Court : Supreme Court of India
NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No.15 OF2019M Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. .Petitioner (s) VERSUS State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. .Respondent(s) ORDER Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.2. In our view, the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court does not call for any interference. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed. 1 3. However, we direct the concerned Magistrate, who is seized of the complaint, to decide the same in accordance with law within a period of six months from today. New Delhi; July 30, 2019. ...................................J.[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]. ......................................J.[INDU MALHOTRA]. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.546 OF2010SUNITA STATE OF HARYANA VERSUS .....APPELLANT(S) .....RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J.1. 2. The appellant Sunita stands convicted for the murder of Sushila, wife of Shish Pal, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal on January 13, 2006. The appeal against the said judgment was dismissed on March 25, 2008. Shish Pal is son of Dharma and resident of Village Dadola, District Panipat. Shish Pal and Sushila had two children, one son Sagar aged about 3 years and one daughter Shivani aged about 1 years. The accused Sunita is daughter of Roshan, cousin of father of Shish Pal, who was also a resident of Village Dadola. Roshan had three daughters, the other two being Santosh and Geeta.3. Pirthi Singh (PW-5) is resident of Village Kailash, which is 55 kms. from Village Dadola on way to Village Sangatehra (UP), the Page 1 of 12 paternal village of Sushila, the deceased. Pirthi Sing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s).1143 OF2019(arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.1273 of 2019) VIJAY PANDEY ...APPELLANT(S) STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S) VERSUS JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J.The appellant assails his conviction and sentence under Sections 8 and 15 of the of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as the NDPS Act) for 15 years along with fine of Rs.1,50,000/ under Section 31 of the NDPS Act.2. The appellant is stated to have been carrying a plastic flour packet in his right hand leading to recovery of 10 kgs. of opium. No independent witness from the locality was included in the investigation and all the witnesses are police officials only. 1 3. Learned counsel for the appellant alleging false implication contends that he was apprehended as he stepped out of his house. There is no explanation for the nonavailability of any independent witness in a residential locality. There ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s).1157 OF2019(arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.2663 of 2017) ANIL KHADKIWALA VERSUS ...APPELLANT(S) STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J.The application preferred by the appellant under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the summons issued in complaint case no.3403/1/2015 was dismissed by the High Court opining that since the earlier Crl.M.C. No.877 of 2005 for the same relief had already been dismissed, the second application was not maintainable.2. Respondent no.2 filed a complaint under Section 142 read with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter 1 referred to as the Act) against the appellant who was the Director of M/s. ETI Projects Ltd., the Company in question. It was alleged that the accused person had issued cheques dated 15.02.2001 and 28.02.2001, which were dishonoured upon presentation. The appellant had preferred Crl....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Criminal Appeal No.1160 of 2019 @ SLP(Crl.)No.3342 of 2019 G.J.Raja vs. Tejraj Surana 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1160 OF2019(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal)No.3342 of 2019) Appellant Respondent VERSUS JUDGMENT[ G.J.RAJA TEJRAJ SURANA Uday Umesh Lalit, J.1. Leave granted.2. This Appeal challenges the Final Order dated 08.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal O.P.No.3406 of 2019 preferred by the Appellant herein.3. Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) being C.C.No.7171 of 2018 is presently pending against the Appellant before the IInd Fast Track Court -Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. According to the complaint, two cheques issued by the Appellant in the sums of Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/- in favour of the Respondent-Complainant were dishonoured Criminal Appeal No.1160 of 2019 @ SLP(Crl.)No.33...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1162-1163 OF2019(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.3204-3205 of 2019) BHARATBHAI BHIMABHAI BHARWAD Appellant VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS ...Respondents JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.Leave granted. 1 2. These appeals are preferred against the order dated 26.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application Nos.3528 of 2019 and 3529 of 2019 and order dated 07.03.2019 - On note for speaking to minutes of order dated 26.02.2019 in R/CR.MA/3529/2019 in and by which the High Court declined to interfere with the order passed by the trial court granting bail to respondents No.2 and 3-accused No.1 and 2 and further relegating the appellant- complainant to approach the Sessions Court on the alleged breach of condition of bail and for imposing the appropriate conditions.3. The father of respondents No.2 and 3-accused No.1 and 2 were loaned money by the father of complain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 5976 OF2019(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).18232 OF2019@ SLP(C) DIARY NO.27982 OF2017 HUCHANAGOUDA Appellant(s) VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No(s).5977 OF2019(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).18233 OF2019@ SLP(C) Diary No(s). 27981/2017) JUDGMENT BANUMATHI, J: (1) Leave granted. (2) The Government notified the lands in-question for acquisition for the purpose of rehabilitating the Veerapur villagers on account of implementation of Hirehalla project on 16.10.2003. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award dated 08.03.2006 fixing the value of the land at the rate of Rs.24,500/- per acre. In reference, the Court raised the market value to Rs.1,26,500/- per acre. In appeal, the High Court has taken into account the market value determined in respect of acquisition under another Notification dated 24.11.1994, pointing out that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO.4430 OF2009ZENITH DRUGS & ALLIED AGENCIES PVT. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHRI UDAY KRISHNA PAUL Appellant VERSUS M/S. NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD. ...Respondent JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.This appeal arises out of the order dated 26.03.2007 passed by the Guwahati High Court in Civil Revision (P) No.31 of 2005 in and by which the High Court allowed the revision 1 petition preferred by the respondent and referred the parties to arbitration.2. Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are as follows:- The appellant is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is involved with various types of agency businesses including that of clearing and forwarding agents, freight contractors, etc. M/s Rhone Poulene India Limited (RPIL) vide agreement dated 01.05.1997 appointed the appellant Company as its clearing and forwarding agent for a period of three years. Clause 17 of the agree...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE Civil Appeal No(s). 5943-5945 of 2019 (@SLP(C) Nos. 28719-28721 of 2015) Indsil Hydro Power & Manganese Ltd Appellant(s) Versus State of Kerala & Ors Etc Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J12 Leave granted. These appeals arise from the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala dated 21 August 2015. The High Court has dismissed the writ proceedings instituted by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3 On 7 December 1990, the State of Kerala issued G.O (Ms) No.23/90/PD by which private entities were permitted to construct and operate Hydel Power Projects for the generation of power, subject to certain conditions. These conditions, broadly speaking were: The Private Agencies would be allowed to set up sanctioned hydel schemes at their own cost. Where the power scheme is located in an area owned by the 2 Respondents, the land would be leased for a period of 30...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1161 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.8894 of 2018) SURYAKANT BABURAO @ RAMRAO PHAD VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS JUDGMENT ...Appellant Respondents R. BANUMATHI, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 12.07.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay at Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2016 in and by which the High Court affirmed the conviction of respondent No.2- accused No.1 under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and reduced the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him from seven years to five years and imposed fine amount of Rs.25,000/-. Insofar respondent Nos.3 and 4-accused Nos.2 1 and 3, the High Court acquitted them from the charges under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and instead convicted them under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and reduced the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them to the period already underg...
Tag this Judgment!