1 NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1411 OF 2013 State of Madhya Pradesh .. Appellant Versus Kalicharan & Ors. .. Respondents J U D G M E N T M. R. Shah, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 18.11.2008 passed by… Read More Merely because the accused Ramavtar caused the injury on the head by the blunt side of Farsa, the High Court is not justified in altering the conviction to Section 304 Part II of the IPC. As held by this Court in catena of decisions, even in a case of a single blow, but on the vital part of the body, the case may fall under Section 302 of the IPC and the accused can be held guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly that it was a case of free fight, considering the fact that the weapon used by the accused Ramavtar was Farsa and he caused the injury on the vital part of the body i.e. head which proved to be fatal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error in altering the conviction of the accused Ramavtar from Sections 302/149 of the IPC to Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.917944 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) Nos. 49484975/2019 Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S.Deswal and others …Appellants versus Virender Gandhi …Respondent J U D G M E N T M.R. SHAH, J. Leave granted. As common question of law and facts arise… Read More Section 148 of the N.I. Act as amended, we are of the opinion that Section 148 of the N.I. Act as amended, shall be applicable in respect of the appeals against the order of conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, even in a case where the criminal complaints for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act were filed prior to amendment Act No. 20/2018 i.e., prior to 01.09.2018
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. …. OF 2019 @ SLP(CRL.) NO. 1907 OF 2019 NARAD PATEL VS. SATE OF CHHATTISGARH 1 Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 883 OF 2019 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.1907 of 2019) NARAD PATEL …Appellant VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH …Respondent J U… Read More Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 = mere abuses are not sufficient to attract section 3[x] = Going by the version of the complainant Deshiram himself, the expressions used by the appellant during the course of vertical altercation, did not refer to the caste or tribe that the complainant belonged though such assertion finds place in the testimony of the other witnesses. the appellant abused the complainant Deshiram is quite clear and as such his conviction and sentence recorded under Section 294 IPC was fully justified. However, going by the version of the complainant Deshiram according to which there was no reference to the caste or tribe of the complainant, there is a doubt as regards charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. In the circumstances, while affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 294 IPC, we grant him benefit of doubt and acquit him of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1676 OF 2019 ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS. VS. INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS. 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1676 OF 2019 ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS. …Appellant(s) VERSUS INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS. …Respondent(s) J U D G M E N… Read More Whether a common complaint by seeking permission under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act , can be filed by all the consumers against their common reliefs against the common respondent before the comsumer court ? Apex court held yes
Civil Appeal NO. __ of 2019 @ SLP(C) No. 10469 of 2016 Kumud w/o Mahadeorao Salunke vs. Shri Pandurang Narayan Gandhewar Through Lrs. & Ors. 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO._4873 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.10469 of 2015) KUMUD W/O MAHADEORAO SALUNKE …Appellant(s) VERSUS SHRI… Read More when civil suit for eviction became final, basing on the permission given by slum Authorities – it can not be questioned byway of writ without pleading his case in civil suit =In Vidarbha part of the State of Maharashtra, before the enactment of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1989, there had to be two rounds of litigation to seek eviction of a tenant. The first round had to be before the Rent Controller seeking permission to issue a quit notice under Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. If such permission was granted, then only the landlord could issue a notice of termination of tenancy and file a civil suit seeking eviction of a tenant. In the present case the first roundbefore the Rent Controller was gone into. Bona fide need as a ground for eviction may, in a given case, have an additional facet of comparative hardship and whether the tenant has any alternative accommodation or not. In any case, the matter had attained finality. The permission was granted by the Rent Controller and the civil suit was filed only thereafter in which an objection was taken that the premises being governed by the provisions of the Act, the requisite permission of the Slum Authority was mandatory In the proceedings so initiated the Slum Authority granted that permission. The matter was carried in appeal and the issue whether the requirements under Section 22(4) of the Act stood satisfied or not was also considered by the Appellate Authority. It must also be noted that the Civil Suit seeking eviction also attained finality. In the circumstances, the view that weighed with the High Court was not correct. The respondent had opportunity at every stage to present his case and whether the requirements of Section 22(4) of the Act stood satisfied or not was a matter which was dealt with by the Appellate Authority in sufficient detail. In the circumstances there was no reason for the High Court to interfere in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 888 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3502 of 2019) Jitender Kumar @ Jitender Singh ….Appellant(s) VERSUS The State of Bihar ….Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No.5293 of 2019 whereby the High 1 Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein. 3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of this appeal, which involves a short point. 4. By impugned order, the High Court (Single Judge) dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal… Read More Mere mentioning of the pleadings , arguments and list of authorities and criptic conclusion – can not be cosidered as reasoned order = The need to remand the case to the High Courthas occasioned because on perusal of the impugned order, we find that paras 1 to 4 contain facts of the case, paras 5 and 6 contain the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, paras 7 to 9 refer to 3 what transpired in the Trial Court, paras 10 and 11 contain quotation from two decisions of this Court and para 12 contains the conclusion, which reads as under: “12. After giving analytical thought to the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition is found devoid of merit, consequent thereupon is dismissed.” In the entire impugned order, which consists of 13 paras, we find that the High Court did not assign any reason as to why the petition is liable to be dismissed. In other words, neither there is any discussion and nor the reasoning on the submissions urged by the learned counsel for the parties.
Civil Appeal No…… of 2019 @ SLP(C)No.20 of 2018 etc. 1 State of Bihar and Ors. vs. The Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger & Ors. REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4862 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.20 OF 2018) STATE OF BIHAR… Read More “method of recruitment” and “employer’s capacity to pay” = Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, introduction of Article 21A in the Constitution and coming into force of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsion Education Act, 2009 (‘RTE Act’, for short), the State was required to Civil Appeal No…… of 2019 @ SLP(C)No.20 of 2018 etc. 3 State of Bihar and Ors. vs. The Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger & Ors. induct large number of teachers in order to meet the required obligations. These teachers employed at Panchayat, Nagar Panchayat and Municipal levels were not given same salaries and emoluments like the teachers who were paid at the Government scales. The petitions seeking same salaries and emoluments on the principle of “equal pay for equal work” filed by the latter category of teachers, were allowed by the High Court.= We, therefore, have to proceed on the following basic premise:- a) It was open to the State to have two distinct cadres namely that of ‘Government Teachers’ and ‘Niyojit Teachers’ with Government Teachers being a dying or vanishing cadre. The incidents of these two cadres could be different. The idea by itself would not be discriminatory. b) The pay structure given to the Niyojit Teachers was definitely lower than what was given to Government Teachers but the number of Government Teachers was considerably lower than the number of Niyojit Teachers. As stated above, presently there are just about 66,000 Government Teachers in the State as against nearly 4 lakh Niyojit Teachers. There is scope for further appointment of about 1 lakh teachers which could mean that as against 5 lakh teachers the number of State Teachers would progressively be going down. c) The parity that is claimed is by the larger group with the lesser group as stated above which itself is a dying or a vanishing cadre. d) The mode of recruitment of Niyojit Teachers is completely different from that of the Government Teachers as stated above. If a pay structure is normally to be evolved keeping in mind factors such as “method of recruitment” and “employer’s capacity to pay” and if the limitations or qualifications to the applicability of the doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’ admit inter alia the distinction on the ground of process of recruitment, the stand taken on behalf of the State Government is not unreasonable or irrational. – allowed the appeals filed by state