Court : Supreme Court of India
NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 2007 OF2008EZAJHUSSAIN SABDARHUSSAIN & ANR. .Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT .Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Rastogi, J.1. The appellants are assailing their conviction under Section 302 read with section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life passed by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the High Court under the impugned judgment.2. On dismissal of appeal upholding conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, accused nos. 1 and 2 have not challenged their conviction and sentence and accused nos. 3 and 4(present appellants) have approached this Court assailing the 1 said judgment and conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows: According to the case of the prosecution, accused no.1 Iftekharhussain Sabdarhussain was having a long pending civil dispute about his flat with the deceased...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8199 OF2009MEHBOOB-UR-REHMAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. Appellant(s) VS. AHSANUL GHANI Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dinesh Maheshwari, J.The appellant herein (since deceased and represented by his legal representatives) had filed the suit for specific performance of Agreement to Sell, being O.S. No.392 of 1979, that was decreed by the Court of II Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar by the judgment and decree dated 10.12.1981. However, the decree so passed by the Trial Court was reversed by the Court of IX Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in its judgment and decree dated 03.07.1995 in Appeal No.54 of 1982, essentially on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to aver and prove his continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in its impugned judgment dated 10.12.2007 in R.S.A. No.931 of 1995, while 2 dismissing the second appeal file...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.238 OF2019SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) No.1434 OF2018PROF R K VIJAYASARATHY & ANR .... APPELLANTS Versus SUDHA SEETHARAM & ANR ....RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J12 Delay condoned. The present appeal arises from the judgment and final order dated 1 January 2016 of the High Court of Karnataka, rejecting the prayer of the appellants to quash the criminal proceedings instituted by the first respondent against them. The High Court stayed the criminal proceedings till the disposal of a pending civil suit instituted by the son of the appellants against the first respondent. 3 The facts relevant to the present dispute are thus: Rajiv Vijayasarathy Ratnam, (the son of the appellants) and Savitha Seetharam (the daughter of the first respondent) were married on 24 May 2002. They moved 1 to the United States of America and a child was born to them in 2009. Savitha was involved in a car ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1669 OF2019(@ S.L.P. (Civil) No.19188 of 2010) M. REVANNA ...APPELLANT VERSUS ANJANAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.2. Leave granted. The order dated 09.04.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.2266 of 2009 (GMCPC) by the High Court of Karnataka is called in question in this appeal.3. The appellant herein was Plaintiff No.1 in the suit being O.S No.2611/1993 filed seeking partition and separate possession of joint family properties. Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5, including the appellant herein, filed the said suit seeking partition and separate possession of joint family properties to the extent of 1/6th share to Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3, 1/6th share to 1 Plaintiff No.4 and 1/6th share to Plaintiff No.5. Initially, only three defendants were made parties to the suit. Immediately upon the appearance of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, a compromise petition was filed on behalf of Pl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1665 OF2019(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.33757 of 2018) Sunita & Ors. Appellants :Versus: Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .Respondents JUDGMENT A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. 2. Leave granted. The captioned appeal assails the decision of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, dated 25th July, 2018 in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.521 of 2017, whereby the appeal filed by respondent No.1 (The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation) owner of the offending vehicle, was allowed. The High Court was pleased to set aside the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims 2 Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur (for short the Tribunal) in favour of the appellants/claimants for the death of their family member, Sitaram and consequently dismissed the SBCMA No.581/2017 filed by the appellants for enhancement of the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal.3. Briefly stated, on 28th Octobe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2357 OF2017GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....APPELLANT(S) UNION OF INDIA VERSUS WITH .....RESPONDENT(S) CONT. PETITION (CIVIL) No.175 OF2016IN WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.539 OF1986CIVIL APPEAL No.2360 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.2359 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.2363 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.2362 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.2358 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.2361 OF2017CRIMINAL APPEAL No.277 OF2017AND CIVIL APPEAL No.2364 OF20172 JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.Prologue All these appeals arise out of the judgment dated August 04, 2016 rendered by the High Court of Delhi in writ petitions filed before it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We would refer to the subject matter of those writ petitions and the manner in which the High Court dealt with and decided the same at the appropriate stage. However, it would be pertinent to point out that in the said impugned judgment, main issue related to the status of National Capital Terri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL No.1653 OF2019(Arising out of SLP(C) No.25005 of 2015) TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN Appellant VERSUS TNEB-THOZHILALAR AYKKIYA SANGAM BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY Respondent WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.1654 OF2019(Arising out of SLP(C) NO.14627 OF2016 JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.Leave granted. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 27.03.2015 in 2. W.A. No.497 of 2015 and judgment dated 21.08.2015 in W.A. No.1166 of 2015 in and by which the High Court affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge directing the appellant-Board to pay Dearness Allowance at the rate of 49% w.e.f. 01.01.2002 to the members of respondent(s)-union on par with the Central Government employees. 1 3. These appeals relate to the claim of employees of the appellant-Board for the payment of difference of Dearness Allowance (DA) for a period of nine months as under:- - - 4% of DA (difference of 49% - 45%) from 01.01.200...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4616-4617 OF2009VASANT CHEMICALS LIMITED .Appellant VERSUS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, HYDERABAD METROPOLITIAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD AND OTHERS With Respondents CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4618-4619 OF2009VASANT CHEMICALS LIMITED .Appellant VERSUS M. D., HYDERABAD METRO W.S. & S. BOARD & OTHERS Respondents JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 29.10.2003 passed in the Writ Petition Nos.4917 and 5044 of 2000 and order dated 29.12.2003 passed in review petition by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dismissing the writ petitions as well as the review petitions holding that the levy of sewerage cess levied on the appellant by the respondent-Board is in accordance with Section 55 of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and 1 Sewerage Act, 1989 (HMWS&S Act) and Clause 16 of the agreement entered into between the appellant and the Board.2. The facts giving rise to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.264 of 2019 [Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No.9199 of 2018]. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .Appellant versus SURENDRA PUNDLIK GADLING & ORS. .Respondents JUDGMENT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.1. 2. Leave granted. The respondents/detenues claimed default bail in view of the failure of the appellant/State to file a charge-sheet within ninety (90) days, under the provisions of Section 43D of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and also 1 for seeking extension for completion of investigation, for a period of ninety (90) further days, in a manner that did not meet with the requirements of the proviso to sub-section (2)(b) of Section 43D of the said Act. The latter has become an issue of contention inasmuch as it has been argued that the endeavour of the State Government cannot be said to indicate the submission of a report of the Public Prosecutor, specifying reas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1577 Of 2019 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS C. GIRIJA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.1578 Of 2019 MEENA BHASKAR ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS C. GIRIJA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) AND WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.653 Of 2015 C. GIRIJA ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.Two appeals, one by Union of India and one by Meena Bhaskar, have been filed against the Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 1 06.02.2015. The writ petition under Article 32 has been filed by C. Girija seeking direction to implement the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in her favour.2. Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding these appeals and writ petition are: The Southern Railway, Divisional Office, Personnel Branch issued a notification dated 14.10.1999 for selection of g...
Tag this Judgment!