Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1656 OF2013VIJAY MOHAN SINGH APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA RESPONDENT JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 08.02.2013 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga in Criminal Appeal No.402 of 2008, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the State of Karnataka and quashed and set 1 aside the judgment and order of acquittal dated 20.12.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track CourtIV, Bidar (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Court), by which the learned trial Court acquitted original accused no.1 (the appellant herein) for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34, 498A, 304B read with 34 of the IPC, and Sections 3,4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and consequently convicted original accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.645 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.626 OF2015 The State of Rajasthan ..Appellant Versus Kanhaiya Lal ..Respondents JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal arises from the Judgement and Order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan dated 23.05.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No.303 of 2009. The High Court, while allowing the appeal filed by the respondent, convicted him under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1 instead of Section 302 of the IPC. The High Court sentenced the respondent to undergo 8 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ and in default of payment of fine, to suffer one month simple imprisonment. The State preferred this appeal against the said decision.3. A First Information Report was lodged by one Dalip Kumar at Police Station Nimbaheda being FIR No.32/2008. It was alleged that on 26.01.2008, when PW5 Ms. Kailashi was returning...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6600 OF2015M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ... APPELLANT VS. MANDALA YADAGARI GOUD & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS C.A.No.1954/2019 @ SLP(C)NO.5603/2019 @ CC No.11685/2016, WITH C.A.NO.178/2017 & C.A.No.1953/2019 @ SLP(C)NO.19797/2015 JUDGMENT Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.C.A.No.6600/2015 & C.A. No.No.11685/2016 5603/ 2019 @ CC1954 2019 @ SLP(C) 1. The only legal issue canvassed before us in these matters, which are in the nature of cross appeals, is that in the case of a motor accident where there is death of a person, who is a bachelor, whether the age of the deceased or the age of the dependents would be taken into account for calculating the multiplier. 2 2. The appellant in C.A.No.6600/2015 is the insurance company, whose counsel submits that it is the age of the dependents which has to be taken into account and thus the High Court has fallen into an error by taking the multiplier on the ba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPEAL No.743 OF2012PEER SINGH APPELLANT(S) Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.746 OF2012CRIMINAL APPEAL No.744 OF2012JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.1. All the three appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since they arise out of one incident and one judgment delivered by the trial court. 2 2. The facts necessary for deciding this case are that 15 persons were tried for the murder of Babusingh on the night intervening 13/14th September 1992 near Village Kalma, Dewas District, Madhya Pradesh. The trial court acquitted 8 persons and convicted 7 persons. Gajrajsingh, Harisingh, Bhagwansingh @ Bhaggu, Peer Singh, Gulabsingh, Shobharam and Thakursingh were convicted by the trial court for having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 and 148 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and all the 7 accused were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPEAL No.743 OF2012PEER SINGH APPELLANT(S) Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.746 OF2012CRIMINAL APPEAL No.744 OF2012JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.1. All the three appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since they arise out of one incident and one judgment delivered by the trial court. 2 2. The facts necessary for deciding this case are that 15 persons were tried for the murder of Babusingh on the night intervening 13/14th September 1992 near Village Kalma, Dewas District, Madhya Pradesh. The trial court acquitted 8 persons and convicted 7 persons. Gajrajsingh, Harisingh, Bhagwansingh @ Bhaggu, Peer Singh, Gulabsingh, Shobharam and Thakursingh were convicted by the trial court for having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 and 148 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and all the 7 accused were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPEAL No.743 OF2012PEER SINGH APPELLANT(S) Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.746 OF2012CRIMINAL APPEAL No.744 OF2012JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.1. All the three appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since they arise out of one incident and one judgment delivered by the trial court. 2 2. The facts necessary for deciding this case are that 15 persons were tried for the murder of Babusingh on the night intervening 13/14th September 1992 near Village Kalma, Dewas District, Madhya Pradesh. The trial court acquitted 8 persons and convicted 7 persons. Gajrajsingh, Harisingh, Bhagwansingh @ Bhaggu, Peer Singh, Gulabsingh, Shobharam and Thakursingh were convicted by the trial court for having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 and 148 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and all the 7 accused were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF2005CIVIL APPEAL No.5282 M/s D.J.Malpani ... Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik Respondent(s) JUDGMENT S.A. BOBDE, J.The appellant-assessee manufacture goods falling under Chapter 24 of the Schedule of The Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). While selling goods, the appellant-assessee charged the customers invoices for the price of goods plus Dharmada, a charitable donation. According to the appellant, the Dharmada was paid voluntarily by customers and was meant for charity. It was accordingly credited to charity.2. However, the Superintendent, Central Excise, Nashik issued show cause notices and raised a demand of duty in respect of Dharmada, claiming it was part of the price for the sale of manufactured goods and included it for computing assessable value. Page 1 of 18 3. Initially, the Adjudicating Authority held that the Dharmada component was not part of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPEAL No.743 OF2012PEER SINGH APPELLANT(S) Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.746 OF2012CRIMINAL APPEAL No.744 OF2012JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.1. All the three appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since they arise out of one incident and one judgment delivered by the trial court. 2 2. The facts necessary for deciding this case are that 15 persons were tried for the murder of Babusingh on the night intervening 13/14th September 1992 near Village Kalma, Dewas District, Madhya Pradesh. The trial court acquitted 8 persons and convicted 7 persons. Gajrajsingh, Harisingh, Bhagwansingh @ Bhaggu, Peer Singh, Gulabsingh, Shobharam and Thakursingh were convicted by the trial court for having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 and 148 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and all the 7 accused were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3588 OF2019[Arising out of SLP(C) No.46 of 2019]. CARETEL INFOTECH LTD. .APPELLANT Versus HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS. .RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.1. 2. Leave granted. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (respondent No.1) floated an e-public tender on 4.12.2017 for setting up call centres for receiving, recording and replying to information enquiries and complaints from LPG customers of IOC/HPC/BPC. The appellant participated in the tender. Clause 20 of the tender reads as under:1. 20. Black List/Ban/Holiday List i. Bids received from parties who have been banned/blacklisted/put on holiday list or parties in respect of whom the action for blacklisting and holiday listing has been initiated by HPCL/any Government/Quasi Government Agencies or PSUs, shall not be considered for either evaluation or for award of work. Offer of Vendor who has not submitted declaration o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.71 OF2012RUPALI DEVI APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.619 OF2019[Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.5695/2010]. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.620 OF2019[Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.8246/2010]. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.621 OF2019[Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.7387/2011]. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.622 OF2019[Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.5052/2014]. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.623 OF2019[Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.5139/2014]. JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, CJI1 Whether a woman forced to leave her matrimonial home on account of acts and conduct that constitute cruelty can initiate and access the legal process within the jurisdiction of the courts where she is forced to take shelter with the parents or other family members. This is the precise question that arises for determination in this group of appeals.2. The opinions of this Court on the aforesaid question being sharply divided, the present ...
Tag this Judgment!