Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC217IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1638 OF2024(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No.6561 OF2023 SATYENDAR KUMAR JAIN APPELLANT VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1639 OF2024(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No.7129 OF2023 ANKUSH JAIN APPELLANT VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT RESPONDENT AND CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1640 OF2024(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No.7130 OF2023VAIBHAV JAIN APPELLANT VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT RESPONDENT JUDGMENT BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.1. Leave granted.2. All the three appeals arise out of the common impugned judgment and order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the High Court of Delhi at 1 New Delhi, in the Bail Application Nos. 3590 of 2022, 3705 of 2022 and 3710 of 2022, whereby the High Court has rejected all the bail applications of the appellants.3. Earlier the Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI) -23 (MPs/MLAs cases) vide the separate detailed orders dated 17.11.2022 had re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC213IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION DIARY No.21994 OF2022IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8625-8626 OF2019JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS ADANI POWER RAJASTHAN LTD. & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S)/APPLICANT(S) JUDGMENT ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.The applicant, Adani Power Rajasthan Limited (APRL), is a generating company as per Section 2(28) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (2003 Act). It operates a thermal power plant in the State of Rajasthan. There were three appellants (1 to3) in the main set of appeals, in connection with which the present application has been taken out, being the distribution licensees of the State of Rajasthan as per the provisions of the 2003 Act. They shall, henceforth in this judgment, be collectively referred to as Rajasthan Discoms. Rajasthan Urja Vikas Nigam Limited was the 4th appellant in the main set of appeals. It appears to have been formed by the 1 Government of Rajasthan for the purpose...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 2024 INSC232REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.OF2024( @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.2600 OF2019) SOMNATH APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. RESPONDENTS R1: State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary R2: C.P. Kakade, Police Inspector, Police Station, Paithan R3: Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad R4: Superintendent of Police (Rural), Aurangabad R5: S.D.P.O., Paithan JUDGMENT AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.Leave granted.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 23. The present appeal is directed against the Final Judgment and Order dated 08.10.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Judgment) passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as the High Court) in Criminal Writ Petition No.215 of 2017 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant was partly allowed and the respondent no.2 was directed to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC214NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4322 4324 OF2024(Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos. 19059-19061 of 2014) M. Radheshyamlal Appellant versus V Sandhya and Anr. Etc. Respondents JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.1. Leave granted. FACTUAL ASPECTS2 These appeals arise out of three separate suits. For convenience, we are referring to the parties with reference to their status in Original Suit No.12091 of 2010 (Civil Suit No.331 of 1996). The appellant is the plaintiff in the said suit. The respondents in Special Leave Petition (C) No.19060 of 2014 are the defendants in the said suit.3. It is not in dispute that one Sungani Bai (Sukri Bai) was the original owner of the suit property who died in the year 1947. Sungani Bai (the original owner) executed a registered settlement deed dated 1st December 1945. She settled the suit Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) No.19059-61 of 2014 Page 1 of 13 property by the said settlement deed in favour of three ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC212REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.270 OF2019PERIYASAMY APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.271 OF2019JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL J.1. The present appeals arise from the final judgment and order dated 26th November 2014 passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, in Crl. A. (MD) No.238 and 240 of 2014, which confirmed the judgment and order dated 31st July 2014 in Sessions Case No.109 of 2005 passed by the Sessions Court, 1|Criminal Appeal 270 and 271 of 2019 Tiruchirapalli, vide which the present appellants, Periyasamy1 and R. Manoharan2 were convicted in the following terms under the Indian Penal Code3: S.No Name Crime Punishment Awarded 1. A1 Periyasamy IPC S.302 (2 Imprisonment for life and counts) Rs. 1,000 fine IPC S.307 (2 Rigorous Imprisonment for seven counts) years and Rs. 1,000 fine 2. A2 - R. IPC S.302 r/w Imprisonment for life and Rs. Man...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2024INSC229CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).1664-1665 OF2024(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRIMINAL) NO(S).13406-13407/2023) EKENE GODWIN & ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J1 Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent State.2. The appellants are being prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 66, read with Sections 43(J) and 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. The charge sheet has been filed, and the trial has proceeded. By the impugned order, the High Court rejected the appellants application for regular bail.3. During the hearing on an earlier date, we were informed that the Trial Court recorded the examination-in-chief of 12 prosecution witnesses (PW-1 to PW-12) one after the other on different dates without...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC216IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.OF2024(Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No.3187 of 2023) MS. X APPELLANT(S) VERSUS MR. A AND OTHERS RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present criminal appeal challenges the order dated 3rd September 2022, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No.8468 of 2021, whereby the High Court allowed the petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) preferred by the accused persons and quashed the entire proceedings pending against them before the 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (hereinafter referred to as trial court) in Special Case (SC/ST) No.1 of 2021. 13. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeal are as under:3. 1. The prosecution case is that in the year 2016, while the complainant/appellant was still a minor, having been bo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC215REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1215 OF2011NAVAS @ MULANAVAS Appellant (s) Versus STATE OF KERALA ...Respondent(s) JUDGMENT K.V. Viswanathan, J.1. The present Appeal arises out of the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in D.S.R. No.4 of 2007 and Criminal Appeal No.1620 of 2007 dated 09.02.2010. The Death Sentence Reference and the Criminal Appeal arose out of the judgment of the Court of the III Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast 1 Track Court No.1, Thrissur in Sessions Case No.491 of 2006.2. The trial Court found the appellant (the sole accused) guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 449 IPC for having committed the murder of Latha (aged 39 years), Ramachandran (aged 45 years), Chitra (aged 11 years) and Karthiayani Amma (aged 80 years) after committing house-trespass. After committing the above said act, the accused attempted to commit suicide for which h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC204Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9385 OF2022M/s Global Technologies and Research Appellant versus Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (Import) Respondent JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.FACTUAL ASPECTS1 The appellant assessee has taken an exception to the judgment and order dated 29th September 2022 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, the CESTAT) in an appeal preferred under Section 129 (A) of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Customs Act). We must refer to a few factual aspects. The appellant assessee has been a regular importer of camera stabilizer devices for the last several years. The appellant assessee imported a consignment of camera stabilizer devices under a Bill of Entry dated 16th February 2018. The consignment was covered under the Invoice dated 30th January 2018, having a total value of USD20353 (CF). The invoice was issued by Civil Appeal no.9385 of 2022 Page 1 of 11 M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC209Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Miscellaneous Application Diary No 11805 of 2024 In Miscellaneous Application No 486 of 2024 In Writ Petition (Civil) No 880 of 2017 Association of Democratic Reforms and Another Petitioner(s) Versus Union of India and Others Respondent(s) ORDER1An application has been filed by the Election Commission of India1 seeking further directions. 1ECI Page 1 of 4 2 In the order of this Court dated 11 March 2024, this Court had directed that ECI shall upload on its website the data furnished to this Court in compliance with the interim order dated 12 April 2019 which was being maintained in the custody of this Court. While issuing this direction, the Court has presumed that a copy of the data which was lodged before the Registry of this Court would be available with the ECI. 3 Mr Amit Sharma, counsel appearing on behalf of the ECI states that, as a matter of fact, ECI did not retain a copy of the data which was col...
Tag this Judgment!