10 August, 2015

Accused charged with offence of cheating - Any previous acts of fraud committed by him would have no relevancy to the charge

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- S.R. Das, C.J.I., P.B. Gajendragadkar and K. Subba Rao, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 1956. D/d. 24.9.1959.

The State of Bombay - Appellant
Versus
Rusy Mistry and another - Respondents

For the Appellant :- H.N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India, N.S. Bindra, Senior Advocate, M.S. Pandit and R.H. Dhebar, Advocates.
For the Respondents :- A.S.R. Chari, Senior Advocate, K.R. Choudhury, Advocate.

Supreme Court of India Judgments

JUDGMENT


K. Subba Rao, J. - This appeal by special leave filed by the State of Bombay is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay setting aside the convictions of the respondents

Read full Judgment »

10 August, 2015 by Puneet Batish · 0

30 June, 2015

Accused convicted under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to 1 year R.I. - Accused faced trial for 13 years - Sentence reduced to already undergone 25 days

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Before :- Mohinder Pal, J.
Criminal Appeal No. 721-SB of 2000. D/d. 01.12.2010

Davinderjit Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent

For the Appellant :- Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate, Amicus Curiae.
For the Respondent :- Mr. Ranbir Singh Rawat, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Judgments


JUDGMENT

Mohinder Pal, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the sentence order dated 19.7.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, Sangrur, convicting the appellant under Section

Read full Judgment »

30 June, 2015 by Puneet Batish · 0

29 June, 2015

Recovery of opium from a servant which belonged to his master - Servant not guilty of offence under NDPS Act - Cannot be held that he was in conscious possession of contraband

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- Harjit Singh Bedi and Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, JJ.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 451-452 of 2005. D/d. 28.04.2011.

Ram Singh - Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Narcotics - Respondent

For the Appellants :- Sushil Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain, Nil Kumar Verma and Ms. Pratibha Jain, Advocates.
For the Respondents :- Ashok Kumar Srivastava and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates.

Supreme Court of India Judgments

JUDGMENT

Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J. - Appellant aggrieved by his conviction and sentence is before us with the leave of the Court.
2. According to the prosecution a secret information led to recovery of 2.1 Kgms. of opium by PW.7,

Read full Judgment »

29 June, 2015 by Puneet Batish · 0

28 June, 2015

Double murder - Offence proved by injured eyewitness supported by medical evidence - It is not fatal if motive is not proved

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- P. Sathasivam and H.L. Gokhale, JJ.
Cri. A. Nos. 552 to 554, 555 to 557 and 558 of 2003 D/d. 2.9.2011.

State of Rajasthan - Appellant
Versus
Arjun Singh and others - Respondents

For the Appearing Parties :- S.R. Bajwa, Sr. Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG. Puneet Jain, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Ms. Trishna Mohan, Vijay kumar, Milind Kumar, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Sangram Singh, Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, Karmendra Singh, Sushil Kumar Jain and Aruneshwar Gupta, Advocates.


Supreme Court of India Judgments

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J. - These appeals are filed against the common final judgment and order dated 26.04.2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B.

Read full Judgment »

28 June, 2015 by Puneet Batish · 0

27 June, 2015

Bail - Section 307 IPC - Attempt to murder - Accused is in custody for last more than 11 months - No witness examined till date - Trial likely to take time - Injured is not an indoor patient - Bail granted

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Before :- S.S. Saron, J.
Criminal Misc. No. M-374 of 2011. D/d. 1.4.2011.

Manjinder Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent

For the Petitioner :- Mr. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State :- Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate.

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Judgments

JUDGMENT
S.S. Saron, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 20.4.2010 for the offences

Read full Judgment »

27 June, 2015 by Puneet Batish · 0

26 June, 2015

Summoning of a person as additional accused - Evidence created some suspicion against the persons summoned as accused - But suspicion is not sufficient that there is reasonable prospect of convicting them of the offence

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- K.T. Thomas and A.P. Misra, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 184 of 2000 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3780 of 1999). D/d. 17.2.2000

Michael Machado & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. - Respondents

For the Appearing Parties :- M/s. R.N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor General, Subhash Jha, Sanjay Mann, Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, Ajay K. Agarwala, Ms. Rekha Pandey, P. Parmeswaran, G.B. Sathe, S.V. Deshpande, Ashwini Garg and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates.

Supreme Court of India Judgments

JUDGMENT

K.T. Thomas, J. - When the trial in a criminal case against four accused persons proceeded to the penultimate stage (after examining 54 witnesses by then) the Metropolitan Magistrate, before whom the case was being tried, ordered two more persons to be arrayed as accused.

Read full Judgment »

26 June, 2015 by Puneet Batish · 0

24 June, 2015

Value of F.I.R. - FIR can only be used for corroborating or contradicting its maker when he appears in Court as a witness

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- A. Alagiriswami, I.D. Dua and C.A. Vaidialingam, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 281 of 1971. D/d. 13.12.1972.

Dharma Ram Bhagare - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent

For the Appellant :- S.K. Dholakia and R.C. Bhatia, Advocates.
For the Respondent :- H.R. Khanna and B.D. Sharma, Advocates.

Supreme Court of India


JUDGMENT

I.D. Dua, J. :- The appellant in this appeal by special leave (accused no. 1 in the trial Court) was convicted by the Second Additional Sessions Judge of Thana of offences under Sections 148, 323 and 302, I.P.C. and was sentenced to death under Section 302 and to various terms of rigorous

Read full Judgment »

24 June, 2015 by Puneet Batish · 0

23 June, 2015

Decree against firm - Liability of partners - Partner can contend that he was not partner of firm in question at relevant time or decree was collusive or fraudulent - When decree is found not to be so, every partner is bound by decree

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Before :- Sharad Manohar, J.
Civil Revn. Appln. No. 326 of 1982. D/d. 29.9.1982.

Jayantilal Mohanlal - Petitioner
Versus
Narandas and Sons - Respondents

For the Petitioner (absent) :- N.V. Adhia, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1 :- M.A. Rane with A.M. Mody, Advocate.

Bombay High Court

JUDGEMENT

Sharad Manohar, J. - This is a revision application filed by a retired partner of the firm against which firm money decree has been passed by the Court. After passing of the decree, the decree-holder wanted to execute the same against the petitioner on the ground that he was a partner of the

Read full Judgment »

23 June, 2015 by Puneet Batish · 0

Partnership Act, 1032, Section 32(2) - 4th defendant retired from partnership in 1983 - Intimation sent to Bank regarding reconstitution of partnership - Bank accepting the same - Held that 4th defendant has been discharged from plaint liability to the Bank

KERALA HIGH COURT (D.B.)

Before :- S. Sankarasubban and R. Bhaskaran, JJ.
A.S. No. 72 of 1991. D/d. 5.2.2002.

George - Appellant
Versus
State Bank of Travancore - Respondent

For the Appellant :- P.K. Joseph, Meena Sreedhar A. and M.A. Felicia, Advocates.
For the Respondent :- V.R. Kesava Kaimal, C. Usha Kaimal and Mr. M.M. Madhu, Advocates.

Kerala High Court, Ernakulam

JUDGMENT
S. Sankarasubban, J.- Fourth defendant in O.S. No. 89 of the Sub Court, Ernakulam is the appellant. Respondent is the plaintiff in the suit, viz. The State Bank of Travancore, Cochin Branch

Read full Judgment »

by Puneet Batish · 0

22 June, 2015

Husband and wife living separately by mutual consent - Wife accepting alimony of Rs. 20,000/- - Wife not entitled to maintenance

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Before :- J.G. Chitre, J.
Cri. W.P. No. 1581 of 1999. D/d. 14.2.2003.

Vitthal Hiraji Jadhav - Petitioner
Versus
Harnabai Vitthal Jadhav and another - Respondents

For the Petitioner :- Mrs. Anil Agarwal, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1 :- None.
For the Respondent No. 2 :- Mr. K.V. Saste, A.P.P.

Bombay High Court

JUDGMENT
J.G. Chitre, J. (Oral) - The petitioner is hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the order, which has been passed by J.M.F.C., Pimpri, in the matter of Misc. Application No. 97/1996, whereby he granted alimony to the tune of Rs. 400/- per month, as well as Rs. 5000/- as cost

Read full Judgment »

22 June, 2015 by Puneet Batish · 0

11 June, 2015

Supreme Court clarifies the ingredients of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- K. Ramaswamy & N.V. Venkatachala, JJ.
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 17305 of 1994. D/d. 24.10.1994.

Anil Kumar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Shivnath Mishra @ Gadasa Guru - Respondent

Supreme Court of India

ORDER
K. Ramaswamy and N. Venkatachala, JJ. - Daulat Singh, father of the petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 51/89 for specific performance of a contract of sale said to have been executed on September 22, 1986 agreeing to sell 7.17 acres of the land bearing plot No. 655. Pending decision in the suit, Daulat Singh died. The petitioner came on record as legal representative of Daulat Singh. He filed an

Read full Judgment »

11 June, 2015 by Puneet Batish · 0

©2009-2011 Geek Upd8. Some content is copyrighted to Puneet Batish and may not be reproduced on other websites.
Download Print Friendly PDF FileFree Legal Advice on Phone