Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.12 of 2015 Davinder Singh ... Appellant Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent JUDGEMENT M. M. Sundresh, J.1. The appellant stood charged and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 452 and 506 of Indian Penal Code 1860, (hereinafter referred to as IPC) by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar, which was confirmed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.S.1106 SB of 2003. Seeking to overturn the aforesaid decisions, the present appeal is filed. BRIEF FACTS:2. As per the prosecution version, the appellant came to the residence of the prosecutrix and committed the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, brandishing a knife. The brother of the victim namely Pargat Singh came home and 1 upon seeing him, the appellant took to his heels. On returning home, PW4, the father of the prosecutrix, filed a complaint for quarrel alone as he fel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).624/2017 BANK OF BARODA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS BALJIT SINGH Respondent(s) JUDGMENT This appeal arises out of a judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in RSA No.338 of 2011 dated 11.12.2015. By the said judgment, the High Court has set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 16.12.2009 passed in C.A. No.75 of 2008 and has restored the judgment of the Trial Court passed in Original Suit No.201 of 2005. Consequently, the relief sought for by the respondent in the suit, i.e., declaration and mandatory injunction vis-a-vis his appointment in the appellant-Bank on compassionate basis has been granted.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondents father who was working in the appellant-Bank, died in harness on 16.05.1999. As on that date, the appellant-Bank had a Scheme in place for appointment of dependents of the deceased employees on c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2128/2014 STATE OF PUNJAB ..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS KEWAL KRISHAN ..RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT1 Counsel for the appellant is present. None has appeared for the respondent. The office has submitted a report that notice has been served on the sole respondent, yet no one has entered appearance on his behalf.2. We have heard Mr. Mohit Siwach, learned counsel for the appellant.3. This appeal assails the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana (for short the High Court) dated 01.05.2012 rendered in Criminal Appeal No.372 of 2002, whereby the judgment and order of the trial Court convicting and sentencing the respondent (Kewal Krishan) under Section 302, IPC has been set aside and the 2 appellant (respondent herein) has been acquitted of the charges for which he was tried.4. The prosecution case rests on evidence in respect of following circumstances: (a) The deceased was last seen alive in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2845 of 2017 COAL INDIA LIMITED AND ANR. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANR...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No.896/2018 in C.A. No.2845/2017 T.C.(C) No.19/2023 T.C.(C) No.20/2023 T.C.(C) Nos.16-18/2023 T.C.(C) No.21/2023 JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, J.1. The Civil Appeal is directed against the Order passed by the Competition Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal), by which Order, the Tribunal affirmed the findings and conclusion recorded by the Competition Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as CCI) on various facets of abuse of dominant position. The abuse of dominant position was ascribed to the appellants. The appeal was dismissed. 12. The second respondent had provided information to the CCI which the CCI proceeded to consider and it found the abuse of dominant position by the appellants.3. The appellants have filed Interlocuto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8194 OF2018HASMUKHLAL MADHAVLAL PATEL AND ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS AMBIKA FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.8195 OF2018JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, J.1. The first respondent is a private limited company. It can also be described as a closely held private limited company. The authorised capital of the first respondent was Rs.1 crore. It consisted of ten lakh equity shares of Rs.10/- each. The paid-up capital was also the same. There are three groups. Appellants 1 and 1 2, together and relatives can be described as the H.M. Patel Group. They had 30.80 percentage of the paid-up share capital. The next Group to be noticed is the Sheth Group which is represented by Respondents 4 and 5, viz., Kirti Kumar Ochachhavlal Sheth and Ashwinikumar Kirtikumar Ochachhavlal Sheth (hereinafter referred to as, the Sheth Group, for short). The Sheth Group had 45 per cent share in the paid-up ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF2023(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS.2373-2377 OF2020 M/S TRINITY INFRAVENTURES LTD. & ORS. ETC. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M.S. MURTHY & ORS. ETC. RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2023(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.24098 OF2022 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF2023(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS.8884-8887 OF2022 CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2023(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.2203 OF2022 CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2023(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.256 OF2022 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF2023(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS.8888-8891 OF2022 CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2023(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.1584 OF2022 CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2023(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.980 OF2022 CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2023(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.8872 OF2022 CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2023(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.OF2023 (ARISING OUT OF DIARY No.19266 OF2022 1 JUDGMENT V. Ramasubramanian, J.Permission to file special leave petitions is granted in Diary No.19266 of 2022.2. Delay condoned.3. Leave granted.4. Aggriev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1089 OF2011MOHD. MUSLIM APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (NOW UTTARAKHAND) RESPONDENT JUDGMENT PANKAJ MITHAL, J.1. Heard Mr. Prafulla Kumar Behera, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, learned Advocate- on-Record appearing for the respondent.2. The two accused appellants, father and son, have preferred this Criminal Appeal against their conviction for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC) whereby and whereunder, they have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they have been ordered to undergo further six months of rigorous imprisonment.3. The incident is of 4th August, 1995 which allegedly took place at 09:00 AM within the jurisdiction of Police Station Mangalore. It is 2 said that deceased Altaf Hussain, the father of the informant Salim Ahm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4044 OF2023[ @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.12248 OF2023]. [ @ DIARY No.23042 OF2011]. AISH MOHAMMAD ...APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS R1: STATE OF HARYANA R2: DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (HARYANA), PANCHKULA R3: INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GURGAON R4: SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GURGAON R5: INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, FARIDABAD R6: SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NUH R7: SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALWAL JUDGMENT AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH,J.Heard learned counsel for the parties finally on the basis of the available record. The Respondents 2 are represented through counsel and have filed written submissions. Delay condoned, in these peculiar facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice. I.A. 72995/2022 [seeking condonation of delay in refiling/curing the defects]. is formally allowed.2. Leave granted.3. The sole appellant has moved this Court being aggrieved by the Final...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8571 OF2013BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA ....Appellant Vs. RABI SAHU & ANR. ....Respondents JUDGMENT SANJAY KUMAR, J.1. Bar Council of India (BCI) is in appeal against the order dated 21.09.2012 passed by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in W.P.(C). No.32506 of 2011. By the said order, BCI was directed to forthwith enrol the writ petitioner, viz., respondent No.1 herein, as an Advocate.2. By order dated 28.01.2013, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned order.3. Despite service of notice, neither of the respondents, viz., the writ petitioner and the Orissa State Bar Council, chose to appear before this Court.4. Respondent No.1 herein secured his law degree from Vivekananda Law College, Angul, in the year 2009. This college is not recognized/approved by BCI. In fact, by letter dated 05.01.2002, BCI had directed Vivekananda Law College, Angul, not to admit students in law course stating tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7527-7528 OF2012GHANSHYAM APPELLANT VERSUS YOGENDRA RATHI RESPONDENT JUDGMENT PANKAJ MITHAL, J.1. Heard Shri Rajul Shrivastav, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant. None appeared for the plaintiff- respondent despite service.2. After having lost from all the three courts below, the defendant to the suit has preferred this appeal. 13. The plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for eviction of the defendant-appellant from the suit premises which is part of H-768, J.J.Colony, Shakarpur, Delhi and for mesne profits on the averment that he is the owner of the said property by virtue of an agreement to sell dated 10.04.2002, power of attorney, a memo of possession and a receipt of payment of sale consideration as well as a will of the defendant- appellant bequeathing the said property in his favour; the possession of the suit premises was handed over to the plaintiff-respondent pursuant to the a...
Tag this Judgment!