|
||||
| January 14,2010 | Dowery Death - Conviction upheld |
Sudhir Kumar Vs. State of Punjab Criminal Appeal No. 1327 of 2003 A reading of the evidence shows that it was the appellant who had, just a few days' before the incident, visited the house of his father-in-law and threatened Kamlesh Rani with dire consequences if his demand for a scooter and two gold rings was not fulfilled and Bhim Sain, the brother of the deceased had told him that his father Tej Ram was not in a position to meet the demands on account of financial difficulties. A few days later Ramji Das (PW.2) too had visited Kamlesh Rani's in-law's home and had also informed Tej Ram thereafter that the appellant had been found beating his wife at that time and had once again threatened that if the demands were not satisfied Kamlesh Kaur would pay dearly for it. It is true, as contended by Mr. Sharan, that in a case where the peculiar evidence has been discarded with respect to four of the five accused, the presumption under Section 113-B could to some extent be said to be dispelled, but on an over view we find that the primary role and the weight of the evidence has been on the appellant herein |
2010 STPL(Web) 134 SC | |
| February 18,2010 | Service Law - Removal |
Angad Das Vs. Union of India Civil Appeal Nos. 1429-1430 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.6975-6976/2009) the request letter of the appellant for Respondent-employment was treated as an appeal by the DIG Police, CRPF, Avadi, Madras and the punishment of "compulsory retirement" as awarded by the Commandant, 51 BN, CRPF, was enhanced to that of "removal from service" w.e.f. 31.5.1996. No provision of law permits him to treat a letter of request for Respondent-employment as an appeal. The DIG (Police) has no power or authority to enhance the sentence of the appellant. We fail to comprehend how such an innocuous and polite letter of request seeking Respondent- employment on compassionate ground can ever receive such an unwarranted and arrogant reaction. The order is wholly arbitrary and illegal ..... We also direct that the appellant be paid all the pensionary benefits which have become due and payable to him, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, within two months from the date of communication of this order ..... Union of India is directed to pay costs of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant within two months |
2010 STPL(Web) 133 SC | |
| February 16,2010 | Service Law - Post/Benefits |
State of West Bengal Vs. Kamala Prasad Civil Appeal Nos. 1742-1743 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP(Civil)Nos.17501-17502 of 2007) It was contended that since the civil court had held that the decree was not executable, the learned single judge had committed an error in granting the reliefs by entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court noticed that the civil court had given a declaration that the Writ Petitioners were Class-III employees and that the State Government and the college did not challenge that decree instead they filed a suit challenging the decree passed by the civil court which was dismissed ..... The High Court, in our view, has rightly held that while directing consideration of the claims of the respondents herein, as Class -III employees, the court is not executing the Civil Court's decree but only recognizing the fact that the Civil Court has declared their status as Class-III employees, which is binding on the appellants |
2010 STPL(Web) 132 SC | |
| February 16,2010 | Service Law - Post/Benefits |
State of West Bengal Vs. Kamala Prasad Civil Appeal Nos. 1742-1743 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP(Civil)Nos.17501-17502 of 2007) It was contended that since the civil court had held that the decree was not executable, the learned single judge had committed an error in granting the reliefs by entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court noticed that the civil court had given a declaration that the Writ Petitioners were Class-III employees and that the State Government and the college did not challenge that decree instead they filed a suit challenging the decree passed by the civil court which was dismissed ..... The High Court, in our view, has rightly held that while directing consideration of the claims of the respondents herein, as Class -III employees, the court is not executing the Civil Court's decree but only recognizing the fact that the Civil Court has declared their status as Class-III employees, which is binding on the appellants |
2010 STPL(Web) 132 SC | |
| February 11,2010 | Attempt to murder - Conviction upheld |
Satyavir Singh Vs. State of U.P. Criminal Appeal No. 295 of 2010 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 3207 of 2009) it is only the limited aspect of the case as to whether the firing was accidental or the accused had intentionally fired on the injured. Statement of the eye witnesses, medical evidence and the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer clearly show that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The act of firing gun shots at the injured obviously shows that the accused had the knowledge that by such an act he may even cause the death of the injured and actually caused hurt to victim ..... Some discrepancies per se would not prove fatal to the case of the prosecution particularly when there is no reason before the Court to doubt the statement of the eye witnesses, PW-1. There has been no delay in registration of the case and in fact even a counter case was registered which did not result in favourable culmination for the accused |
2010 STPL(Web) 131 SC | |
| February 17,2010 | Land Reforms - Jurisdiction of Civil Court |
R. Ravindra Reddy Vs. H. Ramaiah Reddy Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6286 of 2009 In the instant case, the question as to whether Annaiah Reddy was an occupancy tenant or not and whether Pilla Reddy had given his consent to such claim is in the domain of the Land Tribunal and it has been correctly held by the Courts below that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide such a question ..... However, in the instant case, there is nothing on record to suggest that Annaiah Reddy committed any fraud on Pilla Reddy, who willingly accepted the claim of Annaiah Reddy to occupancy rights over the land in question |
2010 STPL(Web) 130 SC | |
|
