Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-12-2006
Reported in : 2006(13)SCALE467; (2007)1Crimes321; 2007(1)KCCRSN23(SC); (2007)12SCC230
..... mamata dutta are concerned, the only evidence against them was the judicial confession of mrinal dutta. the same was admissible against them only under section 30 of the indian evidence act.section 30:69. it is not in dispute that apart from general evidence in regard to commission of forgery etc., only evidence of involvement ..... of the high court to award death penalty, observed:the very idea of attacking and overpowering a sovereign democratic institution by using powerful arms and explosives and imperiling the safety of a multitude of peoples' representatives, constitutional functionaries and officials of government of india and engaging into a combat with security forces ..... admissibility in evidence. if the confession appears to the court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise such as is mentioned in section 24, evidence act, it must be excluded and rejected brevi manu. in such a case, the question of proceeding further to apply the second test does not arise .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-12-2006
Reported in : AIR2006SC2157; 2006CriLJ2791; 130(2006)DLT602(SC); JT2006(5)SC468; 2006(5)SCALE682; (2006)5SCC584
..... placed by mr. mishra on bhoop ram v. state of u.p. : 1990crilj2671 , wherein the appellant was treated to be a child within the meaning of section 2(4) of the act; upon taking into consideration three factors: (i) that the appellant had produced a school certificate and correctness whereof was not questioned; (ii) the learned trial judge ..... was upon the election petitioner but for proving the facts which were within the special knowledge of the respondent, the burden was upon him in terms of section 106 of the evidence act. it is also trite that when both parties have adduced evidence, the question of the onus of proof becomes academic [see union of india v. sugauli ..... basis of the materials on records. it will be a matter of appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties. different standards having regard to the provision of section 35 of the evidence act cannot be applied in a civil case or a criminal case. mr. mishra, however, would urge that while in a civil dispute a strict proof may .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-24-2006
Reported in : AIR2006SC1599; (2006)3GLR2304; JT2006(4)SC34; 2006(3)SCALE414; (2006)4SCC584
..... rival political parties at subhash sarobar and the case was registered as case no. 111 of 2001 for offences punishable under sections 148, 149 and 336 ipc read with sections 3 & 5 of explosive substances act, 1908 against the deceased and others and investigation started. the appellant, along with other police officers, rushed to the spot ..... what is relevant for our purpose is to notice that investigations into the two crimes registered, namely, case no. 111 under sections 148, 149, 336 ipc read with sections 3 and 5 of explosive substances act and case no. 112, registered on the complaint made by the complainant herein on 11.5.2001, have not been completed ..... being phoolbagan police station case no. 111 dated 10.5.2001 against 20/30 persons including robindranath das under section 148/149/336 of the india penal code and section 3 and 5 of explosive substance act.that the petitioner submits that initially the opposite party no. 1 lodged an information against some unknown police personnel .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-10-2006
Reported in : JT2006(3)SC544; (2006)143PLR159; 2006(3)SCALE178; (2006)3SCC620; [2006]145STC350(SC)
..... 2 ch. 1]. a retrospective effect to an amendment by way of a delegated legislation could be given, thus, only after coming into force of sub-section (2a) of section 64 of the act and not prior thereto.35. by reason of note 2, certain rights were conferred. although there lies a distinction between vested rights and accrued rights as by ..... dates. furthermore, on 6.09.1996, civil construction work started at site. plans submitted by the appellant for getting permission for storage of hexane were sanctioned by the explosives department on 19.9.1996 and licence was finally given on 11.3.1997. on 26.09.1996, process of installation of the plant started at the site. on ..... a promise. it was held:in this case the scheme being notified under the power in the state government to grant exemptions both under section 15 of the rst act and section 8(5) of the cst act in the public interest, the state government was competent to modify or revoke the grant for the same reason. thus what is granted .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-10-2006
Reported in : AIR2006SC3699; 2006(2)AWC1162(SC); 2006(1)JKJ42[SC]; JT2006(2)SC294; 2006(2)SCALE284; (2006)3SCC129
..... behalf of' each of the manufacturers and enclosed a draft of the undertaking to be signed. finally, the letter stated:.your (m/s indian explosives ltd.) willingness to participate in the retention price scheme communicated, and undertaking the enclosed form duly executed by a competent authority on behalf of ..... appellant') is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling urea (a fertilizer). in 1993, the first appellant acquired the urea plant of m/'s indian explosives ltd. (a unit of ici india ltd.). the second appellant is a shareholder in the first appellant-company (hereinafter, collectively 'the appellants').4. in 1957 ..... notified fertilizers (including urea) as an 'essential commodity', under the essential commodities act, 1955 (hereinafter 'the ec act'). the fertilizer (control) order, 1957 (hereinafter 'the fertilizer (control) order') was made in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the ec act. the fertilizer (control) order has been revised from time to time. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-18-2006
Reported in : 2006(194)ELT3(SC); JT2006(1)SC385; 2006(1)SCALE327; (2006)2SCC351
..... the duty payable thereon. as far as the explanation is concerned, the inputs are restricted to inputs notified under rule 57a. there is no dispute that both explosives and limestone are notified under section 57a for manufacture of the final product viz. cement.5. the next relevant rule is rule 57f. what we are concerned with is sub-rule (4) ..... 1. the question whether the decision in jaypee rewa cement v. cce : 2001ecr193(sc) would apply to the cenvat rules 2000 framed under the central excise tariff act 1985 (referred to as the 'act') is to be decided on a reference made in this case. a bench of two judges of this court in commissioner of central excise, jaipur v. j ..... (hereinafter referred to as the cenvat credit) of.-(i) the duty of excise specified in the first schedule to the central excise tariff act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the said first schedule) , leviable under the act;(ii) xxx xxx xxx xxx(iii) xxx xxx xxx xxx(iv) xxx xxx xxx xxx(v) xxx xxx xxx xxxpaid on any inputs .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-15-2006
Reported in : AIR2007SC663; 2007(2)AWC1148(SC); 2007(1)CTC186; [2007(2)JCR202(SC)]; 2007MPLJ25(SC); RLW2007(2)SC1636; 2006(13)SCALE645
..... the learned single judge was set aside. an application for review filed there against was also dismissed. parliament inserted section 100a in the code of civil procedure by section 38 of act no. 104 of 1976, which was substituted by section 4 of act no.22 of 2002, which came into force with effect from. 01.07.2002.4. the core question which ..... it is clarified that such right can be taken away by a subsequent enactment either expressly or by necessary intendment. the parliament while amending section 100a of the code of civil procedure, by amending act 22 of 2002 with effect from 1.7.2002, took away the letters patent power of the high court in the matter of appeal ..... thus to be seen that when the legislature wanted to exclude a letters patent appeal it specifically did so. the words used in section 100a are not by way of abundant caution. by the amendment acts of 1976 and 2002 a specific exclusion is provided as the legislature knew that in the absence of such words a letters patent appeal .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-15-2006
Reported in : AIR2007SC561; 2007(2)ALLMR(SC)942
..... of any direction by the election commission to the contrary, forthwith declare the result of the election in the manner provided by the act or the rules made under the act. section 67 requires the returning officer to report the result to the appropriate authority and the election commission and the appropriate authority would cause to ..... by the high court. he submitted that the high court was wholly justified in dismissing the petitions and in interpreting the relevant provisions of the act and in particular, section 81 thereof. according to him, the relevant date for filing an election petition would be the date of declaration of returned candidate and once such ..... raised by the returned candidates as to maintainability of petitions on the ground of limitation. it was contended that in accordance with the provisions of section 81 of the act, an election petition could be presented calling in question any election of a successful candidate within a period of forty-five days from the date .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-15-2006
Reported in : AIR2007SC1501; 2007(3)ALD39(SC); 2007(2)AWC1145(SC); 2007(1)KLT243(SC); (2007)147PLR247; 2006(14)SCALE7; 2007AIRSCW2027; 2007(3)CivilLJ685; 2007(3)AIRKarR350(SC)
..... , keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, could not have been determined in such a proceeding. section 29 of the indian partnership act, 1932 states as to what would be the interest of transferee of a partner. sub-section (2) thereof determines the right of a transferee if the firm is dissolved or if the transferring partner ceases to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-15-2006
Reported in : 2007(2)ALD66(SC); 2007(1)AWC664(SC); 2007(3)CTC219; 136(2007)DLT1(SC); I(2007)DMC1SC; (2007)146PLR425; RLW2007(2)SC1546; 2006(13)SCALE652; (2007)3SCC169; 2007(1)LC0007(SC); 2007AIRSCW1088; AIR2007SC1118; (2007)2SCC(Cri)56; 2007(2)CivilLJ215(SC); 2007LawHerald(SC)92
..... of appellant no. 2, mother of amit batra. hence it cannot be called a 'shared household'.23. no doubt, the definition of 'shared household' in section 2(s) of the act is not very happily worded, and appears to be the result of clumsy drafting, but we have to give it an interpretation which is sensible and which does ..... not against the husband's in-laws or other relatives.22. as regards section 17(1) of the act, in our opinion the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, and a 'shared household' would only mean the ..... is well settled that any interpretation which leads to absurdity should not be accepted.21. learned counsel for the respondent smt. taruna batra has relied upon section 19(1)(f) of the act and claimed that she should be given an alternative accommodation. in our opinion, the claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband and .....
Tag this Judgment!