Court : Supreme Court of India
1.Leave granted.2.This appeal, by special leave, filed by the State of Maharashtra and its functionaries, arises out of the judgment dated 26th April, 2007 delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.1721 of 2004. By the impugned judgment, passed in an application under Section 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short "the Code") read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has set aside and quashed notification dated 20th December, 2006, issued in the name of Governor of Maharashtra in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the Code, directing forfeiture of every copy of the book captioned as "Shivaji - Hindu King in Islamic India" written by one Prof. James W. Laine.3.The three writ petitioners, who are respondents No.1, 2 and 3 herein, are respectively stated to be a well known lawyer and a public activist in the Ambedkarite movement, intended to mobilize the deprived sections of the society;...
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
Reported in : AIR1999SC3275; JT1999(6)SC429; 1999(5)SCALE351; (1999)8SCC122; [1999]Supp2SCR155; 1999(2)LC1499(SC)
M.B. Shah, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 11th September, 1991 passed by the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 621 of 1990 under Section 39(1)(vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and confirmed the order dated 2nd April, 1990 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Ist Court, Chas in Arbitration Suit No. 28 of 1988 by which award is made rule of Court with 8 per cent per annum interest from the date of the decree.2. It is undisputed that the National Mineral Development Corporation, predecessor of the Steel Authority of India Limited on 1.8.1977 executed a contract with the respondent for construction of tailing-cum-storage reservoir at Kundi for Megha Taburu Iron Ore Project. As per the terms of the contract, the work was to be completed within a period of two years. During this period, Public Sector Iron and Steel Companies (Re-structuring ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1512; JT1995(3)SC252; 1995(2)SCALE453; 1995Supp(2)SCC305; (1995)2UPLBEC874
ORDERP.B. Sawant, J.1. Special leave granted.2. The Constitution (Seventy-Third Amendment) Act, 1992 came into force on 24th April, 1993 to give effect to one of the Directive Principles of the State Policy, viz., Article 40 of the Constitution of India which directs the State to organise village panchayats as units of self-government.3. On coming into force of the said Constitutional Amendment, the States were required by the center to take steps to organise village panchyats on the lines of the provisions of the said Constitutional Amendment by making law or amending the existing law suitably. The Uttar Pradesh State Legislature amended its Panchyat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by enacting the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act, 1994 which came into force on 22nd April, 1994. As per the provisions of the Act, several Government instructions and notifications were issued and rules were framed between 22nd April, 1994 and 31st August, 1994 with a view to hold el...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2990; (2008)5CompLJ488(SC); (2007)211CTR(SC)449; 2007(120)ECC451; 2007LC451(SC); [2007]293ITR406(SC); JT2007(10)SC305; (2007)6MLJ1062(SC); 2007(10)SCALE178; 2007(7)SCC527
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. This is an appeal filed by All India Federation of Tax Practitioners against the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 22.2.2001 in Writ Petition No. 142/99 upholding the legislative competence of Parliament to levy service tax vide Finance Act, 1994 and Finance Act, 1998. According to the impugned judgment, service tax falls in Entry 97, List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.2. The question which arises for determination in this civil appeal concerns the constitutional status of the levy of service tax and the legislative competence of Parliament to impose service tax under Article 246(1) read with Entry 97 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The issue arising in this appeal questions the competence of Parliament to levy service tax on practising chartered accountants and architects having regard to Entry 60 List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and Article 276 of the Constitution.Background Facts3. On 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2432; 2006(4)ALD66(SC); 2006(3)AWC2187(SC); JT2006(5)SC260; (2006)4MLJ135(SC); 2006(5)SCALE107; (2006)8SCC129
ORDER For fixation of seniority of Shri Sushil Chandra Dwivedi, Assistant Engineer in Authority Centralised Services, the Government Order No. 416912/9Aa-5-91/94 dated 6.11.95 with respect to inclusion of service rendered by him in State Planning Institute was not found legal in view of Rule 7(1) of Authority Centralised Services Rules. Consequently, after consideration, the said order dated 6.1.95 is hereby cancelled.2. As a result, in Authority Centralised Services on the post of Assistant Engineer, in the Seniority list declared vide Government Order No. 1596/9 Aa-5-95- 1235/95 dated 12.4.96, the seniority of Shri Dwivedi is ordered by the Governor to be fixed below Shri Anil Kumar Goel shown at serial no. 64 and in order of seniority at serial no. 6 above Shri Ramesh Kumar at serial 64A in order of seniority.IllegibleChief Secretary4. The Respondents herein, admittedly, resigned from their services from U.P. Jal Nigam. The Respondent No. 2 accepted the said offer of the State in te...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008ACJ2399; 2008(5)ALLMR(SC)928; (2008)3CALLT1(SC); (2008)3GLR2356(SC); (2008)5MLJ1006(SC); (2008)151PLR644; 2008(7)SCALE377; (2008)10SCC404; 2008AIRSCW7532; AIR2009SC446; 2008AIRSCW7532
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted in all the matters.INTRODUCTION2. Whether renewal of a mediclaim policy on payment of the amount of premium would be automatic, is the question involved herein.BACKGROUND FACTS3. The Parliament enacted the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act 1972 (for short 1972 Act) to provide for the acquisition and transfer of shares of Insurance Companies and undertakings of other insurers in order to serve better the need of the economy by securing the development of general insurance business in the best interest of the community and to ensure that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth to the common detriment, for the regulation and control of such business and for other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.4. Appellants are the two subsidiary insurance companies of General Insurance Corporation of India, carrying on the insurance business in terms of the 1972 Act. The General Insurance Companie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(57)BLJR529; 2008(6)LHSC4434
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. These appeals by Mohmed Faruk @ Frauk Baba Alla Rakha Shaikh, Mohmed Umar Majid Ahmed Pathan @ Mohmed Fighter @ Mohmed Pahelwan @ Mohmedkhan, Sajidali @ Denny Mohmed Ali Saiyed, Mohmed Amin @ Amin Choteli Rahim Miyan Shaikh, Iqbal Hussain @ Laliyo Dhobi Kasambhai Shaikh, Salimkhan Sikandarkhan Pathan @ Azamkhan Pathan and Gulam Mohmed @ Gulal Kadarbhai Shaikh (hereinafter described as appellant Nos. A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8, A-10 and A-11 respectively) are directed against judgment dated 6.2.2007 of the Designated Judge (TADA), Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as `trial Court') whereby they were acquitted of charges under Section 3 and 5 of The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short `the Act') but were held guilty of different offences under the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC') and sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant Nos.A-5 and A-8 were also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to three years rigorou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
P. Sathasivam, J.1) This appeal and the connected matters have been directed against thefinal orders and judgments of conviction and sentence passed on variousdates by the Presiding Officer of the Designated Court under Terrorist andDisruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short 'the TADA') forBombay Bomb Blast Case, Greater Bombay in BBC No. 1 of 1993. These appealshave been filed under Section 19 of the TADA by the accused against theirconviction and sentence and by the CBI for confirmation of the deathsentence and against the acquittal of some of the accused persons.2) Brief facts:The case of the prosecution is as follows:(a) Babri Masjid at Ayodhya was demolished on 06.12.1992. After itsdemolition, violence broke out throughout the country. In order to takerevenge of the said demolition, Tiger Memon (AA) and Dawood Ibrahim, aresident of Dubai, formulated a conspiracy to commit a terrorist act in thecity of Bombay. In pursuance of the said object, Dawood Ibra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC746; 2001(1)ALD(Cri)266; 2001ALLMR(Cri)1038(SC); 2001(1)ALT(Cri)304; (2001)2CALLT8(SC); 2001CriLJ978; (2001)3GLR2341; JT2001(1)SC410; 2001(1)SCALE284; (2001)3SCC22
Shah, J.1. After trial in TADA Case Nos.2/93, 7/93 and 2/94, by judgment and order dated 8th January, 1997, the Designated Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad, acquitted 16 accused and convicted 5 accused, appellants herein, namely, A1 Lal Singh, A2 Mohd. Sharief, A3 Tahir Jamal, A4 Mohd. Saquib Nachan and A20 Shoaib Mukhtiar. The appellants were convicted for the offences punishable (1) under Section 3(3) of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act. 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'TADA Act') and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default to suffer R.I. for 6 months; (2) under Section 120B(1) of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default to suffer R.I. for 3 months. They were further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA Act read with Sec. 120B IPC but no separate sentence was awarded. Accused No.1 was additionally convicted for the offen...
Tag this Judgment!