Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 949 OF2019(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 1253 of 2019) ASIM SHARIFF .Appellant(s) VERSUS NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Rastogi, J.1. 2. Leave granted. The present appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant against whom a criminal case bearing No.RC0416 NIAHYD came to be registered along with four other accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 109, 150, 153A, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC; Sections 3 and 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 15,16,17,18 & 20 of the 1 Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, 1967(hereinafter being referred to as UAP Act).3. After completion of the investigation, final report was submitted before the trial Court against the accused persons including appellant. The appellant claims that there was no material for registering the criminal case neither investigating nor submitting the final report against him. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.5136 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.18113 of 2018) UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS. Versus RANJIT KUMAR SAHA & ANR. .... Appellant(s) . Respondent (s) JUDGMENT L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.Leave granted. The first Respondent was working as Subedar 1. (Building and Road) and the second Respondent was a Naib Subedar (building and Road) in Headquarter- 6 Sector, Assam Rifles, Kamrup, Assam. A sting operation was carried out by a contractor, Mr. C.C. Mathew, followed by a telecast in Matrabhumi News, a Malayalam Television channel and Tehelka.com on 24/25th September, 2014 alleging corruption in the Assam Rifles. 1 On the basis of the said news, a Court of Inquiry was convened by Headquarters, IGAR (East.), Assam Rifles by an order dated 29.09.2014 which was later amended on 01.10.2014 in respect of the composition of the Court of Inquiry. A Court of Inquiry was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No... OF2019(Arising out of SLP (C) No.31579 of 2018) Madhav Prasad Aggarwal & Anr. ..Appellant(s) Axis Bank Ltd. & Anr. Versus With .Respondent(s) CIVIL APPEAL No... OF2019(Arising out of SLP (C) No.30900 of 2018) CIVIL APPEAL No... OF2019(Arising out of SLP (C) No.30917 of 2018) CIVIL APPEAL No... OF2019(Arising out of SLP (C) No.698 of 2019) JUDGMENT A.M. Khanwilkar, J.Leave granted.2. These appeals take exception to the common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction) in Appeal Nos.360, 361, 362 and Commercial Appeal No.172 of 2017 dated 26th October, 2018, whereby the notice of motion(s) filed by respondent No.1 2 Axis Bank Ltd. (one of the defendant in the suits filed by the respective appellant(s)) came to be allowed and as a result of which, the suit filed by the concerned appellant(s) had been dismissed as against respondent No.1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5124 OF2019(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.6788 of 2019) Arshnoor Singh Appellant versus Harpal Kaur & Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT INDU MALHOTRA, J.Leave granted.1. The present Civil Appeal has been filed to challenge the Order dated 13.11.2018 passed in RSA No.1354 of 2014 by the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. 1 2. The background facts in which the present Civil Appeal has been filed are briefly stated as under:2. 1. Lal Singh was the owner of large tracts of agricultural land in Village Khangarh, District Ferozepur, Punjab. The Appellant herein is the greatgrandson of Lal Singh. The genealogy table of Lal Singhs family is set out hereinbelow for the sake of convenience: Lal Singh Inder Singh Gurcharan Singh Dharam Singh Swaran Singh (son) (son) (son) Dharam Kaur (daughter) Arshnoor Singh (Appellant) 2.2. Lal Singh passed away in 1951, and his entire property was inherited by his only son In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7418 OF2009R.S. Anjayya Gupta ..Appellant Thippaiah Setty & Ors. .Respondents Versus JUDGMENT A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. The present appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated 7th September, 2004, in RFA No.456 of 2002, whereby the High Court upheld the findings of the Trial Court, that the suit properties described in Schedules A and B to the plaint were not selfacquired by the appellant (defendant No.1) but, instead, belonged to the Joint Hindu Family of which he was a member and, therefore plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 were equally entitled to 5/12th share in all the suit properties and defendant No.3 (a) (b) and (c) each were entitled to 1/24th share in all the 2 suit properties and thus the same could be partitioned and distributed amongst the members of the said joint family. The High Court, however, granted liberty to the appellant to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPEME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 7141 OF2008DODDAMUNIYAPPA(DEAD) THROUGH LRS. .Appellant(s) VERSUS MUNISWAMY & ORS. .Respondent(s) Rastogi, J.JUDGMENT1 The present appeal arises out of the suit filed at the instance of respondent nos. 1 to 6 and respondent No.10 for declaration that the compromise dated 25th March, 1976 entered into between the appellant(defendant No.1) on one hand and respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9(original defendant nos. 2, 3 &4) in Execution Appeal No.2 of 1974 did not bind the rights of the plaintiffs and for permanent injunction which was acceded to by the High Court in Regular First Appeal No.611 of 1999 vide judgment and decree dated 31st March, 2005.2. The facts in brief culled out and relevant for the present purpose which manifest from the record that Shri Chikkanna 1 (since deceased) was the propositus of the joint family. He had three sons, namely, Pillappa, Venkataramanappa and Muniyappa (respondent no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2019(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.11433 of 2019) The Executive Engineer, M.I.W. :Versus: ..Appellant(s) Vitthal Damodar Patil and Anr. ....Respondent(s) A.M. Khanwilkar, J.JUDGMENT1 Delay condoned. Leave granted.2. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 26th October, 2015, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, in First Appeal No.2536 of 2015, whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondentsclaimants against the decision of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, in a reference filed 2 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act), and enhanced the compensation amount for the lands acquired for the purpose of construction of Minor Irrigation Tank at Village Pimpri, Block Dambhurni, Taluka Pachora, District Jalgaon, Maharashtra.3. Briefly stated, a notification under Section 4 of the Act was pu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 816-817 OF2019(arising out of SLP(CRL.) Nos.10051-10052 of 2018) PRADEEP RAM .... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.These appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 26.09.2018 of High Court of Jharkhand dismissing the Writ Petition (Crl.) No.277 of 2018 and Crl. Misc. Petition No.1114 of 2016 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant.2. Brief facts of the case and sequence of events are:- 2.1 On 11.01.2016, a First Information Report No.02/2016, Police Station Tandwa was lodged for 2 offences under Sections 414, 384, 386, 387, 120-B I.P.C. read with Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35 of the Arms Act and Section 17(1) and (2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Apart from petitioner, there were 11 other named accused. The allegations made against the accused were that applicant by showing fear of extremist of TPC Group recove...
Tag this Judgment!