Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.78 OF2022Geeta Devi ..Appellant(S) Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ..Respondent(S) JUDGMENT M. R. Shah, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 06.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Criminal Appeal No.2356 of 2019 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the victim of the offence, which was filed against the judgment and order dated 13.09.2019 passed by the learned Special Court, acquitting the respondent accused under Sections 354, 504, 506 of the IPC, Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) 1 Act, 1989, the victim original appellant has preferred the present appeal.2. That the learned Special Court/Trial Court convicted respondent Nos.2 to 4 accused for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323/34 and 325/34 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.70 OF2022Ishwarji Nagaji Mali Appellant Versus State of Gujarat and another Respondents JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 30.07.2021 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.9390 of 2021, by which the High Court has directed to release respondent no.2 (accused) on bail in connection with FIR registered at C.R. No.I 11195008201056 of 2020 with Bhildi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B), 114, 304A of the IPC and under Sections 177, 184 & 134 of 1 the Motor Vehicles Act, the father of the deceased has preferred the present appeal.2. The incident in question took place on the morning of 26.12.2020 at 7:00 a.m. when respondent no.2 herein along with his wife, Daxaben (deceased) left their home in Deesa to visit Hanumanji Temple at Gela village and on their way at...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.315 OF2022Mamtaz & Ors. ...Appellant(s) Versus Gulsuma Alias Kulusuma ...Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 21.04.2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench in R.S.A. No.200073 of 2021 by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent herein and has quashed and set aside the order passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A. No.22 of 2020 and has also quashed and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, the original plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal. 12. The facts leading to the present appeal, which are necessary for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal in nutshell are as under:- 2.1 That the appellants herein filed a suit for declaration and possessi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.76 OF2022(ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.) No.6329 OF2020 JAIBUNISHA ..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS MEHARBAN & ANR. .RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.77 OF2022(ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.) No.1337 OF2021 JAIBUNISHA ..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS JUMMA & ORS. .RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT NAGARATHNA J.These appeals have been preferred by the informant appellant assailing the orders dated 7th October, 2020 and 17th November, 2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application Nos. 29759 of 2020 and 39886 of 2021 respectively whereby bail has been granted to six persons accused in Sardhana P.S. Crime Case No.955 of 2018. 22. It is the case of the appellant that she is the mother of the deceased Yameen. She is stated to be an eyewitness to the attack on her sons, namely Yameen and Mobin and her husband, Jamshed. The appellant herein is the person who lodged the First Informati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.... OF2022(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.19413 OF2018 B.L. KASHYAP AND SONS LTD. . APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S JMS STEELS AND POWER CORPORATION & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.Preliminary Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.05.2018 in Regular First Appeal No.402 of 2018, whereby the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi has dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant and has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge-05: West, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi, in the money recovery summary suit, being CivDj/611333/2016, filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1, wherein the present appellant was arrayed as defendant No.2 and the present respondent No.2 was arrayed as defendant No.1. 12.1. It may be noticed at the outset that the Trial Court had passed the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2017 with its...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 5384-5385 OF2014SEETHAKATHI TRUST MADRAS Appellant Versus KRISHNAVENI Respondent JUDGMENT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.Facts:1. Land measuring 0.08 cents (100 cents = 1 acre) has seen a dispute spanning almost half a century.2. One C.D. Veeraraghavan Mudaliar was the original owner of 120 acres of land comprising S.No.44 and 45 at No.18, Othivakkam Village, Chengalpattu Taluk. He entered into an agreement in October, 1959 to sell the Land in favour of Janab Sathak Abdul Khadar Sahib who intended to purchase the same on behalf of the appellant Trust for a sale consideration of Rs.18,000. The appellant Trust was registered under the 1 Societies Registration Act, 1860 originally and now regulated under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The other story is what is set up by the Respondent who claimed that C.D. Veeraraghavan Mudaliar entered into an agreement of sale with her on 10.04.1961 for sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5766 of 2021 DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LTD. ... APPELLANT(S) Versus ANTRIX CORPORATION LTD. & ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.5906 of 2021 JUDGMENT V. Ramasubramanian, J.1. Challenging an order of winding up passed by the National Company Law Tribunal under Section 271(c) of the Companies Act, 1 2013 (for short the 2013 Act), which was confirmed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal on appeals, the company in liquidation, namely, Devas Multimedia Private Limited, through its exDirector has come up with an appeal in Civil Appeal No.5766 of 2021 and one of the shareholders of the company in liquidation, namely, Devas Employees Mauritius Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as DEMPL) has come up with another appeal in CA No.5906 of 2021.2. We have heard Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel appearing for the company in liquidation, Shri Arvind P. Datar, learned senior counsel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.13 OF2022LAWYERS VOICE ..PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S) ORDER1 The present Writ Petition arises out of the incident dated 5.01.2022 wherein on a visit to Hussainiwala, District Firozpur, State of Punjab the convoy of the Prime Minister was stuck on a flyover for around 20 minutes.2. Petitioner, an NGO which purports to work for advocates across the country and takes up causes that are in public interest, therefore, seeks that this Court take cognizance of the above incident and has prayed for the following directions: (a) Take cognizance of the serious and deliberate lapse on part of the Respondent Nos. 1,2 ad 3 concerning the security and the movement of the Prime Minister of the country; and 1 (b) Direct the learned District Judge, Bhatinda, to collect all official documents and materials from all possible sources pertaining to the movements and deployment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos. 7724-7725 of 2021 Pragnesh Shah Appellant Versus Dr Arun Kumar Sharma & Ors. Respondents 1 JUDGMENT Dr Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J This judgment has been divided into the following sections to facilitate analysis: A The Appeal B Eco-sensitive Zone Notification and Zonal Master Plan 2030 C Proceedings before NGT D Submissions of counsel E Jurisdiction of NGT F Merits of Expert Committee Report G Precautionary Principle H Conclusion 2 PART A A The Appeal 1 These appeals under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act1 arise from judgments dated 10 March 2021 and 29 July 2021 of the National Green Tribunal2. By its judgment dated 10 March 2021, the NGT, on the basis of a report3 dated 8 December 2020 submitted by an Expert Committee, allowed an original application4 filed by the first respondent, which challenged the Zonal Master Plan 20305 prepared by the State of Rajasthan, for the Mount ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
CA3462022 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 346 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 32174 of 2018) Ms Sarita Singh Appellant Versus M/s Shree Infosoft Private Limited Respondent ORDER1Leave granted. 2 This appeal arises from a judgment and order dated 1 August 2018 of a Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in RSA No 3369 of 2018 (O&M). 3 The appellant is a software developer who joined the services of the respondent on 15 November 2012. The respondent is a company based in Gurgaon and engages in the business of software development. As a software developer, the appellant was employed on an annual package of Rs 13,50,400. The terms of employment were contained in a letter of offer dated 15 November 2012. The conditions of employment included the CA3462022 2 following stipulation: II (5) You are liable to be posted at any of the various divisions of SHREE INFOSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED (the Company)/ branches/subsidiaries/affil...
Tag this Judgment!