Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Page 1 of about 727,086 results (2.368 seconds)

May 11 2018 (SC)

Siddagangaiah (D) Thr. Lrs Vs. n.k. Giriraja Shetty (D) Thr. Lrs

Court : Supreme Court of India

item no.1502 court no.9 section iv-a s u p r e m e c o u r t o f i n d i a record of proceedings petition(s) for special leave to appeal (c) no(s). 7468/2015 (arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18-12-2014 in rsa no.2633/2011 passed by the high court of karnataka at bengaluru) siddagangaiah (d) thr. lrs petitioner(s) versus n.k. giriraja shetty (d) thr. lrs respondent(s) date :11. 05-2018 this petition was called on for hearing today. coram : hon'ble mr. justice arun mishra hon'ble mr. justice uday umesh lalit for petitioner(s) mr. raju ram chandran, sr. adv. mr. joseph pookkatt, adv. mr. sheshagiri rao, adv. mr. dhawesh pahuja, adv. m/s. ap & j chambers, aor for respondent(s) mr. s.s. nagananda, sr. adv. mr. shyam koundinya, adv. ms. k. v. bharathi upadhyaya, aor hon'ble mr. justice arun mishra pronounced the judgment of the bench comprising his lordship and hon'ble mr. justice uday umesh lalit. leave granted. appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment. (neelam gulati) (jagdish chander) court master (sh) branch officer (signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)

Tag this Judgment!

May 11 2018 (SC)

Sheila Sebastian Vs. r.jawaharaj

Court : Supreme Court of India

reportable in the supreme court of india criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal nos. 359-360 of2010sheila sebastian versus appellant(s) r. jawaharaj & anr. etc. respondent(s) judgment n.v. ramana, j.1 these criminal appeals are filed against the impugned order dated 25.01.2008, passed by the high court of judicature at madras, madurai bench in criminal revision case nos.523 & 546 of 2005, wherein the high court has allowed the criminal revisions and held that the conviction of accused respondents is not sustainable under section 465 of the indian penal code, 1860 [hereinafter ipc ]..2. the case of the prosecution giving rise to these appeals, in brief, is that the complainant mrs. doris victor (deceased mother of the appellant) was the owner of a plot insurvey numbers 1777/1a, 1778/1, 1779/1 1 and 1779/2 in valliyoor village. the complainant alleges that, accused no.1, (r. jawaharaj), with the aid of an imposter who by impersonating as mrs. doris victor created a power of attorney (hereinafter poa ) in his name as if he was her agent. it was further alleged that, using the aforesaid poa the accused no.1, attempted to transfer the property of complainant by executing a mortgage deed in favour of accused no.2, (rajapandi) for a sum of rs.50,000/-. after getting the information about the aforesaid transaction, the owner of the property mrs. doris victor gave a complaint to the police which was subsequently registered as fir dated 14.03.1998. after the completion of .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 11 2018 (SC)

Kumar Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police

Court : Supreme Court of India

reportable in the supreme court of india criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal no.409 of2017kumar appellant(s) versus state represented by inspector of police respondent(s) judgment n.v. ramana, j.1. this appeal is filed by the present appellant, aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the court below, which has upheld the culpability of the accused for culpable homicide amounting to murder under section 302 of indian penal code [hereinafter ipc for brevity]. and voluntary causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means under section 324 of ipc. this appeal presently impugns the high court 1 judgment dated 22.02.2016, in criminal appeal no.326 of 2013.2. the prosecution story in a nut shell begins with an earlier scuffle between the accused and deceased (sakthivel), while watching a street play conducted during a village festival. it is alleged that the accused-appellant was rebuked by the deceased for sitting next to ladies. in this context, on 20.08.2009, at about 6:00 pm the accused came to the spot where rajendran (pw-1), arumugham (pw-2) and subramani (pw-3) were savoring idliis from the stall of sumathi (pw-4), when the accused-appellant arrived with an intention to draw out sakthivel (deceased), by picking up a quarrel with rajendran (pw-1), who was his brother-in-law. accordingly, the accused-appellant arming himself with a wooden log lying nearby, assaulted arumugham (pw-2), who came to the rescue. at that moment the sakthivel (deceased) is supposed to have .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 11 2018 (SC)

Mahesh Chandra Verma Vs. The State of Jharkhand State of Jharkhand and ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

reportable in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal no.4782 of2018[arising out of slp(c) no.31167 of 2015]. mahesh chandra verma .appellant versus the state of jharkhand through: its chief secretary & ors. .respondents with civil appeal no.4784 of 2018 [arising out of slp(c) no.32438/2015]. civil appeal no.4783 of 2018 [arising out of slp(c) no.31857/2015]. civil appeal nos.4786-4790 of 2018 [arising out of slp(c) nos.34869-34873/2015]. civil appeal no.4785 of 2018 [arising out of slp(c) no.34695/2015]. civil appeal no.4791 of 2018 [arising out of slp(c) no.10555/2016]. civil appeal no.4792 of 2018 [arising out of slp(c) no.19639/2016]. civil appeal nos.4794-4795 of 2018 [arising out of slp(c) nos.23978-23979/2016]. civil appeal no.4793 of 2018 [arising out of slp(c) no.23977/2016]. 1 judgment sanjay kishan kaul, j.1. the sole question, which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the services rendered by the appellants/judicial officers as fast track court judges is liable to be counted for their pensionary and other benefits, the appellants having joined the regular judicial service thereafter.2. the question of law arising as aforesaid, it is not necessary to delve into the facts of each case. thus, only the facts which are relevant for the determination of this question are being set out. the jharkhand state was carved out from the state of bihar under the bihar reorganisation act, 2000 on 25.11.2000. soon thereafter the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 11 2018 (SC)

Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors

Court : Supreme Court of India

reportable in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal no.877 of2018[arising out of slp(c) no.15852 of 2016]. ashok kumar & ors. .appellants versus the state of jharkhand & ors. .respondents judgment sanjay kishan kaul, j.1. the jharkhand judicial service (recruitment) rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the 2004 rules ) dated 31.3.2005 were published in the gazette of 4.4.2005, having been framed in the exercise of powers conferred by article 234 read with article 309 of the constitution of india. the relevant portion of the preamble is extracted as under: now therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by article 234 read with article 309 of the constitution of india and all provisions of law enabling him in that behalf, and in supersession of all earlier rules on the subject, the governor of jharkhand, after consultation with the high court of jharkhand 1 and jharkhand state public service commission, is pleased to make the following rules so as to select, recruit and appoint members of the jharkhand judicial service and regulate terms and conditions of their service:- 2. thus, the rules specifically provided that they were in supersession of all earlier rules on the subject. the earlier rules of 2001 were specifically repealed in terms of rule 27 of the 2004 rules, which reads as under: 27. repeal and savings: (i) jharkhand judicial service (recruitment) rules, 2001 issued vide notification no.185 dated the20thaugust, 2001 are hereby .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 11 2018 (SC)

Vijay . Vs. Nana .

Court : Supreme Court of India

reportable in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal no.6272 of 2010 vijay arjun bhagat & ors. .appellant(s) versus nana laxman tapkire & ors. respondent(s) j u d g m e n t abhay manohar sapre, j.1. this appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 19.07.2007 passed by the high court of judicature at bombay, bench at aurangabad in second appeal no.274 of 2002 whereby the single judge of the high court allowed the appeal filed by respondent nos.1 & 2 herein and 1 set aside the judgment/order dated 16.01.2002 passed by the district judge, ahmednagar in r.c.a. no.21 of 2000 and confirmed the judgment dated 10.12.1999 passed by the civil judge, junior division, ahmednagar in r.c.s. no.600 of 1982.2. in order to appreciate the issues involved in the appeal, few relevant facts need to be mentioned hereinbelow.3. the appellants are the plaintiffs whereas the respondents are the defendants in a civil suit out of which this appeal arises.4. the appellants filed a civil suit (r.c.s. no.600/1982) against the respondents in the court of civil judge, junior division, ahmednagar for declaration that, (1) the suit properties described in detail in the schedule are ancestral properties of the plaintiffs (2) the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit properties, and (3) the suit property described in 2 schedule 1(a) is not a trust property and be declared as the plaintiffs private property. 5. defendant no. 1 filed its written statement whereas .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 11 2018 (SC)

Suresh Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Court : Supreme Court of India

non reportable in the supreme court of india criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal no. 1586 of 2009 suresh singh & anr. .appellant(s) versus state of madhya pradesh .respondent(s) with criminal appeal no. 725 of 2018 (arising out of s.l.p.(crl.)no.1342 of 2010) ummed singh & anr. .appellant(s) versus state of madhya pradesh .respondent(s) j u d g m e n t abhay manohar sapre, j.1. leave granted in s.l.p.(crl.)no.1342 of 2010. 1 2. these appeals are filed by the accused persons against the final judgment and order dated 24.04.2007 passed by the high court of madhya pradesh bench at gwalior in criminal appeal no.109 of 1998 whereby the high court disposed of the appeal filed by the appellants herein and modified the order dated 20.02.1998 passed by the additional sessions judge, bhind in s.t. no.78 of 1993 by reducing the sentence of the appellants passed under section 307/149 of the indian penal code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ipc ) from seven years to five years and affirmed the sentences and fine awarded under other sections. 3. in short, the case of the prosecution is that on 06.12.1992, when keshav singh complainant(pw 10) was taking the water to his field from the tube well of jairam, the appellants asked him that why he is taking water through their medh . keshav 2 singh replied that he will not take the water in future. not satisfied with the reply of keshav singh, the appellants came along with rambaran armed with axe and ummed singh armed with bhala .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 11 2018 (SC)

Dr. Rachit Sinha Vs. Union of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

1 non reportable in the supreme court of india civil original jurisdiction m.a. no.1344 of2018(ia nos. 68987/2018, 68990/2018) and m.a. no.1345/2018 (i.a. nos.69897/2018,69893/2018, 69896/2018) in writ petition (civil) no.357 of 2018 rachit sinha & ors. petitioner(s) versus union of india & ors. respondent(s) order w.p. (c) nos. 357 of 2018, 361/2018, 366/2018 and 424/2018 by our order dated 03.05.2018, we held that after the completion of second round of counselling for all india quota, the unfilled seats will be made over to the states. we have also observed that the states and the deemed/central institutions shall conduct the second round of counselling after reversion of the unfilled seats in the second round of the all india quota. 2 by mistake, we directed the deemed/central institutions shall also conduct the 2nd round of counselling. there is no reversion of seats to the deemed/central institutions. the words and deemed/central institutions in para 9 of order dated 03.05.2018 stand deleted. the direction to conduct 2nd round of counselling is restricted to the states and not to the deemed/central institutions. m.a. no.1344 of2018(ia nos. 68987/2018, 68990/2018) the applications for directions are dismissed. m.a. no.1345/2018 (i.a. nos.69897/2018,69893/2018, 69896/2018) by our order dated 03.05.2018, we directed that the second round of counselling of the state quota shall be completed by 10.05.2018. the state of madhya pradesh has filed an application for impleadment .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 11 2018 (SC)

Dtc Security Staff Union (Regd.) Vs. Dtc

Court : Supreme Court of India

non reportable in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal no(s).5005 of 2018 (arising out of slp(c) no.8039 of 2016) dtc security staff union (regd.) .appellant(s) versus dtc and another .respondent(s) judgment navin sinha, j.leave granted.2. the appellant sought a reference on 24.10.1979, under the industrial disputes act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the act ) with regard to revision of pay scale of security staff up to the rank of assistant security inspector, in the delhi transport corporation (hereinafter referred to as the corporation ). the industrial tribunal, by award dated 22.08.1985 held that assistant security officer, security havaldar and security guard in the services of the corporation were entitled to the pay scale of rs.425 700/ , 1 rs.260 350/ and rs.225 308/ respectively, with effect from 01.10.1979, at par with their counterparts in the delhi police force. the corporation challenged the award unsuccessfully before the single judge. the division bench set aside the award, and which is presently assailed.3. ms. anitha shenoy, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the tribunal granted parity in pay scale with the delhi police based on consideration of material evidence inter alia with regard to similarity in nature of duties, existing parity for the post of deputy security officer and security officer with that in the delhi police, the next below post principle in the corporation itself, and the pay scale .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 09 2018 (SC)

Kalpana Mehta and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

1 reportable in the supreme court of india civil original jurisdiction writ petition (civil) no.558 of2012kalpana mehta and others petitioner(s) versus union of india and others respondent(s) with writ petition (civil) no.921 of2013judgment dipak misra, cji. [for himself and a.m. khanwilkar, j.]. i n d e x heading page no.s. no.a. introduction b. the factual background b.1 the reference c. contentions of the petitioners d. contentions of the respondents e. supremacy of the constitution f. constitutional limitations upon the legislature 3 4 6 8 12 14 17 2 g. doctrine of separation of powers h. power of judicial review i. interpretation of the constitution the nature of duty cast upon this court i.1 interpretation of fundamental rights i.2 interpretation constitutional provisions of other j.k. a perspective on the role of parliamentary committees international position of parliamentary committees k.1 parliamentary committees in 21 28 34 40 42 48 54 54 england k.2 parliamentary committees in united 55 states of america k.3 parliamentary committees in 58 canada k.4 parliamentary committees in australia l. parliamentary committees in india l.1 rules of procedure and conduct of business in lok sabha m. parliamentary privilege m.1 parliamentary privilege under the indian constitution 59 60 65 71 72 m.2 judicial review of parliamentary 81 proceedings and its privilege n. reliance on parliamentary proceedings as 91 o. p. external aids section 57(4) of the indian evidence act the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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