Court : Supreme Court of India
2023 INSC863REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.396 OF2010PHULEL SINGH APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARAYANA RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 24th July 2009 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal Nos. 413-DBA of 2001 and 909-SB of 1999 along with Criminal Revision No.134 of 2000, wherein the Division Bench partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused persons; whereby Jora Singh (Accused No.1), father of the appellant herein was acquitted of the charge under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) and the conviction and sentence qua the appellant herein rendered by 1 the learned court of Mrs. Nirmal Yadav, Sessions Judge, Sirsa (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) in Sessions Trial No.122 of 1994 vide judgment and order dated 14th September 1999 for the offence punishable under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023INSC859 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3592 OF2019COMMANDING OFFICER, RAILWAY PROTECTION SPECIAL FORCE, MUMBAI Appellant Versus BHVANABEN DINSHBHAI BHABHOR & OTHERS ...Respondents JUDGMENT MANOJ MISRA, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad (in short, the High Court), dated 24.02.2016, passed in First Appeal No.112 of 2016, by which the appeal of the appellant under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (formerly known as the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 - hereinafter referred to as the 1923 Act) against the order of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner (in short, Civil Appeal No.3592 of 2019 Page 1 of 31 the Commissioner) in W.C. Case No.05 of 2010, has been dismissed. FACTS2 The husband of the first respondent was appointed as a Constable in the Railway Protection Special Force, a unit of the Railway Protection Force (in short, the RPF), on 27.12...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2023NSC882 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO............OF2023(@ S.L.P.(C) No.6644 of 2016) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX14.....Appellant(s) Vs. JASJIT SINGH .....Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO............OF2023(@ S.L.P.(C) No.14447 of 2016) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO............OF2023(@ S.L.P.(C) No.23621 of 2016) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO............OF2023(@ S.L.P.(C) No.of 2023) (Dy. No.30718 of 2023) JUDGMENT1 Delay condoned in SLP(C) Dy. No.30718 of 2023 and all connected petitions.2. Special leave granted. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeals were heard.3. In this batch of appeals the revenue questions four sets of orders of the Delhi High Court, dismissing its appeals under 1 Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as IT Act). Though the facts in each appeal differ, substantially for the purposes of clarity and completeness the facts in the appeal arising from SLP (C) No.6644 of 20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2023NSC857 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 7175 OF2021CPL ASHISH KUMAR CHAUHAN (RETD.) APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COMMANDING OFFICER & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. The present civil appeal challenges an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi1 (hereafter, Commission). The application by CPL Ashish Kumar Chauhan (hereafter, appellant) for compensation was dismissed by the Commission. The Commanding Officer, 171 Military Hospital is arrayed as the first Respondent; the Medical Officer at the 171 Military Hospital (171 MH) is the second respondent; the Principal Director, Directorate of Air Veterans is impleaded as the third respondent; the Commanding Officer of the South Western Air Command (Gandhinagar HQ) is arrayed as fourth respondent, and the Senior Medical Officer at the said Military facility is impleaded as the fifth respondent. The first, second and fifth 1 In Consumer Compla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023INSC875 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3023 OF2023(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.4493 of 2023) AJEET GURJAR ... APPELLANT(S) VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ABHAY S OKA,J.Leave granted.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.3. The only issue involved in this appeal is regarding non-compliance with the requirement of clause (i) of sub- section 1 of Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short "JJ Act")by the Childrens Court.4. For the sake of completion, a brief reference to relevant factual aspects will be necessary. A First Information Report was registered against the accused 1 persons including the present appellant alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 11/13 of the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam,1981 (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023INSC861 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2023(Arising out of SLP (C) No.8428 OF2018 RAHIMAL BATHU & OTHERS APPELLANTS Versus ASHIYAL BEEVI RESPONDENT JUDGMENT MANOJ MISRA, J.1. Leave granted.2. This is defendants appeal against the order of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (in short, the High Court), dated 12.09.2017, passed in C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) No.1342 of 2007, by which the revision of the plaintiff-respondent was allowed, the order dated 20.12.2006 passed by the court of First Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli in I.A. No.207 of 2001 in O.S. No.276 of 1992 was set aside, I.A. No.207 of 2001 was allowed and the decree dated 21.11.1996 passed in O.S. No.276 of 1992 was modified. Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.8428 of 2018 Page 1 of 26 Factual Matrix 3. The respondent instituted an Original Suit (in short, O.S.) No.276 of 1992 for declaring her as the exclusive owner of the property described in the second schedule of the plai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023INSC860 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION IA No 53466 of 2022 in Civil Appeal No 1867 of 2006 Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr ... Petitioner(s) Versus U P Public Service Commission & Ors ... Respondent(s) In the matter of : State of Haryana ---Applicant JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI1An application has been filed by the State of Haryana in the proceedings in Malik Mazhar Sultan v U P Public Service Commission1 seeking two directions: (i) The recruitment of judicial officers in the Judicial Branch of the Haryana Civil Service be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Part C of the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules 19512 (as applicable to State of Haryana); and 1 Civil Appeal No 1867 of 2006 2 Rules 2 (ii) The order of this Court dated 12 February 2009 in IA60of 2008 filed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana be modified. 2 The issue bears upon the filling up of 175 posts of Junior Civil Judges. 3 By its order dated 4 Jan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023INSC858 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.247 OF2011H. D. SUNDARA & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the accused challenging the impugned judgment of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore by which the order of their acquittal, passed by the Sessions Court, was overturned. The appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Part I of Section 304 and Section 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC). They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. FACTUAL ASPECTS2 We may refer to a few factual aspects of the case. PW-1 (Jagadeesha) is the complainant. The complainants family had property in the village Hebbale. The appellant no.1 - accused no.1-Mariyappa is PW-1s uncle, with whom PW-1s family was Criminal Appeal No.247 of 2011 Page 1 of 9 having a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2023NSC855 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.9720 OF2014KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED APPELLANT(S) VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE AND ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT NAGARATHNA, J.This appeal has been filed assailing the judgment dated 06.07.2012, passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, in Writ Appeal No.2458 of 2010 whereby the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20.05.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.12239 of 2008, remanding the matter to the Settlement Commission to determine afresh, the question as to immunity from levy of penalty and prosecution, was affirmed and the aforesaid Writ Appeal filed by the appellant herein, was dismissed.2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in a nutshell are that the appellant-assessee, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (formerly, M/s ING Vysya Bank Limited) is a Public Limited Company carrying on the business of banking and is assessed to tax in Bangalore where its 2 re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2023NSC854 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF2023(Arising out of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.15774/2022) M/S PAUL RUBBER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED APPELLANT(S) VERSUS AMIT CHAND MITRA & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.Leave granted.2. The main point which we have to address in this appeal is as to what extent the Court can take cognizance of a clause relating to purpose for which a lease is granted contained in an unregistered deed of lease for immovable property stipulating its duration for a period of five years. In the judgment under appeal, opinion of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court is that 1 such deed cannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting the property over which the lease is executed. On 27.03.2003, a document captioned Tenancy Agreement was executed by and between one Sabita Mitra (the landlady, since deceased), now represented before us by her legal heirs be...
Tag this Judgment!