Ranjit Singh Versus Union Territory of Chandigarh [ALL SC 1983 SEPTEMBER]

KEYWORDS:- PAROLE – MURDER DURING IN PAROLE AIR 1984 SC 45 : (1984) 1 SCC 31 : (1983) 2 SCALE 539 : (1983) CriLJ SC 1730 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Ranjit Singh Appellant Versus Union Territory of Chandigarh Respondent (Before : V. D. Tulzapurkar, V. Balakrishna Eradi And D. P. Madon, JJ.) Criminal Appeal No.… Read More Ranjit Singh Versus Union Territory of Chandigarh [ALL SC 1983 SEPTEMBER]

Union of India and others Vs Dev Raj Gupta  and others [ALL SC 1990 OCTOBER]

Conversion of land in Delhi (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Union of India and others Versus Dev Raj Gupta  and others (Before: P. B. Sawant And K. Ramaswamy, JJ.) Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 1990, Decided on: 23-10-1990. Delhi Development Act, 1957—Section 7—Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976—Section 20(1). Judgment Sawant, J—This appeal raises some… Read More Union of India and others Vs Dev Raj Gupta  and others [ALL SC 1990 OCTOBER]

STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAMA DIYA [All SC 1990 APRIL]

According to Section 433(A) that a prisoner who has been sentenced to death and whose death sentence has been commuted into one of imprisonment for life and persons who have been sentenced to imprisonment for life for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law should undergo actual imprisonment of 14 years in Jail. We are referring to Section 433(A) in this judgment only for a limited purpose of showing that after the introduction of this section, the life convicts falling within the purview of Section 433(A) has to undergo the mandatory minimum 14 years of actual imprisonment. It may be mentioned at this juncture that no one has got a vested right to claim premature release on the ground that he has suffered the minimum actual imprisonment as prescribed under Section 433(A) because a sentence of ‘imprisonment for life’ is incarceration until death, that is, for the remaining period of convicted prison’s actual life… Read More STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAMA DIYA [All SC 1990 APRIL]

Ramvir Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [ALL SC 2018 OCTOBER]

MURDER-Acquittal of the accused. DATE: October 26, 2018. ACT: Section 148/149 read with Section 302 IPC SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Ramvir Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 2013] Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the accused(A1) against the final judgment and order dated 28.02.2012 passed by the High Court… Read More Ramvir Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [ALL SC 2018 OCTOBER]

It is settled legal position that court is to respond only to issue agitated before it and in case at the time of hearing issue was not taken the court cannot deal with it-SC

(2010) 96 AIC 241 : (2011) AIR(SC)Civil 53 : (2010) 6 ALLMR(SC) 949 : (2011) 2 AllWC 1592 : (2010) 83 ALR 709 : (2010) 3 ARC 632 : (2011) 2 ICC 684 : (2011) 1 RCR(Rent) 190 : (2011) 2 RecentApexJudgments(RAJ) 98 : (2011) 1 RentLR 315 : (2010) 11 SCALE 302 : (2010)… Read More It is settled legal position that court is to respond only to issue agitated before it and in case at the time of hearing issue was not taken the court cannot deal with it-SC

V. KISHAN RAO Vs. NIKHIL SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL AND ANOTHER [ALL SC 2010 MARCH]

We are of the view that aforesaid directions are not consistent with the law laid down by the larger Bench in Mathew (supra). In Mathew (supra), the direction for consulting the opinion of another doctor before proceeding with criminal investigation was confined only in cases of criminal complaint and not in respect of cases before the Consumer Forum. The reason why the larger Bench in Mathew (supra) did not equate the two is obvious in view of the jurisprudential and conceptual difference between cases of negligence in civil and criminal matter. This has been elaborately discussed in Mathew (supra). This distinction has been accepted in the judgment of this Court in Malay Kumar Ganguly (supra) (See paras 133 and 180 at pages 274 and 284 of the report).… Read More V. KISHAN RAO Vs. NIKHIL SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL AND ANOTHER [ALL SC 2010 MARCH]

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS Vs. C.N. SAHASRANAMAN AND ORS [ALL SC 1986 APRIL]

The main question which needs determination is whether part of the scheme mentioned before introduced by the Reserve Bank of India is violative of guarantee of equality before law and of equal opportunity in public employment as enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The High Court noted that the point arose at the instance of three petitioners who were Grade II working at Nagpur branch of Reserve Bank ever since their employment which commenced somewhere between 1960 to 1965.… Read More RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS Vs. C.N. SAHASRANAMAN AND ORS [ALL SC 1986 APRIL]

Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr vs Naz Foundation & Ors [ALL SC 2013 DECEMBER]

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10972 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.15436 of 2009) Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr vs Naz Foundation & Ors Decided on: 11 December 2013 Bench: G.S. Singhvi, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya JUDGMENT G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals are directed against order… Read More Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr vs Naz Foundation & Ors [ALL SC 2013 DECEMBER]

The scope and ambit of Sec. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Power under Section 319 of the Code can be exercised by the Court suo motu or on an application by someone including accused already before it, if it is satisfied that any person other than accused has committed an offence and he is to be tried together with the accused. The power is discretionary and such discretion must be exercised judicially having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Undisputedly, it is an extraordinary power which is conferred on the Court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking action against a person against whom action had not been taken earlier. The word “EVIDENCE” in Section 319 contemplates EVIDENCE of witnesses given in Court. Under sub-section (4)(1)(b) of the aforesaid provision, it is specifically made clear that it will be presumed that newly added person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced. That would show that by virtue of sub-section (4)(1)(b) a legal fiction is created that cognizance would be presumed to have been taken so far as newly added accused is concerned. (See Lok Ram v. Nihal Singh and Anr. (AIR 2006 SC 1892)).… Read More The scope and ambit of Sec. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Bhupinder Sharma Versus State of Himachal Pradesh [ALL SC 2003 October]

In order to exercise the discretion of reducing the sentence and statutory requirement is that the Court has to record ‘adequate and special reasons’ in the judgment and not fanciful reasons which would permit the Court to impose a sentence less than the prescribed minimum. The reason has not only to be adequate but special. What is adequate and special would depend upon several factors and no strait-jacket formula can be imposed.… Read More Bhupinder Sharma Versus State of Himachal Pradesh [ALL SC 2003 October]

Rohtash Singh Versus Smt. Ramendri and others[ ALL SC 2000 MARCH]

Now, adultery is the sexual intercourse of two persons, either of whom is married to a third person. This clearly supposes the subsistence of marriage between the husband and wife and if during the subsistence of marriage, the wife lives in adultery, she cannot claim Maintenance Allowance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.… Read More Rohtash Singh Versus Smt. Ramendri and others[ ALL SC 2000 MARCH]