Court : Supreme Court of India
2023 INSC659REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4758 OF2023[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) No.25256 OF2018 Ashok Kumar Appellant (s) Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ...Respondent(s) JUDGMENT K.V. Viswanathan, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated 24.01.2018 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the National Commission), New Delhi in Revision Petition No.3415 of 2016. By the said judgment, the National Commission reversed the concurrent judgments of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum 1 (for short the District Forum) and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission). The Fora below, while allowing the original complaint had directed the New India Assurance Company Limited (for short the Insurance Company) to indemnify the Claimant on non-standard basis to the extent of 75% of the sum assured, which was Rs.8,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023 INSC658NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10412 of 2013 Yogendra Prasad Singh (Dead) through LRs ..Appellants Versus Ram Bachan Devi & Ors. ..Respondents JUDGMENT Abhay S. Oka, J.FACTUAL BACKGROUND1 The appellants are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, parties are hereinafter referred to with reference to their status before the Trial Court. The Trial Court decreed the Suit which has been reversed in appeal.2. The plaintiff is the soninlaw of the first defendant. The first defendant has four daughters. One of the daughters, Sachita Devi has been married to the plaintiff. The second defendant is another daughter of the first defendant who is married to one Komal Singh. C.A.No.10412 of 2013 Page 1 of 123. The first defendant was heavily indebted. He had borrowed money from various persons by executing mortgage deeds, hand notes, etc. As the first defendant was unable to pay debts, he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 2023 INSC660REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 2207 OF2023[ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.3433 OF2023 MD. ASFAK ALAM APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. On the previous date of hearing, i.e., on 26.07.2023, this Court heard the counsel for the parties to the Special Leave Petition. But having regard to the peculiar nature of the impugned order, kept this matter back for orders to be pronounced today.2. Special leave granted. The appellant is aggrieved by the denial of anticipatory bail and a further direction to surrender before the Court and seek regular bail.3. The necessary facts are that the appellant and the second respondent (hereafter referred to as husband and wife, respectively) were married on 2 5.11.2020. The appellant alleges that the respondent-wife was not happy and her father used to interfere and pressurize him and his family. This ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE2023INSC653IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4725 OF2023(Arising out of SLP(C)No.13789/2022) GOSTHO BEHARI DAS .. APPELLANT(S) V. DIPAK KUMAR SANYAL & ORS. .. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J.Leave granted. The question this Court must consider, is: Whether the suspension of the Petitioners license to practice medicine is alien to the nature and types of punishment and penalties specified under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971?. 2 THE FACTS1 The present appeal stands filed against the judgement rendered by the High Court of Calcutta, (Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri) in MAT No.67 of 2022, by which it upheld various orders passed by learned single Judge dated 5th, 11th, 12th and 14th July, 2022 in contempt proceedings bearing number WPCRC9 of 2022, whereby vide the order dated 11th July,2022 the Petitioner/Appellants licence to practice medicine, was suspended.2. Further with the order dated 14th July 2022, while extending the peri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
CIVIL APPEAL No.246 of 2017 REPORTABLE2023INSC656IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.246 of 2017 EX SEPOY MADAN PRASAD . APPELLANT Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT HIMA KOHLI, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16th February, 2015, passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal1, Regional Bench, Lucknow whereby the appeal2 originally filed by the appellant as a Writ Petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad3 and subsequently transferred to the AFT, which was dismissed and the orders dated 24th August, 1999 and 4th October, 2001 passed by the respondents No.5 and 2, respectively upholding the charge levelled against him under Section 39(b) of the Army Act, 19504 of overstaying the leave granted to him without sufficient cause, thereby dismissing him from service, were endorsed. 1 For short AFT 2 Transfer Application No.1227 of 2010 3 Writ Petition No.3439 of 2003 4 For short The Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023 INSC655REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.639 OF2023VERNON APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.640 OF2023JUDGMENT ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.The appellants before us assail two judgments of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay rejecting, in substance, their prayers for bail. Both the applications were filed on 27th October 2018 after the Special Judge, Pune under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (1967 Act) had dismissed their bail plea. The decisions of the High Court were delivered on the same date i.e. 15th October 2019. 1 | Pa ge 2. We shall deal with both the appeals in this judgment as the detention of the appellants was on the basis of the same First Information Report (FIR) and the chargesheet also contains the same Sections in respect of which offences are alleged to have been committed by them. These are Sections 121, 121A, 124A, 153A, 505(1)(b), 117, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023 INSC657Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.of 2023 (@ SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020) B.P. Naagar & Ors. . Appellant(s) Versus Raj Pal Sharma Respondent(s) JUDGMENT C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.Leave granted.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the final order dated 02.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi, whereby it allowed C.M. (M) No.686 of 2019 and C.M. (App.) No.20889 of 2019 and set aside the orders dated 01.07.2017 and 02.03.2019 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, II, Central Tis Hazari Courts, SLP (C) No.5812 of 2020 Page 1 of 30 New Delhi. The Defendant Nos. 5 to 9 in the suit are the appellants herein and the plaintiff therein is the respondent herein. It is to be noted that Annexure P-14, Memorandum of Writ Petition, which culminated in the impugned order, would reveal that it was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for shor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE2023INSC654IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2195 OF2023(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) NO.6537 OF2022 SANDEEP KUMAR APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.Leave granted.2. Heard Shri Ram Naresh Yadav learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant, Shri Vishal Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General for the State/Respondent No.1 and Shri Shreeyash U. Lalit learned Counsel for Respondent No.2.3. The appellant before this Court was the informant in the case and was a prosecution witness (PW-9), in Sessions Trial No.8/2018, which is being held before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, Haryana, under Sections 458, 460, 2 323, 302, 148, 149 and 285 of IPC, 1860 read with Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959. The incident is of 12:30 mid night dated 07.09.2017 which occurred at Sirsa, Haryana. The First Information Report reveals that there were in total fifteen assailants which had broke open the complain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023 INSC648REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1791 OF2023No.15138812Y L/Nk Gursewak Singh ... Appellant versus Union of India & Anr. ... Respondents JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.FACTUAL ASPECTS1 The appellant who was at the relevant time Lance Naik in the Indian Army was convicted by the Court Martial for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC (for short, IPC) read with Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950 (for short, the Army Act). The Court Martial sentenced the appellant to suffer imprisonment for life. The Court Martial also dismissed the appellant from service. Thereafter, the appellant filed pre confirmation and additional preconfirmation petitions which were rejected by the Major General Officer Commanding by his order dated 28th September 2005. Thereafter, the Criminal Appeal No.1791 of 2023 Page 1 of 10 appellant filed a petition to the Chief of the Army Staff who rejected the same by his order dated 12th June 2006...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Crl. A. No.561/2012 2023 INSC670NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.561 OF2012DILIP KUMAR ..... APPELLANT VERSUS BRAJRAJ SHRIVASTAVA & ANR. ..... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.1. A complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Cr.P.C.) was filed by the first respondent showing the appellant as an accused and alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 342, 500, 504, 506, 295-A, 298, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Considering the limited controversy involved in this appeal, we are not adverting to the allegations made in the complaint.2. On 22nd August, 2008, the learned Magistrate passed an order directing holding of an inquiry under sub-Section (1) of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. The order indicates that the 1 Crl. A. No.561/2012 learned Magistrate intended to himself hold an inquiry. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate recorded the statement of only the first respondent/comp...
Tag this Judgment!