|
 Supreme
Court Judgments - January 2009 |
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 |
|
|
