Skip to content

Filter by :

Latest Judgments Judgments > Court:Supreme Page:100

Nov 19 2013

State of U.P. Vs. Naushad

  • Decided on : 19-Nov-2013

Court : Supreme Court of India

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1949 OF2013(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5390 of 2008) State of U.P. ... Appellant VS. Naushad ... Respondent JUDGMENT V. Gopala Gowda, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 16.03.2007, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.4505 of 2005, whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the accused-respondent acquitting him for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) by reversing the judgment and order dated 05.10.2005 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Courts 1, Muzzaffarnagar in Sessions Trial No.377 of 2004 which convicted the accused under Section 376 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of [pic].10,000/- and in default of payment of fine further imprisonment for a period of one year.3. The brief facts of the case are stated hereunder to examine the correctness of the findings recorded by the High Court in reversing the judgment of the trial court. The accused- Naushad is the son of the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix Shabanas father - who is the informant. The informant complained that Naushad used to visit their house often and enticed his daughter - Shabana and cheated her, promising to marry her and had regular sexual intercourse with her on this pretext. The informant came to know about this when his daughter ...

Nov 19 2013

Leela Shashikant Purandare Vs. Arvind Vishu Govande(d) Thr. Lr & Ors.

  • Decided on : 19-Nov-2013

Court : Supreme Court of India

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10426-10427 OF2013(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 22473-22474 of 2013) Leela Shashikant Purandare ....Appellant versus Arvind Vishnu Govande (dead) through L.Rs. ....Respondents JUDGMENT G.S. SINGHVI, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals are directed against judgment dated 30.4.2013 of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court whereby he dismissed the second appeal and the civil application filed by the appellant and upheld judgment and decree dated 31.12.2012 passed by District Judge, Pune (for short, the lower appellate Court) in Civil Appeal No.325/2012 confirming judgment and decree dated 18.2.2012 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pimpri (for short, the trial Court) in Regular Civil Suit No.614/2000 filed by respondent - Arvind Vishnu Govande, who is now represented by his legal representatives, for declaration and possession of the suit property.3. After obtaining the degree of M.Tech. from Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, the respondent started working as Engineering Consultant. In 1979, he purchased Plot No.W-97, Bhosari Industrial Area, Pimpri (the suit property) on lease basis from Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) by registered deed dated 24.10.1979. After taking possession of the suit property, the respondent obtained water supply and electric connection in his name. In 1988, the appellant and her relative (brother, viz., Subhash ...

Nov 19 2013

Ganesha Vs. Sharanappa & Anr.

  • Decided on : 19-Nov-2013

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1948 OF2013(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No.4531 of 2009) GANESHA .. APPELLANT VERSUS SHARANAPPA & ANR. ..... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.Petitioner, besides three other accused, was put on trial for offence under Section 341, 323, 324 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yadgiri Taluk, Gulbarga District, Karnataka, by its judgment and order dated 14th of September, 2006 passed in CC No.355 of 2006, acquitted them of all the charges. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the informant preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.147 of 2007 and the High Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 5th of August, 2008 maintained the order of acquittal of all accused persons, excepting accused No.3, Ganesha who has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months. It is against this order that Ganesha has preferred this special leave petition. Leave granted. The prosecution was set in motion on the basis of a report given by the informant, Sharanappa, inter alia, alleging that he made a protest when he saw the accused persons grazing their cattle in his land and thereby damaging ...

Nov 19 2013

Daljit Kaur & Ors Vs. Muktar Steels Pvt Ltd & Ors

  • Decided on : 19-Nov-2013

Court : Supreme Court of India

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10755 OF2013(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.36694 of 2013) (CC No.19728 of 2013) Daljit Kaur and another ... Appellants Versus Muktar Steels Pvt. Ltd. and others ...Respondents JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.3.2013 passed in Second Appeal No.285 of 2008 by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh whereby the learned single Judge has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court concurring with the view that the decree being a consent decree was not assailable in appeal, and further giving the stamp of approval to the conclusion that the learned trial Judge, after conducting due enquiry as envisaged under the proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), had passed a consent decree.4. The broad essential facts giving rise to the appeal are that the first respondent instituted OS No.2261 of 1988 in the Court of IVth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for declaration to the effect that the agreements and arrangements between the parties are in the nature of Industrial Licence and not Leave and Licence in respect of the suit premises situate in private industrial estate Sanathnagar, Hyderabad and also for permanent injunction. The suit was originally filed against the defendant No.1, the Managing Partner of the firm but after his death defendant Nos. ...

Nov 19 2013

Alexander Anatole Theodor Mettenheimer and Another Vs. Zonquasdrif Vin ...

  • Decided on : 19-Nov-2013

Court : South Africa - Supreme Court of Appeal

On appeal from:Western Cape High Court, Cape Town (Davis J sitting as court of first instance): The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel whenever employed. JUDGMENT BRAND JA(THERON, PILLAY, PETSE JJA et MEYER AJA concurring): [1] This appeal turns on the application of s 34(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993 and s 20(2)(b) of the Close Corporations Act 69 of 1984 prior to its amendment that came into operation in 2011. The first appellant, Mr Alexander Mettenheimer, is the registered proprietor of the trade mark Zonquasdrift in class 33 in respect of alcoholic beverages, except beer. The trade mark therefore covers wine but not wine grapes which, incidentally, falls in class 31. Mettenheimer and his wife are also the shareholders in the second appellant, a private company which is the owner of a farm called Zonquasdrift between Malmesbury and Riebeek Kasteel in the Western Cape. Until recently the second appellant was known as Almett Properties (Pty) Ltd, but on 3 May 2012 that is about two years after the commencement of the present litigation it formally changed its name to Zonquasdrift Estates (Pty) Ltd. [2] The first respondent is a close corporation with the registered name Zonquasdrif Vineyards CC. It conducts its farming business on a farm situated about one kilometre from the second appellants farm where it grows wine grapes which it sells under its registered name. The second and third respondents are the Registrar of Close ...

Nov 18 2013

Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika & Anr. Vs. Willingdon Sports Club & Ors.

  • Decided on : 18-Nov-2013

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5840 OF2013(Arising out of SLP(C) No.7119 of 2010) Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika and another ....Appellants versus Willingdon Sports Club and others ....Respondents JUDGMENT G.S. SINGHVI, J.1. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal filed against order dated 29.9.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.2199/1999 is whether respondent No.1 is obliged to take licence under Section 394(1)(e) read with Part IV of Schedule M of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (now titled as the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 for short, the Act) for the catering services provided by it to the members and their guests.2. Respondent No.1 provides various sporting facilities, viz., golf, tennis, squash, billiards, badminton, etc., to its members. The Catering Department of respondent No.1 provides catering services to the members and occasionally to their guests. By order dated 21.11.1990, appellant No.2 called upon respondent No.1 to make an application for grant of licence under Section 394 of the Act for the eating house. The latter submitted the application on 24.11.1990. Thereafter, Senior Sanitary Inspector of appellant No.1 sent communication dated 3.12.1990 to respondent No.2 requiring him to submit various documents including NOCs from Assistant Engineer (Buildings and Facilities) and Executive Engineer (Buildings Proposals). In ...

Nov 18 2013

Pehlad Ram & Ors. Vs. Haryana Urban Dev. Authority & Ors.

  • Decided on : 18-Nov-2013

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10438 OF2013(Arising out of SLP (C) No.12003 of 2013) Pehlad Ram & Ors. Appellants Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors. Respondents ORDER1 Leave granted.2. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 28.9.2012 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No.1631 of 2011 (O&M) allowing the revision filed by the respondents.3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: A. The appellants claim to have purchased a plot in Khasra No.159/3 situate in revenue estate of Village Lohar, Tehsil & District Bhiwani (Haryana) on 20.3.1972 from its registered owner Ugar Ram but the mutation of the same had not been made in favour of the appellants. B. A large area of land including the land in dispute was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act) which was published in the Official Gazette on 19.6.1973. C. The appellants alongwith others filed claim petition. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.24/- per marla vide award dated 20.3.1975. D. On the basis of the other judgments and assessment orders, the value of the land of the appellants had been determined by the Reference Court as well as by the High Court, taking in view the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act, at the rate of Rs. 9 per Square Yard.4. ...

Nov 18 2013

Rohan Ajith Jude Silva, of Walauwwa, Kochchikade Vs. Y.B. Aleckman, of ...

  • Decided on : 18-Nov-2013

Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court

Shiranee Tilakawardane, J. Special Leave was granted by this Court in order to enable an Appeal against the Judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal on 14.02.2005. Leave was granted on the following questions of law: 1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred by holding that there had been no reasonable grounds for the default of appearance on 05.02.1993 and in deciding that the case of Kathiresu v Sinniah (71 NLR 450) was inapplicable in this case; 2. Whether the Court of Appeal had erred in holding that, legally admissible evidence had been led at the ex-parte trial and further, by refusing to act in revision. The facts relating to this appeal are as follows. Prior to the institution of this action the Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) was ejected from the premises located at No.11, Negombo Road, Kochikade, by the mother of the Substituted-Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant- Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner). The said action was instituted in the District Court by the Petitioner's mother who was the original Defendant in this case. In this regard and judgment was entered in favour of the mother of the Petitioner (the original Defendant in this case) at the District Court which was later upheld by the Court of Appeal. Subsequently, the present action was instituted by the Respondent against the mother of the Petitioner (the original Defendant) on the grounds that the writ of the District Court in Negombo in the ...

Nov 18 2013

Tangerine Beach Hotel P.O. Box 195 No. 236, Galle Road, Colombo 03. Vs ...

  • Decided on : 18-Nov-2013

Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court

Tilakawardane J: An application for Leave to Appeal before this Court was made by the 1st Defendant - Appellant - Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) and the matter appeared before this Court on 30.07.2013. The appeal was against the decision of the Provincial High Court of Civil Appeal of the Western Province which delivered judgment on 26.02.2013. It is the opinion of this Court that the following two questions of law that were raised for leave to appeal require the consideration of this Court. 1. Whether the Provincial High Court of Civil Appeal of the Western Province had misdirected itself when they held the Petitioner vicariously liable for the actions of the 3rd Defendant. 2. Whether the Provincial High Court of Civil Appeal of the Western Province had misdirected itself when it failed to take cognizance of the fact that the documents marked by the Plaintiff - Respondent - Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) were admitted into evidence subject to proof and were allegedly not proven. The facts that precede this appeal are as follows. The Respondents in the above captioned cases were three males: a father, a son and the brother of the father. The three passengers were being driven in vehicle number 65-2938 at the time of the accident. The said vehicle collided with train number 506 which was travelling from Colombo to Galle. The accident occurred at the Paunangoda Road rail at Hikkaduwa. The Petitioner of this case is the legal ...

Nov 18 2013

Don Gunawardana Weththasinghe, Egaloya, Bulathsinhala Vs. D. Ariyawath ...

  • Decided on : 18-Nov-2013

Court : Sri Lanka Supreme Court

Tilakawardane. J, The Appellant has sought Leave to Appeal from the decision of Judgment of the Civil Appellate High Court of Kalutara dated 03.05.2011 whereby the Civil Appellate High Court dismissed the Appeal of the Appellant. This Court granted Special Leave to Appeal on 28.09.2011 on the following two questions of law as indicated in paragraph 23 of the Petition dated 13.06.2011: - (1) Is the judgment of the District Court of Matugama Case bearing No. 1015/P supported by the evidence placed before the said Court? (2) If the said judgment is supported by the evidence placed before Court, should the judgment of the District Court be affirmed? The two questions set out above would encapsulate the essence and substance of the case and in order to give a correct decision on the matter, it may involve re-agitating a point already decided. The Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant [hereinafter referred to as the Appellant] has instituted an action in the District Court of Matugama seeking to partition Lot No. 4 of a land known as Egallawedeniya which is marked A and depicted in the Partition Plan No. 119 prepared by H.D. Perera, Licensed Surveyor which was in extent 3 Roods and 10.31 Perches. This Court accepts the plan prepared subsequent to the decree of partition held by the Learned Judge of the District Court of Kalutara bearing No.28363. There appears to be no dispute with regards to the allotted partition of the corpus, whereby 2/3rd of the land was allotted to Dona Louisa ...

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //