Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-03-2002
Reported in : JT2002(10)SC105; 2003(4)MhLj126; (2003)1SCC433
Brijesh Kumar, J.1. An advertisement was published in the Times of India dated 5.10.1999: it read as follows:'Accommodation available for two rooms self-contained apartment with sea-view, telephone optional, ideal for executives, couples, reasonable terms'.2. The appellant before us, namely, Feroze N. Dotivalaq approached the respondent namely, Wadhwanis in response to the above noted advertisement and he was given the accommodation on payment of certain amount as compensation for the same. The moot question that falls for consideration in this appeal is about the nature of occupation of the premises as to whether the appellant is a 'licensee' or a 'paying guest' in the light of the relevant provisions under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). 3. According to the appellant, in the year 1975 after the death of the mother of the respondent No. 1, he wanted the appellant to give in writing that he was occupying the premises as a paying ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Oct-09-2002
Eldred v. Ashcroft - 537 U.S. 186 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2002 Syllabus ELDRED ET AL. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 01-618. Argued October 9, 2002-Decided January 15,2003 The Copyright and Patent Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 8, provides as to copyrights: "Congress shall have Power ... [t]o promote the Progress of Science ... by securing [to Authors] for limited Times ... the exclusive Right to their ... Writings." In the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), Congress enlarged the duration of copyrights by 20 years: Under the 1976 Copyright Act (1976 Act), copyright protection generally lasted from a work's creation until 50 years after the author's death; under the CTEA, most copyrights now run from creation until 70 years after the author's death, 17 U. S. C. 302(a). As in the case of prior copyright extensions, principally in 1831, 1909, and 1976, Congress provided for applic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-03-2002
Reported in : JT2002(8)SC238
ORDER1. Accused No. 5, who stood charged along with four others under Sections 148/447/ 302/307/323/149 IPC before the learned additional sessions judge, Bhatinda in S.C. No. 82 of 14.10.91 RT 9 of 30.10.92 and was acquitted by the trial court, but, on an appeal by the state, convicted by a division bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in criminal appeal No. 56- DBA of 1996, is the appellant before us. 2. The case of the prosecution , as disclosed from the evidence led in is that : PW-3, along with his wife, his brother Kaka Singh , the deceased and his wife accompanied by a labourer had gone for picking cotton in their lands and as they were in the process of doing so, Gurjant Singh, (the appellant herein), and Atma Singh armed with 'gandasas', Gurbax Singh and Bachint Singh armed with 'spears', Geja Singh and three more persons armed with 'dangs' arrived on the spot and Atma Singh raised a lalkara that the complainant party be taught a lesson for buying their land and he gave ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-30-2002
Reported in : AIR2003SC258; 2003(1)ALD(Cri)100; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)201; 2003CriLJ434; JT2002(9)SC257; 2003(1)KLT3(SC); (2003)1SCC259
Sema, J. 1. Four appellants - Anthony D'Souza, Anil Kumar @ Anil D'souza, Seril D'souza and George D'souza @ Babli were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur and convicted for the offences under Section 143 IPC. Section 396 read with 149 IPC and Section 201 read with 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for six months for the offence under Section 143 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 396 read with Section 149 IPC and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each. In default of payment of fine SI for three months and to undergo two years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each for the offence under Section 201 read with Section 149 IPC in default of payment of fine, SI for three months. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. On appeal their conviction and sentence is confirmed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts are as follows:-3. Deceased Vittal Shetty and Paul were employed as driver and cleaner in a l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-08-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC548; 2002(2)ALT10(SC); (2002)1CALLT16(SC); (2002)2CompLJ264(SC); [2002(1)JCR397(SC)]; JT2002(1)SC1; (2002)1MLJ139(SC); RLW2002(1)SC161; 2002(1)SCALE43; (2002)2SCC6
1. We are sad that the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India (for short 'the disciplinary committee') despite being the acru statutory body entrusted with the upkeep of the probity of legal profession in India opted to treat a very grave professional misconduct in a comparatively lighter vein. The disciplinary committee held an advocate guilty of breach of trust for misappropriating the asset of a "poor" client. But having held so, the disciplinary committee has chosen to impose a punishment of suspending the advocate from practice for a period of three years.2. The delinquent advocate filed this appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). We told him that in the event of this Court upholding the finding of misconduct, he should show cause why the punishment shall not be enhanced to remove his name from the roll of the Bar Council of the State concerned. Notice on that aspect has been accepted by Mr. M. M. Kashyap, learned Counsel for the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-24-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC2017; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)48; 2002CriLJ2799; 2002(2)Crimes366(SC); JT2002(4)SC375; 2002(4)SCALE102; (2002)9SCC189; [2002]3SCR431
Raju, J. 1. The three accused in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1997 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nagai Quaide-e-Milet District in Tamil Nadu. Ezhil (A-1), Saravanan (A-2) and Mohammed Iqbal (A-3), are the appellants before us. They have been charged for offences under Sections 364,392 and 302 read with Section 34, IPC, and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. After trial and on consideration of the evidence and materials placed on record, the learned Trial Judge found the first accused guilty under Sections 364,302 392 and 201, IPC, the second and third accused guilty under Sections 364,302 read with Section 34 392 read with Section 34 and 201, IPC. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, the Trial Judge imposed death sentence on the first accused for the offence committed under Section 302, IPC. For theoffences committed by the accused Nos. 1 to 3 under Sections 364, a rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years was imposed. For the offence commi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-28-2002
Reported in : AIR2003SC87; (2002)8SCC237
Acts/Rules/Orders: Constitution of India - Articles 69, 69(2), 75, 79, 83, 85, 85(1), 85(2), 87, 88, 94, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 107(5), 109, 110, 111, 123, 143, 143(1), 145(1), 147, 153, 159, 163, 164, 168, 169, 164(2), 164(4), 170, 171, 172, 172(1), 174, 174(1), 174(2), 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 193, 196, 196(5), 197, 197(2), 198, 202, 209, 213, 289, 290, 324 to 329, 352, 355, 356, 356(1), 360 and 368; Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 14, 15, 15(2) and 73; Government of India Act, 1915 - Sections 63, 63D, 63D(1), 72B, 72B(1), 204(1) and 213; Government of India (Amendment) Act, 1919 - Sections 8, 8(1), 21 and 21(1); Government of India Act, 1935 - Sections 18, 18(4), 19, 19(1), 19(2), 60, 61(3), 62, 62(1) and 62(2); Representation of People Act, 1918 - Section 21(3); Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, 2000; Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 - Section 8; Government of U...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-08-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC2572; 2002(5)ALD70(SC); JT2002(5)SC53; 2002(5)SCALE42; (2002)6SCC16; [2002]SUPP1SCR19; 2002(2)LC1099(SC)
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. Leave granted.2.The suit premises in these two appeals are two shops situated in M.T. Cloth Market, Indore on the ground-floor of a building. The property was owned by late Krishnadas. He inducted the two appellants in the two shops as tenants for non-residential purpose. Krishnadas died on 8.7.1995. His ownership and right of reversion as landlord have devolved on his widow - Smt. Kalawatibai and two sons - Govinda and Hemant. These three are the respondents in these appeals. They initiated the proceedings for eviction of the two appellants in December 1995. The case of the respondents is that the shop in the occupation of appellant Dhannalal is required bona fide for starting the business of Govinda, the respondent No. 2, while the shop in the occupation of the other appellant, M/s Tulsidas Sureshchandra is required by the respondent Hemant for shifting and continuing his readymade garments business which he is presently running in a rented accommodation situated in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-03-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC3620; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)280; 2003CriLJ28; (2003)1GLR330; (2003)1GLR330; JT2002(7)SC529; 2002(7)SCALE201; (2002)8SCC447; [2002]SUPP3SCR46; 2002(2)LC1454(SC)
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. Deceased Raghunath Yadav was convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Court at Varanasi for the murder of father of Brijesh Singh-who is one of the absconding accused in the present case. While on bail in appeal, Raghunath Yadav, apprehending danger to his life, came to reside at Mehsana in the State of Gujarat. On 14th June, 1992, Reghunath Yadav was murdered at Mehsana.2. In TADA case Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7 of 1990, twelve accused were triedby the Designated Judge, Ahmedabad for offences under Section 302,397, 120B, IPC Section 3(1), 3(3), 3(4) and 5 of the Terrorist AndDisruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short 'TADA Act') andunder Section 25(1)(a) and (b) of the Arms Act.3. The charge-sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 3 was filed on 6th April,1993, against accused Nos. 4 to 6 on 1st July, 1994 against accused Nos.7 to 11 on 15th April, 1996 and against accused No. 12 on 26th November,1996. The charges were that the accused persons and abscondingaccused - ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-31-2002
Reported in : AIR2003SC355; 2003(51)BLJR158; JT2002(9)SC1; 2003(1)KarLJ1; (2002)8SCC481; (2002)3UPLBEC2817
ORDER TO DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF A RELIGIOUS OR LINGUISTIC MINORITY IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 30, WHAT IS TO BE THE UNIT - THE STATE OR THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE?74. We now consider the question of the unit for the purpose of determining the definition of 'minority' within the meaning of Article 30(1).75. Article 30(1) deals with religious minorities and linguistic minorities. The opening words of Article 30(1) make it clear that religious and linguistic minorities have been put at par, insofar as that Article is concerned. Therefore, whatever the unit - whether a state or the whole of India - for determining a linguistic minority, it would be the same in relation to a religious minority. India is divided into different linguistic states. The states have been carved out on the basis of the language of the majority of persons of that region. For example, Andhra Pradesh was established on the basis of the language of that region. viz., Telugu. 'Linguistic minority' can, therefore, logically...
Tag this Judgment!