• Judgments-G

  • A | B | D | E | F | G | H | I | | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z  

    Judgments-Index

    • Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre Vs. State of Maharashtra- Appeal (Crl.)  639 of 1999-SC-28.09.2004- (2004) 4 SCC 359 = AIR 2006 SC 1037- - It is no more open to any Court to prematurely terminate a criminal case (Quash an FIR ) behind the back of the complainant/whistle blower without giving him an opportunity of being heard [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Gaurav Sureshbhai Vyas Versus State Of Gujarat, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 191 Of 2015, Judgment Dated: 15.09.2015, Bench: Jayant Patel, ACJ. & N.V.Anjaria, JJ, Gujrat High Court- Substantial question of law, declare the notification issued by the State Government of blocking/banning access to Mobile Internet Services during the relevant period as void ab initio, ultra vires and unconstitutional; issue appropriate writ, permanently restraining the State and its officers from imposing a complete or partial ban, blocking access to Internet Mobile/Broadband Services in the State of Gujarat, as it is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and consequently beyond the powers of the State Government under the relevant laws; the respondent no.1 is vicariously liable and respondent no. 6 is personally liable for the unconstitutional and arbitrary action of banning Mobile Internet access and for causing loss ” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Gautam Kundu     Vs.   Directorate   of   Enforcement (Prevention   of   Money Laundering   Act),   Government   of India- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1706  OF  2015-SC-16.12.2015- (2015) 16 SCC 1- Bail in PMLA, ED, and Analogous Crimes- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2012 (PMLA)- S-45- Offences to be cognizable and non-­bailable-  Held, “34. “xxx   xxx xxx    We have noted that Section 45 of the PMLA will have overriding effect on the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case of conflict between them. As mentioned earlier, Section 45 of the PMLA imposes two conditions for grant of bail, specified under the said Act. We have not missed the proviso to Section 45 of the said Act which   indicates   that   the   legislature   has   carved   out   an exception for grant of bail by a Special Court when any person is under the age of 16 years or is a woman or is a sick or infirm. Therefore, there is no doubt that the conditions laid down under Section 45­A of the PMLA, would bind the High Court as the provisions of special law having overriding effect on   the   provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to any person accused of committing offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, even when the application for bail is considered under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”[Full PDF Judgment].
    • G.C. Roy [Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orrisa Vs. G.C. Roy]- Appeal (Civil)  1403 of 1986 - SC - 12.12.1991- AIR 1992 SC 732= (1992) 1 SCC 508, Interest- Observed, a person deprived of use of money to which he is legitimately entitled as of right, to be compensated for the deprivation, call it by any name. It may be called interest, compensation or damages [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Geeta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Bail Appln. 2726/2014, Judgment Dated- 05/03/2015, Bench-Manmohan Singh, J, Citations- 2015(3) AD(Delhi) 322: 2015(149) DRJ 351- Observed as follows: "19. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding. 20. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: “there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their cases in different courts.” The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes. 21. In yet another case reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 in the matter of B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. it was observed that there is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XXA containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punish the husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. But if the proceedings are initiated by the wife under Section 498A against the husband and his relatives and subsequently she has settled her disputes with her husband and his relatives and the wife and husband agreed for mutual divorce, refusal to exercise inherent powers by the High Court would not be proper as it would prevent woman from settling earlier. Thus for the purpose of securing the ends of justice quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It would however be a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not to exercise such a power.” [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Geeta Mehrotra and anr. Vs. State of U.P.-SC-17.10.2012- Criminal Appeal No. 1674 OF 2012-Quashing of Proceedings- Quashing of summoning Order-Inherent power-IPC-S-498A, 406, 341, 323- [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Ghulam Mohi-Ud-Din Wani Vs. State Of Jammu & Kashmir- Criminal Appeal Nos.1275-1276 Of 2014- SC- 15.09.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Gian Kaur Vs. The State Of Punjab- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 167 OF 1984-SC-21.03.1996, Bench: Verma, Jagdish Saran (J)& Ray, G.N. (J)& Singh N.P. (J) & Faizan Uddin (J) & Nanavati G.T. (J), Supreme Court Of India, Citation: 1996(2) SCC 648= 1996 AIR  946= JT 1996 (3) 339- Quashing of Legislation- Issue, Whether S-306 IPC is unconstirutional [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab- (Crl.) No.8989 of 2010- SC-23.11.2010-Criminal Appeal Nos.2107-2125 of 2011- SC-24.09.2012- 2012-10-SCC-303= 2012(9) SCALE 257- Settlement Of Cases- Compounding Of Criminal Cases- This matter Came up for consideration before this bench on reference from two judge bench to adjudge the correctness of the following judgments: B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2008) 9 SCC 677,  and Manoj Sharma v. State and others, (2008) 16 SCC 1- Held, “57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any 54 Page 55 Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction 55 Page 56 is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”- Further Held, “58. In view of the above, it cannot be said that B.S. Joshi1 , Nikhil Merchant2 and Manoj Sharma3 were not correctly decided. We answer the reference accordingly.”[Full PDF Judgment- 23.11.2010] [Full PDF Judgment- 24.09.2012].
    • Giridhari Nath Vs. Mamitarani Sutar - CRLREV NO. 608 of 2016-OriHC- 15.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • GKN Drive Shafts (India) Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer – Appeal-Civil-7731 of 2002-SC-25.11.2002- 2002 Supp (4) SCR 359- Income Tax Act- Ss- 143, 147, 148- Notice U/S- 143- Assessment- Reassessment- Abuse of power under Section 147- Held, Without disposing of the petitioner's objections to the reopening of assessment and without passing a speaking order, the assessment could not have been completed [Full PDF Judgment].
    • G. Madhavan Nair Versus Union Of India, W.P.(C).No.30342 Of 2014 (P), Judgment Dated: 10.02.2016, Bench: K. Vinod Chandran, J, Kerala High Court [Full PDF Judgment]- Issue, territorial jurisdiction of the Writ Court- The petitioner would contend that the petitioner was never issued with Exhibit P1 or P2 and that the same were available in the website of the Department, which he happened to be confronted with, at his residence at Thiruvananthapuram, to which place he had retired after being divested of the Professorship. The petitioner being a native of the State of Kerala and having his permanent residence at Kerala, is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, is the contention.- Held, “19. As far as Exhibit P1 and P2, the contention raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner was made aware of the same through the website at his native place within the State of Kerala and that these created a disability on the petitioner from any further engagement with the Governments throughout the territory of India and he being so aggrieved, could raise the contention before the High Court of Kerala. Immediately it is to be noticed that the petitioner has not pleaded that the disability created on him by Exhibit P2, has divested him of any post or even an opportunity for such an engagement within the State of Kerala. The mere fact that the petitioner was made aware of Exhibit P1 & P2, only through the website, at Kerala would not be sufficient to confer jurisdiction. To assume jurisdiction on such a pleading would be specious, since then, with the accessibility to the website through the internet, the petitioner could as well plead that the same was accessed anywhere in India to confer jurisdiction in any High Court within the territories of India. The report of the High Level Team and Exhibits P2 and P3 have an inextricable link and the “cause of action” arose for the petitioner, on his being served with the order at Exhibit P3, which he would have to take recourse by a writ petition filed before the High Court within whose jurisdiction such cause of action or any other arose [Full PDF Judgment].
    • G.Mahalingappa vs. G.M. Savitha- Appeal (Civil) 2867 of 2000-SC-09.08.2005-Ingredients, requirements of Benami Transaction Act, 1988 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • GNCTD [Government Of National Capital Territory Of Delhi] Versus Union Of India, W.P.(C) No.5888/2015, Judgment Dated: 04.08.2016, Bench: G.Rohini, Chief Justice & Justice Jayant Nath, Delhi  High Court  Issue, Extent & Scope Of The Powers Of The Lt. Governor, Delhi & The Chief Minister, Delhi- Related Legislations: Article-239AA of the Constitution of India; Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991 & the Transaction of Business of the Government of NCT of Delhi Rules, 1993.- The Lt. Governor of Delhi is the administrative head of NCT Delhi. The Governor is not under an obligation to act on the advice of the Cabinet [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Goa Plast (P) Ltd. vs. Chico Ursula D'souza & Anr.- Appeal (Crl.)  1968 of 1996-SC-20.11.2003- (2003) 3 SCC 232- Presumption of debt & liability U/S-139 of the NI Act & Right to rebuttal [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Goloconda Linga Swamy [State of A.P. v. Goloconda Linga Swamy]-Appeal (crl.)  1180 of 2003-SC-27.07.2014- AIR 2004 SC 3967- Framing of charge- S-227, 228, 239, 240, 245 & 246 CrPC.-, Held, "It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of malafides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceeding." [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Gotan Lime Stone- State Of Rajasthan & Ors Versus Gotan Lime Stone Khanji Udyog Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., SC- 20.01.2016- Civil Appeal No. 434 Of 2016- Mineral Law- Held, “26. .....the doctrine of lifting the veil can be invoked if the public interest so requires or if there is allegation of violation of law by using the device of a corporate entity. In the present case, the corporate entity has been used to conceal the real transaction of transfer of mining lease to a third party for consideration without statutory consent by terming it as two separate transactions – the first of transforming a partnership into a company and the second of sale of entire shareholding to another company. The real transaction is sale of mining lease which is not legally permitted. Thus, the doctrine of lifting the veil has to be applied to give effect to law which is sought to be circumvented.” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Govt of NCT Delhi through Dy. Secretary to CM Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, RC No. DAI/ 2015/ A/ 0042U/ S-120B IPC and section 13(2)r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act 1988, CBI Vs. Rajendra Kumar & Ors. (Under investigation); Order dated-20.01.2016, Bench: Ajay Kumar Jain, Spl Judge, CBI, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi [Full PDF Judgment].
    • G. Sagar Suri  Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.- Appeal (Crl.)  91 of 2000- SC-28.01.2000- AIR 2000 SC 754- 2000 (1) SCR 417- Quashing- Criminal proceedings- Case U/S-420 IPC [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Gunasekaran [Union Of India V. P. Gunasekaran]- S.L.P. (Civil) No. 23631 Of 2008- Sc-03.11.2014- (2015) 2 SCC 610- In The Disciplinary Proceedings, The High Court Cannot Act As An Appellate Authority, Re-Appreciating The Evidence Before The Enquiry Officer. The High Court, In Exercise Of Its Powers U/Art.-226 & 227 Of The Constitution Of India, Shall Not Venture Into Re-Appreciation Of The Evidence. The High Court Can Only See Whether: [Full PDF Judgment
    • Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors., Vs. State of Punjab- SC-09.04.1980- Criminal Appeals Nos.335 Of 1978- (1980) 2 SCC 565=1980 AIR 1632- Anticipatory Bail- Judicial Balancing of Personal Liberty of Investigational Powers [Full PDF JudgmentFive Judge Constitution Bench].
    • Gurcharan Singh Vs. State (Delhi Admn.)-SC-06.12.1977-Criminal Appeal No. 456 of 1977-1978 SCC (1) 118- AIR 1987 SC 179-1978 SCR (2) 358- Cancellation of Bail- Jurisdictional Issue- Co-ordinate bench of the same court not empowered to sit in Appeal[Full PDF Judgment].
    • Guria, Swayam Sevi Sansthan Versus State Of U.P. & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 1373 2009,  Date Of Judgment: 31.07.2009, S.B. Sinha, & Cyriac Joseph, JJ, Supreme Court OF India [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Gurmit Singh- [State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh]- SC-16.01.1996- AIR 1996 SC 1393- 1996 SCC (2) 384- Consented Sex- Consensual sex [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Gurucharan Singh Vs. Union Of India- DelHC-27.04.2016-WP-Crl-307-of-2016-Bail-in-PMLA-ED-and-Analogous-Crimes [Full PDF Judgment].

    Kindly CLICK HERE or e-mail us at office@hellocounsel.com if you are facing any Legal Issue and want to have Legal Consultations with the empanelled Lawyers at Hello Counsel.

    A | B | D | E | F | G | H | I | | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z  

Live2Support.com
All original content on these pages is fingerprinted and certified by Digiprove