of India and Ors. .. Petitioner(s) ....Respondent(s) A.M. Khanwilkar, J.JUDGMENT1 Five illustrious persons in their own field have filed this petition on 29th August, 2018 complaining about the high- handed action of the Maharashtra Police in raiding the homes and arresting five well known human rights activists, journalists, advocates and political worker, with a view to kill independent voices differing in ideology from the party in power and to stifle the honest voice of dissent. They complain that the five activists, namely, Gautam Navalakha, Sudha Bharadwaj, Varavara Rao, Arun Ferreira and Vernon Gonsalves were arrested on 28th August, 2018 from their 2 homes at New Delhi, Faridabad, Mumbai, Thane and Hyderabad, respectively, without any credible material and evidence against them justifying their arrest, purportedly in connection wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.913 OF2016HEMUDAN NANBHA GADHVI ....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J.The appellant assails his conviction by the High Court under Section 376(2)(f) IPC, sentencing him to ten years rigorous imprisonment, with fine of Rs.5,000/ along with a default stipulation, after reversing his acquittal ordered by the trial court.2. The prosecutrix PW2, aged 9 years, was sexually assaulted on 20.02.2004 by an unknown, tall and thin person wearing white clothes. PW3 Jasiben, accompanying the prosecutrix was also a minor. She informed PW1 Ambaben, the mother of the 1 prosecutrix. F.I.R. was lodged by PW1 the same day. The medical examination of the prosecutrix was also done the same day, by PW9 Dr. Meghna Narendrabhai Mehta. Sexual assault on PW2 stood established by rupture of the hymen, with fresh blood oozing, and injury of 1.5 cm to 2 cm extending upto the lower ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) No.137 OF2018Aseer Jamal Union of India & Ors. Versus Petitioner Respondents JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, CJI Almost a century back, Nobel Laureate T.S. Eliot had disenchantingly written, Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?. Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?. Though the content of the statement cannot be said to have lost its fragrance or flavour, yet today, information has become a strong sense of power. Right to information has been treated as a right to freedom of speech and expression as contained in Article 19(1)(a) of the 2 Constitution of India. The right to acquire and to disseminate information has been regarded as an intrinsic component of freedom of speech and expression, as stated in Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India and others v. Cricket Association of Bengal and others.1 and Peoples Union for Civil Liberties and another v. Uni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4677 OF2018(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.33637 of 2017) Padmini Singha Appellant(s) Versus The State of Assam & Others Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, CJI On 30.01.2014, the appellant along with seven members of Masughat Gaon Panchayat submitted a No Confidence Motion against the President, respondent No.6 herein, and for requisition of a special meeting to prove the majority of Gaon Panchayat President as per Section 15(1) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (for brevity, the Act). On 15.02.2014, the Secretary, Masughat Gaon Panchayat forwarded the said requisition to the President, Borkhola Anchalik Panchayat stating therein that the matter had already been put up before the President, Masughat 2 Gaon Panchayat on 07.02.2014 for taking necessary action but she asked to wait due to some legal complications. Since the stipulated period of calling a special meeting was over, the petition was bei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2772 OF2011E.A. ABOOBACKER & ORS. APPELLANT(S) Versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S) 27732774 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL No.2775 OF2011JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.1. The short question which arises in these appeals is whether the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Cochin Refineries Limited, Ernakulam, Vytilla, Cochin19 [hereinafter referred to as the Special Tahsildar (LA), K.R.L.]. was empowered to act as Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in respect of lands acquired by the State for an Infopark. 2 2. On 05.12.2005, the Government of Kerala accorded administrative sanction to acquire 177.79 acres of land in Ernakulam district for the purpose of the Infopark. The Government also accorded sanction to invoke the urgency clause under Section 17(1) of the Act. Thereafter, on 15.12.2005, the District Collector, Ernakulam issued a Go...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.9064-9065 of 2018 [Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.32073-32074/2015]. FERANI HOTELS PVT. LTD. .APPELLANT versus THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER GREATER MUMBAI & ORS. .RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.1. The present appeal raises the issue of disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), seeking information regarding the plans submitted to public authorities by a developer of a project. 1 2. Late Shri E.F. Dinshaw was the owner of three plots in Malad (West), Mumbai and Mr. Nusli Neville Wadia/respondent No.3 is the sole administrator of the estate and effects of late Shri E.F. Dinshaw. It may be noted that there is litigation pending qua the functioning of respondent No.3 as an administrator, but it is not in doubt that at present, there is no interdict against him in performing his role as the sole administrator. A Development Agreement dated 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5806 OF2008Dalip Kaur (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. ..Appellants Versus Ram Kishan (D) Thr. Lr(s). & Ors. ..Respondents JUDGMENT MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.09.2004 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No.551 of 1982. The appellants herein are the original defendants. Respondent no.1 in this appeal, namely, Ram Kishan (now dead and represented through his legal heir) filed a suit for possession as the owner of the 1/3rd share of the suit property against the contesting defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (appellants herein). The trial Court decreed the suit. The first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. The High Court set aside the judgment of the first appellate Court 1 and affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Consequently, the suit came to be decreed by t...
Tag this Judgment!