Supreme Court Decisions/Judgements Directory

Judges: Act Criminal Procedure Code 1973 Sections 468 473 Limitation Applicability Of Matrimonial Offences Like Cruelty, The Non Obstante Clause Of Section 473 And Its Over Riding Effect Explained Criminal Procedure Code 1973 Section 482 Quashing Of Pro Ceedings Before Magistrate By The High Court No Cognizance Of Offence Section 498 A I P C After Expiry Of Three Years Validity Of Maxim Vigilantibus It Non Dormientibus, Jura Subveniunt Applicability Of In Cases Of Matrimonial Offences Like Cruelty Basic Difference Between The Limitation Under Section 473 And Section 5 Of The Limitation Act Explained Headnote A Complaint Petition Was Filed Before The Magistrate By The Appellant That She Was Ill Treated And Subjected To Cruelty By Husband The Accused Respondent And Her In Laws, And That During The Subsistence Of Their Marriage He Married Again And Got A Second, Wife The High Court On An Application Filed By The Accused Respondent Under Section 482 Of Cr P C Quashed The Criminal Proceedings, Holding That It Was Time Barred Since After Three Years Cognizance Cannot Be Taken Of An Offence Under Section 498 A Of The Penal Code, 2188 In View Of The Section 468 Of The Criminal Procedure Code Allowing The Appeal, The Court, To Take Cognizance Even Of He Offence Under Section 498 A Of The Penal Code Ignoring The Bar Of Section 468 Of The Cr P C 295 C 2 In View Of The Allegation Of Second Marriage During

20 April, 1990·PETITIONER:HALLI GOWDA & ORS.Vs. RESPONDENT:<table cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse"><tbody><tr style="height:17pt"><td style="width:240pt"><p class="s1" style="padding-left: 2pt;text-indent: 0pt;text-align: left;">DATE OF JUDGMENT08/03/1989</p></td><td rowspan="2" style="width:23pt">...

Judges: Act Criminal Procedure Code 1973 Sections 468 473 Limitation Applicability Of Matrimonial Offences Like Cruelty, The Non Obstante Clause Of Section 473 And Its Over Riding Effect Explained Criminal Procedure Code 1973 Section 482 Quashing Of Pro Ceedings Before Magistrate By The High Court No Cognizance Of Offence Section 498 A I P C After Expiry Of Three Years Validity Of Maxim Vigilantibus It Non Dormientibus, Jura Subveniunt Applicability Of In Cases Of Matrimonial Offences Like Cruelty Basic Difference Between The Limitation Under Section 473 And Section 5 Of The Limitation Act Explained Headnote A Complaint Petition Was Filed Before The Magistrate By The Appellant That She Was Ill Treated And Subjected To Cruelty By Husband The Accused Respondent And Her In Laws, And That During The Subsistence Of Their Marriage He Married Again And Got A Second, Wife The High Court On An Application Filed By The Accused Respondent Under Section 482 Of Cr P C Quashed The Criminal Proceedings, Holding That It Was Time Barred Since After Three Years Cognizance Cannot Be Taken Of An Offence Under Section 498 A Of The Penal Code, 2188 In View Of The Section 468 Of The Criminal Procedure Code Allowing The Appeal, The Court, To Take Cognizance Even Of He Offence Under Section 498 A Of The Penal Code Ignoring The Bar Of Section 468 Of The Cr P C 295 C 2 In View Of The Allegation Of Second Marriage During

20 April, 1990·PETITIONER:ASSAM RIFLES MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVESOCIETY LTD. & ANOTHE Vs. RESPONDENT:UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER. DATE OF JUDGMENT01/05/1989 BENCH:PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) BENCH:PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) KANIA, M.H.CITATION:1990 AIR 111 1989 SCR (2) 853 1989 SCC Supl. (1) 484 JT 1989 (2) 254 1989 SCALE (1)115...

Judges: Act Criminal Procedure Code 1973 Sections 468 473 Limitation Applicability Of Matrimonial Offences Like Cruelty, The Non Obstante Clause Of Section 473 And Its Over Riding Effect Explained Criminal Procedure Code 1973 Section 482 Quashing Of Pro Ceedings Before Magistrate By The High Court No Cognizance Of Offence Section 498 A I P C After Expiry Of Three Years Validity Of Maxim Vigilantibus It Non Dormientibus, Jura Subveniunt Applicability Of In Cases Of Matrimonial Offences Like Cruelty Basic Difference Between The Limitation Under Section 473 And Section 5 Of The Limitation Act Explained Headnote A Complaint Petition Was Filed Before The Magistrate By The Appellant That She Was Ill Treated And Subjected To Cruelty By Husband The Accused Respondent And Her In Laws, And That During The Subsistence Of Their Marriage He Married Again And Got A Second, Wife The High Court On An Application Filed By The Accused Respondent Under Section 482 Of Cr P C Quashed The Criminal Proceedings, Holding That It Was Time Barred Since After Three Years Cognizance Cannot Be Taken Of An Offence Under Section 498 A Of The Penal Code, 2188 In View Of The Section 468 Of The Criminal Procedure Code Allowing The Appeal, The Court, To Take Cognizance Even Of He Offence Under Section 498 A Of The Penal Code Ignoring The Bar Of Section 468 Of The Cr P C 295 C 2 In View Of The Allegation Of Second Marriage During

20 April, 1990·PETITIONER:VELLORE ELECTRIC CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR.Vs. RESPONDENT:STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT13/04/1989 BENCH:VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J) BENCH:VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J) RANGNATHAN, S.PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) NATRAJAN, S. (J) CITATION:1989 AIR 1741 1989 SCR (2) ...

Judges: Act Criminal Procedure Code 1973 Sections 468 473 Limitation Applicability Of Matrimonial Offences Like Cruelty, The Non Obstante Clause Of Section 473 And Its Over Riding Effect Explained Criminal Procedure Code 1973 Section 482 Quashing Of Pro Ceedings Before Magistrate By The High Court No Cognizance Of Offence Section 498 A I P C After Expiry Of Three Years Validity Of Maxim Vigilantibus It Non Dormientibus, Jura Subveniunt Applicability Of In Cases Of Matrimonial Offences Like Cruelty Basic Difference Between The Limitation Under Section 473 And Section 5 Of The Limitation Act Explained Headnote A Complaint Petition Was Filed Before The Magistrate By The Appellant That She Was Ill Treated And Subjected To Cruelty By Husband The Accused Respondent And Her In Laws, And That During The Subsistence Of Their Marriage He Married Again And Got A Second, Wife The High Court On An Application Filed By The Accused Respondent Under Section 482 Of Cr P C Quashed The Criminal Proceedings, Holding That It Was Time Barred Since After Three Years Cognizance Cannot Be Taken Of An Offence Under Section 498 A Of The Penal Code, 2188 In View Of The Section 468 Of The Criminal Procedure Code Allowing The Appeal, The Court, To Take Cognizance Even Of He Offence Under Section 498 A Of The Penal Code Ignoring The Bar Of Section 468 Of The Cr P C 295 C 2 In View Of The Allegation Of Second Marriage During

20 April, 1990·PETITIONER:BHAGWATI PRASAD AND ORS.Vs. RESPONDENT:DELHI STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DATE OF JUDGMENT15/12/1989 BENCH:RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH:RAMASWAMY, K. MISRA RANGNATH SAWANT, P.B.CITATION:1990 AIR 371 1989 SCR Supl. (2) 513 1990 SCC (1) 361 JT 1989 (4) 541 1989 SCALE (2)1337 ACT:Co...

Judges: Act Criminal Procedure Code 1973 Sections 468 473 Limitation Applicability Of Matrimonial Offences Like Cruelty, The Non Obstante Clause Of Section 473 And Its Over Riding Effect Explained Criminal Procedure Code 1973 Section 482 Quashing Of Pro Ceedings Before Magistrate By The High Court No Cognizance Of Offence Section 498 A I P C After Expiry Of Three Years Validity Of Maxim Vigilantibus It Non Dormientibus, Jura Subveniunt Applicability Of In Cases Of Matrimonial Offences Like Cruelty Basic Difference Between The Limitation Under Section 473 And Section 5 Of The Limitation Act Explained Headnote A Complaint Petition Was Filed Before The Magistrate By The Appellant That She Was Ill Treated And Subjected To Cruelty By Husband The Accused Respondent And Her In Laws, And That During The Subsistence Of Their Marriage He Married Again And Got A Second, Wife The High Court On An Application Filed By The Accused Respondent Under Section 482 Of Cr P C Quashed The Criminal Proceedings, Holding That It Was Time Barred Since After Three Years Cognizance Cannot Be Taken Of An Offence Under Section 498 A Of The Penal Code, 2188 In View Of The Section 468 Of The Criminal Procedure Code Allowing The Appeal, The Court, To Take Cognizance Even Of He Offence Under Section 498 A Of The Penal Code Ignoring The Bar Of Section 468 Of The Cr P C 295 C 2 In View Of The Allegation Of Second Marriage During

20 April, 1990·PETITIONER:DINAJI AND ORS.Vs. RESPONDENT:DADDI AND ORS.DATE OF JUDGMENT10/11/1989 BENCH:OZA, G.L. (J) BENCH:OZA, G.L. (J) FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J) CITATION:1990 AIR 1153 1989 SCR Supl. (2) 144 1990 SCC (1) 1 JT 1989 (4) 434 1989 SCALE (2)1178 ACT:Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956: Sect...

Judges: Act Criminal Procedure Code 1973 Sections 468 473 Limitation Applicability Of Matrimonial Offences Like Cruelty, The Non Obstante Clause Of Section 473 And Its Over Riding Effect Explained Criminal Procedure Code 1973 Section 482 Quashing Of Pro Ceedings Before Magistrate By The High Court No Cognizance Of Offence Section 498 A I P C After Expiry Of Three Years Validity Of Maxim Vigilantibus It Non Dormientibus, Jura Subveniunt Applicability Of In Cases Of Matrimonial Offences Like Cruelty Basic Difference Between The Limitation Under Section 473 And Section 5 Of The Limitation Act Explained Headnote A Complaint Petition Was Filed Before The Magistrate By The Appellant That She Was Ill Treated And Subjected To Cruelty By Husband The Accused Respondent And Her In Laws, And That During The Subsistence Of Their Marriage He Married Again And Got A Second, Wife The High Court On An Application Filed By The Accused Respondent Under Section 482 Of Cr P C Quashed The Criminal Proceedings, Holding That It Was Time Barred Since After Three Years Cognizance Cannot Be Taken Of An Offence Under Section 498 A Of The Penal Code, 2188 In View Of The Section 468 Of The Criminal Procedure Code Allowing The Appeal, The Court, To Take Cognizance Even Of He Offence Under Section 498 A Of The Penal Code Ignoring The Bar Of Section 468 Of The Cr P C 295 C 2 In View Of The Allegation Of Second Marriage During

20 April, 1990·PETITIONER:MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, JODHPUR Vs. RESPONDENT:PAREKH AUTOMOBILES LTD. AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT07/11/1989 BENCH:MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH:MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) KANIA, M.H.RANGNATHAN, S.CITATION:1989 SCR Supl. (2) 49 1990 SCC (1) 367 JT 1989 Supl. 309 1989 SCALE (2)1349 ACT:Rajasthan...

Judges: Act Criminal Procedure Code 1973 Sections 468 473 Limitation Applicability Of Matrimonial Offences Like Cruelty, The Non Obstante Clause Of Section 473 And Its Over Riding Effect Explained Criminal Procedure Code 1973 Section 482 Quashing Of Pro Ceedings Before Magistrate By The High Court No Cognizance Of Offence Section 498 A I P C After Expiry Of Three Years Validity Of Maxim Vigilantibus It Non Dormientibus, Jura Subveniunt Applicability Of In Cases Of Matrimonial Offences Like Cruelty Basic Difference Between The Limitation Under Section 473 And Section 5 Of The Limitation Act Explained Headnote A Complaint Petition Was Filed Before The Magistrate By The Appellant That She Was Ill Treated And Subjected To Cruelty By Husband The Accused Respondent And Her In Laws, And That During The Subsistence Of Their Marriage He Married Again And Got A Second, Wife The High Court On An Application Filed By The Accused Respondent Under Section 482 Of Cr P C Quashed The Criminal Proceedings, Holding That It Was Time Barred Since After Three Years Cognizance Cannot Be Taken Of An Offence Under Section 498 A Of The Penal Code, 2188 In View Of The Section 468 Of The Criminal Procedure Code Allowing The Appeal, The Court, To Take Cognizance Even Of He Offence Under Section 498 A Of The Penal Code Ignoring The Bar Of Section 468 Of The Cr P C 295 C 2 In View Of The Allegation Of Second Marriage During

20 April, 1990·PETITIONER:JAGRIT MAZDOOR UNION (REGD.) & ORS. ETC. ETC.Vs. RESPONDENT:MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. & ANR.ETC. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT29/11/1989 BENCH:MISRA RANGNATH BENCH:MISRA RANGNATH SAWANT, P.B. RAMASWAMY, K.CITATION:1989 SCR Supl. (2) 329 1990 SCC Supl. 113 JT 1989 Supl. 364 1989 SCALE (2)14...

Judges: Reddy, K Jayachandra J

20 April, 1990·CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 375-77 of 1987.From the Judgment and Order dated 22.10.1984 in the Allahabad High Court in Crl. A. Nos. 1925, 1808 of 1981 and Government Appeal No. 2599 of 1981.R.K. Garg, Prith Raj, U.R. Lalit, R.L. Kohli, Shivpujan Singh, Manoj Prashad, Dalvee...

Judges: Ahmadi, A M J

20 April, 1990·CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1929 of 1990.From the Judgment and Order dated 29.7.1988 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Madras in Transferred Appli- cation No. 244 of 1987.Ambrish Kumar for the Appellant.Anil Dev Singh, R.B. Misra and Ms. Sushma Suri for the Respondents.The Ju...

Judges: Sawant, P B

20 April, 1990·CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2559 of 1988 From the Judgment and Order dated 31.8.1987 of A.P. Adminis- trative Tribunal, Hyderabad in R.P. No. 393 i of 1987. K. Madhva Reddy and G. Prabhakar for the Appellants. Y.P. Rao for the Respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ...