Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1662; 2006(3)ALT24(SC); 2006(4)BomCR810; 2006(2)CTC328; 128(2006)DLT387(SC); I(2006)DMC531SC; [2006(3)JCR114(SC)]; JT2006(3)SC587; 2006(2)KLT150(SC); (2006)2MLJ383
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Leave granted. The above appeal was filed by the appellant, wife of the respondent herein, against the judgment and final order dated 10.9.2004 passed by the High Court of Delhi in F.A.O. No. 235 of 2002 whereby the Civil Writ Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.2. The short facts are as follows:The marriage between the appellant-Vinita Saxena and the respondent-Pankaj Pandit was solemnized on 7.2.1993 as per Hindu rites and customs. No child was born out of wedlock. The marriage, according to the appellant, lasted for five months and was never consummated on account of the fact that the respondent was incapable of performing his matrimonial obligations. According to the appellant, from the first day of the marriage, the respondent's mother treated the appellant with utmost cruelty both mental and physical and that the reason for cruelty was the respondent's mental disorder. The respondent's case is a case of Paranoid Schizophrenia and the appellant disco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC221; (1971)73BOMLR57; 1971CriLJ268; [1969]2SCR779
Grover, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Bombay High Court passed in exercise of ordinary original civil jurisdiction by which the appellants were found guilty of having committed contempt of Mr. Justice Tarkunde in his judicial capacity and of the court. Appellant No. 2 D. R. Goel, who is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of Perspective Publications (P) Ltd.--appellant No. 1, was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month together with fine amounting to Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine he was to undergo further simple imprisonment for the same period. The appellants were also directed to pay the costs incurred by the State. On behalf of the first appellant it has been stated at the bar that the appeal is not being pressed.2. The background in which the impugned article was published on April 24, 1965, in a weekly periodical called 'Mainstream' which is a publication brought out by the first appellant may be set out. In the year 1960 a suit was filed by one...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2473; (2006)2CALLT1(SC); 100(2005)CLT407(SC); 2005CriLJ2585; JT2005(4)SC548; (2005)140PLR829; RLW2005(2)SC244; (2005)6SCC109
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1.In the murder trial of Shankar Guha Niyogi, a trade union leader, the accused were found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for life except one who was awarded death sentence. On appeal, the High Court reversed the trial court judgment and acquitted the accused. A news report was published in newspaper 'Hitavada' on 4th July, 1998 under the caption 'Sail terms High Court decision in Niyogi murder case as rubbish'. That report was based on the speech delivered by appellant Rajendra Sail in a rally organized to commemorate the death of Shankar Guha Niyogi and interview given by him soon after the speech to appellant Ravi Pandey, the correspondent of the newspaper.2. The news report termed the decision as rubbish and commented that a Judge who was on verge of retirement should not have been entrusted with the responsibility of dealing with such a crucial case. It was also alleged that the Judges who decided the matter have belittled the respect for judiciary by prono...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2120; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)157; 1998(1)ALD(Cri)762; 1997(1)BLJR263; 1998CriLJ2930; 1998(3)SCALE53; (1998)4SCC626; [1998]2SCR870
S.P. Bharucha, J. 1. On 26th July, 1993, a motion of no-confidence was moved in the Lok Sabha against the minority government of P.V. Narasimha Rao. The support of 14 members was needed to have the no-confidence motion defeated. On 28th July, 1993, the no-confidence motion was lost, 251 members having voted in support and 265 against. Suraj Mandal, Shibu Soren, Simon Marandi and Shailender Mahto, members of the Lok Sabha owing allegiance to the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (the JMM), and Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav, Ram Sharan Yadav, Roshan Lal, Anadicharan Das, Abhay Pratap Singh and Haji Gulam Mohammed, members of the Lok Sabha owing allegiance to the Janata Dal, Ajit Singh group (the J.D., A.S.), voted against the no-confidence motion. Ajit Singh, a member of the Lok Sabha owing allegiance to the J.D., A.S., abstained from voting thereon.2. It is the respondents, case that the above named members agreed to and did receive bribes, to the giving of which P.V. Narasimha Rao, M.P. and Prime Minist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2725; 2007CriLJ3753; JT2007(9)SC92; 2007(9)SCALE44; (2007)14SCC126
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The Appellant was the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Dabra, Gwalior District, during 1998-1999. He has filed this appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'), being aggrieved by the order dated 2.3.2001 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Contempt Petition (Criminal) No. 5 of 2000, punishing him with simple imprisonment for seven days and fine of Rs. 2,000/-.Factual Background2. Shri Pradeep Mittal, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dabra, sent a Report dated 1.11.1999 to the Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Circle, alleging that one Chander Bhan Singh Raghuvanshi, Station Officer, Picchhor came inside his court Hall and threatened him by stating 'you have not done good by initiating contempt proceedings against me before High Court. I am back in Picchhor Police Station and I will see you'; and 'I have set many Magistrates right and I will see you also'. The learned Magistrate complained that it was unbecoming of a polic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008(1)JCR38(SC)]; JT2007(5)SC472; 2007(5)SCALE406
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. The State of Orissa has filed this LA. for modification of the Order dated 27.11.2006. By the said order, this Court had directed that in no case a sitting Judge of any High Court shall continue as a Commission. It was however made clear that the order shall not operate in cases where the inquiry is at the fag end, i.e. only where the report is to be submitted.2. In support of the application, learned Counsel for the State submitted that a sitting Judge was appointed at the request of the State Government considering the 'serious problem' highlighted in the letter of the Chief Minister addressed to the Chief Justice of the High Court. Though initially Chief Justice of the High Court had not acceded to the request of the State Government to appoint a sitting Judge as a Commission, purportedly considering the 'seriousness of the problem' he suggested name of a sitting Judge to act as a Commission. It was, however, stated that the Commission shall hold sittings and en...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC538; (1959)61BOMLR192; [1959]1SCR279
ORDER New Delhi, the 11th December, 1956 S.R.O. 2993 - Whereas it has been made to appear to the Central Government that : (1) a large number of companies and some firms were promoted and/or controlled by Sarvashri Ramkrishna Dalmia, Jaidayal Dalmia, Shanti Prasad Jain, Shriyans Prasad Jain, Shital Prasad Jain or some one or more of them and by others being either relatives or employees of the said person or persons, closely connected with the said persons; (2) large amounts were subscribed by the investing public in the shares of some of these companies; (3) there have been gross irregularities (which may in several respects and materials amount to illegalities) in the management of such companies including manipulation of the accounts and unjustified transfers and use of funds and assets; (4) the moneys subscribed by the investing public were in a considerable measure used not in the interests of the companies concerned but contrary to their interest and for the ultimate persona...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC142; JT2009(10)SC340; (2009)IVLLJ644SC; (2009)8MLJ451(SC); 2009(10)SCALE334; (2009)10SCC32:2009AIRSCW5779
Tarun Chaterjee, J.1. The judgment and order dated 30th of September, 2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court affirming the judgment and order dated 4th of October, 2004 of a learned Judge of the same High Court and the order dated 31st of October, 2003 of the Vth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal is under challenge before us at the instance of Biecco Lawrie Ltd. and another, the appellants herein.2. By the order of Vth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, dated 31st of October, 2003, the order of dismissal passed by the appellants against Provash Chandra Mondal - respondent No. 2 [hereinafter referred to as the `respondent'] was set aside.3. The respondent was appointed as general mazdoor in the Switch Gear works of the appellants and his duty, inter alia, was to bring materials from the shop rack to the working benches and afterwards to take them to their respective racks. On 4th of August 1984, a charge sheet was issued against the respondent on charges of major misco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(1)AWC117(SC); JT2006(7)SC582; 2006(8)SCALE1; (2006)7SCC365
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. These Civil Appeals are disposed of by this common judgment as they involve identical issues and questions of law. All the above appeals are filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh and its Special Officer and Competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling, against the common final judgment and order dated 18.11.1999 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal Nos. 438, 439, 440, 441, 442 and 443 of 1999. The Writ Appeals before the High Court arose out of six Writ Petitions filed by M. Krishnaveni, T. Satish Chander, P. Rukmini, T. Sri Ram Mohan, T. Sai Kumar and K. Pramila Rani respondents herein, wherein they challenged the order dated 23.7.1979 passed by the Special Officer and Competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling, State of Andhra Pradesh, appellant No. 2 herein, under Section 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ordering the vestment of a portion of their land in the State under t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC196; 1952CriLJ966; (1952)IIMLJ135(SC); [1952]1SCR597
Patanjali Sastri, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras adjudging section 15(2)(b) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 (Act No. XIV of 1908) as amended by the Indian Criminal Law Amendment (Madras) Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act) as unconstitutional and void, and quashing Government Order No. 1517, Public (General) Department, dated 10th March, 1950, whereby the State Government declared a Society called the People's Education Society an unlawful association. 2. The respondent, who was the general secretary of the Society, which was registered under the Societies' Registration Act, 1860, applied to the High Court on 10th April 1950, under article 226 of the Constitution complaining that the impugned Act and he Order dated 10th March, 1950, purporting to be issued thereunder infringed the fundamental right conferred on him by article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution to form associations or unions and seeking appr...
Tag this Judgment!