Skip to content

Filter by :

Latest Judgments Judgments > Court:Supreme Year:2014

Jul 25 2014

Narinder Singh Vs. State of H.P.

  • Decided on : 25-Jul-2014

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.(s) 1564 OF2014(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6386 of 2012) Narinder Singh Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ..Respondent JUDGMENT M.Y. EQBAL, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 13.6.2012 and order dated 9.7.2012 pronounced by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.169 of 2008 preferred by the State, whereby learned Single Judge of the High Court setting aside the judgment and order of acquittal of the Trial Court convicted the appellant-accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the Act) and sentenced him to undergo six months imprisonment.3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 10.12.2002 at 11 AM the accused-appellant attempted to give a bribe of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant the then Additional District Magistrate, Bharmour for inducing him, a public servant, to exercise his influence to give accused supply orders for the supply of double-decker beds by corrupt or illegal means. Thereafter, complainant called police officials and lodged the complaint. List of currency notes allegedly given by the accused were prepared and the police officials recorded the statements of other witnesses. The accused was charged with having committed the aforesaid offences, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.4. ...

Jul 25 2014

Agricultural Produce Marketing Commtt. Vs. Bannamma(d) by Lrs.

  • Decided on : 25-Jul-2014

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3198 OF2007Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Appellant Versus Bannama (D) by LRs. ..Respondents JUDGMENT M.Y. EQBAL, J.This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.10.2003 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in R.S.A.No.556 of 1997, whereby the appeal preferred by plaintiff-respondent no.1 was allowed setting aside the judgment and decree of the appellate court in RA No.12 of 1994 and confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court.2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff-respondent no.1, as set out in the trial court judgment, are that the plaintiff was an agriculturist and old lady residing at Saidapur village. Whereas, respondent no.2 (defendant no.2) was none other than the son of the plaintiff and was vice president of the appellant-first defendant society, which is a statutory body constituted and functioning under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (Regulation) Act. The suit land bearing Sy.No.58/1 measuring 7 acres 19 guntas situated at Saidapur village of Yadgir Taluk, for which Smt. Bannamma plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title claiming that the property was inherited by her from her father and it was her stridhan property, which is alleged to be standing in the name of the plaintiff since 1954-55. The land Sy.No.58-B has got two hissas as Hissa Nos.1 and 2, each measuring 7 acres 18 guntas ...

Jul 23 2014

Rajeev Dhawan Vs. Gulshan Kumar Mahajan & Ors.

  • Decided on : 23-Jul-2014

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) No.2 OF1994Rajeev Dhawan Petitioner Vs. Gulshan Kumar Mahajan & Ors. Respondents WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) No.4A OF1994JUDGMENT R.M. LODHA, CJI. As a result of the incidents at Ayodhya on 06.12.1992, the President of India issued a Proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution of India assuming to himself all the functions of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, dissolving the U.P. Vidhan Sabha. Initially, the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Ordinance, 1993 (No.8 of 1993) was promulgated. The said Ordinance was later on replaced by Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 (No.33 of 1993) (for short, the 1993 Act). On the same day, i.e. on 07.01.1993, when Act No.33 of 1993 was enacted, Special Reference (being Special Reference No.1 of 1993) was made to this Court by the President of India under Article 143 (1) of the Constitution of India. The constitutional validity of the 1993 Act and the maintainability of the Special Reference No.1 of 1993 were being examined by the Constitution Bench of this Court. It is alleged that the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), which was banned at that time, held Dharam Sansad in the first week of April, 1994 and after the Dharam Sansad was over, its President, Vishnu Hari Dalmia and Joint General Secretary, Giriraj Kishore made certain derogatory statements concerning this Court in the news conference. The statements to the media ...

Jul 23 2014

Deva Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

  • Decided on : 23-Jul-2014

Court : Supreme Court of India

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1165 OF2014Deva Ram Appellant Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. Respondents JUDGMENT (SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.1. The appellant was tried by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Didwana for offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC in Criminal Case No.41/89.2. Deceased Hardeva Ram filed complaint against the appellant on 9/8/1988 stating that since the appellant used to send persons abroad for employment, he also arranged passport for his son Arjun Ram. The appellant told him that if he wants to send his son abroad, he will have to pay him Rs.15,000/- and hand over his passport to him. The complainant gave him Rs.8,300/- but the appellant did not send his son abroad. The complainant asked for his money but the appellant refused to return the same. After investigation charge sheet was filed under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. The learned Magistrate framed charge under Section 420 of the IPC. The appellant denied the charge. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate by his order dated 13/07/1992 convicted the appellant under Section 420 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 12/9/1996. The appellant filed a criminal revision application in the Rajasthan High Court ...

Jul 23 2014

Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Arun Shourie

  • Decided on : 23-Jul-2014

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) No.11 OF1990Dr. Subramanian Swamy Petitioner Vs. Arun Shourie Respondent WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) No.12 OF1990JUDGMENT R.M. LODHA, CJI. In the issue of Indian Express of August 13, 1990, an editorial was published bearing the caption If shame had survived. The editorial reads as under:If shame had survived The legal opinion that the former Chief Justice of India, Mr. Y. V. Chandrachud, has given on the Kuldip Singh Commissions report is a stunning indictment. Succinct, understated to the point of being deferential, scrupulously adhering to facts and law, eschewing completely the slightest attribution of any motive to the Commission, the opinion is a model of rectitude. Nothing in the report survives it evidence that it was agreed would not be pressed relied on as a fulcrum; evidence of the one witness who was the hub of the decisions wholly disregarded; indictments framed on probable possibility, theories invented to read meanings into documents and the manifest, straightforward explanation ignored; the Commission itself as well as the energetic prosecutor himself declaring one day that neither had a shred of evidence which cast a doubt on Hegde and the very next day declaring a conclusion; refusing to common witnesses for cross-examination on the pretext that the Commission did not have the power to call them this in the face of clear judgments to the contrary; then ...

Jul 23 2014

Somnath Chakraborty and Anr. Vs. Appollo Gleneagles Hosp. Ltd & Ors.

  • Decided on : 23-Jul-2014

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS83-6684 OF2014(@ SLP (C) Nos. 8854-8855 of 2010) Somnath Chakraborty and Anr. Appellants VERSUS Appollo Gleneagles Hospitals Ltd. & Ors. Respondents ORDER Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.Leave granted. These appeals are directed against a common judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court passed in F.M.A. No.2393 of 2005 and F.M.A. No.2411 of 2005 dated 08.12.2009. To briefly narrate the facts, the appeals pertain to a piece of land which is as on date in the possession of the first Respondent Appollo Gleneagles Hospitals Ltd. (hereinafter called Appollo Hospitals), which was originally owned by one Narayan Chandra Dutta. He stated to have sold the said lands to one Tilak Sundari Debi. Her title was confirmed after prolonged litigation in the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta dated 25.07.1986 in Second Appeal No.384 of 1967. When the said litigation was pending, the heirs of late Tilak Sunderi Debi sold the said lands to the present Appellants who became the joint owners of the land consisting of 11 Katha 10 chitaks and 25 square feets, in all 11.659 cottah of land. Be that as it may, the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was brought into effect w.e.f. 17.02.1976. The civil litigation preferred by late Tilak Sundari Debi was resisted by one Orient Beverages Ltd. also known as Orient Properties Ltd. claiming to have ...

Jul 22 2014

Saurabh Kumar Vs. Jailor,koneila Jail & Anr.

  • Decided on : 22-Jul-2014

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURTG OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRL.) No.147 OF2013SAURABH KUMAR THROUGH HIS FATHER PETITIONER VERSUS JAILOR, KONEILA JAIL & ANR. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT N.V. Ramana, J.This habeas corpus petition is filed by one Saurabh Kumar who is in Koneila Jail, Dalsingsarai, District Samastipur (Bihar).2. In brief the case of the petitioner is that he was XII pass and wanted to leave the village in search of a decent job. In that connection he made an application for passport. On 30.6.2013 the police had called the petitioner to the Police Station for enquiry on his application for passport and after reaching inside the police station he was locked up. Thereafter on 1.7.2013 early morning, the petitioner was taken to the residence of one Shri Tripathi, Judicial Magistrate who is arrayed as 6th respondent in this writ petition. There, the petitioner was beaten with lathi by DSP, Manish Kumar Suman, who is arrayed as 9th respondent herein, in the presence of the said Judicial Magistrate and it is also alleged that while beating he was told that it is a reward for his parents for reporting or complaining against him to the Supreme Court, and insulted him by stating that low caste people should not become malik of the land of the upper caste people like mausaji. Thereafter, the petitioner was taken from the house of the Judicial Magistrate to the Koneila jail where he is kept under detention. The petitioner states that he was ...

Jul 22 2014

Atul Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

  • Decided on : 22-Jul-2014

Court : Supreme Court of India

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1516 OF2014[Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.261 of 2013]. Atul Tripathi Appellant (s) Versus State of U.P. and another Respondent (s) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1517-1518 OF2014[Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos. 262-263 of 2013]. JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.: Leave granted. At the post conviction stage, whether the appellate court, while considering the release of the convict on bail, should give an opportunity to the public prosecutor for showing cause in writing against such release where the conviction is on an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or for a term not less than ten years, is the issue falling for consideration in these appeals. All the private respondents have been convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh under Sections 147, 148, 149 read with Sections 302, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 and they have been awarded sentence of imprisonment for life with fine. Altogether seven accused have been convicted; however bail is granted only to four. The main contention of the appellant is that the procedure contemplated under Section 389 proviso has not been complied with while releasing them on bail and, hence, the order passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside. For the purpose of ready reference, we shall extract the impugned order dated 29.08. ...

Jul 22 2014

Shyam Narain Pandey Vs. State of U.P

  • Decided on : 22-Jul-2014

Court : Supreme Court of India

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1515 OF2014[Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.5654 of 2014 CRLMP No.8191 of 2014]. Shyam Narain Pandey Appellant (s) Versus State of U.P. Respondent (s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.: Delay condoned. Leave granted. Scope of stay of conviction under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.PC), is the subject matter of this appeal. Appellant was tried along with six others by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh. He was convicted under Sections 147, 148, 302/144 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as IPC) read with Section 120B IPC with life imprisonment and fine. He was granted bail by order dated 29.08.2012 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application for staying the judgment of conviction which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 07.08.2013. By a separate order, we have cancelled the bail granted to the appellant in view of non-compliance of first proviso to Section 389(1) Cr.PC and the matter has been remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration. Be that as it may, the High Court has considered in detail the application made by the petitioner for staying the conviction and has declined the relief. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that he is innocent. He has been working as a Principal and if the conviction is not ...

Jul 22 2014

Sahara India Real Estate Corp.Ltd.& Ors Vs. Securities & Exch.Board of ...

  • Decided on : 22-Jul-2014

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I.A. NOS. 8-9 & 10-12 OF2014IN CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.412 OF2012IN CIVIL APPEAL No.9813 OF2011S.E.B.I. Appellant Versus Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Respondents WITH I.A. NOS. 8-9 & 10-12 OF2014IN CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.413 OF2012IN CIVIL APPEAL No.9833 OF2011AND I.A. NOS. 10-12 OF2014IN CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.260 OF2013IN CIVIL APPEAL No.8643 OF2012JUDGMENT T.S. Thakur, J.1. By our order dated 4th June, 2014 we had, while declining the prayer made by the contemnors for modification of the terms on which they were granted interim bail, partially modified order dated 21st November, 2013 passed by this Court and that passed by SEBI on 13th February, 2013 so as to enable Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited (SIRECL) and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited (SHICL) (hereinafter referred to as Saharas for short) to deposit with SEBI the maturity value/sale consideration of FDs, bonds and securities held by the Saharas. We had also, by the same order, permitted Saharas to sell nine different properties situate in nine different cities in the country and to deposit the sale proceeds thereof with SEBI, to the extent the same was necessary to make a total deposit of Rs.5,000/- crores required in terms of the bail order. We had also permitted Saharas to charge its immovable property situate in Aamby Valley (Pune) for obtaining and furnishing to this Court a bank guarantee ...

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