Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL/CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 3135316 OF2019(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 1589215893 of 2018) LAHARI SAKHAMURI ..Appellant(s) VERSUS SOBHAN KODALI ..Respondent(s) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 500 OF2019(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.2316 of 2018) JUDGMENT Rastogi, J.Leave granted.2. Both the appeals although arise from two separate orders passed by the High Court of Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh dated 8th February 2018 in a Habeas Corpus Petition filed at the instance of the respondent (Sobhan Kodali) and by the appellant (Lahari Sakhamuri) under the 1 Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 primarily for the custody of the two minor children who were born in the United States on 14th March, 2012 and 13th October, 2014 and are US citizens and holding US passports. For the custody of children, a tussle was going on between the parents who are residing in US since 20042005. Their marriage was sol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 753 OF2010STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR. .Appellant(s) VERSUS VIJAY KUMAR ALIAS PAPPU AND ANR. ...Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Rastogi, J.1. The challenge in this appeal is against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla dated 24th March, 2008 filed at the instance of the State of Himachal Pradesh whereby the High Court was pleased to partially allow the appeal filed by the respondents and altered the nature of offence from one under Section 307/34 IPC to one under Section 326 IPC and reduced the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/ each to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and increased the fine to Rs. 25,000/ 1 each and in default, to undergo further imprisonment of six months.2. In the instant case, the victim has suffered 16% burn injury which was caused due to acid attack on the darkest day of her life, i.e. on 12th July...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.508 OF2019(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) 1883 of 2018) ROHITBHAI JIVANLAL PATEL .. APPELLANT(S) VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. .. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Dinesh Maheshwari, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the common judgment and order dated 08.01.2018 in R/Criminal Appeal No.1187/2017 connected with R/Criminal Appeal Nos. 1191/2017 to 1196/2017 whereby, the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad has reversed the respective judgment and orders dated 09.06.2017 as passed by the 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara in 7 criminal cases1 pertaining to the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the NI Act') for dishonour of 7 cheques in the sum of Rs. 3 lakhs each, as said to have been drawn by the accused-appellant in favour of the complainant- respondent No.2. In the impugned judgment and order dat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.509 OF2019 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No.9687 of 2018) SUGREEV KUMAR .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Dinesh Maheshwari J.Leave Granted.2. In this appeal, the complainant-appellant has called in question the judgement and order dated 02.07.2018 in Criminal Revision Application No.2626 of 2014 whereby, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, has upheld the order dated 24.07.2014 as passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka in S.C. No.9 of 14.01.2014 on an application filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('CrPC') seeking summoning of additional accused persons to stand the trial. 2.1 The sessions case aforesaid is pending trial for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 341, 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act. By the said order dated 24.07.2014 on the 1 application under Section 31...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.456 OF2019(Arising out of S.L.P (Crl.) No.208 of 2019) PERIYASAMI AND ORS. Versus ........APPELLANTS S. NALLASAMY ........RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J.The present appeal is directed against an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras on 28.08.2018 whereby an order passed by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate1 on 27.02.2015 dismissing an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732 was set aside and the appellants were ordered to be impleaded as accused and to be proceeded against in accordance with law. 1 Magistrate 2 Code 1 2. A First Information Report for the offences under Sections 147, 448, 294(b) and 506 of IPC was registered on 29.05.2011 in pursuance of an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras on 26.05.2011 in a writ petition filed by S. Nallasamy3 giving direction to register the First Information Report. The Compl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3024 OF2019(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.5513 of 2014) Rameshwar Dass .Appellant(s) VERSUS The State of Punjab .Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.3028 OF2019(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.17144 of 2014) CIVIL APPEAL No.3026 OF2019(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.8073 of 2014 CIVIL APPEAL No.3029 OF2019(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29928 of 2014 CIVIL APPEAL No.3027 OF2019(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.8098 of 2014 AND CIVIL APPEAL No.3025 OF2019(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.6261 of 2014 1 JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.In C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No.5513/2014 1.2. Leave granted. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 25.09.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in R.F.A. No.1943 of 1996.3. In order to appreciate the issues involved in this appeal, it is necessary to set out a few relevant facts hereinbelow.4. The appellant is a landowner of the land in question where...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO.7461 OF2009SARVEPALLI RAMAIAH (DIED) AS PER LRS AND OTHERS Appellants VERSUS THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT AND OTEHRS Respondents JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 22.02.2006 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No.1495 of 2004 in and by which the Division Bench upheld the order of the Single Judge thereby declining to interfere with the order of the District Collector in refusing to grant ryotwari patta in favour of the appellants.2. Case of the appellants is that their predecessor-in-interest obtained a saswatha patta dated 31.12.1940 from Sri Hathiramjee Math for dry land admeasuring 6.00 acres T.D. No.464 and predecessors of the appellants and the appellants 1 have been in possession ever since. It is the case of appellants that they have obtained ryotwari patta dated 29.09.1980 in respect of admeasuring 6.00 acres of land corr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I.A. NO.24616 OF2019IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.310 OF1996PRAKASH SINGH & ORS. VERSUS PETITIONER(S)/ APPLICANT(S) UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) WITH I.A.No.115064/2018, I.A.No.20735/2019, I.A.NO.11484/2019 JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, CJI I.A. NO.24616 OF20191. On an earlier occasion, this Court had the occasion to deal with another application for clarification of this Courts order dated 3rd July, 2018 [i.e. I.A. No.144172 of 2018]. though in a different context. While passing the order on the said I.A. on 16.1.2019, this Court referring to the principles underlying the judgment of this Court in Prakash Singh & Ors. vs. 2 Union of India & Ors. 1 had specifically noticed the relevant directions issued under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which are in the following terms: Selection and minimum tenure of DGP. (2) The Director General of Police of the State shall be selected by the State Government from ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6567 OF2014GURNAM SINGH (D) BY LRS. & ORS. VERSUS APPELLANT(S) LEHNA SINGH (D) BY LRS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 27.11.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Regular Second Appeal No.2191 of 1985 by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent hereinoriginal plaintiff 1 (now dead and represented by LRs) and has quashed and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court and consequently restored the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, the original defendants have preferred the present appeal.2. The facts leading to present appeal in nutshell are as under: That the respondentoriginal plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as original plaintiff) filed a suit in the Court of Sub Judge, First Class, Sangrur for perp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2961__OF2019(Arising from SLP (C) No.15949/2016) UMA MAHESH BANDEKAR AND ANOTHER ..APPELLANTS VERSUS VIVEK SADANAND MARATHE AND OTHERS ..RESPPONDENTS JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.Leave granted.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 05.05.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Goa in Appeal from Order No.39/2015, by which the High Court has dismissed the said Appeal from Order and has confirmed the order dated 02.06.2015 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Adhoc Senior Civil Judge, Margao in the Inventory Proceedings by the original Inventariante 1 and other parties, the original appellants before the High Court have preferred the present appeal.3. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under: At the outset it is required to be noted that the lease premises was of a partnership firm in the name and style Ramnath Anant Ke...
Tag this Judgment!