Supreme Court Judgments 2008

Shfaq Khan and another v State of U.P. and other 1/2/2008.
Indian Penal code, 1860 - section 420 and 424 - U P Gangsters and Anti - Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1980 - writ Petition filed for quashing the FIR - The stand in the writ petition was that even if the FIR is taken at its face value, there is no scope for holding that the appellants committed cheating or an offence punishable under the Prevention Act - Leave granted

State of Orissa and another v M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. and other 4/2/2008.
Writ Petition -- Technical bids of VISA and TISCO could not have been rejected at the threshold without proper evaluation in terms of eligibility condition set out in the concerned advertisement - it would be desirable for the State Government to ensure that the technical bids and the revised financial bids to be submitted within three weeks as directed earlier, be evaluated and informed

Anand Sharad Chandra Oka v University of Mumbai and others 4/2/2008.
Words and Phrases - aggrieved party - meaning of - electoral roll for electing members of the Senate - university calling for applications from graduates - the writ-petitioner obtained B.A. Degree from Bombay University. Thus, the writ-petitioner was graduated from the respondent-University. His name, therefore, can be registered in the electoral roll for electing members of Senate. He was not, therefore, an 'aggrieved party'.- Leave granted

V. Subbulakshmi & others v S. Lakshmi & another 5/2/2008.
Motor accident claim - by the owner of the vehicle - maintainability - in the instant case, the owner of the bus was an aggrieved person. He could maintain an appeal of his own. Section 173 of the Act confers a right on any aggrieved person to prefer an appeal from an award - as to compensation - Leave granted Balwant Singh and others v State of Punjab 6/2/2008.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 302 - conviction under by Additional Session Judge - appeal - dismissal by High Court appeal - there is strong circumstantial evidence that they were caused by the accused - this circumstantial evidence is sufficient to uphold the conviction because it contains all the links in the chain which connect the accused with the incident

Union of India and others v Rajesh Vyas 7/2/2008.
Rajasthan High Court ordinance, 1949 - section 18 - appeals under - order of discharge - show cause notice - the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench were wrong in holding that the reply given to the show cause notice was not considered.

B.K. Sri Harsha (D) By L.R. and another v M/s Bharath Heavy Electricals Ltd 8/2/2008.
Code of civil Procedure, 1908 - section 96 - Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the First Appeals filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Sirisia Sthal, Imli Chati, Muzaffarpur & others v State of Bihar & others 11/2/2008.
Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of ceiling Area and Acquisition of surplus Land) Act, 1961 - vires of certain provisions challenged - writ - dismissed appeal - Since the High Court has not applied its mind to the challenge raised and has erroneously referred to the 9th Schedule to the Constitution, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

State of U.P. v Jagram & other 12/2/2008.
Indian Penal code, 1860 - sections 302, 324 read with section 34 - conviction by trial court - set aside by the Division Bench - several discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses and the prosecution version did not inspire confidence. - Leave granted

Samita Bhattacharjee v Kulashekar Bhattacharjee 12/2/2008.
Transfer of divorce suit - inspite of prayer for adjournment having been granted, no one appears to oppose the prayer for transfer on behalf of the respondent - considering the facts that the wife - petitioner herein - is staying at Andul Purba Para, P.O. Andul Mouri, P.S. Sankrail, District Howrah with a minor child in her paternal home, court is of the view that the Title Suit (Divorce) No.98 of 2006 titled as Dr. Kulashekhar Bhattacharjee Vs. Smt. Samita Bhattacharjee pending before the Family Court West Tripura, Agartala, be transferred to the Court of learned District Judge, Howrah, West Bengal.

B. Vishwanath v State of Karnataka 13/2/2008.
Order of the High Court - challenged - certain disturbing features highlighted - the appeal filed by the appellant was disposed of on 1.7.2006. There was no indication in the order as to whether the appeal was dismissed or allowed. Only certain directions were given to the Secretary, Home Department and Director General of Police to strictly comply with the observations that the Investigating Officers were to refer the blood stained articles and blood samples of the victim/accused, as the case may be, to the Medical College Hospital in the District or in the neighbouring District which have Forensic Science Laboratory to give report regarding the blood group. - Leave granted

S. Anand v Vasumathi Chandrasekar 14/2/2008.
Negotiable Instruments Act - section 138 - trial under - application for cross-examination filed by the complainant rejected — in revision complainant remained absent - acquittal by MM under section 256(1) of Cr. P.C. - this court does not approve the manner in which the appeal has been disposed of by the High Court - however, keeping in view of the fact that the complaint petition was filed as far back on 10.01.2002, the learned Trial Judge should proceed with the matter in accordance with law and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. - Leave granted

Babu Ram & others v State of Punjab 15/2/2008.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - sections 302 and 34 - conviction under - confirmed by Division Bench - appeal - in view of the improbabilities, the serious omissions and infirmities, the interested nature of the evidence and other circumstances, it was clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court was in error in brushing aside serious infirmity in the prosecution case regarding non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused Indraj and his wife DW-Smt. Maya and also not accepting the plea of the right of defence of the accused on unconvincing premises - appellants acquitted.

Cherotte Sugathan (D) by Lrs. & others v Cherotte Bharathi & others 15/2/2008.
Hindu Widow's Re-marriage Act, 1856 - section 2 - applicability of - to the facts of the present case. - Leave granted

Shaik Nagoor v State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad 20/2/2008.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 354 and 448 and 306 - by the impugned judgment conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 354 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was upheld, but the conviction for offence punishable under Section 306 IPC was set aside. However the sentence of three years imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 354 IPC which was imposed by the trial court was reduced to two years.- Leave granted

Sunil @ Balo Das and others v Rajesh Das and others 21/2/2008.
Acquittal order - set aside by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Jharkand - the High Court without even pointing out as to what infirmity existed, in a mechanical manner directed the matter to be re-heard. Abrupt conclusion was arrived at that the trial Court had not appreciated the evidence on record in its right perspective and by misappropriation of evidence, directed acquittal- Leave granted

Pulin Das @ Panna Koch with Mahendra Saikia @ Dilip Saikia v State of Assam 22/2/2008.
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - section 19 -appeals against - the common judgment dated 19.04.2007 of the Designated Judge at Assam, Gauhati in TADA Sessions Case No. 1 of 1996 whereby the Designated Judge convicted Pulin Das @ Panna Koch -appellant in Criminal Appeal No.706 of 2007 and Mahendra Saikia @ Dilip Saikia