Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC492NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1957 OF2011NASEEM KAHNAM AND OTHERS APPELLANT(S) VERSUS ZAHEDA BEGUM (DEAD) BY LR. AND OTHERS RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT S.V.N. BHATTI, J.I. FACTUAL MATRIX1 Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Civil Appeal have filed O.S. No.13/2000 before the Court of Principal District Judge at Vishakhapatnam. The suit is for partition and possession of plaint schedule property. The prayer reads thus: a) for partition of plaint schedule property and allot Western half portion of the house with the Western adjoining vacant site to the 2nd plaintiff and the remaining Eastern portion building with vacant site on Eastern side has to be partitioned into four equal shares and allot one such share i.e. 1/4th of the plaint 1 schedule on Eastern side to the 1st plaintiff and for delivery of the same;2. The plaint schedule consists of a residential house bearing door No.6.18.7 in East Point Layout, Plot No.10, LIG, T.S. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC498NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5038 OF2012RAM @ RAMDAS SHESHRAO NEHARKAR Appellant (s) VERSUS SHESHRAO BABURAO NEHARKAR AND OTHERS Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Rajesh Bindal, J.1. Aggrieved against the judgment1 passed by the High Court2, the plaintiff is in appeal before this Court. The appellant/ plaintiff had filed the suit3 for partition and separate possession of the suit property. It was claimed that his mother Padminibai 1 Judgment dated 24.11.2009 passed in Second Appeal No.14 of 2009 2 High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad 3 Regular Civil Suit No.224 of 1994 Page 1 of 5 had married with the respondent No.1/defendant No.1, and he was born from that wedlock. At the time of filing of the suit, the appellant was 35 years of age. Along with his alleged father, his wife and two sons were also impleaded as defendants.2. The Trial Court4 decreed the suit and directed for grant of 1/5th share to the appellant/plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE2024INSC494IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6495 OF2023THANKAMMA GEORGE ... APPELLANT VERSUS LILLY THOMAS AND ANOTHER ... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT S.V.N. BHATTI, J.I. FACTUAL MATRIX1 Thankamma George/Appellant, and Lilly Thomas/Respondent No.1, are sisters, and the daughters of one late George. P.M. Thomas/Respondent No.2 is the husband of Respondent No.1. The Appellant filed O.S. No.139 of 2011 dated 11.05.2011 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Pathanamthitta for the relief of declaration that the Appellant is the sole title holder of the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession from the Respondents. The Appellant prayed that she be declared as the exclusive and sole owner of one-half of the plaint schedule property, sale deed No.345/2008 dated 16.04.2008 (Ex. A-5) of 1 Enathu Sub-Registrar office as void ab initio, for consequential relief of perpetual injunction restraining the Respondents from alienating and f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC497REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1365 OF2011UJAGAR SINGH (DEAD) Thr. LRs. & ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS PUNJAB STATE & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT VIKRAM NATH, J.1. The present appeal assails the correctness of the judgment and order dated 09.03.2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A No.250 of 1983, whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 25.9.1982 of the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. The High Court held that the Civil Court's jurisdiction was barred under Section 21 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 19721. 1 In short, the Land Reforms Act CIVIL APPEAL NO.1365 OF2011Page 1 of 82. The background of this case is as follows:2. 1 The appellants, followers of the religious shrine of Dam Dama Baba Sahib Singh of Una, filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the respondents and one Smt. Sangeet Kaur, daughter of Baba Madhusudan Singh Sahib Una. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC488IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 696 OF2010GAURAV MAINI ..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA ..RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 695 OF2010CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1724 OF2010CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 584 OF2013JUDGMENT Mehta, J.1. The appellants were subjected to trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula(hereinafter being referred to as the trial Court) in Sessions Case No.11 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 392 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred to as IPC). Vide judgment and order dated 26th September, 2005, the learned 1 trial Court held the appellants guilty for the above mentioned offences and sentenced them as below: - Provision under Sentence which convicted Section 364A IPC Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default, further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Section 392 IPC Rigorous imprison...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC491REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6782 OF2013MAHARAJ SINGH & ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS KARAN SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the original third, second, and fourth defendants. The first and second respondents are the original plaintiffs. The third respondent is the mother of the deceased original first defendant. For convenience, we are referring to the parties according to their status in the suit. FACTUAL ASPECT2 Reference to a few factual aspects will be necessary. The first defendant executed a registered agreement for sale dated 7th December 1981 by which he agreed to sell his Bhumidhari land measuring 2.90 acres of Khasra No.48 (for short, the suit property) at village-Jauniwala, Tehsil-Kashipur, District- Nainital in favour of the plaintiffs for the consideration of Rs. Civil Appeal No.6782 of 2013 Page 1 of 24 20,300/-. There was a recital in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE2024INSC489IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 660-661 OF2015STATE OF PUNJAB .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS RANDHIR SINGH ETC. .RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Mehta, J.1. These appeals by special leave have been preferred by the State of Punjab to assail the judgment dated 17th July, 2014 rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal Nos. 580 of 2002 and 606 of 2002 whereby, the learned Division Bench, allowed the appeals preferred by the respondents(accused) and acquitted them while reversing the judgment dated 12th July, 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot(hereinafter referred to as trial Court) in Sessions Case No.118 of 1998. The learned trial Court had convicted and sentenced the accused as below: - 1 Randhir Singh U/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code(hereinafter being referred to (Accused No.as IPC) and awarded rigorous imprisonment for life with fine 1)(A1) amounting to Rs. 1000/- and in de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC490IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 2038 OF2017VINOD JASWANTRAY VYAS(DEAD) THROUGH LRs ..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF GUJARAT .RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Mehta, J.1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13th February, 2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No.210 of 1997, whereby, the Division Bench partly accepted the appeal preferred by the accused appellant Vinod Jaswantray Vyas and altered his conviction as recorded by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred to as IPC) to one under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced him to undergo eight years rigorous imprisonment and 1 further directed that he shall pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the heirs of the deceased.2. Learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad(hereinafter being referred to as the trial Court) tried ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC486IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6741 OF2024(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.12941 OF2023 SUBODH KUMAR SINGH RATHOUR ...APPELLANT VERSUS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J.: For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided in the following parts: - INDEX A. FACTUAL MATRIX ................................................................................ 2 B. IMPUGNED ORDER ................................................................................ 7 C. DEVELOPMENTS THAT OCCURRED DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. ............................................................... 10 D. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ........................ 15 E. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ..................... 17 F. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION ........................................................ 18 G. ANALYSIS .......................................
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC500REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7254 OF2024(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) No.29334 OF2016 M/S AL-CAN EXPORT PVT. LTD. .APPELLANT VERSUS PRESTIGE H.M. POLYCONTAINERS LTD. & ORS. .RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.7255 OF2024(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) No.29335 OF2016 JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J: For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts: INDEX A. FACTUAL MATRIX.............................................................................................. 3 B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ....................................... 13 C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT No.6/Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. (ARCIL) ........................................................ 16 D. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION ...................................................................... 21 E. RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE CODE ............... 21 F. ANALYSIS .......................
Tag this Judgment!