Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC684Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3747 OF2024Ravinder Kumar Appellant versus State of Haryana ... Respondent JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.FACTUAL ASPECTS1 The appellant claims that he has been practising as a general Physician since 2001 and as a Radiologist since 2007. On 27th April 2017, a team comprising four officers raided the appellant's clinic. Based on the complaint against one woman, Dhanpati (accused no.1), that she is running a racket of sex determination and medical termination of pregnancy, a decoy patient was selected. The allegation is that Dhanpati was contracted to do the medical termination of the pregnancy of the decoy patient. The decoy patient and shadow witness, S.I. Usha Rani, informed Dhanpati that they knew the sex of the foetus. Dhanpati called the decoy patient on 27th April 2017 at Criminal Appeal No.3747 of 2024 Page 1 of 14 8 am for MTP. The shadow witness informed Dhanpati that family memb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC686IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2024(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.23320 of 2023) ROHAN BUILDERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ..... APPELLANT VERSUS BERGER PAINTS INDIA LIMITED ..... RESPONDENT W I T H CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2024(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.24489 of 2023) CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2024(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26938 of 2023) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF2024(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26990-26991 of 2023) CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2024(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.27353 of 2023) CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2024(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.1344 of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2024(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.2115 of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2024(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8131 of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2024(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.12170 of 2024) A N D CIVIL APP...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE12H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 PRESENT THE HONBLE MR. N.V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL NO.894 OF2023(S-RES) BETWEEN:1. . THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009 2 . THE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURSES) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR CAUVERY BHAVAN K.G.ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009 3 . THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED SIDDAGANGA COMPLEX B.H. ROAD TUMAKURU - 572 102 4 . THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY PRASARANA BHAVANA3D FLOOR - 2 - SANTHEPET B.M.ROAD HASSAN - 573 201 ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI CHANDRACHUD A, ADVOCATE) AND:1. . SRI NAVEEN KUMAR S. S/O SRI SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT40YEARS WORKING AS MECHANIC GRDE-II BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED KYATHSANDRA SECTION TU...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - NC:2024. KHC:38401 MFA No.11440 of 2011 C/W MFA No.206 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE12H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.11440 OF2011C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.206 OF2018IN MFA No.11440/2011: BETWEEN:1. LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA @ MOOGAPPA, S/O ADINARAYANAPPA, AGED41YEARS, 2. SMT. PARVATHAMMA, W/O LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA @ MOOGAPPA, AGED36YEARS, 3. ANAND, S/O LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA @ MOOGAPPA, AGED13YEARS, THIRD APPELLANT IS A MINOR HENCE HE IS REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN THE FIRST APPELLANT ALL ARE R/AT GINKALAVARIPALLI VILLAGE, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, AND NOW AT No.102M2D CROSS, 1ST MAIN, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE. APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V.SHYAMAPRASAD, ADVOCATE) - 2 - NC:2024. KHC:38401 MFA No.11440 of 2011 C/W MFA No.206 of 2018 AND:1. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANZ INS. CO. LTD., No.132, SRI BALAJI SOVEREIGN, 2ND FLOOR, BEXT TO URBAN EDGE, BRIGADE ROA...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - NC:2024. KHC:38401 MFA No.11440 of 2011 C/W MFA No.206 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE12H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.11440 OF2011C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.206 OF2018IN MFA No.11440/2011: BETWEEN:1. LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA @ MOOGAPPA, S/O ADINARAYANAPPA, AGED41YEARS, 2. SMT. PARVATHAMMA, W/O LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA @ MOOGAPPA, AGED36YEARS, 3. ANAND, S/O LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA @ MOOGAPPA, AGED13YEARS, THIRD APPELLANT IS A MINOR HENCE HE IS REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN THE FIRST APPELLANT ALL ARE R/AT GINKALAVARIPALLI VILLAGE, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, AND NOW AT No.102M2D CROSS, 1ST MAIN, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE. APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V.SHYAMAPRASAD, ADVOCATE) - 2 - NC:2024. KHC:38401 MFA No.11440 of 2011 C/W MFA No.206 of 2018 AND:1. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANZ INS. CO. LTD., No.132, SRI BALAJI SOVEREIGN, 2ND FLOOR, BEXT TO URBAN EDGE, BRIGADE ROA...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE2024INSC680IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3190 OF2014BEENA AND ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS CHARAN DAS (D) THR. LRS. & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT PANKAJ MITHAL, J.1. What was once a dispute between landlord and tenant for the eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute ended into a consent order way back in the year 1979. Unfortunately, the said consent order gave rise to a bitter civil dispute between the parties, which has now landed in this Court after the suit was dismissed by the court of first instance which judgment and order was upheld by the First Appellate Court. However, the decree so passed was reversed by the High Court in Second Appeal. This is how the parties are now before this Court.2. Late Bhawani Parshad alias Bhagati Parshad (now represented by his legal representatives) was the landlord 1 and late Charan Dass (now represented by his legal representatives) was a tenant in the premises consisting of a hou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC678NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9731-9732 OF2024LAKSHMESH M. APPELLANT VERSUS P. RAJALAKSHMI (DEAD BY LRS.) AND ORS. ETC.ETC. AND ORS. ... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.1. These two Appeals have been preferred against the final judgment and order dated 05.12.2014 by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in RFA Nos. 902 of 2008 and 887 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned judgment). While disposing of these Regular First Appeals against the judgment and order dated 31.03.2008 passed by XII Addl. City Civil and Sessions (CCH No.27) Judge at Bengaluru in O.S No.5634 of 1980, by the common impugned order, the High Court while upholding the Trial Court judgment decreeing the suit and holding that the Civil Appeal Nos. 9731-9732 of 2024 Page 1 of 13 Appellant/Plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit property, has further held that site allotted to Defendant No.20 (Respondent No.27 in Civ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE2024INSC676IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4177 OF2024SK. GOLAM LALCHAND APPELLANT(S) VERSUS NANDU LAL SHAW @ NAND LAL KESHRI @ NANDU LAL BAYES & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT PANKAJ MITHAL, J.1. Heard Shri Rauf Rahim, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Shri Pijush K. Roy, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1.2. The dispute in this Civil Appeal is about the property measuring more or less 6 Cottahs 1 Chittack and 30 sq. ft. along with 17 rooms (about 4395 sq. ft. which comprises of tile sheds/huts) situate at 100/3 Carry Road, Howrah. 13. The plaintiff-respondent Nandu Lal claims that he had acquired rights in the aforesaid property through his father late Salik Ram along with his other brothers and that Brij Mohan, his cousin, the son of his uncle late Sita Ram, had no exclusive right to sell the property in favour of anyone much less to one of the tenants S.K. Golam Lalchand, the defendant-appellant.4. The Tit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE2024INSC681IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE/INHERENT JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 2764 OF2024(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.3419 OF2024 RAGHUVEER SHARAN ... APPELLANT VERSUS DISTRICT SAHAKARI KRISHI GRAMIN VIKAS BANK & ANR. ...RESPONDENTS WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No.508 OF2024IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 2764 OF2024@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.3419 OF2024 JUDGMENT PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 2764 OF20241. The appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Revision No.1925 of 2023 whereby the High Court has dismissed the appellants revision application affirming the order passed by the Special Court MP/MLA) Gwalior on 17.04.2023 in exercise of power under 2 Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 to summon the appellant as an accused.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that in the year 1998, one Rajendra Bharti ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC675REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2024(@ SLP (C) No.13835 of 2022) MANILAL Appellant (s) Versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS ...Respondent(s) JUDGMENT K.V. Viswanathan, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur dated 27.04.2022 in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.997 of 2019. By the said judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal of the appellant and 1 confirmed the order dated 27.11.2018 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant.3. We have heard Mr. Nishant Bishnoi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Milind Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-State and perused the records of the case. We have also considered the written submissions filed by the parties.4. The facts lie in a very narrow compass. The respondent- authorities under the provisions of th...
Tag this Judgment!