Skip to content


Latest Judgments Judgments > Court:Supreme Page:100

Jan 15 2014

State of Rajasthan Vs. Roshan Khan & Ors.

  • Decided on : 15-Jan-2014

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 79-80 of 2005 State of Rajasthan . Appellant Versus Roshan Khan & Ors. .. Respondents JUDGMENT A. K. PATNAIK, J.These are appeals by way of Special Leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the judgment dated 21.11.2003 of the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench, setting aside the judgment of the trial court convicting the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC). Facts 2. The facts very briefly are that on 28.04.1999 Ruliram lodged a complaint at the Bhadra Police Station in District Hanumangarh, stating as follows: There was a marriage of the daughter of his brother Gyan Singh for which a feast was arranged by him on 27.04.1999. His 15-16 years old daughter, who was slightly weak- minded, disappeared. When she did not return for quite some time, he and others started searching her. At about 9.00 p.m., a milkman informed him that he had seen six boys taking away a girl towards Kalyan Bhoomi. About 1.00 a.m. on 28.04.1999, when Ruliram was on a scooter with Gyan Singh still looking for his daughter, he noticed five boys in the light of the scooter near the old dilapidated office building of the Sheep and Wool Department and all the five, seeing the light of the scooter fled. When they went into the old building, they found Akbar having sexual intercourse with his daughter and she was shouting. ...

Jan 15 2014

In the matter of LC (Children) and Another

  • Decided on : 15-Jan-2014

Court : UK Supreme Court

1. Now that it is clear that the test for determining whether a child was habitually resident in a place is whether there was some degree of integration by her (or him) in a social and family environment there, may the court, in making that determination in relation to an adolescent child who has resided, particularly if only for a short time, in a place under the care of one of her parents, have regard to her own state of mind during her period of residence there in relation to the nature and quality of that residence? In my view this is the principal question raised by these appeals. 2. The appeals are brought within proceedings issued by a mother against a father for the summary return of their four children from England to Spain pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 ("the Convention") and to section 1(2) of the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 ("the 1985 Act"). 3. The father is a UK national aged 47 and lives in the Thames Valley. The mother is a Spanish national aged 46 and lives in Madrid. The four children are T, a girl, who was born in August 2000 and is now aged 13; L, a boy, who was born in December 2002 and is now aged 11; A, a boy, who was born in November 2004 and is now aged 9; and N, a boy, who was born in December 2008 and is now aged 5. All four children were born in England. They are Spanish nationals and are presumably also UK nationals. They currently reside with the father. 4. At all times until ...

Jan 14 2014

Daimler AG v. Bauman

  • Decided on : 14-Jan-2014

Court : US Supreme Court

Daimler AG v. Bauman NOTE:?Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.,200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus DAIMLER AG v. BAUMAN etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 11965.?Argued October 15, 2013Decided January 14, 2014 Plaintiffs (respondents here) are twenty-two residents of Argentina who filed suit in California Federal District Court, naming as a defendant DaimlerChrysler Aktiengesellschaft (Daimler), a German public stock company that is the predecessor to petitioner Daimler AG. Their complaint alleges that Mercedes-Benz Argentina (MB Argentina), an Argentinian subsidiary of Daimler, collaborated with state security forces during Argentinas 19761983 Dirty War to kidnap, detain, torture, and kill certain MB Argentina workers, among them, plaintiffs or persons closely related to plaintiffs. Based on those allegations, plaintiffs asserted claims under the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, as well as under California and Argentina law. Personal jurisdiction over Daimler was predicated on the California contacts of Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA), another Daimler subsidiary, one ...

Jan 14 2014

Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp.

  • Decided on : 14-Jan-2014

Court : US Supreme Court

Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp. NOTE:?Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.,200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus MISSISSIPPI exrel. HOOD, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. AU OPTRONICS CORP. etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit No. 121036.?Argued November 6, 2013Decided January 14, 2014 Congress enacted the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) to lower diversity jurisdiction requirements in class actions and, as relevant here, in mass actions, i.e., civil actions in which monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs claims involve common questions of law or fact,28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(11)(B)(i). Petitioner Mississippi sued respondent liquid crystal display (LCD) manufacturers in state court, alleging violations of state law and seeking, inter alia, restitution for LCD purchases made by itself and its citizens. Respondents sought to remove the case to federal court. The District Court held that the suit qualified as a mass action under 1332(d)(11)(B)(i), but remanded the suit to state court on the ground that it fell within CAFAs general public exception ...

Jan 13 2014

Haryana Dairy Dev. Coop. Fed. Ltd Vs. Jagdish Lal

  • Decided on : 13-Jan-2014

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SLP(CIVIL) NO(s). 39434 OF2013HARYANA DAIRY DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE FEDERATION LIMITED Petitioner(s) VERSUS JAGDISH LAL Respondent(s) ORDER Inspite of the fact that the Parliament has amended the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 altering the provisions of Section 102 CPC providing that money recovery suit involving less than Rs. 25,000/- shall not be entertained in Second Appeal, we are being burdened with cases where the litigation cost may be hundred times more than the amount involved. It has become the definite attitude of the officials not to take any responsibility even for petty issues and would waste public money approaching this Court. Government departments would spend any amount on litigation instead of paying petty amount to the other party. In the instant case, an amount of Rs. 8,724/- is to be paid to the respondent employee as reimbursement of his medical claim and the petitioner Haryana Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited treating the litigation as luxury must have spent the amount already by filing this petition more than the total amount involved herein. Many a time this Court has felt unhappy about the time of the Court being taken for days together by petty matters. (The Constitution Bench judgment Sukhdev Singh, Oil & Natural Gas Commission, Life Insurance Corporation, Industrial Finance Corporation Employees Associations Vs. Bhagat Ram, Association of Class II, Officers, ...

Jan 10 2014

R. Unnikrishnan & Anr Vs. V.K. Mahanudevan & Ors.

  • Decided on : 10-Jan-2014

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3468 OF2007R. Unnikrishnan and Anr. Appellants Versus V.K. Mahanudevan and Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3469 OF2007State of Kerala and Ors. Appellants Versus V.K. Mahanudevan and Ors. Respondents AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.3470 OF2007State of Kerala and Ors. Appellants Versus V.K. Ananthan Unnikrishnan and Anr. Respondents AND CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.24775 of 2013) State of Kerala and Ors. Appellants Versus Prem Kumar and Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT T.S. THAKUR, J.1. Leave granted in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.24775 of 2013.2. Common questions of law arise for consideration in these appeals which shall stand disposed of by this common order. But before we formulate the questions that fall for determination the factual matrix in which the same arise need to be summarised for a proper appreciation of the controversy.3. Respondent-V.K. Mahanudevan in Civil Appeal No.3468 of 2007 applied to Tehsildar, Alathur in the State of Kerala for grant of a Scheduled Caste Certificate on the basis that he was a Thandan which was a notified Scheduled Caste. The Tehsildar held an enquiry and found that the appellant did not belong to the Scheduled Caste community and reported the matter to the Director, Scheduled Caste Development Department, who in turn forwarded the case to Director, Kerala Institute for Research, Training and Development Studies of ...

Jan 10 2014

State of U.P.Thr.Exe.Engineer & Anr Vs. Amar Nath Yadav

  • Decided on : 10-Jan-2014

Court : Supreme Court of India

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No._882_/ 2014 (Arising out of CC No.20855 of 2013) State of U.P. Thr. Exe. Engineer & Anr. . Petitioner(s) Versus Amar Nath Yadav ..Respondent(s) JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.1. There is a delay of 481 days in filing this Special Leave Petition and by means of present application petitioner seeks condonation thereof.2. In the application the petitioner has attributed the delay to the moving of file from one Department/ Officer to the other. We hardly find this to be a sufficient explanation for condoning such an abnormal delay. This Court in the case of Postmaster General and Ors. vs. Living Media India Ltd.; (2012) 3 SCC563has deprecated such practices on the part of the Government Authorities/ Departments in the following words:- It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a Special Leave Petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with Court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of ...

Jan 10 2014

State of Gujarat Vs. Ratansingh @ Chinubhai Anopsinh Chauhan

  • Decided on : 10-Jan-2014

Court : Supreme Court of India

[Reportable]. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.403/2007 State of Gujarat ..Appellant Vs. Ratansingh @ Chinubhai Anopsinh Chauhan ..Respondent JUDGMENT A.K.SIKRI,J.1. The present appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 14th September 2006 passed by the Honble High Court of Gujarat in Criminal Confirmation Case No.9 of 2004 with Criminal Appeal No.1915/2004, setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge and second Fast Track Court in Sessions Case No.4/2004 convicting the respondent under Section 376,302 and 201 IPC for the offence of rape and murder of a seven year old girl and punishing him with sentence of death. The High Court found severe loopholes and shortcomings in the prosecution story, rendering it unbelievable and thereby acquitted the respondent in the aforesaid case.2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, was that the respondent/accused was the neighbour of the deceased girl Komal aged 7 years r/o village Bhammiya. On the day of incident i.e. 16.8.2003 the victim was playing with her two friends viz. Parul and Saroj in the courtyard of the respondent. The respondent/accused came to his house between 15.00 to 15.30 hrs. and scolded the girls for playing there. Parul and Saroj ran away whereas, however, the deceased girl was forcibly caught by the respondent and pushed her into his house and he shut the door. Shakriben Chandrasinh, a neighbour who was washing ...

Jan 10 2014

Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.

  • Decided on : 10-Jan-2014

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1750 OF2008Hardeep Singh Appellant Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents With CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1751 of 2008 Manjit Pal Singh Appellant Versus State of Punjab & Anr. Respondents With SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.9184 of 2008 Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria & Anr. Appellants Versus State of Gujarat & Ors. Respondents With SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.7209 of 2010 Rajendra Sharma & Anr. Appellants Versus State of M.P. & Anr. Respondents With SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.5724 of 2009 Ravinder Kumar & Anr. Appellants Versus State of Haryana & Ors. Respondents With SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.5975 of 2009 Tej Pal & Anr. Appellants Versus State of Haryana & Ors. Respondents With SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.9040 of 2010 Juned Pahalwan Appellant Versus State of U.P.& Anr. Respondents With SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.5331 of 2009 Rajesh @ Sanjai Appellant Versus State of U.P. & Anr. Respondents With SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.9157 of 2009 Ramdhan Mali & Anr. Appellants Versus State of Rajasthan & Anr. Respondents With SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS. 4503-4504 of 2012 Tej Singh Appellant Versus State of U.P. Respondent JUDGMENT Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.1. This reference before us arises out of a variety of views having been expressed by this Court and several High Courts of the country on the scope and extent of the powers of the courts under the criminal justice ...

Jan 10 2014

National Insurance Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Kirpal Singh

  • Decided on : 10-Jan-2014

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.256 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.9953 of 2008) National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Appellants Versus Kirpal Singh Respondent With CIVIL APPEAL No.257 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.10548 of 2008) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Appellants Versus Shamsher Singh Puri Respondent And CIVIL APPEAL No.258 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.10756 of 2008) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Appellants Versus Davinder Singh Respondent JUDGMENT T.S. THAKUR, J.1. Leave granted.2. The short question that falls for determination in these appeals is whether the respondents who opted for voluntary retirement from the service of the appellant-companies are entitled to claim pension under the General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme 1995. The High Court having answered the question in the affirmative, the appellant-Insurance Companies have appealed to assail that view.3. The controversy arises in the following backdrop:4. In exercise of its powers under Section 17A of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, the Central Government made what is described as General Insurance Employees Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as SVRS of 2004). Para 3 of the scheme stipulating the eligibility conditions for employees who could opt for voluntary retirement from the services of the insurance company is as under:Eligibility1) All permanent ...

Get Latest cases via RSS

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