2011_v6_pii

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


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



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



1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 422 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


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




2003 (5) Suppl. SCR 716 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



1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 827 Para 24 relied on




1994(1) Suppl. SCR 807 Para 26 relied to2007(5) SCR 1060 Para 34 relied on




1999 (2) Suppl. SCR 754 Paras 38-39 Referred to


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



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





2004(1) SCR 564 Para 60 relied on





1992(2) Suppl. SCR 182 Para 63 referred to



1996 (1) Suppl. SCR 442 Para 63 relied on1952 SCR 435 Para 67 relied on




1952 SCR 435 Para 67 relied on




2008 916) SCR 340 Para 72 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

Documents

2011_v6_pii