Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2169; 2007(4)AWC3321(SC); JT2007(8)SC519; 2007(8)SCALE378; (2007)7SCC52
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench. The High Court dismissed the First Appeal filed by the appellants upholding the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. By the said judgment the trial court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 2,03,364/- with 12% interest per annum with effect from 18.10.1993 to 31.12.1995 and thereafter Rs. 252/- per day till the vehicle was returned.2. Background facts are very interesting and essentially as follows:3. A vehicle bearing registration No. TRL 2443 carrying illegal timber was seized by the Champaknagar Range Staff. An offence report No. 3/CB-93 dated 11.06.1993 was drawn by the Forest Beat Office, Champabari Beat Office of Champaknagar Forest Range against the owner of said vehicle for illegally carrying, illicitly collected 57 Nos. of unmarked gamer sawn timber. The driver of the said vehicle could not produce the registration papers of the vehicle a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(2)KLJ970
Antony Dominic, J.1. Petitioners challenge Ext. P7 orders passed by the 1st respondent, the Kerala State Election Commission, disqualifying them under section 36 read with section 35(p) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The impugned orders were rendered on the basis that the petitioners, being conveners, had failed to convene the meetings of the Grama Sabha, as required of them under Section 3(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.2. The facts of the case are that, the petitioners are members elected from Ward Nos 5 and 6 of Akalakunnam Grana Panchayat and were sworn in on 3-10-2005. The President was elected on 6-10-2005 and the first meeting of the Panchayat was held on 14-10-2005.3. In so far as the issue raised in these writ petitions is concerned, it needs to be noticed that the first meeting of the Grama Sabha in so far as Ward No. 5 was held on 28-1-2006 and the second meeting was held on 27-8-2006. In so far as Ward No. 6 is concerned, the first meeting was held on 13-1-2006 and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC3006; 2008(56)BLJR2598; 2008CriLJ3881; II(2008)DMC363SC; [2008(4)JCR125(SC)]; JT2008(8)SC227; 2008(3)KLT576; 2008(10)SCALE602; (2008)9SCC632; 2008AIRSCW5063; 2008(4)LH(SC)2860
C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal is filed by appellant No.1-wife and appellant No.2-daughter of respondent herein-Krishan Bhagwan Pathak. The appellants have approached this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna on May 3, 2007 in Criminal Revision No. 67 of 2007. By the said order, the High Court partly allowed the revision filed by the respondent-husband and modified the order passed by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur on October 30, 2006 in Miscellaneous Case No. 280 of 1997, renumbered as No.1 of 2005. 3. Shortly stated the facts of the case are that the marriage between appellant No.1 and the respondent was solemnized according to Hindu rites, customs and ceremonies before more than three decades. From the said wedlock, nine children were born. Appellant No.2-Kumari Babli is the youngest among all and she is the only child staying with her mother-appellant No.1. At the time of filin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC125; 2008(13)SCALE356; 2008AIRSCW7026
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeal is filed by the appellant herein-a Medical Practitioner, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate- IV, Mathura on January 09, 2007 in Case No. 28 of 2006 and confirmed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on February 09, 2007 in Criminal Revision No. 366 of 2007. By the said orders, the courts below issued summons to the appellant for commission of offences punishable under Sections 304, 504 and 506, Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short).3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant herein is a Medical Practitioner. It is the case of respondent No. 2 - complainant, resident of village Amanullahpur, Police Station Surir, District Mathura that he is residing at the aforesaid place. That the father of the complainant had pain in his body. On July 04, 2001 at about 6.00 p.m., therefore, the complainant brought his father Buddha Ram to the clinic of the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2008Bom4; 2007(3)ALLMR526; 2007(4)BomCR259
Dalvi R.S., J.1. The Claimant/decree-holder has applied by way of the above Judge's Order, for appointment of Court Receiver under the provisions of Section 51 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with power to sell the said flat by public auction or private treaty in execution of the Award dated 30.4.2006 obtained by them. No cause why this mode of execution is opted by the decree-holder is shown. The Award is for Rs. 7,74,072.79 along with interest @ 16% per annum thereon. The flat sought to be sold is secured by an equitable mortgage. 2. It is argued on behalf of the decree-holder that since 5 modes of execution are specified in Section 51 of C.P.C., the decree-holder is entitled to a choice and an option and that choice is absolute and cannot be refused by Court. That contention is incorrect.3. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Hemendra Nath Roy Chowdhury v. Prakash Chandra Ghosh : AIR1932Cal189 considered in detail the cases that arise in execution b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(5)MhLj663
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Heard Mr. Murtaza Najmi advocate appointed for the applicant, Mr. Kumbhakoni the learned Associate Advocate General and Mr. Adsule, the learned APP for the State.2. Whether the proviso added to Section 428 Cr.P.C. by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, which came into force with effect from 23-6-2005 is retrospective in operation is the important question of law raised in this application submitted by the applicant through jail. 3. To state in brief, the facts of the case are that the applicant was arrested on 7-1-1997 and was in custody as undertrial prisoner in murder case. Sessions Case No.30 of 1997 was registered before the Sessions Court and after trial by the judgment and order dated 27-4-1998, he was convicted for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Thus, he was in custody as undertrial prisoner from 7-1-97 till 27-4-1998 when he was convicted. By this application, he has requeste...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2008CriLJ1580; 2007(98)DRJ486
R.S. SODHI, J.1. Criminal Appeal Nos.16 of 2003 and 191 of 2003 seek to challenge judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, in Sessions Case No.29 of 1999, arising out of F.I.R. No.245 of 1999, Police Station Parliament Street, whereby learned judge vide his judgment dated 9.8.2002 has held the appellants, namely, Sanjay Thakur and Sabu Lal, guilty for the offence punishable under Section 458 IPC read with Section 302 IPC. Further vide his order dated 20.8.2002, he has sentenced the appellants to undergo imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 458 IPC together with fine of Rs.5,000/- to each of the appellants and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for 1 1/2 years. He also sentenced the appellants to imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, further Simple Imprisonment for one year each. 2. Brief facts of the case as have been no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(2)KLJ934; 2008(3)KLT941
Antony Dominic, J.1. These writ petitions are filed praying for quashing the notification dated 06-05-2008 and for directing to consider and pass orders on the application for renewal of permit submitted by the petitioners, untrammeled by the aforesaid notification. In this judgment, facts as pleaded in W.P.(C) No. 15194 & 17813 of 2008 alone are referred and the exhibits referred to are in the order in which they are marked in W.P.(C) No. 15194/ 2008.2. Petitioner in W.P.(C) 15194/2008 is the registered owner of stage carriage KL-5Q4050, operating on the long distance inter-district route Kottayam-Banthadukka. Ext. P1 permit was originally granted to one Shaji Kuruvilla and was valid for the period from 12-9-1996 to 11 -9-2001 and was subsequently renewed for a further period of 5 years upto 11-9-2006. In the meanwhile, with effect from 16-4-1998 the permit was transferred to the petitioner. Petitioner sought renewal of the permit for a further period of 5 years by submitting his appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
R.P. Sondur Baldota, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for the parties for final disposal of the application.2. The question that arises for consideration of the Court in this case is whether revision is maintainable against an order of the trial court postponing, decision on the issue of the maintainability of the suit and on the question of bar of limitation, to the trial of the suit.3. The brief facts of the case, which are relevant for deciding the above question, are that the respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No. 70 of 2006 against the applicant, which is a public trust registered with the Charity Commissioner, for specific performance of an agreement of sale and for a mandatory injunction directing the applicant to obtain necessary permission from the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur to sell the suit property to the respondent. Immediately on entering its appearance in the suit, the applicant, on 28th February, 2007 filed an application raisi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2007(5)KarLJ501; 2007(3)AIRKarR545(DB).; ILR2007(2)Kar2090
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. These three writ appeals arise out of an order dated 28-5-1999 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in writ petition No. 39909/1993. The petitioner one by name M.P. Jayashankar working as a Deputy Development Officer in Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board [hereinafter referred to as the 'Board'] had preferred the writ petition being aggrieved by the action of the employer - Board in notifying the post of Development Officer - a promotional post to persons working in the cadre of Deputy Development Officers as a post to be filled up by promotion from among the eligible candidates belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe community as the post was being notified as a backlog vacancy and had eliminated opportunity to persons like the petitioner.2. The respondent No. 4 to the writ petition one T.R. Rangahanumaiah also working as a Deputy Development Officer in the organisation is a candidate belonging to scheduled caste community and it...
Tag this Judgment!