Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-15-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC617; 2002(1)ALD(Cri)310; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)102; (2002)1CALLT53(SC); 2002CriLJ984; 2002(1)Crimes258(SC); JT2002(1)SC106; 2002(1)SCALE133; (2002)2SCC551
1. The High Court of Gauhati in Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 1994 confirmed the judgment and order dated 7.7.1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Silchar in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1992 convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 302/149 and 148 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC and further imposing sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC. The order is challenged by filing this appeal.2. It is the prosecution version that deceased Dipak Deb alias Piklu, resident of Silchar went out for buying and chewing 'Paan (Betel)' at about 10 p.m. on 14.12.1990. On hearing his cry for help, brothers of the deceased went at the scene of the offence. It is their say that deceased Piklu was caught by the accused persons and at their instance, Nepal Deb (since deceased) gave a dagger blow on the left side of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-17-2002
Reported in : 2003(1)ALLMR(SC)1169; 2003(1)AWC753(SC); JT2002(10)SC310; (2003)2SCC45; [2002]SUPP5SCR186; 2003(1)LC137(SC)
S.N. Variava, J.1. All these Petitions raise the question whether lawyers have a right to strike and/or give a call for boycotts of Court/s. In all these Petitions a declaration is sought that such strikes and/or calls for boycott are illegal. As the questions vitally concerned the legal profession, public notices were issued to Bar Associations and Bar Councils all over the country. Pursuant to those notices some Bar Associations and Bar Councils have filed their responses and have appeared and made submissions before us.2. In Writ Petition (C) No. 821 of 1990, an interim order came to be passed. This Order is reported in : [1996]1SCR89 . The circumstances under which it is passed and the nature of the interim order are set out in the Order. The relevant portion reads as under:'2. The Officiating Secretary, Bar Council of India, Mr. C. R. Balaram filed an affidavit on behalf of the Bar Council of India wherein he states that a 'National Conference' ofmembers of the Bar Council of Indi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-17-2002
Reported in : (2003)1MLJ106(SC); (2003)1UPLBEC649
S.N. Variava, J.1. All these petitions raise the question whether lawyers have a right to strike and/or give a call for boycott or Court/s. In all these petitions a declaration is sought that such strikes and/or calls for boycott are illegal. As the questions vitally concerned the legal profession, public notices were issued to Bar Associations and Bar Councils all over the country. Pursuant to those notices some Bar Associations and Bar Councils have filed their responses and have appeared and made submissions before us.2. In Writ Petition (C) No. 821 of 1990, and interim order came to be passed. This order is reported in : [1996]1SCR89 . The circumstances under which it is passed and the nature of the interim order are set out in the order. The relevant portion reads as under :'2. The officiating Secretary, Bar Council of India, Mr. C.R. Balaram filed an affidavit on behalf of the Bar Council of India wherein he states that a 'National Conference' of Members of the Bar Council of Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-31-2002
Reported in : (2004)1CompLJ50(SC); (2003)184CTR(SC)450; [2003]263ITR707(SC); JT2003(Suppl2)SC205; 2003(8)SCALE287; (2004)10SCC1
Srikrishna, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals by special leave arise out of the judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court allowing Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 5646/2000 and Civil Writ Petition No. 2802/2000. The High Court by its judgment impugned in these appeals quashed and set aside the circular No.789 dated 13.4.2000 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (hereinafter referred to as 'CBDT') by which certain instructions were given to the Chief Commissioners/Directors General of Income-tax with regard to the assessment of cases in which the Indo - Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Convention, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'DTAC') applied. The High Court accepted the contention before it that the said circular is ultra vires the provisions of Section 90 and Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and also otherwise bad and illegal. 3. It would be necessary to recount some salient facts in order to appreciate the plethora...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-12-2002
Reported in : AIR2003SC269; 2002(2)ALD(Cri)924; 2003CriLJ443; JT2002(9)SC445; (2003)1SCC506; 2003(1)LC576(SC)
Banerjee, J.1. On a reference to the High Court by the Principal Judge of theSessions Court at Bombay for confirmation of an order of death sentence passed against the appellants herein in Sessions Case No. 477 of 1996, the High Court recorded its finding in theaffirmative to the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is this order of confirmation which is before this Court presently under consideration. 2. Significantly accused Nos. 4 to 10 are absconding and the matter was dealt with thus against accused Nos.1, 2 an 3. Since the matter has been argued before this Court in rather great a length, we think it fit and proper to note the charges so framed in extenso at this juncture and before entering on to the arena of merits. The changes read as below:'Firstly -- That you No. 1 along with Nos. 2 and 3 above named and absconding accused Nos. 4 to 10 above named on the aforesaid date, time and place and prior to it agreed to murder Harish Vallabhdas Bha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-17-2002
S.N. Variava, J.1) All these Petitions raise the question whether lawyers have a right to strike and/or give a call for boycotts of Court/s. In all these Petitions a declaration is sought that such strikes and/or calls for boycott are illegal. As the questions vitally concerned the legal profession, public notices were issued to Bar Associations and Bar Councils all over the country. Pursuant to those notices some Bar Associations and Bar Councils have filed their responses and have appeared and made submissions before us.2) In Writ Petition (C) No. 821 of 1990, an interim order came to be passed. This Order is reported in (1995) 1 Scale p.6. The circumstances under which it is passed and the nature of the interim order are set out in the Order. The relevant portion reads as under:"2. The Officiating Secretary, Bar Council of India, Mr. C. R. Balaram filed an affidavit on behalf of the Bar Council of India wherein he states that a 'National Conference' of members of the Bar Council of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-05-2002
Reported in : I(2002)ACC680; 2002ACJ680; AIR2002SC1402; 2002(3)ALD1(SC); 2002(2)ALLMR(SC)926; 2002(3)ALT38(SC); JT2002(3)SC16; 2002(3)MhLj1; 2002(4)MPHT103; 2002MPLJ515(SC); 2002(2)SCALE
ORDER1. Issue notice in SLP (C) ..... ..... CC Nos. 1911and 2228/2002. Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Advocate, on behalf of Ms. AniiKatiyar, Advocate, accepts notice for the Union of India.2. Delay is condoned.3. Leave is granted in all the SLPs.4. These five appeals arise out of the orders of the High Court ofMadhya Pradesh at Jabalpur passed in different Misc. Appeals onOctober 30, 2000. The claimant before the Railway Claims Tribunal(for short 'the Tribunal') is the appellant.5. The common question to be considered by us relates tomaintainability of a review petition before the Tribunal against anappealable order passed by it.6. To appreciate the issue involved it would suffice to refer to thefacts in appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 4413/2001. The appellanttransported bamboo chips through Indian Railways to different millsin India. It is alleged that higher freight was paid by it to the Railwayson the basis of rationalisation of the fares on the ground thattransportation would be by a longe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-20-2002
Reported in : 2003(3)AWC2288(SC); 2003(51)BLJR682; (SCSuppl)2003(2)CHN116; I(2003)DMC1SC; JT2002(10)SC571; 2003(1)KLT348(SC); (2003)1SCC730; [2002]SUPP5SCR689; 2003(1)LC215(SC)
D. Raju, J.1. The plaintiff (1st respondent herein) filed the suit claiming for 1/6th share in Schedules A to D properties and 1/3rd share in Schedule E properties. From the indisputable facts on record, the ancestral properties have to be divided firstly between Sahadeo Manjhi, his brother Mahadeo Manjhi (defendants Nos. 1 & 2) and their mother Dukhani Keotain (defendant No.7) each one getting 1/3rd share. Out of the 1/3rd share of Sahadeo Manjhi, the properties again will be equally divided in four parts each one of the sharers getting 1/4th share. Defendants 8 to 11 are said to be not entitled to any share on account of the fact that the marriage of the 1st defendant with the 8th defendant was void for the reason that his first wife, Smt. Kamli Devi, was alive and the first marriage still subsisting. The second marriage - remarriage, of 1st defendant with the 8th defendant after the coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot be valid. The learned 2nd Additional Subordi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-14-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC2994; 2002CriLJ3915; 2002(3)Crimes218(SC); JT2002(6)SC106; 2002(5)SCALE605; (2002)6SCC700; [2002]SUPP1SCR550
Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madras dated 21st September, 2002 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 1990 filed by the appellants against the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge dated 3rd August, 1990 whereby appellants 1 and 2 were found guilty of the offences under Sections 341, 302/109 IPC and appellant No. 3 was found guilty of the offence under Section 341 and 302 IPC. The appellants have been sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment under Section 341 IPC and life imprisonment under Section 302/109 and 302 IPC. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and order of the trial court.2. Special leave was granted limited to the question as to whether the offence proved falls under Section 304 IPC and whether the conviction and sentence under Section 302, 302/109 IPC calls for modification.3. Appellant No. 1, Munuswamy is the father of appellants 2 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-13-2002
Reported in : JT2002(6)SC310
ORDER1. The appellant along with his lady friend, Jyoti was charged under Sections 302 and 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC for having committed the murder of one Ramkaran Mishra and also for inflicting injuries on one Narendra Kumar, PW2 on 26.6.1995 between 8.30 p.m. and 10 p.m. at Indore. Learned additional sessions judge, Indore found the said Jyoti not guilty of the offence alleged against her hence acquitted her, while the appellant was found guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC hence sentenced himto undergo imprisonment for life for having committed the murder of said Ramkaran Mishra. He also found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for having caused injuries with the intention to cause death of Narendra Kumar, PW2.2. The appellant's appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh having failed he is before us in this appeal by leave. However, it should be noticed that on 18.9.2001 leave was grante...
Tag this Judgment!