Skip to content

Filter by :

Latest Judgments Judgments > Court:Supreme Page:100

Dec 17 2013

State of R Vs. Bhagwan Das Agrawal & Ors.

  • Decided on : 17-Dec-2013

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2118 OF2013(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8402 of 2011) State of Rajasthan ..Appellant versus Bhagwan Das Agrawal & Others .Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2119 OF2013(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.2180 of 2012) Girdhar & Others ..Appellants versus State of Rajasthan & Another .Respondents JUDGMENT M.Y. EQBAL, J.Leave granted.2. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15th July, 2011 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur, whereby the petition filed by respondent No.1 herein (Bhagwan Das Agrawal) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, Cr.P.C.) seeking relief to hold that the proceedings based on the subsequent and third FIR registered in Dholpur (Rajasthan) as Crime No.427/2010 under Section 5/9B, 9C of the Explosives Act, 1884, in view of the provisions of Section 186 of Cr.P.C., be discontinued, was allowed, the appellant-State of Rajasthan has preferred the special leave petition being No.8402 of 2011.3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present appeal are that in respect of alleged unauthorized and illegal supply of explosives by M/s. Rajasthan Explosives and Chemicals Ltd., Dholpur (for short, RECL), in which respondent No.1 herein Bhagwan Das Agrawal was Managing Director, to M/s. Ganesh Explosives, Sagar during the period from 17.4.2010 to 29.6.2010 in ...

Dec 17 2013

Gulabrao Baburao Deokar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

  • Decided on : 17-Dec-2013

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2113_/2013 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.6020 OF2012 Gulabrao Baburao Deokar Appellant Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT H.L. Gokhale J.Leave granted.2. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 6.8.2012 rendered by a Judge of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad allowing the Criminal Application No.2522/2012 filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein under Section 439 (2) and 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short). The High Court order cancelled the bail granted to the appellant herein in Crime No.13/2006 registered at the City Police Station, Jalgaon. The appellant (alongwith 56 others) has been charged for offences under Sections 120-B, 406, 409, 411, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 109 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C for short), and under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1) (c) and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant is accused no.34 in that case. The appellant was granted bail on 21.5.2012 by a common order below the applications filed by accused nos. 31 to 50 under Section 439(1) of Cr.P.C. by the Incharge Additional Adhoc District Judge No.1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. It is this order which has been set-aside by the High Court. The operation of the High Court has been stayed by this Court on 7.8.2012.3. Mr. A.V. Savant, learned senior counsel and Mr. Sudhanshu ...

Dec 17 2013

M/s Yazdani International P.Ltd. Vs. Auroglobal Comtrade P.Ltd.& Ors.

  • Decided on : 17-Dec-2013

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.11229 OF2013(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26321 of 2012) Yazdani International P. Ltd. Appellant Versus Auroglobal Comtrade P. Ltd. & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.11230 OF2013(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26319 of 2012) CIVIL APPEAL No.11231 OF2013(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26922 of 2012) CIVIL APPEAL No.11232 OF2013(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26894 of 2012) CIVIL APPEAL No.11233-11234 OF2013(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 27013-27014 of 2012) CIVIL APPEAL No.11235 OF2013(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 27477 of 2012) CIVIL APPEAL No.11236 OF2013(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 27480 of 2012) CIVIL APPEAL No.11237 OF2013(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.27481 of 2012) CIVIL APPEAL No.11238 OF2013(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.27483 of 2012) CIVIL APPEAL No.11239 OF2013(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.27484 of 2012) CIVIL APPEAL No.11240 OF2013(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.27485 of 2012) CIVIL APPEAL No.11241 OF2013(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.27486 of 2012) CIVIL APPEAL No.11242 OF2013(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.27489 of 2012) CIVIL APPEAL No.11243 OF2013(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.27491 of 2012) CIVIL ...

Dec 17 2013

Mun.Corp.Of Gr.Mumbai & Ors. Vs. Kohinoor Ctnl Infrs.Co.P.Ltd.& Ors.

  • Decided on : 17-Dec-2013

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.11150 OF2013(@ out of SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.33402/2012) Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. Appellants Versus Kohinoor CTNL Infrastructure Company Private Limited and another Respondents JUDGMENT H.L. Gokhale J.Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 9.7.2012 passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court whereby Writ Petition No.143/2012 filed by the respondents was allowed, and which quashed the stop work notice dated 22.12.2011 issued by Executive Engineer (Building Proposal) City-III, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, and order dated 27.4.2012 passed by the Additional Municipal Commissioner restricting to four floors the height of Wing C (providing for public parking lot- PPL for short) of the buildings being constructed on Plot No.46 of Town Planning Scheme-III, N.C.Kelkar Road, Shivaji Park, Dadar, Mumbai. Dispute between the parties, settlement thereof and Part-I of the order dated 25.7.2013:- 3. This appeal was initially heard by a bench of G.S. Singhvi and H.L. Gokhale, JJ.Mr. Harish Salve and Mr. R.P Bhatt, both learned Senior Counsel appeared for the appellants, and Mr. F.S Nariman, learned Senior Counsel appeared for the respondent. The appellants wanted to restrict the PPL up to four floors only, but before the issuance of the restrictive circular dated 22.6.2011, in this behalf, the respondents had already consumed ...

Dec 17 2013

Chhotan Sao & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar

  • Decided on : 17-Dec-2013

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1613 OF2008Chhotan Sao & Another Appellants Versus State of Bihar Respondent JUDGMENT Chelameswar, J.1. The two appellants herein were convicted for the offences under sections 304B and 498A IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge VI, Gaya and the same was continued in appeal by the High Court of Patna.2. Initially three accused were charged for the offences under sections 328, 304B and 498A Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the allegation that they harassed and were responsible for the unnatural death of one Babita Devi, the daughter of PW1 and PW6, mother and father respectively. All three accused were found guilty of the offences they were charged with by the trial court. Each of the accused was awarded punishment for seven years for the offence under section 304B IPC and two years for the offence under section 498A IPC. However, the trial court did not award any separate sentence insofar as the other offence of which the accused were charged of.3. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court dated 5th May 2003 all the three accused carried appeals to the High Court of Patna unsuccessfully.4. The instant appeal is carried by only two accused Chottan Sao and Kamla Devi who happened to be the deceased Babita Devis father-in-law and sister-in-law (husbands brothers wife). We are informed that the third accused Suhas Sao, husband of the deceased Babita ...

Dec 17 2013

Bhusawal Municipal Council Vs. Nivrutti Ramchandra Phalak & Ors.

  • Decided on : 17-Dec-2013

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 11227-11228 of 2013 (S.L.P (C) Nos. 38901-38902 of 2013 arising out of CC1880818809 of 2013) Bhusawal Municipal Council Appellant Versus Nivrutti Ramchandra Phalak & Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. These appeals have been filed with a delay of 308 days against the orders dated 20.4.2012 and 5.3.2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) in Civil Application No.1724/2012 and Writ Petition (C) No.1586/2013 respectively, by which the High Court has granted interim relief to the extent of payment of 50% of the enhanced amount of compensation as awarded by the reference court in land acquisition proceedings.4. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that: A. The land in dispute i.e. agricultural land bearing Gat No.196/2B/1 to 196/2B/7 admeasuring 4.25 R. situated at Bhusawal, Distt. Jalgaon, Maharashtra, was acquired resorting to the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1966) and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1894). B. In respect of the land, the award was made on 10.5.2000. After passing of the said award, the appellant took possession of the land on 11.2.2005 after making the payment of the awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.68,40,835/-. C. The respondents filed reference under Section 18 of the Act ...

Dec 16 2013

Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.

  • Decided on : 16-Dec-2013

Court : US Supreme Court

Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co. 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 HEIMESHOFF v. HARTFORD LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE CO. etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit No. 12729.?Argued October 15, 2013Decided December 16, 2013 Respondent Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co. (Hartford) is the administrator of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.s (Wal-Mart) Group Long Term Disability Plan (Plan), an employee benefit plan covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The Plans insurance policy requires any suit to recover benefits pursuant to the judicial review provision in ERISA 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)(B), to be filed within three years after proof of loss is due. Petitioner Heimeshoff filed a claim for long-term disability benefits with Hartford. After petitioner exhausted the mandatory administrative review process, Hartford issued its final denial. Almost three years after that final denial but more than three years after proof of loss was due, Heimeshoff filed a claim for judicial review pursuant to ERISA 502(a)(1)(B). Hartford and Wal- ...

Dec 16 2013

Re:exploi.Of Chiln.Inj Orph.In St.Of T.N Vs. Union of India & Ors.

  • Decided on : 16-Dec-2013

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRL.) No.102 of 2007 Re. Exploitation of Children in Orphanages in the State of Tamil Nadu ...Petitioner(s) Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondent(s) ORDER1 We have heard very lengthy submissions from the Amicus Curie Ms. Aparna Bhat, Ms. Indira Jaising, ASG, Mr. Paras Kuhad, ASG.2. It has been brought to our notice that inspite of the emphatic directions that have been issued by this court on 3rd January, 2013 directing all the States and the Union Territories to implement the protective provisions contained in the Protection of Rights of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, many States and Union Territories have not complied with the same. By order dated 3rd January, 2013, we had also directed the States to file an affidavit indicating the time frame within which the State Commission for the protection of children would be established. By a subsequent order dated 7th February, 2013, further directions were issued to all the States and the Union Territories to comply with the obligations under the aforesaid three Acts, with regard to the establishment of protection institutions/implementation institutions, together with necessary Rules and Regulations. The aforesaid order was to be complied with within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the ...

Dec 16 2013

Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.

  • Decided on : 16-Dec-2013

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5329 OF2002Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Appellant Versus State of Tamil Nadu & Another Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.1352 OF2005CIVIL APPEAL No.5332 OF2002CIVIL APPEAL No.5333 OF2002CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5335- 5336 OF2002JUDGMENT Chelameswar, J.1. By a common judgment dated 4th March, 2002, the High Court of Madras dismissed a batch of writ appeals and some connected writ petitions. Aggrieved by the said judgment, four companies, which are carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of cement in the State of Tamil Nadu, carried the matter to this Court in these appeals.2. The Government of Tamil Nadu in the Industries Department issued a letter No.628 dated 10.5.1982 addressed to the Collectors of the various districts. The relevant part of the letter reads I am directed to state that the rates of Royalty and dead rent in respect of leases over patta lands have been fixed at 50% (half rate) as a convention which has been followed for a long time and this is not based on rules.2. In 1977 in his Audit report, the Senior Deputy Accountant General has pointed out the incorrect levy of royalty at half the rates for mining in patta lands, since no proportion has been prescribed in the Minerals Concession Rules 1960 in regard to the share in the Minerals between the pattadar and the Government. The Senior Deputy Accountant General has also pointed out in his D.O. fourth cited that omission to ...

Dec 16 2013

Mitfam International Ltd. Vs. Motley Resources Pte Ltd.

  • Decided on : 16-Dec-2013

Court : Singapore Supreme Court

Judith Prakash J: 1. The parties to this action are trading companies dealing in commodities. Over the years they have traded frequently with each other, usually in relation to raw cashew nuts grown in the Ivory Coast. The plaintiff, Mitfam International Ltd ("Mitfam"), is incorporated in the Seychelles but has its main business in the Ivory Coast. The defendant, Motley Resources Pte Ltd ("Motley"), is a Singapore company. 2. The plaintiff's claim is for the sum of US$395,666 ("the invoiced sum") due under its invoice dated 28 April 2010 in respect of the sale of 545.746 MT of raw cashew nuts to the defendant. The defendant admits having purchased the goods and that the invoiced sum is due. However it claims that the invoiced sum should be set off against a sum of US$486,553.33 being the total amount of eight payments ("the Payments") which it had made to the plaintiff (or third parties nominated by the plaintiff) for the procurement of raw cashew nuts. These payments were allegedly in the nature of advances given by the defendant to the plaintiff for the goods and, as the plaintiff did not supply goods thereafter, the defendant is entitled to be repaid the total amount by the plaintiff. 3. The defendant also has a counterclaim based on the alleged breach of two contracts. The first contract was for the sale of 1,500 MT of raw cashew nuts and the second contract was for 1,000 MT of the same product. The defendant's claim is that the plaintiff did not perform the first ...

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