Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2024INSC633CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1151 OF2010Raju and Another .Appellant(s) versus State of Uttarakhand .Respondent(s) JUDGEMENT SURYA KANT, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.12.2009 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital (hereinafter, High Court) in Appeal No.1458/2001, whereby the judgment and order dated 13.10.1995 of the Additional Sessions JudgecumSpecial Judge, Dehradun (hereinafter, Trial Court) in S.T. No.116/1994 was substantially set aside and the Appellant was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, IPC) and sentenced to undergo seven years of rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 1000/. FACTS:2. At this juncture, it is essential to outline the factual matrix as described in the FIR to clearly understand the context of the instant appeal. 2.1. On 08.05.1994, Farzan Ali, the Complainant, filed an FIR being Case Crime No.84/1994 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2024 INSC558IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (C) No.352 of 2023 Gaurav Kumar Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors. Respondents With T.C.(C) No.28 of 2023 With T.C.(C) No.29 of 2023 With T.C.(C) No.30 of 2023 With T.P.(C) No.2526 of 2023 With T.P.(C) No.1982 of 2023 With T.P.(C) Nos. 2088-2089 of 2023 With T.P.(C) No.2171 of 2023 With T.P.(C) No.2123 of 2023 And With T.P.(C) No.2734 of 2023 1 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI Table of Contents A. Background .......................................................................................................... 4 B. Issues .................................................................................................................... 8 C. Submissions ........................................................................................................ 8 D. Legal background .............................................................................................. 13...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE2024INSC597IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).3324 OF2024(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.4965/2023) YUGAL SIKRI & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.1. Leave granted. FACTS2 By impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr. PC). The petition was filed to quash a complaint filed in a criminal Court by the second respondent alleging the commission of an offence punishable under Section 29 read with Sections 32 and 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the ID Act). Cognizance was taken of the alleged offence on the said complaint. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the High Court has dismissed the petition without considering the merits of the challenge to the complaint. 1 SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES3 The learned senior counsel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE2024INSC654IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.______ OF2024[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.14902 OF2024]. PIC DEPARTMENTALS PVT. LTD. APPELLANT VERSUS SREELEATHERS PVT. LTD. RESPONDENT ORDER SUDHANSHU DHULIA & AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.Leave granted. The sequence of events relevant to resolve the short controversy is noticed below.2. This dispute traces its origins to the alleged act of putting-up of a signboard by the respondent on the subject-premises1, which according to the appellant, obstructed the hoarding put up by the appellant. Thus, the appellant/plaintiff filed C.S. No.549/1999 on around 30.09.1999 (hereinafter referred to as the suit) for declaration and permanent injunction before the Calcutta High Court (hereinafter referred 1 3 and 4, Lindsay Street, Kolkata 700 087. 2 to as the High Court) against the respondent/defendant. The position of the parties was that the appellant was a tenant on the ground floor of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC559IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE/INHERENT JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8127 OF2024ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.20844 OF2022YASH DEVELOPERS ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS HARIHAR KRUPA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No.217 OF2024IN SLP (C) No.20844 OF2022Table of Contents I. Introduction : ................................................................................ 2 II. Scope of Judicial Review against an order under Section 13 of the Act: ............................................................................................... 4 III. Accountability of officers exercising power coupled with duty under Section 13: ............................................................................. 11 IV. Submissions and Analysis: ...................................................... 13 (i) The first phase of delay is between 2003 and 2011. ............... 14 (ii) The second phase relates to the delay in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE2024INSC557IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8985 OF2022VIDYA AND OTHERS APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. This appeal challenges the order dated 29th September, 2022 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) in Consumer Case No.1557 of 2016 wherein the Commission partly allowed the complaint preferred by the complainants-appellants herein and directed the sole respondent herein, to refund the entire sum deposited by the complainants-appellants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of refund, within a period of two months from the date of the said order. 12. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under:2. 1. M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Developer), a company registered under the Companies Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2024INSC575CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS81298130 OF2024(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos 16785-16786 of 2024) (Diary No 29998/2024) Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors Appellants Versus Prakash Kumar dixit Respondent JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI1Delay condoned. 2 Leave granted. 3 A disciplinary proceeding was convened against the petitioner for alleged acts of misconduct when he was posted as Officer Commanding B/30 Bn., CRPF. He was removed from service in July 1995. 4 After the appeal against the order of punishment was rejected, the respondent instituted proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. For the purpose of present discussion, it is not necessary to deal with all the intervening stages in the proceedings. 5 By an order dated 24 December 2019, the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi directed that : 34 For all of the aforementioned reasons, the order dated 16th October, 2018, passed by the DIG (CR&VIG) in the R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.894 OF2020UP ROADWAYS RETIRED OFFICIALS AND OFFICERS ASSOCIATION . APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ANR. ...RESPONDENTS WITH C.A. No.896/2020 , C.A. No.898/2020 , C.A. No.957/2020 , C.A. Nos. 959-965/2020 , C.A. No.897/2020 , C.A. No.895/2020 , C.A. Nos. 899-901/2020 , C.A. No.910/2020 , C.A. No.902/2020 , C.A. No.912/2020 , C.A. No.909/2020 , C.A. No.913/2020 , C.A. No.958/2020 , C.A. No.915/2020 , C.A. No.966/2020 , C.A. No.914/2020 , C.A. No.832/2020 , C.A. No.967/2020 , C.A. No.905/2020 , C.A. No.907/2020 , C.A. No.903/2020 , C.A. No.911/2020 , C.A. No.904/2020 , C.A. No.906/2020 , C.A. No.908/2020 & C.A. No.(s) /2024 @ SLP (c) /2024 @ Diary No.10240/2020 JUDGMENT PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.Delay condoned in filing SLP(C) Diary No.10240 of 2020 and leave granted. 22. Abatement is set aside and applications for substitution are allowed. Application(s) for intervention is allowed.3. By this common j...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC574IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).8038-8039 OF2024(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P (CIVIL) NO(S).11728-11729/2018) NEK PAL & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.1. Leave granted.2. Our attention is invited to the impugned judgment of the High Court in a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the CPC). Following is the relevant part of the impugned judgment: Since no substantial question of law was formulated at the time of admission of the appeal on 30.5.2003, hence having heard the matter partially and during the course of arguments, in the presence of learned Counsels of both the parties, this Court confined itself to adjudicate the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether the alleged transaction of the disputed property was void ab initio being the violation of Section 7 of Hindu Public Religious Institution (Prevention of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE2024INSC560IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 818/2019 MANHARAN RAJWADE APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. FACTS2 The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC), and he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. According to the prosecutions case, the appellant murdered his wife, Geeta. Her body was found in the house of the appellant at about 5:00 p.m. on the date of the incident. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant strangulated her.3. The prosecution's case is based on the theory of last seen together. Consequently, the prosecution contends that the appellant had not discharged the burden on him under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, the Evidence Act). The prosecution examined two witnesses, Sona...
Tag this Judgment!