Skip to content

Filter by :

Latest Judgments Judgments > Court:Supreme Year:2014

Oct 17 2014

Pradeep Kumar Maskara & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.

  • Decided on : 17-Oct-2014

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9844-9846 OF2014(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 23051-23053 of 2009) Pradeep Kumar Maskara and others Appellants Versus State of West Bengal and others ..Respondents JUDGMENT M.Y. EQBAL, J.Leave granted.2. These appeals by special leave are directed against the common judgment and order dated 20.3.2009, passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Calcutta in W.P.L.R.T. Nos. 728 of 2002, 429 of 2002 and 430 of 2002, whereby the High Court dismissed the aforementioned Writ Applications holding that the question as to whether Chapter IIB of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act would be applicable qua the appellants in view of the fact that they belonged to a place which was in erstwhile State of Bihar and by virtue of the State Reorganisation Act, their lands were included in the State of West Bengal was decided against the appellants relying on the judgment in case of Ganga Dhar Singh & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal and Ors., 1997 (II) CHN140 3. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the appellants, presently residents of Dalkola, sub-divisional town in the District of North Dinajpur, West Bengal, had certain ancestral lands in the said town. On 30.3.1956, the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 came into force and the lands of the appellants were transferred from State of Bihar to State of West Bengal by virtue of the enactment of Bihar and West Bengal ( ...

Oct 17 2014

State of U.P.& Ors. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors.

  • Decided on : 17-Oct-2014

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9849 OF2014(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.18639 OF2012 |STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. |.....APPELLANT(S) | |VERSUS | | |ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA & ORS. |.....RESPONDENT(S) | JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.Leave granted. This appeal, preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh and its functionaries, assails the order of the High Court whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed and the order of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (for short, 'the Tribunal') passed in favour of the respondents herein, is affirmed. To mention at the outset, the Tribunal as well as the High Court has given the respondents herein benefit of the order passed by the Court in earlier round of litigation filed by similarly situated persons. The appellants contend that as far as these respondents are concerned, they never approached the Court seeking such a relief and were only fence-sitters and, therefore, relief should not have been granted to them even if they were similarly situated as those persons who have been granted relief in the petitions filed by them. Respondents, on the other hand, contend that once it is found that both sets of persons are identically placed, the impugned orders granting them the same benefit are in tune with the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Such a situation has not occurred for the first time in the present appeal. ...

Oct 17 2014

Kapil Mehra & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr

  • Decided on : 17-Oct-2014

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2545-2546/2012 MAJ.GEN. KAPIL MEHRA & ORS. ..Appellants Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..Respondents JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.These appeals are directed against the impugned Orders dated 24.12.2010 and 13.10.2011 passed by Delhi High Court in L.A. Appeal No.149/2007 and C.M. No.735/2011 in L.A. Appeal No.149/2007 respectively by which High Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.14,974/- per sq. yard for appellants land acquired by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for development of Vasant Kunj Residential Scheme, Delhi along with interest and proportionate costs.2. Shorn of details of the previous notification in 1983 and the earlier rounds of litigation, background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 19.2.1997, a fresh notification was issued by the Land and Building Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi under Sections 4 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) proposing to acquire the land of the appellants measuring 12 Bigha (12096 sq. yards) for development of Vasant Kunj under the planned development scheme of Delhi. Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) by award No.2/98-99 dated 18.9.1998 assessed the market value of the land @ Rs.2,05,642.07 paise per bigha (Rs.205/-per sq.yard), adding additional interest @ 12% per annum on the market value of land and the solatium @ 30% on the market value of land and the compensation was fixed @ Rs.37,21,180.05 paise per bigha.3. ...

Oct 17 2014

Kuldeep Kaur Vs. State of Uttarakhand

  • Decided on : 17-Oct-2014

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2267 OF2014(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1453 of 2013) Kuldeep Kaur Appellant (s) versus State of Uttarakhand Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J.: Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave arises out of judgment and order dated 3.1.2013 of the High Court of Uttarakhand in Criminal Appeal No.213 of 2006, whereby Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant and affirmed the decision of the trial court convicting her under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-. The High Court also dismissed the appeal preferred by the State against the judgment of acquittal passed by trial court.3. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that on 6.6.2001 the complainant of the case viz. Captain Jagtar Singh (PW1) lodged a report Ex.A-1 at P.S. Sitarganj, wherein it has been stated that marriage of his daughter Jagpreet Kaur was solemnized with Upkar Singh son of Harpal Singh on 1.3.2001. The complainant gave the articles in the marriage according to his capacity, but in-laws of his daughter used to demand car etc. and used to taunt and harass his daughter. It was further complained that Jagpreet Kaur told the informant that her in-laws harassed her on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and in the intervening night of 5th/6th of June, 2001, she was compelled to commit ...

Oct 17 2014

Gunmala Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anu Mehta & Ors.

  • Decided on : 17-Oct-2014

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2228 OF2014[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1724 of 2013]. Gunmala Sales Private Ltd. ... Appellants Vs. Anu Mehta & Ors. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.2261-2265 OF2014[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.5500-5504 of 2013]. Gunmala Sales Private Ltd., etc. ... Appellants Vs. Navkar Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. & etc. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 2250-2260 OF2014[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.5460-5470 of 2013]. Gunmala Sales Private Ltd., etc. Appellants Vs. Navkar Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. & etc. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 2229-2241 OF2014[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.5377-5389 of 2013]. Gunmala Sales Private Ltd., etc. ... Appellants Vs. Navkar Buildestates Pvt. Ltd. & etc. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.2242-2249 OF2014[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.5437-5444 of 2013]. Gunmala Sales Private Ltd., etc. ... Appellants Vs. Navkar Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Ors etc. Respondents JUDGMENT (SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.1. Leave granted.2. In these appeals, we are concerned with the question as to whether the High Court was justified in quashing the proceedings initiated by the Magistrate on the ground that there was merely a bald assertion in the complaint filed under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the NI Act) that the Directors were at ...

Oct 15 2014

Deo Kalya Patil & Ors. Vs. Nagindas Shamjibhai Shah Thr. Lrs. & Ors

  • Decided on : 15-Oct-2014

Court : Supreme Court of India

Non-reportable IN THE SUPREME COUR OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.19552 OF2013Deo Kalya Patil & Ors. Petitioners Versus Nagindas Shamjibhai Shah Thr. Lrs. & Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT Chelameswar, J.1. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in suit No .632 of 2010 on the file of the Special Civil Judge (Senior Division), Thane and the respondents are the defendants therein. For the sake of convenience they are referred to in this judgment as they are in the suit. The suit is filed with the prayers as follow:- it be declared that the suit lands were agricultural lands on 1.4.1957; if be declared that the predecessor-in-title Kalya Padya Patil of the Plaintiffs was lawfully in possession and cultivating the suit lands on 1.4.1957 as tenant thereof and consequently had become the deemed purchaser thereof and the Plaintiffs being the heirs of said Kalya Padya Patil are therefore entitled to the benefits conferred upon him by the provisions of B.T. & A.L. Act. It be declared that the Sale transactions that took place after the Tillers Day i.e. dated 22.3.1960, 21.10.1963 and 30.5.1964 which were recorded in the Mutation Entry Nos. 357, 466 and 467 respectively, are illegal, bad in law, void ab-initio and not binding upon the Plaintiffs. It be declared that the proceedings i.e. Tenancy Case No.22 of 1964 and 23 of 1964 initiated by the predecessor-in-title of Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 were not maintainable hence, the orders dated 30.1.1965 ...

Oct 15 2014

Sarjeet Singh (D) Th. Lrs. Vs. Hari Singh & Ors.

  • Decided on : 15-Oct-2014

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9722 OF2014[Arising out of SLP(C) No.13844 of 2013]. SARJEET SINGH (D) TH. LRS. .. APPELLANT(S) vs HARI SINGH & ORS. .. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J.Leave granted. 1 The Appellants essay to restore the concurrent views of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Rewari, in Civil Suit No.308 of 1997 in terms of the Judgment and Decree dated 27.8.2002, as also the Judgment and Decree dated 11.12.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rewari, in Civil Appeal No.50 of 2002. Their views, however, did not find favour with the High Court in the impugned Judgment dated 7.9.2012 passed in Regular Second Appeal No.1346 of 2009. 2 The parties are shareholders of Shamilat Patti Sayar of land comprised in Khewat No.300 Khatoni No.551, Khasra No.622(O-1O), Gair Mumkin Gatwar, situated in village Dahina, as per the jamabandi of the year 1970- 71. The Plaintiffs/Appellants filed a suit for declaration, and possession of the suit land against the Defendants/Respondents. The Plaint does not contain a categorical stand as to whether the Defendants/Respondents are co- sharers along with the Plaintiffs/Appellants in respect of the suit land. It has been pleaded that the Defendants have no concern whatsoever with the suit land which has not been validly partitioned among the co-sharers. The Written Statement is also devoid of clarity inasmuch as it is pleaded that the Plaintiffs are not in ...

Oct 15 2014

Dipanwita Roy Vs. Ronobroto Roy

  • Decided on : 15-Oct-2014

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9744 OF2014(Arising out of SLP(C) No.5694 of 2013) Dipanwita Roy . Appellant versus Ronobroto Roy . Respondent JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.1. The petitioner-wife Dipanwita Roy and the respondent-husband Ronobroto Roy, were married at Calcutta. Their marriage was registered on 9.2.2003. The present controversy emerges from a petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by the respondent, inter alia, seeking dissolution of the marriage solemnised between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband, on 25.1.2003.2. One of the grounds for seeking divorce was, based on the alleged adulterous life style of the petitioner-wife. For his above assertion, the respondent-husband made the following allegations in paragraphs 23 to 25 of his petition:23. That since 22.09.2007 the petitioner never lived with the respondent and did not share bed at all. On a very few occasion since then the respondent came to the petitioner's place of residence to collect her things and lived there against the will of all to avoid public scandal the petitioner did not turn the respondent house on those occasion.24. That by her extravagant life style the respondent has incurred heavy debts. Since she has not disclosed her present address to bank and has only given the address of the petitioner. The men and collection agents of different banks are frequently ...

Oct 15 2014

State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Pronab Chakraborty

  • Decided on : 15-Oct-2014

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2641 OF2012STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS PRONAB CHAKRABORTY RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2642 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL No.2643 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL No.2616 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL No.9828 OF2014(arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.9015 of 2014) JUDGMENT J.S. KHEHAR, J.: CIVIL APPEAL No.2641 OF2012The respondent Pronab Chakraborty was inducted into the employment of the police department of the State of West Bengal, wherein while he was holding the post of Inspector of Police in the Enforcement Branch, he was issued a chargesheet dated 31.07.2007. The charges which were levelled against the respondent, are being extracted hereunder:CHARGE 1 : While you were a S.I. of Police of Howrah District during the period between 01.01.88 and 31.12.93, you acquired total assets in the shape of land, property and deposit in the Bank to the extent of Rs. 3,44,600/-. Out of the said sum, an amount of Rs. 2,69,246.80 paise for which you could not give any cogent explanation for acquisition of the properties which were subsequently established as disproportionate of asset to your known source of income. CHARGE 2 : On 21.06.2002 you acquired the asset in the shape of investment in United Bank of India, Sahanpur Branch, Howrah as fixed deposit to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) only vide A.C. No.401/02 in the name of your son, Partha Pratim Chakraborty and sister-in- law Smt. Krishna ...

Oct 14 2014

Ananda Poojary Vs. State of Karnataka

  • Decided on : 14-Oct-2014

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2202 OF2014[Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.7185 of 2013]. |ANANDA POOJARY |.....APPELLANT(S) | |VERSUS | | |STATE OF KARNATAKA |.....RESPONDENT(S) | JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.Leave granted.2. By this appeal, the appellant Ananda Poojary questions the legality and validity of the judgment dated 14.02.2013 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, whereby the appellant's conviction for offences under Section 302 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') has been upheld. The High Court has also upheld the sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Udupi. The result is that the appellant is made to suffer incarceration for life for allegedly murdering his own foster mother.3. It is an admitted position, accepted by the two courts below, that the deceased Dorathi Kutinho, who was a Teacher, had brought Ananda Poojary (the appellant) who was her student to her house and had showered love and affection like a mother. In her old age, there was nobody to look after her as she was living with her only brother Rudolph Kutinho, who was mentally challenged. Dorathi Kutinho had full confidence in the appellant and kept him as a caretaker. It is also established on record, which is the case of prosecution itself, that the appellant had taken due and full care of the deceased as well as her brother. He had been nursing both of them so well. Dorathi Kutinho was too pleased ...

Get Latest cases via RSS

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