Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-07-2006
Reported in : 2007CriLJ770; [2007(2)JCR258(SC)]; 2006(14)SCALE108; 2006AIRSCW6466; (2006)13SCC587
..... whether the fight was sudden or not and/or whether the deceased has taken undue advantage of the situation in the following words:9. the fourth exception to section 300 ipc covers acts done in a sudden fight. the said exception deals with a case or prosecution not covered by the first exception, after which its place would have been ..... not attracted as it is beyond any doubt or dispute that the death was not caused with an intention to that effect.fourthly, appended to section 300, would be attributed if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily, injury as is likely to ..... cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid that will attract section 300 of the indian penal code.12. in sukhbir singh v. state of haryana : [2002]1scr1152 , wherein two fatal .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-04-2006
Reported in : AIR2006SC831; 2006CriLJ799; JT2006(2)SC631; RLW2006(2)SC1146; 2006(1)SCALE100; (2006)10SCC313
..... 148, 307/149, 324/149 and 323/149 of the indian penal code. appellant nos. 1 and 2 and one nazir khan were also charged under section 25/27 of the arms act.3. the trial court by judgment dated 16.8.1995 acquitted all 27 accused primarily on three grounds. the first is that all the eye- witnesses belonged ..... of the trial court was not open to interference in an appeal against acquittal. lastly, it is contended that when only four persons are found guilty, conviction invoking section 149 ipc is not warranted.7. the circumstances in which an appellate court will interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by a trial court are reiterated in bhim singh ..... causing injury, and injured him. the mere fact that several accused were acquitted and only four are convicted, does not enable the four who are found guilty to contend that section 149 is inapplicable. we may also in this context refer to the following observations in masalti v. state of up : [1964]8scr133 , reiterated in triloki nath v. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-04-2006
Reported in : IV(2006)BC561; 2006(8)SCALE45; (2006)11SCC156
1. We have heard counsel for the parties.2. Special leave granted.3. The order impugned in this appeal by special leave is the order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 2484/2004 whereby the writ appeal preferred by the Government has been dismissed upholding the direction of the learned Single Judge that the appellants shall despatch tender notices to the respondent herein in the pre-stamped covers offered by him, by registered post with acknowledgment due. Counsel for the appellants submitted that under the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000 procedure has been prescribed laying down the manner in which the notice of tenders has to be given to the concerned parties. In particular, he relies upon Rules 8, 9, 11 and 12 of the said Rules and submits that depending on valuation of the tender different modes of publication have been provided under the Rules which include, in the case of tenders below Rs. 10 lakhs, publication ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-31-2006
Reported in : [2007(112)FLR687]; [2007(3)JCR86(SC)]; (2007)ILLJ992SC; RLW2007(1)SC770; 2006(11)SCALE199; (2007)1SCC324
..... was prosecuted for alleged commission of an offence under section 5(1)(d) of the prevention of corruption act read with section 161 of the indian penal code. he was placed under suspension. he was convicted under section 5(1)(d) of the prevention of corruption act read with section 161 of the indian penal code by reason of ..... board, himmatnagar (gujarat) and anr. : (1997)iillj683sc was wrongly applied by the high court as the appellant therein was convicted for an offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the indian penal code. in ranchhodji chaturji thakore (supra) this court opined:the reinstatement of the petitioner into the service has already been ordered ..... of superannuation. the learned counsel may be right that the decisions of this court referred to hereinbefore involved the respective appellants therein on charge of murder under section 302 of the indian penal code, but, as noticed, it has also been laid down that each case has to be considered on its own facts. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-28-2006
Reported in : AIR2006SC2064; [2006(110)FLR1]; JT2006(5)SC235; (2006)IILLJ877SC; 2006(5)SCALE54; (2006)8SCC776
..... by ordinary law of `master and servant' is thus, not attracted in this case. under the common law, as also the provisions contained in section 14(1)(b) of the specific relief act, a master was entitled to terminate the services of an erring employee at his sweet will. the dismissed employee could have sued his master only for ..... this has tarnished the image of the bank and resulted in your arrest by the local police on 16th october, 1986 and thereafter on 23rd october, 1986 under sections 353, 448 and 506 of indian penal code. the nature and extent of the misbehavior indicates that the established authorities of the bank and certain other functionaries in the ..... manager, having been abused and threatened to be hit by shoes by the appellant, lodged two first information reports (fir) against the appellant pursuant whereto two cases under section 353 of the indian penal code were initiated in respect of the incidents which took place on 16.10.1986 and 23.10.1986. he was placed under suspension .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-13-2006
Reported in : [2006(110)FLR767]; [2006(4)JCR55(SC)]; (2006)IIILLJ152SC; 2006(7)SCALE114; (2006)5SCC764
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. D.P Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. The above appeal is directed against the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 5947 of 2003, The Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed without assigning any reasons whatsoever.3. The respondent herein was appointed by the appellant as sweeper on daily wages on 01.05.1992. According to the appellant, the respondent had left the service at his own which has been disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondent. The respondent sent a demand notice after a delay of four and a half years through the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Panipat to the appellant asking for reinstatement with continuous service and back wages. The appellant filed reply to the demand notice before the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Panipat putting it clearly that the respondent had not completed 240 days service in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-24-2006
Reported in : AIR2006SC1923; 2006(4)BomCR745; [2008]142CompCas421(SC); [2006(109)FLR1081]; (2006)IILLJ759SC; 2006(4)MhLj417; 2006(5)SCALE17; (2006)5SCC96; [2006]70SCL351(SC)
..... view has been expressed in several cases in other jurisdictions. thus in hartman v. hornsby 142 mo 368, 44 sw 242 it was said 'ratification'' in the approval by act, word, or conduct, of that which was attempted (of accomplishment), but which was improperly or unauthorizedly performed in the first instance'.8. in the present case, the ..... that action which, though unauthorized, was done on behalf of the company. ratification would always relate back to the date of the act ratified and so it must be held that the services of the appellant were validly terminated on december 17, 1953.the view expressed has been recently approved in ..... the point is that even assuming that the chairman was not legally authorized to terminate the services of the appellant, he was acting on behalf of the company in doing so, because, he purported to act in pursuance of the invalid resolution. therefore, it was open to a regularly constituted meeting of the board of directors to ratify .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-07-2006
Reported in : 2006(2)CTLJ317(SC); JT2006(10)SC424; 2006(11)SCALE208; (2006)10SCC1
..... what the legal limits of that power are. that is a question of law and must therefore be decided by the courts.(underlined for emphasis)section 9 of the judicial review procedure act, 1996 (canada) states that the court may reject an application for judicial review of a statutory power of decision, if there is mere ..... the offers. hence there is no predetermined number of offers that will be considered in the final phase. 5.6 technical pre-qualification criteria and factors this section sets out the pre-qualification criteria and pre- qualification factors that will be used to assess each of the two global pre-qualification factors.pre-qualification pre- ..... legal adviser to the transaction,amss being amarchand & mangaldas & suresha. shroff & co. 5. evaluation of stage 2 offers 5.1 overview of evaluation process this section sets out the approach that will be applied by the aai and its advisers when evaluating offers. general guidance in relation to the relative importance of each of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-16-2006
Reported in : AIR2007SC425; JT2007(1)SC45; 2007(1)KLT76(SC); 2006(12)SCALE338; [2009]91SCL183(SC)
..... s meeting of july 3, 1963 including the revision of the draft minutes were all in accordance with the provisions of the act and the university statutes and therefore the chancellor had no jurisdiction under section 9(4) of the act to annul the decision of the syndicate or the proceedings of the meeting of july 3, 1963. above being the position, ..... validly taken particularly as none present then had raised any protest against the alteration. the decision relied on by mr. jha in in re botherham alum and chemical company 1884 (25) c.d.103 is altogether on a different question and cannot be of any assistance.since the vice-chancellor was right in his understanding that what had been ..... decided at the meeting of may 7, 1963 was not to accept the commission's recommendation and since such refusal to accept meant under section 26(4) that the matter should be sent back to the commission for recommendation, his action in asking the commission to reconsider clearly fell under .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-08-2006
Reported in : (SCSuppl)2006(4)CHN173; [2006(111)FLR221]; JT2006(7)SC379; 2006(7)SCALE645; (2006)6SCC666
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court holding that the appellant's appointment as the Head of the Department was not legal and further that the appellant was required to satisfy the authority that he possessed the requisite qualification to be entitled to continue in the post of Professor on a regular basis. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Respondent No. 1-Sudip Charan Chakraborty filed an Original Application before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'). Essentially, two challenges were made before the Tribunal by him. He prayed for appointment to the post of Professor and to set aside the appointment of Dr. Dilip Karmakar (who was respondent No. 9 before the Tribunal). By its judgment and order dated 18.12.2001 the Tribunal partly allowed the application setting aside the appointment of aforesaid Dr Dilip Karmakar, but fo...
Tag this Judgment!