Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1841 OF2010M.L. Singla VERSUS .Appellant(s) Punjab National Bank and Anr. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 23.08.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No.16286 of 2006 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.1Bank and quashed the award dated 30.05.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central 1 Government Industrial TribunalcumLabour Court, New Delhi in I.D. No.103/98.2) In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the appeal, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts in detail infra.3) The appellant herein was the employee of respondent No.1Punjab National Bank (PNB).4) The appellant, at the relevant time, was working as Cashier in the PNB, Branch Office at Jind (Punjab).5) On 21.03.1984, the appellant while on duty wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs.37983799 OF2016Sudarsan Puhan Appellant(s) VERSUS Jayanta Ku. Mohanty & Anr. Etc. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1) These appeals are filed by the appellant claimant against the final judgment and order dated 09.11.2015 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in M.A.C.A. No.690 of 2014 and M.A.C.A. No.839 of 2014 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and reduced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident 1 Claims Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) from Rs.24,62,065/ to Rs.20,00,000/ and in consequence dismissed the M.A.C.A. No.690 of 2014 filed by the appellantclaimant in terms of the main order passed in M.A.C.A. No.839 of 2014.2) In order to appreciate the issue involved in these appeals, few facts need mention infra.3) The appellant herein was the claimant before the Tribunal whereas respondentowner of the vehicle (motorcycle) was the nonap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION (CIVIL) No.20 OF2012M/s Trans Asian Shipping Services (Pvt.) Ltd. Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/s Beacon Shipping Lines Ltd. Represented by Mr. Mohammed S. Aslam Managing Director & others Respondent(s) ORDER Dipak Misra, CJI The petitioner, by this petition under Section 11(9) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, the Act), has prayed for appointment of arbitrator as per Clause 5(1) of the Agency Agreement dated 31.03.2010 between M/s Trans Asian Shipping Services (Pvt.) Ltd. and M/s Beacon Shipping Lines Ltd.2. The petitioner is an Indian company and the respondent company is registered in Bangladesh. It is averred that the petitioner is a multinational company having operations in the Indian Sub-Continent, Middle East and South East Asia and is actively engaged in diversified activities with its core business being shipping especially transportation of containerized cargo. Its ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2403/2008 NON-REPORTABLE DORIS JOHN & ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS JANE WESLEY RESPONDENT(S) KURIAN, J.JUDGMENT The dispute in this case originated in 1992, leading to a suit for eviction. The Trial Court dismissed the eviction petition and the same was reversed by the High Court. Thus, the appellants are before this Court.2. On hearing the parties for some time, we sensed an element of settlement and accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the parties were referred to the Bangalore Mediation Centre, Bengalure, to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement.3. We are happy to note that before the Bangalore Mediation Centre, Bengalure, the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement of all the disputes between them. They have also filed a Memorandum of Settlement dated 30.05.2018 duly signed by the parties, which shall form part of this judgment.4. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the Memorand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1046 OF2011BHAGWAT VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s) Appellant(s) JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J.1. The appellant stands convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment for the death of his wife at home by burn injuries on 06.04.2003. The deceased expired the next day. The High Court acquitted him of the charge under Section 498-A IPC regarding dowry demand.2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that 1 there is no eye witness to the occurrence. There were three dying declarations at variance with each other. Conviction has been erroneously based on the third dying declaration merely because it was made in presence of the Special Judicial Magistrate. Reliance in support of the submission was placed on State of Rajasthan v. Shravan Ram & Another, AIR2013SC1890 In the alternative it was submitted that the deceased may have died on account of accidental burns while co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1690 OF2015SUBHASH MAHTO ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT R.BANUMATHI,J.1. The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court whereby the High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him.2. On 01.10.1988 at about 10.00 p.m. the complainant -Suresh Kumar while proceeding towards his home took deceased Ramanand Mahto on the scooter along with Ram Briksh Mahto. All of them proceeded to their house. At about 10.30 p.m. to 11.45 p.m., when they reached in front of the tea stall of Lalan Mahto situated at Begampur Mandai Mohalla, accused - Ramachandra Gareri and his father Lachhu Gareri started attacking deceased Ramanand Mahto with Bhujali and Dab respectively. The appellant - Subhash Mahto and others namely, Asmani Mahto, Rishi Mahto, Uma Nath M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7501 OF2011PARAS RAM & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.7510 OF2011JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. The challenge in these appeals is to the Judgment dated 02.08.2005 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Writ Petition No.11526 of 1994. The issue pertains to the selection and appointment of Patwaris, initiated in the year 1992. The High Court, as per the impugned order, set aside the selection initiated for filling up 1248 Patwaris. However, liberty was granted to all the parties before the High Court to participate in the fresh selection with a relaxation in age. Some of the similarly situated appellants were before this Court leading to the Judgment of this Court dated 2 28.09.2007 passed in Ram Avtar Patwari & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in (2007) 10 SCC94 wherein the entire matters were remitted to the High Court for fre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10658 OF2013REKHA GURUNATH MHASHELKAR Appellant(s) VERSUS YASHWANT VICHARE Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.10720 OF2013JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. The appellant filed a summary suit for eviction in the year 2006, being RAE & R Suit No.277/459 of 2006, on the file of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai. That suit was decreed ex-parte by Judgment dated 14.03.2007. According to the appellant, even the execution has been carried out. While so, the respondent filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. That was allowed by order dated 06.05.2009. The appellate court of the Small Causes Court, by order dated 09.12.2012 affirmed the order passed by the trial court. The appellant was unsuccessful before the High Court.2. During the pendency of the appeals before this Court, we are informed that the Court of Small Causes tried the suit afresh. The suit was decreed. That 2 was affirmed by the Appellate Bench ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.56 OF2018SMT. SHAMIM ....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J.The appellant has been convicted by the High Court under Sections 302/307/34, I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment, after reversing her acquittal ordered by the trial court. The appellant has further been denied the benefit of any remission in sentence, till she completes twentyfive years of custody.2. The Trial Court convicted four of the seven accused and acquitted the appellant and two others. The High Court dismissed the appeals against convictions, declined to 1 interfere with the acquittals, with the exception of the appellant.3. On 27.03.2006 at night, Pappu and Anisha (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) were shot dead on the first floor of their house. PW2, Heena suffered multiple injuries on her neck with a razor. The deceased and PW2 are the brother/mother/sister respe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5710 OF2018(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.1395 of 2018) Meena Verma Appellant(s) VERSUS State of Himachal Pradesh and another .Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, CJI The second respondent, being grieved by the appointment of the appellant as a part time female member in the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the Commission), had assailed the same by way of a Writ Petition being C.W.P. No.1571 of 2017 preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. The High Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 12.12.2017, quashed the appointment of the appellant and directed the Commission to consider the case of the writ petitioner stating, inter alia, that she is otherwise 2 meritorious and more experienced as compared to the appellant for appointment as a member in the Commission. Hence, the appeal by special leave...
Tag this Judgment!