SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS

TODAY'S UPDATES
(from SUPREMECOURTCASELAW.COM)

Total No. of Cases:16

2010 SCCL.COM 282(Case No:Civil Appeal No. 4070 of 2010 With Civil Appeal No. 4071 of 2010)(NEW) N. Rajanna and others Appellant(s) versus State of Karnataka and others Respondent(s) Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy):5/4/2010. Name of the Judge:Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly. Subject Index: Karnataka Industries (Facilitation) Act, 2002 - respondent No. 3 filed an application for acquisition of land for its project - the appellants and others filed objections that their claim for grant of occupancy rights over a portion of the land sought to be acquired was pending before the competent authority - the State Government issued order for approval of the project of respondent No. 3. However, after 8 days, the State Government revised its decision and issued order for withdrawal of the approval accorded to the project of respondent No.3 on the ground of pendency of the case before the competent authority - respondent No. 3 challenged the order of the State Government - the learned Single Judge held that approval to the project of respondent No.3 did not create a right in its favour but directed the State Government to hear respondent No.3 and pass fresh order - the Division Bench quashed the orders of the learned Single Judge and directed the State Government to proceed on the basis of approval granted by it - appeal - whether the Division Bench of the High Court could modify order passed by the learned Single Judge without issuing notice and giving opportunity of hearing to the appellants, who claim to have right over the land sought to be acquired by the State Government on behalf of respondent No.3 - no - this Court held that although, the issue relating to grant of occupancy right over the land is yet to be decided by the competent authority, it cannot be said that the appellants do not have the locus to be heard in the proceedings which may result in acquisition of the land - impugned orders of the Division Bench set aside and matter remitted back to the High Court for deciding the appeal of respondent No.3 afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties - appeals allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 283(Case No:Civil Appeal No. 4269 of 2006 With Civil Appeal No. 4270 of 2006) North Delhi Power Limited Appellant BSES Rajdhani Power Limited and another Appellants versus Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and others Respondents Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy):5/3/2010. Name of the Judge:Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar. Subject Index: Delhi Electric Reforms Act, 2000 - Delhi Electricity Reforms (Transfer Scheme) Rules, 2001 - Rules 3, 6, 8, 12 - unbundling of Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) for handing over the distribution of electricity to private companies - bids were invited and the terms of the transfer were settled by mutual consent taking note of the Tripartite Agreements and the existing pensioners as well as the employees were protected - in relation to the employees of the erstwhile DVB who could not become part of any of the companies in terms of the transfer scheme due to retirement/dismissal/removal/compulsory retirement by the then DVB, the Government clarified that such cases would be processed and decided by such company who would have been the controlling authority of the employee but for their retirement/removal/dismissal/compulsory retirement etc. thereby clearly fixing the responsibility on the DISCOMS like the appellant - NDPL was incorporated and inherited the distribution undertaking along with the assets, liabilities, personnel and proceedings in pursuance of statutory transfer scheme - the respondent No. 3, an erstwhile employee of DESU filed a petition and claimed benefits arising out of the transfer scheme - the High Court allowed the petition and held that the appellant-petitioner alone was responsible for the payments claimed by respondent No. 3 - appeal - whether the appellants are responsible for meeting the liabilities relating to employees who ceased to be the employees of erstwhile Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (Predecessor of Delhi Vidhyut Board - DVB) on account of their retirement, removal, dismissal or compulsory retirement in accordance with the provisions of Delhi Electric Reforms Act, 2000? - Yes - no dispute that those who retired and those who were serving with the Board would stand transferred in respect of their liabilities etc. to the successor company, i.e. DISCOMS which included NDPL/appellant and BSES - this Court held that in clothing the NDPL with a liability regarding the personnel who were retired, compulsorily retired or otherwise dead, dismissed etc. could not be termed as 'additional liability' - appeals dismissed - no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 281(Case No:Civil Appeal No. 4046 of 2010)(NEW) Jenany J.R. Appellant versus S. Rajeevan and others Respondents Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy):5/3/2010. Name of the Judge:Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma. Subject Index: Kerala Education Rules, 1959 - Rule 43, Note 2 - interpretation of - the appellant was appointed to the post of High School Assistant (H.S.A.) - since appellant was under medical rest, on account of her recent delivery, the management granted her extension for joining duties - respondent No.1, was already working as Lower Grade Hindi Teacher in the said school but had not passed the test and had applied for re-evaluation. However, he was declared 'pass' - respondent No. 1 filed petition against the appointment of the appellant - District Education Officer and the learned Single Judge rejected the contention of the respondent No. 1 and held no interference against the order of appointment of the appellant. However, the Division Bench quashed the orders of the Single Judge and directed to appoint respondent No. 1 as H.S.A. from the date on which he became qualified to hold the post - appeal - whether on the date, vacancy had occurred i.e. on 1.7.2003, respondent No.1 was having requisite qualification to be appointed on the post of H.S.A. (Hindi) - no - this Court held that the relevant date would be the date when the vacancy had arisen i.e., 1.7.2003 and not the date when the appellant actually joined the service - impugned orders of the Division Bench set aside - appeal allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 280(Case No:Criminal Appeal No. 963 of 2010 With Criminal Appeal Nos. 964-966 of 2010)(NEW) Damodar S. Prabhu Appellant(s) versus Sayed Babalal H. Respondent(s) Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy):5/3/2010. Name of the Judge:Hon'ble Chief Justice, Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal. Subject Index: (A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138/147 - compounding of the offence - the parties were involved in commercial transactions - dispute arose on account of the dishonour of five cheques issued by the appellant - with regard to the impugned judgement delivered by the High Court, the appellant prayed for the setting aside of his conviction by relying on the consent terms that have been arrived at between the parties - this Court allowed the compounding of the offence and set aside the appellant's conviction. (B) Dishonour of cheques - Section 147 - the compensatory aspect of the remedy which should be given priority over the punitive aspect - no explicit guidance as to what stage compounding can or cannot be done and whether compounding can be done at the instance of the complainant or with the leave of the court - guidelines framed of imposing cost on parties for unduly delay in compounding of the offences.

2010 SCCL.COM 278(Case No:Transfer Petition (Criminal) Nos. 219 and 220 of 2009)(NEW) Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) Petitioner versus Hopeson Ningshen and others Respondents Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy):5/3/2010. Name of the Judge:Hon'ble Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Deepak Verma and Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan. Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 406 - transfer petition under - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/400 - FIR registered under - the respondent has been accused of the kidnapping and murder of three government employees - having regard to the seriousness of the crime, the Government of Manipur transferred the investigation into the cases to the CBI - the CBI clearly conveyed the risks associated with conducting the trial in Manipur - this Court held that even if the apprehension about social unrest and communal tension between the Meities and the Nagas were a little exaggerated, there can be no quarrel about the real possibility of a physical attack on the respondent-accused as long as he is in Manipur. Further, conducting the trial in Manipur also reasonably lead to more friction in the State of Manipur which in turn could affect the trial proceedings, therefore the impugned cases directed to be transferred to a designated CBI Court in New Delhi - petition allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 284(Case No:Civil Appeal No. 4220 of 2002 With Civil Appeal No. 4219 of 2002 with Civil Appeal No. 4213 of 2002 with Civil Appeal No. 4214 of 2002 with Civil Appeal No. 4217 of 2002 with Civil Appeal No. 4218 of 2002 ) M/s M.R.F. Ltd. Appellant with Goa Glass Fibre Ltd. and another Appellants withAlcon Cement Company Limited and another Appellants versus Manohar Parrikar and others Respondents with The State of Goa and another Respondents Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy):5/3/2010. Name of the Judge:Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu. Subject Index: Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 166 - conduct of business of the Government of State - Indian Electricity Act, 1910 - Section 23 read with Section 51-A - Business Rules and Rules of Authentication - the State Government published the revised electricity tariff for the State as specified in the Schedule appended to the Notification. By another Notification the State Government for the first time created a new and separate category viz. Extra High Tension Supply Consumers and was included in the revised tariff framed under Notification - the Notification granting 25% rebate to Extra High Tension Supply Consumers imposed an additional burden on the State's Exchequer by introducing a new class of consumers for grant of rebate retrospectively and it was finalized by the Power Minister at his level - the High Court held that the Notifications issued by the Power Minister could not be termed as Notifications issued by the State Government on account of Non Compliance of the Rules of Business framed under Article 166 (3) of the Constitution of India and therefore non-est and void-ab-initio and that the consequential actions based on these two notifications are null and void - appeal - held that the Business Rules 3,6,7 and 9 are Mandatory and not Directory and any decision taken by any individual Minister in violation of them cannot be termed as the decision of the State Government - the Notification was issued solely on the directions of the Power Minister despite the opinion of the Law Secretary that retrospective effect to the proposed amendment could not be given as it involved additional class of consumers of power, which is in violation of the Business Rules of Government of Goa - nothing produced on record to show that the department concerned attempted to seek ratification of the decision taken by the Power Minister before the Notification, therefore, if the Council of Ministers or Chief Minister has not been a party to a decision taken by an Individual Minister, that decision cannot be the decision of the State Government and it would be non-est and void ab initio - appeals dismissed.

2010 SCCL.COM 272(Case No:Civil Appeal No. 3977 of 2010)(NEW) Indian Drugs & Pharmaceutical Ltd. Appellant versus Famy Care and others Respondents Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy):4/30/2010. Name of the Judge:Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma. Subject Index: Rate Contract - purchase preference policy - the respondent engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of family planning products including Oral Contraceptives Pills (OCPs) - tender was invited for the supply of OCPs - the rate contract of the entire quantity of 275 lakh cycles of OCPs went in favour of the appellant - the respondent challenged the said order of the respondent No. 3 on the ground that the impugned rate contract was awarded in flagrant violation of the tender notice and was also contrary to the Purchase Preference Policy as the other branded contraceptive pills apart from Mala D and Mala N were not covered under the policy in favour of Pharma CPSEs and their subsidiaries and as such the Union of India could not have placed an order for all other branded OCPs on the appellant, IDPL under the said Purchase Preference Policy - the High Court quashed the said rate contract as it awards 175 lakh cycles of the other brands of OCPs apart from Mala D to the extent of 25 lakh cycles - appeal - this Court held that once a specific brand name was included, it was obvious that it would be only the Mala D and Mala N which would be covered under the entry - impugned orders of the High Court confirmed - appeal dismissed - no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 279(Case No:Civil Appeal No. 4035 of 2010)(NEW) Amal Kumar Ghosh and others Appellants versus Basanta Kumar Almal Respondent Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy):4/28/2010. Name of the Judge:Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha. Subject Index: Discharge of functions - suit for specific performance - during the pendency of the appeal, the parties arrived at a settlement and the appellants agreed to sell 90 Kottahs of land to the first respondent or his nominees at a price of Rs.10,000/- per Kottah - the second respondent was appointed as Receiver - the appellants made an application to the High Court seeking a direction to the Receiver to render accounts and make payments of the amounts due to them - the High Court held that the reference to Park Services Pvt. Ltd. in the appellants' letters was in discharge of the obligation of the appellants to the first respondent in terms of the consent decree on account of municipal taxes and other outgoings and therefore the application was dismissed - appeal - whether the receiver discharged his obligations on the 'Terms of Settlement' - the appellants instructed the Receiver to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to Park Services Pvt. Ltd. towards statutory liabilities and other outgoings in regard to the property. But the Receiver did not comply with the said instructions nor did Park Services Pvt. Ltd make a demand for payment of the said amount by the Receiver - no explanation from the Receiver as to why he directly paid Rs.1,08,341.64p. to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation as that was not part of the instructions by the appellants - the demand for payment was ignored and the Receiver chose to pay the amount to the purchasers without any satisfactory explanation - impugned orders of the High Court set aside and matter remitted back for fresh decision - directions issued.

2010 SCCL.COM 269(Case No:Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 6426 of 2010 In Criminal Appeal No. 1305 of 2009)(NEW) Mohan Mali and another Appellants versus State of M.P. Respondent Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy):4/28/2010. Name of the Judge:For the Appellants : S.K. Dubey, Sr. Advocate, Rajesh, Dharm Singh and Yogesh Tiwari, Advocates, with him For the Respondent : Pramod Swarup, Sr. Advocate, Vikas Bansal, C.D. Singh, Sunny Chaudhary an. Subject Index: Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and Rules, 2007 - Sections 7A, 15 and 64 read with Rule 98 - claim of juvenility and disposal of cases of juveniles in conflict with law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 326, 324 read with Section 34 - conviction and sentence under - upon due verification, it was confirmed that the Appellant No.2 was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence - the juvenile, appellant No. 2 had already been tried along with adults and convicted under Sections 302/34, 326/34 and 324/34 IPC and was sentenced to life imprisonment, out of which he has already undergone about 9 years of the sentence - by applying the provisions of Rule 98 read with Section 15 and 64 of the 2000 Act, this Court directed the appellant No. 2 to be released and the bail application filed on his behalf disposed of, accordingly.

2010 SCCL.COM 274(Case No:Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1127 of 2008 With Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 74 of 2009)(NEW) Vinisha Jitesh Tolani @ Manmeet Laghmani Petitioner versus Jitesh Kishore Tolani Respondent Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy):4/28/2010. Name of the Judge:Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph. Subject Index: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 25 - transfer of matrimonial petition - Goa, Daman & Diu (Administration) Act, 1962 - Sections 5 and 6 - power to extend enactments - the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent conducted in Goa according to Hindu rites and customs and the marriage was registered also at Goa - the respondent filed a petition for annulment of the marriage - the petitioner came back to India in order to contest the petition filed by the respondent for annulment of the marriage and prayed for transfer of petition to a Court of competent jurisdiction in Delhi. However, the respondent contended that having regard to the provisions of the Civil Code as prevalent in Goa, the pending proceedings could only be heard and disposed of within the State of Goa - this Court held that the marriage between the parties had been conducted in Goa and the same also had been conducted under Hindu rites and traditions, thus, the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, would be applicable and can be heard by any Court having jurisdiction within the territories to which it applies. Further held that as per the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the 1962 Act, even if the customary law in Goa would prevail over the personal law of the parties, the same could not be a bar to the transfer of the matter outside the State of Goa to any other State - petition filed by the petitioner allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 271(Case No:Civil Appeal No. 3933 of 2010)(NEW) The Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra & Nagar Haveli Appellant versus Gulabhia M. Lad Respondent Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy):4/28/2010. Name of the Judge:Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha. Subject Index: Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 14 - disciplinary enquiry initiated under - Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - Rule 3 - for misconduct - the respondent while functioning as Land Reforms Officer--I, granted occupancy rights of the government land to five persons with ulterior motive and without following the procedure prescribed - the Inquiring Authority recorded that charges were proved and submitted its report - Disciplinary Authority imposed major penalty of respondent's removal from service with other two co-delinquents - the respondent filed the departmental appeal against the order of punishment which were dismissed, however, the punishment of removal awarded to first delinquent was modified to that of compulsory retirement while the punishment awarded to second delinquent was modified to reduction to lower stage of pay by five stages with cumulative effect - the Tribunal held that similarly placed persons have been treated differently and awarding differential punishment to the respondent by singling him out for the extreme punishment of removal could not be sustained - appeal - this Court observed that there was variation in allegations of misconduct and all the three delinquents could not have been put on par although joint enquiry was held and there was common evidence - the Tribunal failed to notice that respondent was holding an important position having been conferred with various powers and duties under the Regulations and the co-delinquents were only his subordinates and they carried out his instructions - impugned orders of the High Court and of the Tribunal set aside - appeal allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 277(Case No:Civil Appeal No. 3879 of 2010 With Civil Appeal No. 3880 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 3881 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 3882 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 3883 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 3884 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 3885 and 3886 of 2010)(NEW) Punjab Roadways Moga through its General Manager Appellant(s) State of Punjab Appellant(s) versus Punjab Sahib Bus and Transport Co. and others Respondent(s)Majhi Express Transport Service Regd. and others Respondent(s) Joginder Singh Respondent  Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy):4/27/2010. Name of the Judge:Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan. Subject Index: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 2(38), 99 and 100 and 104 - stage carriage permits - the private applicants challenged the grant of permits to the private-operators and the State Transport Undertakings (STUs) - the High Court noticed that the permit granted to STUs was neither utilized nor operated and, hence, it was not open to the STUs to raise any objection regarding the grant of permit to the writ petitioner, thus, the Division Bench ordered that one stage carriage permit be granted to the writ petitioner therein also with half return trip daily in the notified route since the STUs were not operating the permits granted - appeals - whether the Tribunal and the High Court are justified in directing the Commissioner exercising the powers of RTAs to grant regular permits to the private operators on the ground that the STUs had either failed to utilize the permits granted or surrendered the permits or had not applied for the permits in the notified routes - No - this Court observed that once a scheme is published under Section 100 in relation to any area or route or portion thereof, whether in complete or partial exclusion of other persons, no persons other than STUs may operate on the notified area or route except as provided in the scheme itself, thus, held that the Tribunal have committed a grave error in tampering with the Scheme as well as disturbing the ratio fixed by the Scheme by granting regular permits to the private sector from the quota earmarked for STUs - impugned orders of the High Court directing Regional Transport Authority (RTA) to grant regular permits to the private operators set aside - appeals allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 270(Case No:Civil Appeal No. 3874 of 2010)(NEW) Indowind Energy Ltd. Appellant versus Wescare (I) Ltd. and another Respondents Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy):4/27/2010. Name of the Judge:Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan. Subject Index: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 7 - arbitration agreement - Section 11 - application under - for appointment of sole arbitrator - an agreement of sale was entered into between respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - the Board of Directors of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 approved the said agreement however no such approval taken by the Board of Director of appellant - certain disputes arose between respondent No. 1 on the one hand and respondent No. 2 and appellant on the other, in respect of the said agreement - the High Court allowed the application of respondent No. 1 for appointment of sole arbitrator and held that appellant was prima facie a party to the arbitration agreement and was bound by it, even though it was not a signatory to the agreement - appeal - whether an arbitration clause found in a document (agreement) between two parties, could be considered as a binding arbitration agreement on a person who is not a signatory to the agreement? - No - whether a company could be said to be a party to a contract containing an arbitration agreement, even though it did not sign the agreement containing an arbitration clause, with reference to its subsequent conduct? - No - respondent No. 1 had not entered into any agreement with appellant, referring to the agreement with respondent No. 2 containing the arbitration agreement, with the intention of making such arbitration agreement, a part of the their agreement - this Court held that the 2 Companies having common shareholders or common Board of Directors, will not make the two companies a single entity. Nor will lead to an inference that one company will be bound by the acts of the other - impugned orders of the High Court set aside and the application under Section 11 dismissed - appeal allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 273(Case No:Civil Appeal No. 2315 of 2003)(NEW) Sri Srinivasa Bhat (D) by L.Rs. and others Appellants versus Sri A. Sarvothama Kini (D) by L.Rs. and others Respondents Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy):4/27/2010. Name of the Judge:Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha. Subject Index: Occupancy rights - the respondent nos. 1 to 5/writ petitioners filed petition challenging the order of Land Tribunal to the extent of property admeasuring 7 cents - the trial court appointed Assistant Director of Land Records as Commissioner, who submitted that the claim of the writ petitioners was not correct and they were not in possession and that they have no right or interest in the subject land - the Single Judge held that the writ petitioners were not able to show that they have any interest in the land in respect of which occupancy rights have been conferred in favour of the present appellants and, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. However, the Division Bench vide its order set aside the order of the Single Judge and also the order of the Land Tribunal and directed the Land Tribunal to pass fresh order concerning the subject land - appeal - the order of the Land Tribunal was challenged in the writ petition almost after five years - the writ petitioners concealed vital facts from the Court viz., rejection of their application for temporary injunction by the trial court and the appointment of Court Commissioner by the trial court and his report - although, the writ petitioner nos. 1 to 4 claimed their right to the extent of 7 cents only but the Division Bench set aside the entire order of the Land Tribunal that pertained to 27 cents of land - this Court observed that the Division Bench though recorded the finding that writ petition was hopelessly belated and there were other factors which disentitle the writ petitioners from any relief, yet it interfered with the order of the Single Judge - impugned orders of the Division Bench set aside - appeal allowed - no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 276(Case No:Civil Appeal No. 2724 of 2006 With Civil Appeal Nos. 4802-4803 of 2008 AND Civil Appeal Nos. 4806-4818 of 2008)(NEW) Killick Nixon Ltd. Appellant versus The Custodian and others Respondents Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy):4/27/2010. Name of the Judge:Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar. Subject Index: Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 - Section 10 - appeals under - against the orders of interlocutory nature passed by the Special Court - M/s Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. - notified party in its ordinary course of business had advanced interest free loans to the appellant and its group of companies. The Special Court found that the notified party, its Directors and their close associates indulged in fraudulent securities transactions resulting in siphoning of huge funds of various banks - the Custodian, on behalf of the notified party proceeded against the appellant and its group Companies for recovery of loans totaling Rs.20,81,67,031/- - the Special Court concluded that the appellant and others are group companies and they are all controlled by notified party and the amounts that are being recovered in execution of the decrees are really public funds which were siphoned off by the Directors of M/s Dhanraj Mills Private Limited, and parked in the companies controlled by them, thus, held that the appropriation of sale proceeds made by the Custodian is proper - appeal - this Court held that the Special Court rightly treated the decrees as a consolidated one as the said group of companies are nothing but front companies of M/s. Dhanraj Mills Private Limited. Further held that the appeals against interlocutory orders excluded under the provision of Section 10 - appeals dismissed - no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 275(Case No:Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 2009)(NEW) Santhosh Moolya and another Appellant(s) versus State of Karnataka Respondent(s) Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy):4/26/2010. Name of the Judge:Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376 and 506 read with Section 34 - commission of rape, criminal intimidation with common intention - conviction and sentence under - the victims were sisters and both of them explained how they suffered at the hands of the accused - PW-1 (prosecutrix) explained that they know both the accused since they were also doing quarry work under their employer - delay of 42 days in lodging the complaint to the police were properly explained by the victims and the other witnesses - the plea that no marks of injuries were found either on the person of the accused or the person of the prosecutrix does not lead to any inference that the accused has not committed forcible sexual intercourse on the prosecutrix - this Court found the oral testimony of the victims PWs 1 and 2 to be cogent, reliable, convincing and trustworthy thus, held no interference in the conviction orders of the trial Court as affirmed by the High Court - appeal dismissed.