Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5875 OF1994KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH & ANR. .....APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ....RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5876-5890 OF1994WITH WRIT PETITION (C) No.580 OF1995AND CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3533-3595 OF1995JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J.1. Having carefully read the erudite judgment prepared by brother Chandrachud, I regret my inability to agree that laying an Ordinance promulgated by the Governor of a State before the State Legislature is mandatory under Article 213(2) of the Constitution and the failure to lay an Ordinance before the State Legislature results in the Ordinance not having the force and effect as a law enacted and would be of no consequence whatsoever. In my opinion, it is not mandatory under Article 213(2) of the Constitution to lay an Ordinance before the Legislative Assembly of the State Legislature, nor would the failure to do so result in the Ordinance not having the force and ef...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1978CriLJ192a; (1977)4SCC536; [1978]2SCR174
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order of the Delhi High Court refusing to quash a proceeding pending against the appellant in the Court of the Special Judge, Delhi.2. On or about November 28, 1973 a chargesheet against the appellant and two others was filed before the Special Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi, alleging facts constituting offences punishable under Section 120B Indian Penal Code read with Sections 161 and 165A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. One Martin Joseph Fernandez had been arrested in connection with the case when it was at the stage of investigation. He was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Delhi, who tendered a pardon to him under Section 337(1) of the CrPC, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as the Code). On December 12, 1975 the appellant applied to the Special Judge for quashing the proceeding for want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code and also on the ground of failure to examine...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC861; JT1995(9)SC114; 1995(7)SCALE88; (1996)1SCC378; [1995]Supp6SCR522
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 116A of the representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act') by the returned candidate against the judgment dated 1st & 2nd July, 1991 of H. Suresh, J. of the Bombay High Court in Election Petition No. 19 of 1990 by which the election of the appellant has been set aside on the ground under Section 100(1)(b) for commission of corrupt practices under Sections (3) and (3A) of Section 123 of the Act. The appellant was candidate of the Bhartiya Janta Party and respondent was the candidate of the Janata Dal for election to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from No. 33, Matunga Constituency held on 27.2.1990. The appellant became candidate at the election on 8.2.1990. The date of poll was 27.2.1990 and the election result was declared on 1.3.1990 at which the appellant was declared duly elected having secured 31,530 votes while the respondent (election petitioner) had secured 28.021 votes and the Congress candidate secured 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3127; JT2006(8)SC1; 2006(8)SCALE257; (2006)7SCC1
Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J.Background1. By this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks to challenge amendments made in the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short, 'the RP Act', 1951') through Representation of People (Amendment) Act 40 of 2003 which came into force from 28th August, 2003. By the said Amendment Act 2003, the requirement of 'domicile' in the State Concerned for getting elected to the Council of States is deleted which according to the petitioner violates the principle of Federalism, a basic structure of the Constitution.In the writ petition, there is a further challenge to the amendments in Sections 59, 94 and 128 of the RP Act, 1951 by which Open Ballet System is introduced which, according to the petitioner, violates the principle of 'secrecy' which, according to the petitioner, is the essence of free and fair elections as also the voter's freedom of expression which is the basic feature of the Constitution and the subject matter ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. I have had the benefit of the opinion expressed by my brother. Since the facts in this appeal have been meticulously put in that judgment, I need not restate them. It is held in that judgment that the order passed by the Learned Single Judge deleting paragraphs 22 to 31 from the written statement of the elected candidate in pursuance of the application filed by the election petitioner under Order VI Rule 16, Code of Civil Procedure is correct. With deepest respect to my brother, I find myself unable to agree with the view taken, as also the ultimate order passed in pursuance of that view. In my opinion, the Learned Designated Election Judge was not right in striking out those paragraphs and the application made by the election petitioner under Order VI Rule 16, CPC was liable to be dismissed.2. The election petitioner was a losing candidate and he had lost his election by merely two votes. In the election petition, the following prayers were made:"....................(iii) to order ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1132; 1971CriLJ844; (1971)1SCC626; [1971]SuppSCR76
Sikri, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 129 of the Constitution of India by Shri C.K. Daphtary and three other advocates bringing to our notice the alleged contempt of this Court committed by the respondents (1) O.P. Gupta, (2) Rising Sun Press, Delhi, through its proprietor, and (3) M/s. Kanak Book Depot. Respondent No. 3-Kanak Book Depot-has not been traced. Respondent No. 1, O.P. Gupta, appeared in person, and the proprietor of the Rising Sun Press, Mela Ram, also appeared in person.2. In the petition it is stated that Civil Appeal No. 1711 of 1967 was filed in this Court by the State of U.P. against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad whereby the High Court had held that the order of dismissal from service passed against respondent No. 1, O.P. Gupta, was invalid. This appeal came up for hearing before this Court on various occasions and was ultimately heard by a Bench consisting of Shah J as he then was, and Hegde. J., on October 15, 1969 and October 16, 1969 (and, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC54
K. Ramaswamy and; R.M. Sahai, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1078 of 1991, dated 9-3-1993 affirming the order passed by the Sessions Judge and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short ‘the Code’. The admitted facts are that the appellants are tenants in 15 shops in Jalgaon Municipality. A notice under Section 133 was issued on 1-11-1983 in Criminal Case No. 2 of 1976 stating that from the material placed before him the Sub-Divisional Magistrate i.e. SDM was satisfied that the shops are in a very dilapidated condition which are beyond repairs and that therefore they are immediately required to be removed (under Section 133 of the Code). The appellants have objected to and adduced evidence. On consideration thereof, the learned Magistrate held that unless the shops are demolished there is imminent danger to the neighbou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001ACJ843; AIR2001SC1419; 2001(3)ALLMR(SC)526; [2001]105CompCas398(SC); (2002)1GLR916; JT2001(4)SC235; RLW2001(3)SC382; 2001(3)SCALE18; (2001)4SCC342; [2001]2SCR797; 2001(
Thomas, J.1. Leave granted. 2. If a fake driving licence happened to be renewed by the statutory authorities, would the fakeness of the original document get legally sanctified? If it cannot, would the Insurance Company be liable to pay compensation in respect of a motor accident occurred while the vehicle was driven by a person holding such a sham licence? These are the main questions involved in these appeals.3. An accident occurred on 1.3.1993 when a truck, driven by the 8th respondent (Liaqat Ali) capsized. Three inmates of the vehicle died in the accident. Legal heirs of those three deceased persons preferred claims before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned (for short the 'Claims Tribunal') as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). The owner of the vehicle as well as the driver were made parties, besides impleading the insurer (appellant Insurance Company) in the claims proceedings. It is admitted that the truck was then covered by a va...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008ACJ1498; AIR2008SC1837; 2008(2)AWC2039(SC); JT2008(4)SC425; 2008(2)KLT1001(SC); (2008)5MLJ316(SC); 2008(3)MPHT217(SC); (2008)150PLR784; RLW2008(3)SC1947; 2008(4)SCALE75; 2008AIRSCW2534; AIR2008SC1837; 2008ACJ1498; 2008(3)LH(SC)1882; 2008(2)KCCRSN111
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. On 14.11.2000, Ishwar Dutt Bhat was traveling in a three wheeler. It met with an accident having been hit by a truck bearing registreation No. HR 38 9179. The said vehicle was insured with the appellant. Respondents, being the heirs and legal representatives of the said Shri Ishwar Dutt, filed a claim petition. Appellant, in its written statement, raised a contention that the driving licence possessed by the driver of the truck was a fake one.3. In the proceedings before the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal), it prayed for examination of the concerned clerk of the Motor Vehicles Department. The said prayer was allowed. The concerned Clerk of the Licencing Authority, Alwar was summoned. The said summons were served in the office of the Transport Authority. The Transport Authority, however, did not depute any officer to produce the documents called for. Appellant, however, brought on records evidence to the effect that on an investig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. Leave granted. Heard the learned Counsel.2. In pursuance of a Banker's Indemnity Insurance Proposal dated 1.7.1976 from the appellant ('Bank'), the respondent ('Insurer') issued a Renewal Insurance Policy covering the period 1.7.1976 to 1.7.1977. The policy indemnified and insured the Bank against losses caused by acts or omission of the Bank's employees to a limit of Rs. 6 lacs (Basic cover) plus Rs. 9 lacs (cash in safe). The Bank furnished to the Insurer a list of its branches to be covered by the insurance which included Dhamangaon Branch and the names of the employees working in those branches. The operative portion of the policy is extracted below:THE COMPANY HEREBY AGREES subject to the terms and conditions contained herein or endorsed or otherwise expressed herein that if the Insured shall discover any direct LOSS of Money and/or Securities sustained by the Insured by CONTIGENCIES as provided hereinafter at any time during the period of insurance stated he...
Tag this Judgment!