|
 Supreme
Court Judgments - July 2008 |
State of Karnataka v Bantara
Sudhakara @ Sudha and another 18/7/2008.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - section 376 -
acquittal under - appeal against - The High Court observed that
there was possibility of two years variation and therefore it was to be
taken that the victims were more than 16 years of age. The High Court
accepted that there was sexual intercourse and rejected the plea of
false implication - the High Court's conclusions in this regard are not
only fallacious but contrary to the evidence on record. |
Shivappa Mallappa Pujar and others v Guddappa and
others 17/7/2008.
Land - occupancy rights - conferment - the
impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained simply for two
reasons. First, the admission made by the respondent before the Tribunal
on the basis of which the application was rejected by the Tribunal was
not considered in proper manner. Secondly, after the order was passed by
the Land Tribunal, a writ petition was filed challenging the aforesaid
order of the Tribunal about seven to eight years thereafter. Appellate
Authority while deciding the appeal in favour of the respondent did not
at all consider the aforesaid admission from the respondent and also did
not consider whether sufficient explanation was given for delay in
filing the writ petition - impugned judgment set aside — matter sent
back for re-hearing. |
Harijan Mangri Siddakka & others v
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & another
16/7/2008.
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1928 - section 30(1)
- appeal under - disposed by learned single Judge
- order challenged in appeal - there is
practically no discussion on the factual scenario as to whether there
was any connection between the death and the use of the vehicle. It
would depend upon the factual scenario in each case and there cannot be
any strait jacket formula to be applied - the expression "use" in the
Statute is with reference to "use of the motor vehicle". Whether there
was a use of the motor vehicle has to be factually analyzed.-
Leave granted |
Shashi Mohan Appellant versus State of M.P.
15/7/2008.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - section 302 read with
section 34 - conviction under - under the provisions of Section
34 IPC the essence of the liability is to be found in the existence of a
common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a
criminal act in furtherance of such intention. As a result of the
application of principles enunciated in Section 34, when an accused is
convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, in law it means that
the accused is liable for the act which caused death of the deceased in
the same manner as if it was done by him alone..-
Leave granted |
Bharat Parikh v C.B.I. and another
14/7/2008
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - sections 207 and
238 - whether having framed charges against an accused, a
Magistrate has the jurisdiction in law to recall such order on the
ground that the prosecution had failed to comply with the provisions of
Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. -
Leave granted |
Pankaj Kumar v State of Maharashtra and others
11/7/2008.
Constitution of India -Article 227 read with section 482 Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 - petition under - seeking quashing of the chargesheet and the consequential proceedings initiated against them in
Special Case No.3 of 1991 pending in the court of Special Judge, Latur -
the scope and ambit of powers of the High Court under Section 482, CrPC
or Article 227 of the Constitution has been enunciated and reiterated by
this Court in a series of decisions and several circumstances under
which the High Court can exercise jurisdiction in quashing proceedings
have been enumerated - though the powers possessed by the High Courts
under the said provisions are very wide but these should be exercised in
appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial
justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. The
inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High
Court to act according to whim or caprice.-
Leave granted |
Satish Sitole v Ganga 10/7/2008.
Hindu Marriage Act - section 13(1)(1a)(1b) - appellant filed matrimonial
case - on grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(1a)(1b)
of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage. Despite
holding that the respondent had proved his case on grounds of cruelty
and desertion, the trial court did not grant a decree - for divorce, but
thought it appropriate to pass a decree of judicial separation instead -
whether a marriage which is otherwise dead emotionally and practically
should be continued for name sake. |
Seema v Ashwani Kumar 9/7/2008.
Marriages - compulsory registration -
directions were given to the States and the Union Territories in the
matter of framing necessary statutes regarding compulsory registration
of marriages - different States and Union Territories have placed on
record details of the compliance made - let all the States and Union
Territories who have not given specific details, file affidavits within
four months from today. |
Balwant Singh Narwal and others v State of Haryana and others
8/7/2008.
Seniority - the appellants, appointed as Principals between 1995 and
2000 (either by direct recruitment or promotion) are aggrieved by the
seniority given to respondents 4 to 16 appointed as Principals on
26.5.2000, with retrospective effect from 2.6.1994 - the State
Government was justified in giving them only notional seniority and
placing them immediately below the other 16 candidates selected in the
common merit list (published on 1.10.1993) and appointed on 2.6.1994.
Respondents 4 to 16 have been given retrospective seniority not from the
date of their selection as wrongly assumed by appellants, but from
2.6.1994 when other selected candidates in their merit list were
appointed - no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court and
these appeals are accordingly dismissed. |
Kusuma Ankama Rao v State of Andhra
Pradesh 7/7/2008.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - section 302 - conviction under - an
extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state
of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be
proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession,
like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to
whom it has been made |
|
|
 |
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 |
