View
216
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
1/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
2/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
3/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
4/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
5/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
6/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
7/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
8/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
9/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
10/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
11/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
12/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
13/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
14/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
15/150
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
C
D
329
32. As a rule, an Advocate being a member of the legalprofession has a social duty to show the people a beacon oflight by his conduct and actions rather than being adamant on
an unwarranted and uncalled for issue.
33. We hope and trust that the entire legal fraternity wouldset an example for other professionals by adhering to all theabove-mentioned principles.
34. In the light of the above discussion and reasons whichwe have noted in the earlier paras and as an exception to the
general rule, we accept the unconditional apology tendered inthe form of affidavits in terms of proviso to Section 12(1) of theAct and discharge all the appellants.
35. All the appeals are disposed of on the above terms.
R.P. Appeals disposed of.
O.P. SHARMA & ORS. v.HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB& HARYANA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
BHAGWAN DASSv.
STATE(NCT) OF DELHI
(Criminal Appeal No.1117 of 2011)MAY 09, 2011
[MARKANDEY KATJU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 Honour killing of daughter Girl having incestuous relationship with her fathers cousin
Appellant-father annoyed with such conduct of his daughter Daughter found dead in appellants house where she hadcome to stay Death caused by strangulation Courts belowconvicted the appellant on the basis of circumstantialevidence On appeal, held: All circumstances pointed guilttowards the appellant Prosecution was able to prove its casebeyond reasonable doubt by establishing all links in the chainof circumstances Appellant had motive and opportunity to
kill his daughter since he was unhappy with conduct of hisdaughter and felt that she had dishonoured the familyreputation Police was not informed about the unnaturaldeath of appellants daughter Statement of appellantsmother that appellant confessed before her that he murderedhis daughter, but said statement denied before court Thestatement of the appellants mother to the police can be taken
into consideration in view of the proviso to s.162(1), Cr.PC,and her subsequent denial in court is not believable becauseshe obviously had afterthoughts and wanted to save her son(the accused) from punishment Moreso, Statement ofappellant to SDM led to recovery of crime weapon Conviction upheld.
Evidence: Circumstantial evidence Held: A person can
be convicted on circumstantial evidence provided the linksin the chain of circumstances connects the accused with thecrime beyond reasonable doubt Penal Code, 1860 s.302.
330
[2011] 6 S.C.R. 330
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
16/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
17/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
18/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
19/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
20/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
21/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
22/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
23/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
24/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
25/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
26/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
27/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
28/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
29/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
30/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
31/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
32/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
33/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
34/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
35/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
36/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
37/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
38/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
39/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
40/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
41/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
42/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
43/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
44/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
45/150
AA
391C.B.I. AND ORS. v.KESHUB MAHINDRA ETC. ETC.[S.H. KAPADIA, CJI.]
have asserted this position in the grounds of revision. Moreover, VIMALESHWAR NAGAPPA SHET
[2011] 6 S.C.R. 392
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
46/150
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
B
C
p g ,no ground falling within the parameters of Rupa Ashok Hurravs. Ashok Hurra2002 (4) SCC 388 is made out in the curativepetitions. Also, no satisfactory explanation is given to file such
curative petitions after about 14 years from 1996 judgment ofthe Supreme Court. The curative petitions are thereforedismissed.
5. Nothing stated above shall be construed as expressionof any view or opinion on the merits of the matters pendingbefore the learned Sessions Judge, Bhopal.
D.G. Curative Petitions dismissed.
v.NOOR AHMED SHERIFF & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4279-80 of 2011)
MAY 11, 2011
[P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 96(3) Pursuant todeath of the original owner of the property in question, hissons, daughters as also minor grandson succeeding to their
respective share in the property Co-sharers-sons anddaughters entering into an agreement to sell the entireproperty with appellant-buyer Non-execution of sale deedby co-sharers despite having received certain amount Suitfor specific performance Decreed by trial court Appealbefore High Court High Court fixing the market value of theproperty Defendant No. 3-minor grandson, who was notparty to the agreement, proposing to purchase the share ofthe co-sharers by paying the value to the appellant Counselfor the appellant on instructions from the appellant agreeingto the said proposal High Court directing co-sharers toexecute the sale deed to the extent of their share in the suitproperty On appeal, held: Order of the High Court showsthat it is a consent order No appeal lies from a decreepassed by the court with the consent of the parties Defendant
No. 3 has right to purchase, to exclude the outsider who holdsan equitable right of purchase of the shares of otherdefendants He was not bound by the agreement executedby other defendants to the extent of his share Sincedefendant No. 3 did not join the other co-sharers, noagreement of sale could be entered with the appellant for theentire property including the minors share Thus, the
agreement of sale covering the entire property was void andineffective Also, before the High Court, both parties
392
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
47/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
48/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
49/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
50/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
51/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
52/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
53/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
54/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
55/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
56/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
57/150
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 6 S.C.R.
AA
AMAR SINGH v.UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
also subsequently passed the injunction order which isstill continuing. [Para 60, 61 to 63] [440-D-G]
1970 (3) SCR 121 relied on Para 18
1972 (3) SCR 955 relied on Para 19
415 416
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
58/150
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and others - 2009 (16)
SCR 111 = JT 2009 (15) SC 201: (2010) 2 SCC 114 - reliedon
4.5. It is, therefore, clear that writ petition is frivolousand is speculative in character. This Court is of theopinion that the so called legal questions on tapping oftelephone cannot be gone into on the basis of a petitionwhich is so weak in its foundation. No case of tapping
of telephone has been made out against the statutoryauthorities in view of the criminal case which is going onand especially in view of the petitioners stand that he issatisfied with the investigation in that case. The petitionerhas withdrawn its case against the respondent No.7. Inthat view of the matter, it is made clear that the petitioner,if so advised, may proceed against the service provider,respondent No.8, before the appropriate forum, inaccordance with law, and this Court does not make anyobservation on the merits of the case in the event thepetitioner initiates any proceeding against respondentNo.8. [Para 52 and 64] [437-D-E; 441-A-C]
Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of Indiaand Another 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 321 = (1997) 1 SCC
301Cited.Case Law Reference:
1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 321 cited Para 1
(1910) Indian Law Reporter referred to Para 15 37 Calcutta 259
1952 SCR 674 Relied on Para 16
1966 SCR 311 relied on Para 17
1972 (3) SCR 955 relied on Para 19
1982 (2) SCR 31 relied on Para 20
1988 Suppl. SCR 561 relied on Para 21
2 Mac. & G. 231,238 referred to Para 54
1849 (7) Hare, 89, 94 referred to Para 55
55 L.T. 802,803 referred to Para 56
1917 (1) K.B. 486 referred to Para 57
1964 SCR 203 relied on Para 59
1983 (3) SCR 674 relied on Para 59
1991 (2) SCR 563 relied on Para 59
1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 422 relied on Para 59
2007 (3) SCR 603 relied on Para 59
2007 (9) SCR 112 relied on Para 59
2008 (1) SCR 261 relied on Para 59
2008 (10) SCR 454 relied on Para 59
2008 (17) SCR 1454 relied on Para 59
2009 (16) SCR 111 relied on Para 59
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Under Article 32 of theConstitution of India.
Writ Petition (Civil) No.39 of 2006.
Indira Jaising, ASG, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Pravin Parekh, J.S.
Attri, Harish Chander, C.S. Vaidyanathan, Anoop G.
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
59/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
60/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
61/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
62/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
63/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
64/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
65/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
66/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
67/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
68/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
69/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
70/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
71/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
72/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
73/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
74/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
75/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
76/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
77/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
78/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
79/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
80/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
81/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
82/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
83/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
84/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
85/150
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 6 S.C.R.
AA
471 472NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. STATE OFMADHYA PRADESH
& Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 271; S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P)Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 166; and Unionof India & Ors. v. Shantiranjan Sarkar, (2009) 3 SCC 90 -relied on
1987 (2) SCR 805 Para 9 Relied on
1988 Suppl.; SCR 690 para 10 Relied on
1994 (2) Suppl. SCR 404 Para 11 Relied on
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
86/150
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Naraindas v. Government of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.,AIR 1974 SC 1252; The Advocate General, State of Bihar v.M/s. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries & Anr.,AIR 1980 SC946; and Afzal & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1996) 7SCC 397). K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited &Ors.,(2008) 12 SCC 481 referred to.
6.6. In the instant case , the NBA has not acted with
a sense of responsibility and so far succeeded insecuring favourable orders by misleading the Court.Such conduct cannot be approved. However, in a PIL,the Court has to strike a balance between the interestsof the parties. The Court has to take into considerationthe pitiable condition of oustees, their poverty,inarticulateness, illiteracy, extent of backwardness,
unawareness also. It is desirable that in future the Courtmust view any presentation by the NBA with caution andcare, insisting on proper pleadings, disclosure of fullfacts truly and fairly and in case it has any doubt, refuseto entertain the NBA. However, considering the interestsof the oustees, it may be desirable that the Court mayappoint an Amicus Curiaeto present their cause, if sucha contingency arises. [para 145] [552-G-H; 553-A-B]
Case Law Reference:
1988(2) Suppl. SCR 1050Para 7 Relied on
1988 (2) SCR 339 Para 7 Relied on
2001 (3) SCR 124 Para 7 Relied on
2010 (7) SCR 252 Para 7 Relied on
2003 (5) Suppl. SCR 716 Para 11 Relied on
2009 (11) SCR 727 Para 11 Relied on
2000(4) Suppl. SCR 94 Para 14 Referred to
1995 (1) Suppl. SCR 492 Para 16-17 referred to
2005 (2) SCR 840 Para 16-17 referred to
1983(1) SCR 8 Para 22 referred to
2007 (13) SCR 876 Para 22 referred to
2002 (3) SCR 365 Para 24 relied on
2009 (2) SCR 881 Para 24 relied on
2010 (8) SCR 750 Para 24 relied on
1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 827 Para 24 relied on
1997 (2) Suppl. SCR 305 Para 25 relied on
2007 (2) SCR 980 Para 26 relied on
2010 (12) SCR 163 Para 26 relied on
1994(1) Suppl. SCR 807 Para 26 relied to2007(5) SCR 1060 Para 34 relied on
2009 (9) SCR 225 Para 34 relied on
2005 (1) SCR 73 Para 36 relied on
2009 (1) SCR 795 Para 34 referred to
1999 (2) Suppl. SCR 754 Paras 38-39 Referred to
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 6 S.C.R.
AA
B
473 474NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN v. STATE OFMADHYA PRADESH
2004(1) Suppl. SCR 65 Paras 38-39 Referred to
2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 282 Paras 38-39 Referred to
1995(2) SCR 260 Para 43 referred to
2003(3) S l SCR 152 P 43 f d t
1989 (2) Suppl. SCR 731 Para 67 relied on
1981 (3) SCR 234 Para 67 relied on
1990(1) Suppl. SCR 442 Para 67 relied on
1982 SCR 365 P 72 li d
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
87/150
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2003(3) Suppl. SCR 152 Para 43 referred to
1988 (2) Suppl. SCR 853 Para 44 referred to
1986 (1) SCR 603 Para 45 referred to
1988 (2) Suppl. SCR 929 Para 59 relied on
2009 (1) SCR 979 Para 59 relied on
1989 (1) Suppl. SCR 692 Para 60 relied on
2004(1) SCR 564 Para 60 relied on
1975 (3) SCR 834 Para 60 relied on
1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 1 Para 60 relied on
1991 (3) SCR 64 Para 60 relied on
2010 (15) SCR 201 Para 60 relied on
1992(2) Suppl. SCR 182 Para 63 referred to
2006(3) Suppl. SCR 48 Para 63 relied on
1995(3) SCR 450 Para 63 relied on
1996 (1) Suppl. SCR 442 Para 63 relied on1952 SCR 435 Para 67 relied on
1989 (2) Suppl. SCR 731 Para 67 relied on
1981 (3) SCR 234 Para 67 relied on
1990(1) Suppl. SCR 442 Para 67 relied on
1952 SCR 435 Para 67 relied on
1982 SCR 365 Para 72 relied on
1990 (1) SCR 483 Para 72 relied on
2007(8) SCR 136 Para 72 relied on
2008 916) SCR 340 Para 72 relied on
2009(15) SCR 265 Para 72 relied on
2007 (11) SCR 824 Para 73 relied on
2008 (14) SCR 889 Para 73 relied on
2008 (8) SCR 315 Para 74 relied on
1996(1) Suppl. SCR 414 Para 74 relied on
1958 SCR 1156 Para 74 relied on
1965 SCR 364 Para 74 relied on
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.2082 of 2011.
From the Judgment & Order dated 21.2.2008 of the HighCourt of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.P. (C)
No. 4457 of 2007.
WITH
C.A. Nos. 2083-2097, 2098-2112, 2115 and 2116 of 2011.
Sanjay Parikh, TVS Raghavendra Sreyas, Swapnil Verma,Nikhil Nayyar for the Appellant.
P.S. Patwalia, Ravi Shankar Prasad, Sunny Choudhary,Ajay Chauhan, C.D. Singh, Suparna Srivastava, Ran Swarup
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
88/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
89/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
90/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
91/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
92/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
93/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
94/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
95/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
96/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
97/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
98/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
99/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
100/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
101/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
102/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
103/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
104/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
105/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
106/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
107/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
108/150
INSTANT CASE:
80. REHABILITATION PROVISIONS AS PER NWDT AWARD AND STATE-WISECOMPARATIVE PROVISIONS
S. Item NWDT Award Madhya Gujarat MaharashtraNo. Pradesh
1 (a) Tenure xx xx xx xx
NARMADA
BACHA
MADHY
APRA
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
109/150
1.(a) Tenure xx xx xx xxHolder
(b) Xx xx xx xx xx
(c) Xx xx xx xx xx
(d) Major sons No provision Major son will 2 hec. of land 1 hec. of land to
of above all for land be treated as to each major each unmarriedcategories allotment. separate family. son of all daughter andof oustees They will be categories. major son of
entitled to cash all categories ofcompensation oustees with asaccording to cut- off date forthe category major sons andto which they unmarriedbelong. daughters.
AOANDOLAN
v.STATE
OF
517
DESH
[DR.B.S.CHAUHAN,J.]
81. IMPLICATIONS IF IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IS UPHELD
Category of In case each of the following Categories of oustees lose only one hectare of landoustees
Mr. A Mr. B Mr. C Mr. D Mr. E Mr. F
(land (Losing (Single Single (E1+ (F1+F2+F3)less) less than Khatedar) (Khatedar) E2+E3) Joint
25% of Joint Khatedars
518
SUPREME
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
110/150
25% of Joint Khatedarsholding) Khatedars
No. of major 3 3 0 3 0 F1: 3 sonssons/ F2: 3 sonsdaughters F3: 4 sons
Entitlement if contention of Respondent is accepted
For Self 0 0 2 hect. 2 hect. 3@2 hect. 3@2 hect. == 6 hect. 6 hect.
For Major 0 0 0 3@2 hect. 0 10 @ 2 hect.=sons/ = 6 hect. 20 hect.daughters
Total 0 0 2 hect. 8 hect. 6 hect. 26 hect.
Entitlement
E
COURT
RE
PORTS
[2011]6
S.C.R.
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
111/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
112/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
113/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
114/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
115/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
116/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
117/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
118/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
119/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
120/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
121/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
122/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
123/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
124/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
125/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
126/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
127/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
128/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
129/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
130/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
131/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
132/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
133/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
134/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
135/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
136/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
137/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
138/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
139/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
140/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
141/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
142/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
143/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
144/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
145/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
146/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
147/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
148/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
149/150
8/10/2019 2011_v6_pii
150/150
Recommended