Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 307 and 326–Attempt to murder–Grievous Hurt–Altercation between both parties–Accused caused two injuries on the person of complainant, one on the chest and other on the shoulder with a knife– Victim had remained in hospital for fifteen days due to the injuries caused to him, makes out a case of grievous hurt–Conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. converted to one under Section 326–Accused faced trial for 22 years–Sentence reduced from 2 years to period already under gone.
2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 499 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma Criminal Appeal No. 1012 of…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 160, 170(2) and 171–Constitution of India, Article 21–Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, S. 3, 4 and 5–M.P. Police Regulations, Regn. 2–Identification of prisoners–Impersonation–High Court directed the State Govt. to make amendment in Rules and to provide for taking of photographs of accused, important witness and prisoners etc. as a safeguard to avoid impersonation–Directions given by the High Court upheld but modified.
2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 495 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukundakam…
Cheating–Only in those case breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception–If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating.
2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 490 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma Criminal Appeal No. 1416 of 2009…
Revisional Jurisdiction–Revisional jurisdiction, when invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, cannot be exercised lightly and that it can be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice require interference for correction of manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice.
2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 487 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran The Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal Criminal Appeal No. 2420 of 2009…
Jurisdiction–Suits u/s. 92–District Courts and Sub- ordinate Courts have concurrent jurisdiction without reference to any pecuniary limits–Pecuniary limits mentioned in S. 12 of the Civil Courts Act, do not apply to suits u/s. 92 of CPC.
2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 483 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan Civil Appeal No. 852 Of 2010…
Whether respondent entitled to rents and profits till the passing of interim order i.e. prior to 5-4-2002?– For the rents and profits collected prior to the date of order of status quo, the applicant would be required to file a suit to recover the same–Directions given to the appellants to hand over the possession of other properties, relates to the immovable properties of the estate and not to the rents and profits collected by the custodian from the estate prior to 5-4-2002–Two sets of properties dealt with separately–Since the amount recorded in the custodian’s ledger as being credited to the Estate of Raja of Mahmudabad represents the collections made from the estate prior to the order of status-quo passed on 5-4-2002, respondent given leave to recover the same by filing a suit–Applications dismissed.
2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 479 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph Civil Appeal No. 2501 of 2002…
State Government failed to appreciate that the decisions for publication of advertisements, calling for tenders and payment of salaries were made by the entire council and the President-Appellant could not be singled out for those decisions taken by the Council–Actions of the appellant, even if proved, only amount to irregularities, and not grave forms of illegalities, which may allow the State Government to invoke its extreme power under Section 41-A–removal orders, quashed–In the absence of a finding that any loss was caused, the decision of the State Government can not be sustained–Disqualification of the appellant expunged.
2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 474 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam Civil Appeal No. 222 of…
SEBI–De-recognition of Stock Exchanges–Whether in the absence of publication of the Rules and Bye-laws of the BSE, which had been framed prior to its recognition in 1956 under the Act, its activities could be said to be without authority–Held , No.
2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 467 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21686…
Arbitration–Award–Lack of detailed reasons cannot be claimed as an infirmity and the Award can only be accepted
2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 466 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan The Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S.…
Major penalty was imposed upon him–Appellant preferred appeal–Division Bench remitted the matter to the Single Judge to be heard afresh–No serious infirmity with the impugned judgment of the Division Bench–However, the appellant has been facing inquiry and Court proceedings for almost twenty five years and at this stage remitting the matter to the Single Judge would be very harsh–Supreme Court directed that instead of withholding of two increments, three increments be withheld which should meet the ends of justice.
2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 464 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly Civil Appeal Nos. 475-476 of…