Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-14-2008
Reported in : AIR2008SC1738; 2008(5)ALLMR(SC)424; 2008BusLR403(SC); [2008]143CompCas97(SC); (2008)2CompLJ496(SC); 2008(3)SCALE650; (2008)6SCC750; [2008]83SCL451(SC); 2008(1)LC583(SC); 2008AIRSCW2402; 2008(2)Supreme502; 2008(4)KCCRSN299
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. M/s. Shree Bhaarathi Cotton Mills Private Limited is a company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (For short, 'the Act'). Out of the 2,84,000 equity shares in the company of Rs. 10/- each, 2,83,999 shares are held by the first respondent and his son (appellant herein). The remaining one share is held by M/s. Visva Bharathi Textiles Private Limited, shares in which again is held equally by the first respondent and the appellant. Thus, for all intent and purport, all shares of the company are held by the appellant and the first respondent. 3. Whereas the first respondent is the Managing Director of the Company, the appellant is the Director thereof. Indisputably the parties are not on good terms. 4. Respondent No. 1 filed an application purported to be under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act alleging several acts of oppression on the part of appellant herein before the Company Law Board, Additional Principal Bench, Chennai. The said ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-31-2008
Reported in : 2008AIRSCW8078; AIR2009SC792; JT2008(6)SC177; 2008(6)SCALE275; 2008(1)LC611(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. What are the factors which are required to be taken into consideration by the Central Government for determining the price of levy sugar in exercise of its power under Section 3(3C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the Act) is the question involved herein.3. Before us, there are various owners of sugar mills who purchased sugarcane from the farmers. 4. Section 3(2)(f) of the Act empowers the Central Government to fix compulsory quota of sugar produced by a sugar producer in the manner prescribed by the Central Government including the price thereof at which the same is to be sold. It is known as 'levy sugar'. The rest of the sugar, however, can be sold by the producers in free market. It is known as 'free sugar'. 5. The factors which are relevant to be taken into consideration by Central Government is contained in Section 3(3C) of the Act which includes:(a) The minimum price, if any fixed for Sugarcane by the Central Government.(b) The manufactu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-06-2008
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC4009(SC); 2008BusLR22(SC); (2009)1MLJ953(SC); 2008(13)SCALE717; (2009)1SCC91
C.K. Thakker, J.1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') praying to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India to appoint third Arbitrator as Presiding Arbitrator or to appoint Sole Arbitrator as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. It is the case of the applicant that it is a Company known as M/s Comed Chemicals Ltd. registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Mr. Ashwani Kapil is the authorized signatory who has approached this Court. It is stated in the application that the Company is doing business in chemicals in the field of bio-technology. To expand the business, the Company floated a subsidiary company in the name and style of Comed Biotech Ltd. For the said purpose, it entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (`MoU' for short) and appointed Dr. C.N. Ramchand (respondent herein) on September 4, 2003 for the development of products in the field of bi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-31-2008
Reported in : 2007AIRSCW3656; AIR2007SC2129; 2007(6)SCC694; 2007-III-LLJ-352(SC); JT2007(8)SC581
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Review Petitioners herein have filed this application for review of this Court's judgment and order dated 18.05.2007 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2739 of 2007.2. Respondent was working with the appellant Bank. Almost immediately prior to his retirement, he was asked to show cause as to why action under the UCO Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 (for short 'the 1979 Regulations') should not be taken against him by notices dated 24.10.1996 and 30.10.1996.3. Respondent reached his age of superannuation on 30.11.1996. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him immediately thereafter. A charge sheet, however, was issued only on 13.11.1998. He was dismissed from service upon initiating a departmental proceedings. 4. A writ petition filed by him was allowed. Petitioner Bank filed an appeal upon grant of special leave thereagainst. One of the questions which arose for consideration before this Court was whether in absence of any chargesheet having been issued, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-13-2008
Reported in : (2008)7SCC259; 2008AIRSCW4814; 2008(7)SCC259
S.B. Sinha, J.Leave granted.1. Whether rule of perpetuity would be applicable in respect of a member of a Sikh Judicial Commission (for short 'Commission') constituted under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (for short 'the Act') is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 13.09.2002 passed by a Five-Judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 371 of 1999.2. The Act was applicable to the entire territories of the undivided State of Punjab including PEPSU. By reason of the provisions of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956, the State of Himachal Pradesh was constituted, having been carved out from the State of Punjab.3. Another Parliamentary Act, being Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (for short 'the 1966 Act') was enacted in terms whereof the State of Punjab was divided into the State of Punjab, the State of Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh.4. The Central Government admittedly is the appropriate authority for passing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-21-2008
Reported in : 2008(13)SCALE398; (2009)2SCC47
K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.1. Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) No. 3015-3016/2005. The appellants in these two appeals are the kith and kin of some persons killed in the Godhra Train Burning incident and in the Akshardham Temple attack. They2 have challenged the judgment dated 13.4.2005 of the Gujarat High Court in SCA Nos. 1103 & 1105/2005 filed by them. For convenience, the appellants in these two appeals will be referred to as the `relatives of victims'.2. The appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1113/2005, 1498- 1500/2005, 359/2006, 734/2007, 735/2007 and 736/2007 are persons who have been charged in respect of offences under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, in terrorism related cases. In these appeals, they have also challenged the said judgment dated 13.4.2005 of the Gujarat High Court in SCA Nos. 1103 & 1105 of 2005, and other judgments of the said High Court and the judgment of the Bombay High Court which follow the said decision. The appellants in these appeals wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-10-2008
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR2300; JT2008(7)SC614; 2008(9)SCALE787; (2008)8SCC708; 2008AIRSCW6034; 2008(8)SCC708; 2008(3)Crimes160
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeals have been instituted by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 19th July, 2007 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Revision Petition No. 4126 of 2006 and companion matters. By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed revision petitions filed by the appellants herein as also by the State of Kerala.3. To understand the issue raised in the present appeals, few relevant facts may be stated:4. The appellants are partners of M/s LIS, Ernakulam, a partnership firm engaged in the business of sale of lotteries and magazines after collecting advance money. They floated a scheme known as 'LIS Deepasthambham Scheme'. The scheme was simple in its conception. A person has to pay Rs. 625/- and purchase one unit of lotteries from the promoters. The promoters will make use of Rs. 350/- to purchase 35 lottery tickets of the Kerala State Government each of Rs. 10/- for the unit holder for the next 35 weeks. If the unit ho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-16-2008
Reported in : AIR2009SC218; JT2008(8)SC184
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Validity of orders of recession of allotment of industrial plots and resumption thereof by the appellants herein is in question in this batch of appeals.3. With a view to appreciate the questions involved herein, the factual matrix of the matter, however, would be noticed from Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 14074 of 2006.4. Appellant - Corporation is a public sector undertaking. Its principal function is allotment of industrial plots belonging to the State of Haryana. It was set up as a catalyst for promoting economic growth and accelerating the pace of industrialization. It not only provides financial assistance to the industrial concerns by way of term loans; it also develops infrastructure for setting up of industrial units. The Corporation also invests money in developing the industrial estates at strategic locations. In exercise of its functions, it also allots industrial plots to entrepreneurs for setting up their industries on 'no profi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-07-2008
Reported in : [2008(3)JCR141(SC)]; 2008(9)SCALE630; (2008)7SCC334; 2008AIRSCW5261; 2008(7)SCC334; (2008)3SCC(Cri)94
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High court dismissing the MAC Appeal No. 219/07 and order dismissing the application for review.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Respondent-Bhupinder filed a claim petition stating that he was injured in an accident where scooter bearing No. DL 3S 7420 was involved. According to the respondent the accident occurred on 2.8.1995 at 11.20 a.m. He sustained injuries. The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Delhi allowed the petition and granted compensation of Rs. 57,635/- alongwith 6% interest thereon. Appellant was impleaded in the claim petition as the sole respondent. Stand of the appellant was that his vehicle was not offending vehicle and in any event he was not driving the vehicle in question at the relevant point of time as claimed. He relied on certificate issued by his employer which clearly indicated that at the relevant point of time he was wo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-30-2008
Reported in : AIR2008SC3182; 2008(5)CTC554; [2008(118)FLR438]; (2008)IIILLJ584SC; (2008)7MLJ490(SC); 2008(7)SCALE726; 2009(1)SLJ129(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted in both the matters.2. These two appeals arise out of a judgment and order dated 20th May, 2005 rendered by the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court at Cuttack in WP No. 2333 of 1991.3. Writ Petitioner (Respondent in appeal arising out of SLP ) No. 18997 of 2005 and Appellant in the connected appeal) was appointed as a Management Trainee in the Punjab National Bank (Bank). She was duly selected by the Banking Service Recruitment Board, Delhi. An offer of appointment was made to her favour on or about 28th July, 1986 inter alia on the following terms and conditions:2. TRAINING/PROBATION/CONFIRMATIONYou will be on training/probation for a period of 2 years from the date of your joining the Bank and you will be considered for confirmation in the service, subject to your satisfactory report on your training, passing Bank's confirmation test and receipt of satisfactory report from the Police authorities about your character and antecedents. You may also be ...
Tag this Judgment!