Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009AIRSCW4319; JT2009(9)SC142; 2009(8)SCALE685; (2009)12SCC110
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The appellant runs a barge repair workshop on a private land at Oudossim, Cortalim on the banks of river Zuari within the jurisdiction of Panaji Port. According to the appellant, there are two types of barge workshops: one is dry dock workshop, and the second is where the barges anchored in the river along side the workshop are repaired. Appellant's workshop falls under the second category as it undertakes repair of barges only when the barge is floating above the waterline. About 1300 sq. mtrs. of the river area adjoining the workshop is used by the anchored barge under repair. The Zuari being a tidal river, the water level therein recedes during low tide and rises back during high tide. Consequently, the barge under repair moored alongside the river bank, would settle on the riverbed during low tide and rise with the water during high tide.2. Appellant opened its workshop in the year 1983, after securing a NOC dated 25.7.1983 from the Captain of Ports, Governmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. Heard Sri B.K. Saxena, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri R.N. Trivedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Akhilesh Kalra, on behalf of the respondent.2. Before coming to the merits and demerits of the appeal, it would be useful to mention certain relevant background of the case. The parties entered into a contract in March, 1981. On account of dispute, the matter was referred to Arbitrators appointed by the parties. As there was disagreement between the Arbitrators on certain points, the matter was referred to the Umpire, who delivered the Award on 20.3.1998. Thereafter the matter went to the Civil Court. The orders passed by the Civil Court were assailed before this Court in the instant appeal.3. On 18.12.2008, a Division Bench of this Court while hearing the matter came to the conclusion that as the factual dispute is involved it can be adjudicated by the mediator. On the agreement of the parties, the matter was relegated to mediator for amicable settlement. Later on Justice...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. The revision petitioner in all these three cases is one and the same. A complaint was filed against the petitioner in these three cases for not filing the income tax returns before the statutory due date as per Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and thereby liable under Section 276CC of the Act, 1961.2. In E.O.C.C.No.95 of 2005, a complaint was filed for not filing the returns before the statutory due date i.e., on 31.08.1996 but filed only on 24.03.1999 with a delay of 2 years and 7 months; in E.O.C.C.No.96 of 2005, a complaint was filed for not filing the returns before the statutory due date i.e., on 31.10.1997 but filed only on 26.03.2001 with a delay of 41 months and in E.O.C.C.No.94 of 2005, a complaint was filed for not filing the returns before the statutory due date i.e., on 30.11.1998 but filed only on 26.03.2001 with a delay of 28 months.3. On the side of the prosecution, three witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and thereafter th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. The instant Criminal Revision has been preferred under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against the order impugned dated 14.01.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in Criminal Appeal No.164 of 2010 by which the prayer for bail made by the petitioner-juvenile was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, Hazaribag on 09.12.2010 was affirmed in Rajrappa P.S. Case No. 70 of 2010, corresponding to G.R.No. 2980 of 2010 and the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner was arrested but he was declared juvenile after determination of his age by the Juvenile Justice Board on 18.12.2010. The F.I.R. was lodged against as many as 11 named accused persons including the petitioner-juvenile for the alleged offence under Sections 376/354/306/509/511 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 66A/66B/67A/67B and 72 of the the Information and Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.2. Learned Counsel Mr. Nilesh Kumar submitted that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. All these Writ Petitions are listed before this Bench by a Special Order of the Hon’ble Chief Justice for decision. The subject matter of all these petitions is identical though one of the writ petition is by way of public interest litigation. Therefore, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners in W.P.No. 66920/2010 herein are the member shareholders of the Doodhganga Krishna Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Chikkodi. It is a Co-operative sugar factory registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. It was established to cater to the needs of the sugarcane farmers in and around Chikkodi, Raibagh and Athani Taluk in Belgaum District. Later it was converted into a Multi-State Co-operative Society under the Karnataka Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, by extending its area of operation to more than one State (Karnataka and Maharashtra) Earlier, they were having crushing capacity of 2500 TCD...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
GANGULY, J. 1. This appeal at the instance of the State has been preferred from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, dated July 27, 2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 250/1996 whereby High Court gave the appellant the benefit of doubt and acquitted him of the charges framed against him. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent Dalbir Singh, a constable in 36th Battalion Central Reserve Police Force, at the relevant time was posted at Fatehabad, District Amritsar, Punjab. On April 11th, 1993, Harish Chander, the Battalion Havaldar Major (hereinafter `B.H.M.') in `Company D' of the Battalion, reported to Hari Singh, the Deputy Commandant Quarter Master (hereinafter `Deputy Commandant'), that the accused had refused to carry out the fatigue duty assigned to him. On such report being made, the Deputy Commandant directed the B.H.M. and Sub Inspector Kewal Singh to produce the accused before him. As per these directions, the accu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Tax Case Appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai C Bench, dated 16.8.2004 passed in I.T.A.No. 705/1996. (Judgment of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J)1. The assessee is on appeal as against the order of Tribunal for the assessment year 1983-84. The above appeal was admitted on the following questions of law.1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding amended collaboration agreement was an extension of the old agreement which was entered into before 1.4.76 and hence the tax was payable at the rate of 50%?2. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in not giving specific direction to the Assessing Officer, to grant consequential benefits if the agreement dated 21.8.81 is treated as an agreement entered into before 1.4.76?2. The assessee herein is a non resident assessee represented through its agency BHEL. The said non resident company had an agreement ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1586 of 2011 (3) dt.24-01-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1586 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Manish Kumar @ Ramesh Singh @ Mukhiya @ Ramesh Yadav S/O Sri Birendra Singh Resident Of - Govind Dih, Police Station- Piro In The District Of Bhojpur .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH24. 01-2012 Heard Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State. This application is for grant of bail to the petitioner under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Act, 2000. Earlie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(11)SCALE140
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. In these appeals, this Court issued notice limited to the question of the sentence awarded to the appellants. They were awarded the death penalty, which was confirmed by the High Court. In our opinion, the appellants in these appeals against the order of the High Court should be awarded a life sentence, subject to the faithful implementation of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Code, 1973.The facts:2. In view of the limited notice issued in these appeals, it is not necessary to detail the facts. However, it may be mentioned that as many as six persons (including the appellants) were accused of various offences under the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC) and the Arms Act, 1959. They were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak by his judgment and order dated 13th November, 2009 in Sessions Case No. 47 of 2004/2009 of the offence of murder (Section 302 of the IPC), attempt to murder (Section 307 of the IPC), rioting, armed with a deadly weapon (Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.1. Leave granted.2. On 7/12/2009, one Prashant Kapil, In-charge, Electronics Cell, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur lodged a First Information Report alleging that one Dhoom Singh in connivance with the appellant was collecting money from people on the pretext that he would get them recruited in the police department. After his arrest, one mobile phone was seized from Dhoom Singh. As the police wanted to verify whether the recorded conversation, which is in their possession, is between accused Dhoom Singh and the appellant, they needed voice sample of the appellant. The police, therefore, filed an application before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janpad Saharanpur, praying that the appellant be summoned to the court for recording the sample of his voice. On 8/1/2010, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur issued summons to the appellant to appear before the investigating officer and give his voice sample. The appellant approached the Alla...
Tag this Judgment!