Judgments - Supreme Court of India
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD Vs. KAMLESH KUMAR CHIMANBHAI PATEL & ORS
SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS Vs. STATE OF U P AND ANR
MADAN MOHAN AND ORS. Vs. GURMUKH SINGH AND ORS.
DR. RINI JOHAR & ANR. Vs. STATE OF M.P.&ORS. Dated - June 03, 2016
SARLA PERFORMANCE FIBERS LTD. ETC. Vs. C.C.E., SURAT-II. Dated - June 03, 2016
BHAGWAN SAHAI AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Dated - June 03, 2016
BIJENDER @ PAPU AND ANR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA. Dated - June 03, 2016
INDIRA DEVI AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH. Dated - June 03, 2016
SATISH SHETTY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA. Dated - June 03, 2016
STAR SPORTS INDIA PVT LTD. Vs. PRASAR BHARTI & ORS.
PRAGNA PARAMITA PRAHARAJ Vs. STATE OF ORISSA
SUBHAN TOURS AND TRAVEL SERVICES Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, A.P. Vs. RAVI SANTOSH REDDY (D) BY LRS.
NIRMAL DASS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
Held First, it is not in dispute that appellant No. 1 is aged around 75 years; Second, out of three accused two have expired; Third, litigation is pending for quite some time; Fourth, appellant No. 1 has undergone five months in jail. The impugned order is modified insofar as it relates to awarding of the sentence to appellant no. 1. Appellant no. 1 is accordingly awarded rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year with a fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment Full Judgment
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. FIROZ KHAN @ ARIF KHAN
Held We are constrained to observe that the High Court grossly erred in passing the impugned order without assigning any reason. In our considered opinion, it was a clear case of total non application of mind to the case by the learned Judges because the order impugned neither sets out the facts nor the submissions of the parties nor the findings and nor the reasons as to why the leave to file appeal is declined to the appellant. We, therefore, disapprove Full Judgment