Judgments - Supreme Court of India
GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
There is thus neither any proximate nor remote acts of omission or commission on the part of the appellant and his family members that can be irrefutably construed to be a direct or indirect cause or factor compelling Surjit and her daughters to take the extreme step of self-elimination. It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a Full Judgment
GURPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
Further, having regard to the root cause of the incident and the events that sequentially unfolded thereafter, we are of the comprehension that the appellant was overpowered by an uncontrollable fit of anger somuch so that he was deprived of his power of self-control and being drawn in a web of action reflexes, fired at the deceased and the injured, who were within his sight. The facts do not commend to Full Judgment
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. PALIWAL OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.
LOMESH VIDYA SAGAR Vs. COURT OF ITS OWN MOTION, PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH, THROUGH IT
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. VED PRAKASH AND ORS.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. MUNSHI RAM AND ORS.
MANEESH BAWA AND ORS. Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (7), BOMBAY AND ANR.
RAMVILAS (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ANR. Vs. KARIM KHAN & ANR.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS ETC
KHOKAN GIRI @ MADHAB Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
MUKARRAB ETC Vs. STATE OF U.P.
BINDESHWARI CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 20.05.2008, passed by High Court of Judicature at Patna, whereby Letters Patent Appeal No. 436 of 2000 was disposed of allowing respondent authorities to withhold 50% of gratuity and 50% of pension, of the appellant. It is also nobody’s case that the appellant caused pecuniary loss to the exchequer. In the light of above, we find force in submission of Full Judgment