Supreme Court Judgments

Latest Post
Twitter Facebook

1:08 am ,
Supreme Court of India at Delhi Judgments available for download as PDF

GeekUpd8 Doc Id # 707659

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- Dr. Arijit Pasayat & P.P. Naolekar, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 339 of 2002. D/d. 18.7.2007

State of Maharashtra - Appellant
Versus
Raju Bhaskar Potphode - Respondent

For the Appellant :- Ravindra Keshavarao Adsure, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- U.U. Lalit, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Aparna Bhat, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court directing acquittal of respondent-Raju Bhaskar Potphode (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused'). Accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 355 of 1993. Accusations which led to the trial of the accused was that he had on 7.2.1993 at about 4.30 p.m. committed the murder of one Sunil Gore (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') by stabbing with a knife.
Twitter Facebook

6:53 pm ,

GeekUpd8 Doc Id # 707656

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- Adarsh Kumar Goel and Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 2068 of 2017 (Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 10700 of 2015). D/d. 5.12.2017.

B. Sunitha - Appellant
Versus
State of Telengana & Anr. - Respondents

For the Appellant :- Baij Nath Patel, Ms. Sweta, Ms. Romila, K. Parameshwar, G. Seshagiri Rao, Advocates.
For the Respondents :- S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Mrityunjai Singh, R. Santhnan Krishnan, Aditya Kr., C.S.N. Mohan Rao, Advocates.

Cases Referred :

C. Manohar v. B.R. Poornima, (2004) Crl.L.J 4436.
In the matter of Mr. G., a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court, (1955) 1 SCR 490 at 494.
J.S. Vasu v. State of Punjab, (1994) 1 SCC 184.
M/s. Modi Cements Ltd. v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi, (1998) 3 SCC 249.
Mahipal Singh Rana Advocate v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2016) 8 SCC 335.
O.P. Sharma v. State of Punjab, (2011) 6 SCC 86.
R.D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma, (2000) 7 SCC 264.
R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court, (2009) 8 SCC 106.
Re: K.L. Gauba, AIR 1954 Bom 478.
Tahil Ram Issardas Sadarangani v. Ramchand Issardas Sadarangani, 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 256.
V.C. Rangadurai v. D. Gopalan, (1979) 1 SCC 308.

JUDGMENT

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 14th October, 2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in CRLP No.3526 of 2015, thereby, the High Court declined to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(`the Act').
Twitter Facebook

5:47 pm ,

GeekUpd8 Doc Id # 707655

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- K. Subba Rao, K.C. Das Gupta and Raghubar Dayal, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 1962. D/d. 19.3.1964.

Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar - Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondent

For the Appellant :- Mr. B.K. Banerjee, Amicus Curiae.
For the Respondent :- Mr. D. R. Prem, Senior Advocate, M/s. R.H. Dhebar and B. R.G.K. Achar, Advocates.

Cases Referred :

K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, (1962) Supp (1) SCR 567.
Kamla Singh v. State, AIR 1955 Patna 209.
Ramhitram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1956 Nagpur 187.
H. M. Advocate v. Fraser (1878) 4 Couper 70.
Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P., (1959) Supp (2) SCR 875 at p. 903.

JUDGMENT

Subba Rao, J. - This appeal raises the question of the defence of insanity for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code.
Twitter Facebook

7:44 am , ,

GeekUpd8 Doc Id # 707651

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ.
Writ Petitions (Civil) Nos. 13029 of 1985. D/d. 17.11.2017.

M.C. Mehta - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents

For the Petitioners :- Harish N. Salve, Sr. Advocate (A.C.), Ms. Aparajita Singh, (A.C.), A.D.N. Rao, (A.C.), Siddhartha Chowdhury, (A.C.), Petitioner-In-Person.
For the Respondents :- A.N.S. Nadkarni, ASG, S. Wasim A. Qadri, D.L. Chidanand, Ritesh Kumar, Zaid Ali, Saeed Qadri, S.S. Rebello, Ms. Nivedita Nair, Abhisehk Bharadwaj, Jai Dehadrai, Ms. Divya Prakash Pandey, Ajit Yadav, Ms. Saudamini Sharma, Ms. Pallavi Chopra, G.S. Makker, Ajit Yadav, Advocates.
For the CPCB :- Vijay Panjwani, Advocate
For the U.P. :- Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, AAG, Ms. Rachna Gupta, Siddhant S. Malik, Advocates.
For the Haryana :- Anil Grover, AAG, Ms. Noopur Singhal, Satish Kumar, Ajay Bansal, Gaurav Yadav, Sanjay Kr. Visen, Samir Ali Khan, Advocates.
For the Rajasthan :- S.S. Shamshery, AAG, Amit Sharma, Ankit Raj, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Advocates.
For the NCT :- Chirag M. Shroff, Ms. Neha Sangwan, B.K. Prasad, M/s. S. Narain, Advocates.
For the Mercedes Benz :- Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Adv., Akshat Hansaria, Amit K. Mishra, Pavan Bhushan, Ritesh Bajaj, Advocates.

ORDER

Report Nos. 72 and 76
On 13.11.2017, we had reserved orders on various applications filed for recall of the order dated 24.10.2017 regarding the ban on use of furnace oil and pet coke in the States of U.P., Haryana and Rajasthan.
2. Today, the learned ASG has placed before us a decision taken by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change of the Government of India on 15.11.2017 requiring the Central Pollution Control Board to issue a direction under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 to the States of U.P., Haryana and Rajasthan prohibiting any industry, operation or processes using pet coke and furnace oil as fuel with immediate effect until further orders. It is clarified by the learned ASG that this is with respect to entire State and not only NCR region.
Twitter Facebook

4:57 am ,

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Kurian Joseph and R. Banumathi, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 6450 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 4385 of 2017). D/d. 9.5.2017.

Samir Vidyasagar Bhardwaj - Appellant
Versus
Nandita Samir Bhardwaj - Respondent

For the Appellant :- Ms. Vandana Sehgal, Advocate.
For the Respondents :- Udit Gupta, Ravi Kumar Tomar, Advocates.

JUDGMENT
R. Banumathi, J. - Leave granted.
2. An order passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition(C) No. 169 of 2017 dated 11.01.2017 wherein the High Court affirmed the interim order passed by the Family Court in and by which the appellant-husband has been directed to remove himself from his own home and not to visit there until the divorce petition is finally decided is under challenge.
Twitter Facebook

4:19 am ,

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Ranjan Gogoi and N.V. Ramana, JJ.
Civil Appeal Nos. 10245 of 2014. D/d. 23.11.2016.

Relx India Pvt Ltd. and Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Eastern Book Company and Ors. - Respondents

ORDER
After hearing the learned counsels for the parties the appeal is disposed of with the following directions:
Supreme Court Judgments © 2016. All Rights Reserved.
Visitor no. web stats Powered by HostGator

Puneet Batish Advocate

{facebook#http://g8.geekupd8.com/Adv.Batish} {twitter#http://g8.geekupd8.com/Twitter} {google-plus#http://g8.geekupd8.com/+pb} {pinterest#http://g8.geekupd8.com/Pinterest} {youtube#http://g8.geekupd8.com/YouTube}

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Powered by Blogger.
Javascript DisablePlease Enable Javascript To See All Widget