Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC2385; JT1994(3)SC535; 1994(2)SCALE813; (1994)4SCC690; [1994]3SCR823; 1994(2)LC261(SC)
ORDERN. Venkatachala, J.1. These appeals by special leave, directed against the common judgment dated 5th, 6th and 7th August, 1974 rendered in First Appeals Nos. 386-395 of 1968 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, are required to be decided by us by considering and answering three important questions:(i) Does the provision in Sub-section (1) of Section 301 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - 'the BMC Act' specify a principle of determination of compensation payable to the owners of the buildings or lands acquired for a public street under Sections 298 and 299 thereof? (ii) Does the principle specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 301 of the BMC Act, for determination of compensation payable to the owners for their buildings or lands acquired under Sections 298 and 299 thereof, warrant determination of such compensation according to the market value of such acquired buildings or lands (iii) What method could be adopted for determining the amount of compensation paya...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1550; (1979)4SCC232; [1979]3SCR651; 1979(11)LC631(SC)
Desai, J.1. Law touching manufacture, import, use or consumption of liquor (as understood in common parlance) is recently vigorously assailed with almost afflicted sentimentalism that even though we have dismissed this batch of Special Leave Petitions on 23rd March, 1979, in fairness to petitioners on whose behalf all possible contentions that can be formulated by research and dialectics were advanced with eloquence and devoid of inebriation likely to be caused by the subject-matter of dispute, we propose shortly to state our reasons for dismissal of the petitions.2. To illumine the contours of controversy events preceding the promulgation of the Ordinance amending the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 ('Act' for short), as in force in the Union Territory of Delhi ('Delhi' for short) styled as Punjab Excise (Delhi Amendment) Ordinance, 1979 ('Ordinance' for short) may be stated. Punjab Excise Act, 1914 has been extended to Delhi. While implementing the provisions of the Act, the concerned author...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC631; JT1990(4)SC245; 1990(2)SCALE836; 1991Supp(1)SCC574; [1990]Supp2SCR433; (1991)2UPLBEC826
1. These are applications under Article 32 of the Constitution. The first petition is by an advocate practising in this Court; the second by the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association and the last by the Honorary Secretary of the Bombay Bar Association. These applications are in the nature of public interest litigation. The relief asked for is one for mandamus to the Union of India to fill up the vacancies of Judges in the Supreme Court and the several High Courts of the country and ancillary orders or directions in regard to the same. The petition from Bombay is confined to the relief of filling up of vacancies in the Bombay High Court. Since common pleas were advanced and the relief sought was of similar nature, these applications have been clubbed together and heard from time to time.2. In response to the rule, the Union of India took the stand through the Attorney General that the petitions were not maintainable and the filling up of the vacancies in the superior courts was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC2484; 2009(4)AWC3791(SC); 2009(57)BLJR1863; JT2009(6)SC302; 2009(6)SCALE662; (2009)12SCC194; 2009(5)LC2353(SC):2009AIRSCW4615
Harjit Singh Bedi, J.1. Leave Granted.2. The facts leading to the appeal are as under: The property in dispute known as `Katras House' built over an area of 1.7 acres of land on Circular Road, Ranchi was purchased by Late Shri Ganesh Chandra Dey vide registered sale deed dated 26th January 1933. World War-II broke out on 3rd September 1939 on which the Viceroy promulgated the Defence of India Ordinance 1939 under which the Defence of India Rules were issued. On 25th April 1942, Rule 75A was inserted in the Defence of India Rules empowering the Central Government to requisition any property necessary or expedient for securing the defence of British India and other related matters. Japan entered World War-II on the side of Nazi Germany on the 7th December 1941, after its attack on the United States Seventh Fleet in Pearl Harbour, Hawai and soon after a string of victories over the Allies in South East Asia and upto Burma brought the Imperial Japanese Army to India's Eastern doorstep. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1476; JT1995(4)SC34; 1995LabIC1818; 1995(2)SCALE842; (1995)4SCC141; [1995]3SCR561; 1995(2)SLJ235(SC)
ORDERK.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1329 of 1979 of the High Court of Madras, is the appellant herein. This appeal is filed against the Judgment of the High Court of Madras dated 26.10.1983, in pursuant to the special leave granted by this Court on 13.1.1986 in S.L.P.(C) No. 3643 of 1984; There are three respondents in this appeal. They are : The Union Territory of Pondicherry represented by its Chief Secretary, the Union of India represented by Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, and Sri D. Ramachandran, former Home Minister of Pondicherry.2. The relevant facts which gave rise to this appeal may be stated. The date of birth of the appellant is 25.8.1934. She was appointed as a Child Welfare Organiser under the Pondicherry State Social Welfare Advisory Board on 21.11.1958. The service of the employees of the Board was merged with the Government service. The employees of the Advisory Board became Government employees. On 11.12.1962 the appellant was appointe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2563; 2007(3)ARBLR65(SC); (2007)3CompLJ316(SC); 2007(4)CTC340; JT2007(9)SC147; 2007(6)MhLj502; (2007)6MLJ80(SC); 2007MPLJ436(SC); 2007(9)SCALE126; (2007)7SCC125; 2
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. These Cross Appeals by Special Leave challenge the order passed by the High Court of Orissa in an appeal under Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The said appeal was one filed by the respondent in C.A. No. 6569 of 2005 which is the appellant in C.A. No. 6570 of 2005 challenging an order of the District Court at Sundargarh in a petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by the appellant in C.A. No. 6569 of 2005 and the respondent in C.A. No. 6570 of 2005. For convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as 'Adhunik Steels' and 'O.M.M. Private Limited'. Adhunik Steels it was, that filed the application under Section 9 of the Act.2. O.M.M. Private Limited obtained a mining lease from the Government of Orissa for mining manganese ore from certain extents of land situate in Sundargarh district in the State of Orissa. For reasons of its own, O.M.M. Private Limited entered into an agreement dated 14.5.2003 with Adhunik Steels fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC848; 2007CriLJ1145; 2008(2)GLT1; JT2007(2)SC428; RLW2007(3)SC1861; 2007(2)SCALE42; 2007AIRSCW569; (2007)1Crimes147(SC); 2007(1)LawHerald(SC)530; (2007)11SCC467
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Appellants were charged with and convicted for commission of offences under Sections 376(2)(g), 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for rape and murder of one Barnali Deb @ Poppy (the deceased), a 7-8 year old girl. She was travelling with her parents Bishnu Deb (father-P.W.23), Anima Deb (mother- P.W.22) and younger brother in a private transport service known as Net Work Travels from Dharmanagar (Tripura). They were on their way to Dimapur in the State of Nagaland. They reached Net Work Travels' Complex at Paltan Bazar, Guwahati at around 10.30 p.m. on 12.7.2002. There was no connecting bus to Dimapur at that time. They were advised to stay over for the night at Guwahati. Appellant No.1 was a night chawkidar of the waiting room of the said Net Work Travels. He represented that they could stay there for the night and therefore should not have any apprehension in regard to their safety. Their luggage was carried by the appellant No.1 to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(2)ALLMR(SC)443; 2007(2)CTC349; JT2006(10)SC578; 2007(1)KarLJ398; 2006(12)SCALE295
ORDER1. This appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, the Act) has been preferred by the elected candidate. The facts are brief and few. The appellant was an elected member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly which was dissolved in February 2004. By judgment and order dated 28th July 2000, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years by the VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Solapur, in S.C. No. 203/1999. Immediately thereafter, Criminal Appeal No. 658 of 2000 was preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Pending the appeal, the Bombay High Court granted stay of the execution of the sentence.2. The fresh elections to Karnataka Legislative Assembly were notified. The election programme notified was as under:Last date of nomination : 31.03.2004Date of scrutiny of nomination : 02.04.2004Last date for withdrawal : 05.04.2004Date of polling : 20.04.2004Date of d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
J U D G M E N T1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Service of Notice of Lodgment of petition of Appeal is complete, but no one has entered appearance on behalf of the sole respondent-State.2. The facts of the case are similar to the facts in Arup Bhuyan vs. State of Assam Criminal Appeal No.889 of 2007, which we allowed on 3.2.2011.3. As in the case of Arup Bhuyan (supra), the only evidence against the appellant in this case is his alleged confession made to a police officer, for which he was charged under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short `TADA').4. The facts of the case are that one Anil Kumar Das went missing from the evening of 6.11.1991, and his dead body was recovered after two months on 19.1.1992 from the river Dishang. Five persons including the appellant were charged for his death. The appellant was not named in the FIR. No prosecution witness has attributed any role to the appellant. The charge sheet in the case was filed after a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC369; [1953]4SCR1
Patanjali Sastri, C.J.1. This is an application under article 32 of the Constitution for relief in respect of an alleged infringement of the fundamental right of the petitioners under article 19(1)(g) or, alternatively, under article 136 for special leave to appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta rejecting their application for the same relief under article 226. 2. As the petitioners would clearly be entitled to relief under the one or the other form of remedy if their claim was well-founded, no objection was taken to the maintainability of the present proceeding, and we desire to guard ourselves against being taken to have decided that a proceeding under article 32 would lie after an application under article 226 for the same relief on the same facts had been rejected after due enquiry by a High court. We express no opinion on that point. 3. The facts leading to this proceeding are not in dispute and may be briefly stated. The first petitioner is an Advocat...
Tag this Judgment!