C.M. Girish Babu v C.B.I., Cochin, High Court of Kerala  24/2/2009.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - section - and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) -  conviction under - was acquitted of the charge under Section 120B of the IPC -the appellant preferred an appeal to the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam, which dismissed the appeal by its judgment dated 28th November, 2007. However, the Appellate Court reduced the substantive sentence to that of one year only. The High Court acquitted the first accused of all the charges against which State preferred no appeal. This appeal is brought, by special leave against the judgment of the High Court - Leave granted

Anand Kumar Appellant versus State of M.P. 20/2/2009.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - section 306 and Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - section 4 - conviction under - appeal under an abetment of suicide as visualized by Section 306 of the IPC but in Section 113-B which is relatable to Section 304-B the word `may' has been substituted by `shall' and there is no reference to the circumstances of the case. Admittedly, the conviction of the appellant has been recorded under Section 306 which is relatable to Section 113-A and though the presumption against an accused has to be raised therein as well, the onus is not as heavy as in the case of a dowry death - Leave granted

Krishan Gopal and another v Sandhya Devi and others 18/2/2009.
Motor accident - negligent driving - compensation - High Court held that respondent's son died due to the rash and negligent driving of the Appellant No.2 herein, while he was driving the scooter owned by the Appellant No.1 (father of Appellant No.2) and that both of them were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs, together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum w.e.f. 6th October, 1999, till deposit of the amount - the appellants have filed the instant appeal against the said decision of the High Court -the reversal of the Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by the High Court cannot be said to be perverse or without any basis - Leave granted

Usha Rajkhowa and others v M/s. Paramount Industries and others 17/2/2009.
Motor accident - contributory negligence - compensation - the Tribunal limited the appellants' entitlement to 50% of assessed claim amount and granted compensation of Rs.6,56,300/- on the ground that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Car, who lost his life in accident. He was the husband of appellant No. 1 and the father of appellant No. 2. The Car was insured by respondent No. 3 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. -the compensation was correctly assessed - would not confirm the theory that the accident took place because of the contributory negligence and would choose to award full compensation to the appellants. - Leave granted

Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board & others v P. Satyanarayana Rao  16/2/2009.
Regularisation of the services of the workmen - stay - granting of - the Division Bench of the High Court, however, granted stay of payment of arrears till the disposal of the appeal. That being the position, this Court grants the stay against the regularization of the services of the workmen till the disposal of the appeal as well - refusal to stay against regularisation of the services of the workmen stands set aside and interim order is granted in the manner indicated till the disposal of the appeal.

State of M.P. v Abdul Kadir and another 13/2/2009.
Madhya Pradesh Prisoners (Release on Probation) Act, 1954 and the Rules made thereunder - writ petition by life convict - plea in the writ petition was that his case had been recommended by the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police but the Probation Board in its meeting held on 24.1.2001 did not recommend his case for release on probation - order passed in writ petition challenged in Letters Patent Appeal - dismissal - appeal by State - since the High Court has not considered the issues in the proper perspective, this Court sets aside the impugned order of the Division Bench and direct it to re-hear the LPA on condonation of delay, keeping in view the parameters indicated by this court in Arvind Yadav's case 2003(6) sec 144.

Vinodan v Vishwanathan  12/2/2009.
Partition of a building constructed on a small piece of land between brothers - a serious endeavour has been made by this Court to amicably settle the matter -  this Court is granting long time to the appellant to vacate the portion of the building in his possession to avoid any inconvenience to the appellant. In case the appellant after one year of receiving the entire amount of Rs.5,50,000/- does not vacate the portion of the building in his possession, in that event, the Subordinate Court is directed to ensure that the possession is taken from the appellant and handed over to the respondent. Perhaps this solution may lead to ultimate peace between the families of two brothers.

State of Maharashtra Etc. v Dhanendra Shriram Bhurle Etc. 11/2/2009.
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - sections 10, 13, 18 and 29, Arms Act, 1959 - section 3 and 4 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - sections 34 and 120B - trial under - challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, granting bail to the respondents - since the High Court had not kept the relevant parameters in view, while granting bail, the impugned order is set aside - the trial court to complete the trial as early as practicable preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this court's order. - Leave granted

Prasad @ Hari Prasad Acharya v State of Karnataka  9/2/2009.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - sections 447, 376(2)(g) and 506 read with section 34 - conviction under - challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant - impugned judgment set aside and matter remitted to the High Court. - Leave granted

State of Maharashtra v Krishnarao Dudhappa Shinde  5/2/2009.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - section 5(1)(e) - conviction under - respondent a government servant was Inspector of Police when raid was conducted in his house - was sentenced to undergo minimum sentence of one year and was directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,50,000/- - the High Court did not examine the other aspects and only dealt with the applicability of Section 5(1)(e) of the Act on the factual position - matter remitted to the High Court.

Ajab Singh and others v Antram and others 3/2/2009.
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - consolidation proceedings under - revision application under -  one of the grievances which has been raised by the appellants herein is that the order of Consolidation Officer dated 23.12.1981 and that of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 29.11.1982, have been upset by the Deputy Director, Consolidation while entertaining a revision filed by the contesting respondents on 10.8.1993, which according to the appellant, is barred by limitation  - Leave granted

Jagdish Bagri v Rajendra Kumar Luhariwala and another 21/1/2009.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - section 138 - cheque of Rs. 1 lakh dishonoured - cheque issued as security - the High Court noticed that the appellant failed to pay Rs.2,30,000/- in instalments as agreed to and therefore because of default of payment cheque of Rupees one lakh was presented. In that sense there is no question of any security - It is true that the lawyers are expected to be vigilant once they accept a brief. But on the peculiar facts of the case this Court sets aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the High Court for a fresh consideration on merits.- Leave granted

Suzanne Lousie Martin v State of Rajasthan and another 16/1/2009.
Bail - granting of - and suspension of sentence - appeal - without expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute and culpability of the accused, this Court is certainly of the opinion that this was not a fit case where the sentence awarded should have been suspended and the accused released on bail. The High Court was, thus, totally unjustified in granting bail to the accused, or in suspending the sentence.- Leave granted

Huchamma (D) By Lrs. v State of Karnataka and others 14/1/2009.
 Inordinate Delay in filing appeal - dismissal - the High Court has rightly dismissed the writ appeal on the ground of inordinate delay holding that the preliminary notification acquiring the land in question including the lands of the appellants was issued on 15th July, 1982 and the final notification was issued on 16th August, 1985 and the award was passed on 12th May, 1998 and possession of the land in question was taken over on 30th June, 1998, and subsequent to that the writ petition was filed in the year 2000 - the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ appeal on the ground of inordinate delay in filing the appeal — interim order stands vacated.- Leave granted

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v Ram Prasad Varma and others 13/1/2009.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - section 166 - respondent suffered permanent disability as both legs amputated due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry - no case has been made out for interference with the rate of interest. The appeal is dismissed subject to the modification that from the gross income of the respondent, the amount of income tax as was applicable at the relevant time should be deducted. The Tribunal is directed to re-determine the amount of compensation in the light of this judgment.

Buddu Khan v State of Uttarkhand  12/1/2009.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - section 302 - conviction under - upheld by the judgment of Division Bench - challenged in this appeal - exception 4 to Section 300 applies to the facts of the case. The appropriate conviction would be under Section 304 Part I IPC. Custodial sentence of 10 years would meet the ends of justice.- Leave granted

Rajender Singh and another with Suraj Bhan with Ram Niwas v State of Haryana 9/1/2009.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - section 302 read with section 34 and section 342 read with section 34 - the accused filed three sets of appeals before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh - The occurrence as spoken by the eyewitnesses is fully established, therefore, all the appellants will be constructively liable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the commission of the crime, though the fatal injury was inflicted by A-1, only as the other appellants participated in giving beatings to the deceased which caused injuries on other part of his body - no merit and substance in any of the submission made on behalf of the appellants.

Prem Kumar v State of Rajasthan  7/1/2009.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - sections 306 and 304 part B and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - faced trial - acquittal - appeal - challanged - the principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by the High Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been set out in innumerable cases of this Court -  the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 clearly shows the greed of the accused who was persistently taunting and harassing the deceased for not having brought sufficient dowry. Therefore, the High Court was justified in upsetting the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court and directing her conviction.

Syed Basheer Ahamed and others v Mohd. Jameel and another 6/1/2009.
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - compensation with interest -  entitlement - judgment of the High Court - challenged in this appeal - petition under section 166 of the Act - a bare argument by learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased had a potential of expanding his business, cannot be accepted as sufficient material to determine the future prospects of the deceased - ends of justice would be met if the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.5,500/- per month or Rs.66,000/- per annum - in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the practice is to deduct towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, one-third of the income in case he was married and one-half (50%) if he was a bachelor- Leave granted


Published in Others
Views : 5549
Other Articles by - M. PIRAVI PERUMAL
Report Abuse


  LAWyersclubindia Menu