Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(2)SC1; RLW2009(3)SC2744; 2009(2)SCALE80; (2009)12SCC184; 2009(2)LC542(SC); 2009AIRSCW1590
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. Leave granted. Heard counsel.2. These appeals by special leave are preferred against the order dated 24.2.2006 passed by the Rajasthan High Court, allowing a petition filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`the Code' for short) and quashing FIR No. 241 of 2005 registered at Jyoti Nagar Police Station, Jaipur, in so far as respondents 1 to 3 herein.3. One Chauthmal is said to have entered into an agreement of sale dated 11.8.1980 followed by an agreement dated 24.11.1988 agreeing to sell 20 bighas of land in Khasra No. 9 in Sukhalpura village to Shiva Co- operative Housing Society Ltd. (for short `Society'). The said agreement is said to have confirmed (i) that payment of the entire price of 20 bighas of land was made by the society to Chauthmal; (ii) that possession of the land agreed to be sold was delivered to the society; and (iii) that out of 20 bighas agreed to be sold, 5 bighas of land stood in the name of o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC290; (1988)90BOMLR1; JT1987(4)SC559; 1987(2)SCALE1179; 1987Supp(1)SCC562; 1988(1)LC388(SC)
1. This appeal is by the returned-candidate, who was elected as a Member of the Deolali Cantonment Board ('Board') from Ward No. Ill at the election held on 22.12.1985 and whose election has been set aside by the Extra Joint District Judge, Nasik, in election petition No. 12 of 1985 at the instance of respondent No. 3 who was another contesting candidate.2. The appellant's writ petition No. 1418 of 1987 before the High Court of judicature at Bombay assailing the said order of the District Judge having been dismissed in limine on 17.3.1987. Appellant seeks special leave to appeal against the order of the High Court.3. Special leave is granted. The appeal is taken up for final hearing, heard and disposed of by this Judgment. We have heard Shri Ram Jethmalani, Senior Advocate for the appellant and Shri Bhasme, Senior Advocate for the respondent No. 3. Shri G. Ramaswamy, learned Solicitor-General appeared for the Cantonment-Board, Respondent No. 1.4. The material facts necessary for determ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(6)LHSC3942; AIR2009SC210; 2008(56)BLJR3053; 2008(12)SCALE598; 2008(2)LC1277(SC); 2008AIRSCW7148
Altamas Kabir, J.1. These appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 4.5.2005 passed by the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 921 of 1988, which was heard along with Criminal Revision Application No. 316 of 1988, reversing the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Raigad, Alibag, in Sessions Case No. 16 of 1987, under Sections 302 and 307/34 IPC and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, convicting and sentencing the appellants to life imprisonment.2. Criminal Appeal No. 921 of 1988 was filed by the State of Maharashtra against the appellants herein and two others, against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Raigad, Alibag, acquitting all the four accused persons of the charges framed against them as indicated hereinabove.3. The Criminal Revision Application NO.316 of 1988 was filed by the original complainant against the same judgment of acquittal and both were taken up by the Bombay High Court together and disposed of by a common judgment. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(2)ALLMR(SC)461; [2007(114)FLR542]; JT2007(3)SC273; 2007(2)SCALE589; 2007(2)SLJ496(SC)
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. Manish Pitale, learned Counsel for the appellants, Mr. S.S. Shinde, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 14.7.2003 in L.P.A. No. 66 of 2003 passed by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. A charge-sheet was served on the delinquent employee. Seven charges were leveled against him. Apart from the charge of harassment and misbehavior with girl students, other charges of inefficiency, in-subordination and corruption were also specified against respondent No. 2, namely, Subhash Lingawar. A Inquiry Committee consisting of three members was constituted, which consisted of Mr. P.S. Donadkar (Nominated by the Management), Mr. P.V. Madamshettiwar (Deliquent's representative) and Mrs. V.S. Ramteke (State Awardee teacher). Respondent No. 2 submitted his reply to the aforesaid charge sheet. The inquiry was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1994)ILLJ162bSC; 1994Supp(2)SCC391
ORDERSawant, J.1. This group of matters is at the instance of various parties, viz., Union of India, Public Sector Corporations, Public Sector Banks, State Governments and two private parties. By an order dated August 5, 1991 in Managing Director, Electronic Corporation of India v. B. Karu-nakar ST 1992(3) SC 605 a three Judge Bench of this Court referred that matter to the Chief Justice for being placed before a larger Bench, for the Bench found a conflict in the two decisions of this Court, viz., Kailash Chander Asthana etc. etc. v. State of U.P. and Ors. etc. etc. : (1988)IILLJ219SC and Union of India and Ors. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan : (1991)ILLJ29SC both delivered by the Benches of three learned Judges. Civil Appeal No. 3056 of 1991 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 12103 of 1991 along with the other matters in which the same question of law is in issue, has, therefore, been referred to this Bench.2. The basic questions of law which arises in these matters is whether the report of the In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1950SC222; (1951)53BOMLR1; (1950)IIMLJ703(SC); [1950]1SCR621
Kania, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Bombay and it relates to the power of the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari against the province of Bombay to quash an order to requisition certain premises. The material facts, as stated in the judgment of the High Court, are these. One Abdul Hamid Ismail was, prior to the 29th of January, 1948, the tenant of the first floor of a building known as 'Paradise' at Warden Road, Bombay, the landlord of which was one Dr. M. D. Vakil. On the 29th January, 1948, Ismail assigned his tenancy to the petitioner and two others, the son and brother's daughter's son of the petitioner (the respondent). All the three assignees were refugees from Sind. On the 4th February, 1948, the petitioner went into possession of the flat. On the 26th February, 1948, the Government of Bombay issued an order requisitioning the flat under section 3 of the Bombay Land Requisition Ordinance (V of 1947) which came into force on the 4th December,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC802; 1984LabIC560; 1983(2)SCALE1151; (1984)3SCC161; [1984]2SCR67; 1984(16)LC29(SC)
Bhagwati, J.1. The petitioner is an organisation dedicated to the cause of release of bonded labourers in the country. The system of bonded labour has been prevalent in various parts of the country since long prior to the attainment of political freedom and it constitutes an ugly and shameful feature of our national life. This system based on exploitation by a few socially and economically powerful persons trading on the misery and suffering of large numbers of men and holding them in bondage is a relic of a feudal hierarchical society which hypocritically proclaims the divinity of men but treats large masses of people belonging to the lower rungs of the social ladder or economically impoverished segments of society as dirt and chattel. This system under which one person can be bonded to provide labour to another for years and years until an alleged debt is supposed to be wiped out which never seems to happen during the life time of the bonded labourer, is totally incompatible with the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2041; 2003(3)AWC1853(SC); (2003)3CALLT52(SC); [2004(2)JCR16(SC)]; JT2003(3)SC183; (2003)IILLJ531SC; RLW2003(4)SC509; 2003(3)SCALE220; (2003)4SCC557; [2003]2SCR968;
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Scope and ambit of Regulation 6(18) and 6(21) of the Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations') fall for determination in this appeal.2. Filtering out unnecessary details, the factual background relevant for adjudication for the present dispute is as follows:-3. Four charge-sheets dated 12.12.1987, 5.11.1987, 23.3.1989 and 25.5.1989 were issued to respondent No. 1- Debasis Das (hereinafter referred to as 'the employee') by the functionaries of the Canara bank, a Government of India undertaking. Disciplinary proceedings were commenced. Charge-sheet dated 5.11.1987 related to the non-vacation of residential quarter by the employee after expiry of the lease period. On completion of inquiry in respect of the said charge, disciplinary authority directed dismissal of the employee from the services of the Bank by order dated 28.8.1989. The disciplinary authority thereafter passed an order on 13.9.1989 which is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1413; 1983CriLJ647; 1982(1)SCALE676; (1982)3SCC140; [1983]1SCR393; 1982(2)SLJ582(SC); 1982(14)LC695(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. Validity and legality of an order made against each petitioner convening General Court Martial to try each petitioner in respect of the charges framed against each of them is questioned on diverse grounds but principally the composition in each of these petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution. In Writ Petition No. 4903/81 the petitioner has also challenged the constitutional validity of Rules 22, 23, 25 and 40 of the Army Rules, 1954 ('rules' for short) as being violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. As certain contentions were common to all the three petitions they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Facts alleged on which legal formulations were founded may be briefly set out in respect of each petitioner.Re Writ Petition No. 4903/81 :Petitioner Lt. Col. Prithipal Singh Bedi was granted permanent regular commission in the Regiment of Artillery in 1958 and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1074; JT1993(6)SC1; (1994)ILLJ162SC; 1993(3)SCALE952; (1993)4SCC727; [1993]Supp2SCR576; 1993(3)SLJ193(SC)
ORDERP.B. Sawant, J.1. This group of matters is at the instance of various parties, viz., Union of India, Public Sector Corporations, Public Sector banks, State Governments and two private parties. By an order dated 5th August, 1991 in Managing Director, Electronic Corporation of India v. B.Karunakar : (1992)1SCC709 , a three Judge Bench of this Court referred that matter to the Chief Justice for being placed before a Larger Bench, for the Bench found a conflict in the two decisions of this Court, viz., Kailash Chander Asthana etc. etc. v. State of U.P. and Ors. etc. etc. : (1988)IILLJ219SC , and Union of India and Ors. etc. etc. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan : (1991)ILLJ29SC both delivered by the Benches of three learned Judges. Civil Appeal No. 3056 of 1991 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 12103 of 1991 along with the other matters in which the same question of law is in issue, has therefore, been referred to this Bench.2. The basis question of law which arises in these matters is whether the r...
Tag this Judgment!