|
 Supreme
Court Judgments - February 2008 |
Shfaq Khan and another v State of U.P. and other 1/2/2008.
Indian Penal code, 1860 - section 420 and 424
- U P Gangsters and Anti -
Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1980 - writ Petition filed for
quashing the FIR - The stand in the writ petition was that even if the
FIR is taken at its face value, there is no scope for holding that the
appellants committed cheating or an offence punishable under the
Prevention Act -
Leave granted |
State of Orissa and another v M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. and other
4/2/2008.
Writ Petition -- Technical bids of VISA and TISCO could not have been
rejected at the threshold without proper evaluation in terms of
eligibility condition set out in the concerned advertisement - it would
be desirable for the State Government to ensure that the technical bids
and the revised financial bids to be submitted within three weeks as
directed earlier, be evaluated and informed |
Anand Sharad Chandra Oka v University of Mumbai and others 4/2/2008.
Words and Phrases - aggrieved party - meaning of
- electoral roll for
electing members of the Senate - university calling for applications
from graduates - the writ-petitioner obtained B.A. Degree from Bombay
University. Thus, the writ-petitioner was graduated from the
respondent-University. His name, therefore, can be registered in the
electoral roll for electing members of Senate. He was not, therefore, an
'aggrieved party'.-
Leave granted |
V. Subbulakshmi & others v S. Lakshmi & another 5/2/2008.
Motor accident claim - by the owner of the vehicle
- maintainability -
in the instant case, the owner of the bus was an aggrieved person. He
could maintain an appeal of his own. Section 173 of the Act confers a
right on any aggrieved person to prefer an appeal from an award - as to
compensation -
Leave granted |
Balwant Singh and others v State of Punjab 6/2/2008.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 302 - conviction under by Additional
Session Judge - appeal - dismissal by High Court appeal - there is
strong circumstantial evidence that they were caused by the accused -
this circumstantial evidence is sufficient to uphold the conviction
because it contains all the links in the chain which connect the accused
with the incident |
Union of India and others v Rajesh Vyas 7/2/2008.
Rajasthan High Court ordinance, 1949 - section 18
- appeals under -
order of discharge - show cause notice - the learned Single Judge and
the Division Bench were wrong in holding that the reply given to the
show cause notice was not considered. |
B.K. Sri
Harsha (D) By L.R. and another v M/s Bharath Heavy Electricals Ltd
8/2/2008.
Code of civil Procedure, 1908 - section 96
- Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of the learned Single
Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the First Appeals filed
under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 |
Sirisia
Sthal, Imli Chati, Muzaffarpur & others v State of Bihar & others
11/2/2008.
Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of ceiling Area and
Acquisition of surplus Land) Act, 1961 - vires of certain
provisions challenged - writ - dismissed appeal - Since the High
Court has not applied its mind to the challenge raised and has
erroneously referred to the 9th Schedule to the Constitution, it would
be appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the High Court and
remit the matter to it for fresh consideration in accordance with law. |
State of U.P. v Jagram & other
12/2/2008.
Indian Penal code, 1860 - sections 302, 324 read
with section 34 - conviction by trial court - set aside by the
Division Bench - several discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses
and the prosecution version did not inspire confidence.
- Leave granted |
Samita Bhattacharjee v Kulashekar Bhattacharjee
12/2/2008.
Transfer of
divorce suit
- inspite of prayer for adjournment having been granted, no one appears
to oppose the prayer for transfer on behalf of the respondent -
considering the facts that the wife - petitioner herein - is staying at
Andul Purba Para, P.O. Andul Mouri, P.S. Sankrail, District Howrah with
a minor child in her paternal home, court is of the view that the Title
Suit (Divorce) No.98 of 2006 titled as Dr. Kulashekhar Bhattacharjee Vs.
Smt. Samita Bhattacharjee pending before the Family Court West Tripura,
Agartala, be transferred to the Court of learned District Judge, Howrah,
West Bengal. |
B. Vishwanath v State of Karnataka
13/2/2008.
Order of the
High Court - challenged
- certain disturbing features highlighted - the appeal filed by the
appellant was disposed of on 1.7.2006. There was no indication in the
order as to whether the appeal was dismissed or allowed. Only certain
directions were given to the Secretary, Home Department and Director
General of Police to strictly comply with the observations that the
Investigating Officers were to refer the blood stained articles and
blood samples of the victim/accused, as the case may be, to the Medical
College Hospital in the District or in the neighbouring District which
have Forensic Science Laboratory to give report regarding the blood
group. -
Leave granted |
S. Anand v Vasumathi Chandrasekar
14/2/2008.
Negotiable
Instruments Act - section 138
- trial under - application for cross-examination filed by the
complainant rejected — in revision complainant remained absent -
acquittal by MM under section 256(1) of Cr. P.C. - this court does
not approve the manner in which the appeal has been disposed of by the
High Court - however, keeping in view of the fact that the complaint
petition was filed as far back on 10.01.2002, the learned Trial Judge
should proceed with the matter in accordance with law and dispose of the
case as expeditiously as possible. -
Leave granted |
Babu Ram & others v State of Punjab
15/2/2008.
Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - sections 302 and 34
-
conviction under - confirmed by Division Bench - appeal - in view
of the improbabilities, the serious omissions and infirmities, the
interested nature of the evidence and other circumstances, it was clear
that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants
beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court was in error in brushing aside
serious infirmity in the prosecution case regarding non-explanation of
the injuries sustained by the accused Indraj and his wife DW-Smt. Maya
and also not accepting the plea of the right of defence of the accused
on unconvincing premises - appellants acquitted. |
Cherotte Sugathan (D) by Lrs. & others v Cherotte
Bharathi & others
15/2/2008.
Hindu Widow's
Re-marriage Act, 1856
- section 2 - applicability of - to the facts of the present case.
-
Leave granted |
Shaik Nagoor v State of A.P. rep. by its Public
Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad
20/2/2008.
Indian Penal
Code, 1860 — sections 354 and 448 and 306
- by the impugned judgment conviction of the appellant for offences
punishable under Sections 354 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was
upheld, but the conviction for offence punishable under Section 306 IPC
was set aside. However the sentence of three years imprisonment for
offence punishable under Section 354 IPC which was imposed by the trial
court was reduced to two years.-
Leave granted |
Sunil @ Balo Das and others v Rajesh Das and
others 21/2/2008.
Acquittal order - set aside by a learned
Single Judge of the High Court of Jharkand - the High Court without even
pointing out as to what infirmity existed, in a mechanical manner
directed the matter to be re-heard. Abrupt conclusion was arrived at
that the trial Court had not appreciated the evidence on record in its
right perspective and by misappropriation of evidence, directed
acquittal-
Leave granted |
Pulin Das @ Panna Koch with Mahendra Saikia @
Dilip Saikia v State of Assam
22/2/2008.
Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
- section 19 -appeals against - the common judgment dated 19.04.2007 of
the Designated Judge at Assam, Gauhati in TADA Sessions Case No. 1 of
1996 whereby the Designated Judge convicted Pulin Das @ Panna Koch
-appellant in Criminal Appeal No.706 of 2007 and Mahendra Saikia @ Dilip
Saikia |
|
|
 |
Lawyers
Directory:
Delhi
-
Delhi-2 -
Kolkata -
Mumbai -
Mumbai-2 -
Chennai -
Bangalore -
Hyderabad -
Allahabad -
Pune -
Ahmedabad -
Nagpur -
Cochin -
Gurgaon -
Jaipur -
Ludhiana -
Thane -
Noida -
Indore -
Lucknow -
Ghaziabad
Chandigarh -
Jodhpur
-
Pondicherry -
New York -
Milan -
Switzerland -
Barbados -
London -
Cameroon -
Dubai -
Paris -
Johannesburg -
Lawyers In America
-
Lawyers Home |
