Supreme Court Judgments 2008

Bijoy Das v State of West Bengal 28/1/2008.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - section 302 - conviction under - upheld by the High Court - appeal - if a dying declaration is found to be reliable then there is no need for corroboration by any witness, and conviction can be sustained on its basis alone.- Leave granted

Shanti Devi v State of Sikkim and another 25/1/2008.
Decision impugned - this is one of those rare cases in which the decision impugned in the appeal not only merits intervention but also calls for certain observations to be made in respect of the order itself - Leave granted

Balasaheb Dayandeo Naik (Dead) through LRs and others v Appasaheb Dattatraya Pawar 24/1/2008.
Specific performance - this appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.01.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in First Appeal No. 743 of 1993 in and by which the High Court set aside the decree for specific performance granted by the trial Court and consequently dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs - Leave granted

Vishnu Dev Sharma v State of U.P. & others 23/1/2008.
Seniority -  fixation - writ petition - seniority challenged -  seniority has been given from the date if confirmation - learned counsel for the appellant submitted that such summary dismissal of writ petition was not warranted as several issues of considerable importance were involved, more particularly whether the norms for fixing seniority in the background facts of the case were to be considered - Leave granted

Shaikh Ratiq and another v State of Maharashtra 22/1/2008.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - sections 302 read with section 34 - conviction under - appeal - considering the dying declaration and the manner in which it was recorded, court cannot rely upon the dying declaration recorded by PW 1. Apart from this fact, there is no other evidence on record to implicate the appellants in the incident

Vidyadhari & others v Sukhrana Bai & others 22/1/2008.
Indian Succession Act - section 372 - 2 separate applications filed for obtaining succession certificate - Merely because Sukhrana Bai was the legally wedded wife that by itself did not entitle her to a Succession Certificate in comparison to Vidhyadhari who all through had stayed as the wife of Sheetaldeen, had born his four children and had claimed a Succession Certificate on behalf children also - Leave granted

Ramesh Singh & another v Satbir Singh & another 21/1/2008.
Motor accident - compensation - multiplier -- applicability - choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or claimants whichever is higher. Admittedly, the age of the father was 55 years. The question of mother's age never cropped up because that was not the contention raised even before the Trial Court or before this Court.- Leave granted

State of Maharashtra v Devahari Devasingh Pawar & others 18/1/2008.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - section 197 - proceedings pending before ACJM quashed by the High Court as no sanction as required - was there employees of the blood bank were prosecuted under IPC and Drugs Act - HIV contaminated blood was supplied to the Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur by its blood bank and as a result, some patients who were given blood transfusion had tested HIV positive - Leave granted

S.Raju v C. Sathammai 17/1/2008.
Code of Civil Procedure - order 39 - leave to defend the suit - denial by the city Civil Court and the High Court - appeal - the trial court and High Court have taken a rather technical view of the matter - in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner ought to have at least been allowed to defend the suit, subject to the condition of depositing a part of the plaintiff's claim.- Leave granted

Kunju @ Balachandran v State of Tamil Nadu 16/1/2008
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - section 302 - conviction under - appeal - it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise - Leave granted

Gaudiya Mission v Shobha Bose & another 15/1/2008.
Testamentary case -  great many questions were involved in the Testamentary Suit instituted by the respondent No. 1. Several issues were framed by the trial Court and the suit was decided by a detailed judgment entering into merits of the matter -  the learned counsel for the appellants is right in submitting that the Division Bench of the High Court ought to have admitted the appeal. - Leave granted

Brijendra Singh v State of M.P. & another 11/1/2008.
Adoption - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - section 100 - challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code - the present appeal involves a very simple issue but when the background facts are considered it projects some highly emotional and sensitive aspects of human life

Puran Singh v State of Uttaranchal 10/1/2008.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - section 302 - conviction order and sentence recorded by High Court - acquittal by Session Court - appeal - as per Ballistic Expert's opinion, cartridge E.C.1 was not fired from the single barrel 12 bore No. 1319 said to have been used by the accused - therefore, the appellant accused is entitled to benefit of doubt

State of M.P. & others v Madhukar Rao 9/1/2008.
Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 - section 50(1)(c) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - section 451 -  whether a vehicle or vessel etc. seized under Section 50(1)(c) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 is put beyond the power of the Magistrate to direct its release during the pendency of trial in exercise of powers under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. v Rajvir Industries Ltd. & others 9/1/2008.
Investigation - interference - by statutory authority - Blank cheques - handed over for business purposes during 2000-2004 - fraudulently used - dispute arose in 2005 - a bare perusal of Section 415 read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code would clearly lead to the conclusion that fraudulent or dishonest inducement on the part of the accused must be at the inception and not at a subsequent stage - Leave granted

M/s. Sify Ltd. v M/s. First Flight Couriers Ltd. 8/1/2008.
Civil Procedure Code -  order 37 rules 2 and 3 - the appellant company is engaged in the business of providing service in setting up of Networks and other value added services in the field of information and technology. The respondent company is engaged in the business of providing Courier services. - Leave granted

Bhadrappa (D) By Lrs. v Tolacha Naik 8/1/2008.
Karnataka High Court Act - section 4 - writ appeal filed under - dismissal - challenged - proceedings were initiated on the basis of an application that the alienation was hit by Section 4 of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978

Ramesh Krishna Madhusudan Nayar v The State of Maharashtra 7/1/2008.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - section 302 - applicability of - appellant sentenced to life imprisonment - appeal - for the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. The expression undue advantage as used in the provision means 'unfair advantage' - Leave granted

Bhagwan Dass & another v Punjab State Electricity Board 4/1/2008
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - section 47 - protection under - the appellant protested against the action of the Board in relieving him from service - Leave granted

Kaliyamma & others v Deputy Commnr. Chitradurga Distt. & others 3/1/2008.
Karnataka High Court Act 1979 - section 4 - writ appeal filed under - dismissal - challenged - the stand taken before the High Court essentially was that the land was granted under the non-depressed class category and, therefore, the period is 12 years to substantiate the plea about adverse possession.