1. Jagdishraj Khatta v. The State of Himachal Pradesh
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498A and 306 - The Indian Arms Act, 1959 - Section 30 - the prosecution was not able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt - this was not a fit case for the High Court to interfere with the well reasoned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, particularly when there existed no grave infirmity in the findings of the Trial Court.
Citations : JT 2019 (4) SC 544 : 2019 (6) SCALE 790
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 539 - 540 of 2008 26-04-2019
Citations : JT 2019 (4) SC 544 : 2019 (6) SCALE 790
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 539 - 540 of 2008 26-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Gaurav Agrawal
Respondent's Advocate : Abhinav Mukerji
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana
2. Sadayappan @ Ganesan v. State Represented by Inspector of Police
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 read with Section 34 - Criminal law jurisprudence makes a clear distinction between a related and interested witness. A witness cannot be said to be an “interested” witness merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim. The witness may be called “interested” only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished.
Citations : JT 2019 (4) SC 551 : 2019 (6) SCALE 785
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1990 of 2012 26-04-2019
Citations : JT 2019 (4) SC 551 : 2019 (6) SCALE 785
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1990 of 2012 26-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Senthil Jagadeesan
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana
3. Vikram Johar v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 503, 504 and 506 - Criminal Intimidation - the allegation that accused had abused the complainant in filthy language does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 506.
Citations : 2019 (6) SCALE 794
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 759 of 2019 26-04-2019
Citations : 2019 (6) SCALE 794
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 759 of 2019 26-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Divyesh Pratap Singh
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan
4. The State Bank of India v. P. Soupramaniane
The Penal Code, 1860 - Section 307 - Whether an offence involving bodily injury can be categorized as a crime involving moral turpitude.
It is very difficult to state that every assault is not an offence involving moral turpitude. A simple assault is different from an aggravated assault. All cases of assault or simple hurt cannot be categorized as crimes involving moral turpitude. On the other hand, the use of a dangerous weapon which can cause the death of the victim may may result in an offence involving moral turpitude.
The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Section 10 (1) (b) (i) - Conviction by a criminal court of an offence involving moral turpitude shall disentitle a person from continuing in employment of a banking company - the employer is under an obligation to discontinue the services of an employee convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 360 - Probation - The release under probation does not entitle an employee to claim a right to continue in service.
Service Law - The observations made by a criminal court are not binding on the employer who has the liberty of dealing with his employees suitably.
In the instant case, there was no motive for the Respondent to cause the death of the victims. The criminal courts below found that the injuries caused to the victims were simple in nature. On an overall consideration of the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the crime committed by the Respondent does not involve moral turpitude. As the Respondent is not guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude, he is not liable to be discharged from service. For the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the judgment of the High Court. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Citations : JT 2019 (5) SC 51 : 2019 (6) SCALE 809
Case Number : C.A. No. 7011 of 2009 26-04-2019
It is very difficult to state that every assault is not an offence involving moral turpitude. A simple assault is different from an aggravated assault. All cases of assault or simple hurt cannot be categorized as crimes involving moral turpitude. On the other hand, the use of a dangerous weapon which can cause the death of the victim may may result in an offence involving moral turpitude.
The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Section 10 (1) (b) (i) - Conviction by a criminal court of an offence involving moral turpitude shall disentitle a person from continuing in employment of a banking company - the employer is under an obligation to discontinue the services of an employee convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 360 - Probation - The release under probation does not entitle an employee to claim a right to continue in service.
Service Law - The observations made by a criminal court are not binding on the employer who has the liberty of dealing with his employees suitably.
In the instant case, there was no motive for the Respondent to cause the death of the victims. The criminal courts below found that the injuries caused to the victims were simple in nature. On an overall consideration of the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the crime committed by the Respondent does not involve moral turpitude. As the Respondent is not guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude, he is not liable to be discharged from service. For the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the judgment of the High Court. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Citations : JT 2019 (5) SC 51 : 2019 (6) SCALE 809
Case Number : C.A. No. 7011 of 2009 26-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : A.V. Rangam
Respondent's Advocate : K. Sarada Devi
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao
5. Girish Mittal v. Parvati V. Sundaram
Contempt of Court - Whether a contempt petition is maintainable only at the behest of a party to the judgment - Held, the directions issued by this Court are general in nature and any violation of such directions would enable an aggrieved party to file a contempt petition.
Citations : 2019 (6) SCALE 804
Case Number : Conmt. Pet. (c) No. 928 of 2016 26-04-2019
Citations : 2019 (6) SCALE 804
Case Number : Conmt. Pet. (c) No. 928 of 2016 26-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Pranav Sachdeva
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao
6. Mallikarjunaiah v. Nanjaiah
Adverse Possession - What is “adverse possession” - Whom the burden of proof lies - What should be the approach of the Courts while dealing with such plea - Mere continuous possession howsoever long it may have been qua its true owner is not enough to sustain the plea of adverse possession unless it is further proved that such possession was open, hostile, exclusive and with the assertion of ownership right over the property to the knowledge of its true owner.
Citations : JT 2019 (5) SC 56 : 2019 (7) SCALE 1
Case Number : C.A. No. 7768 of 2011 26-04-2019
Citations : JT 2019 (5) SC 56 : 2019 (7) SCALE 1
Case Number : C.A. No. 7768 of 2011 26-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Rajesh Mahale
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
7. Ms. Goli Vijayalakshmi v. Yendru Sathiraju (dead) By Lrs.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 22 Rule 4 (3), Order 22 Rule 9 - Inasmuch as the abatement results in denial of hearing on the merits of the case, the provision of abatement has to be construed within the strict parameters of law.
Abatement of suit for failure to move an application for bringing the legal representatives on record within the prescribed period of limitation is by operation of law but once the suit has abated as a matter of law, though there may not have been passed on record a specific order dismissing the suit as abated, yet the legal representatives proposing to be brought on record or any other applicant proposing to bring the legal representatives of the deceased party on record would seek for the setting aside of an abatement.
Citations : JT 2019 (5) SC 60 : 2019 (7) SCALE 6
Case Number : C.A. No. 8109 of 2010 26-04-2019
Abatement of suit for failure to move an application for bringing the legal representatives on record within the prescribed period of limitation is by operation of law but once the suit has abated as a matter of law, though there may not have been passed on record a specific order dismissing the suit as abated, yet the legal representatives proposing to be brought on record or any other applicant proposing to bring the legal representatives of the deceased party on record would seek for the setting aside of an abatement.
Citations : JT 2019 (5) SC 60 : 2019 (7) SCALE 6
Case Number : C.A. No. 8109 of 2010 26-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Jayant Mohan
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
8. Y. Sathiraju (d) Tr. his Lrs . v. Goli Kannayya (dead) By Lrs.
Case Number : C.A. No. 8110 of 2010 26-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : M. Vijaya Bhaskar
Respondent's Advocate : Jayant Mohan
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
Citations : JT 2019 (5) SC 88 : 2019 (7) SCALE 13
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 751 - 752 of 2019 26-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Sunil Fernandes
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
9. N. Ramamurthy v. State By Central Bureau of Investigation
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120-B read with Sections 409, 420, 468, 471, 477-A - The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) - The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 389 - Suspension of execution of sentence during the pendency of appeal - Legal Principles.Citations : JT 2019 (5) SC 88 : 2019 (7) SCALE 13
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 751 - 752 of 2019 26-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Sunil Fernandes
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari