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 : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-08-2002
Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams - 534 U.S. 184 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus TOYOTA MOTOR MANUFACTURING, KENTUCKY, INC. v. WILLIAMS CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1089. Argued November 7, 200l-Decided January 8, 2002 Claiming to be unable to perform her automobile assembly line job because she was disabled by carpal tunnel syndrome and related impairments, respondent sued petitioner, her former employer, for failing to provide her with a reasonable accommodation as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U. S. C. 12112(b)(5)(A). The District Court granted petitioner summary judgment, holding that respondent's impairment did not qualify as a "disability" under the ADA because it had not "substantially limit[ed]" any "major life activit[y]," 12102(2)(A), and that there was no evidence that respondent had had a record of a substantially limiting impairment or that petitioner had regarded her as...
Tag this Judgment!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 : 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 : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-23-2002
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency - 535 U.S. 302 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL, INC., ET AL. v. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1167. Argued January 7, 2002-Decided April 23, 2002 Respondent Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) imposed two moratoria, totaling 32 months, on development in the Lake Tahoe Basin while formulating a comprehensive land-use plan for the area. Petitioners, real estate owners affected by the moratoria and an association representing such owners, filed parallel suits, later consolidated, claiming that TRPA's actions constituted a taking of their property without just compensation. The District Court found that TRPA had not effected a "partial taking" under the analysis set out in Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104 ; however, it concluded that the moratoria did const...
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 : Jul-30-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC2877; [2002(95)FLR689]; [2003(1)JCR87(SC)]; JT2002(5)SC591; 2002LabIC2943; 2002(5)SCALE512; (2002)6SCC562; [2002]SUPP1SCR317; 2003(1)SLJ121(SC); (2002)3UPLBEC2281
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. Leave to appeal granted, Consequently, the appeals are taken on file and being disposed of by this common Judgment.2. The selections held and the consequential appointments made to the posts of primary school teachers by the Zila Parishads of various districts in the State of Rajasthan during the year 1998-1999 have given rise to these appeals. The full Bench judgment of Rajasthan High Court dated 18.11.1999 in Kailash Chand Sharma (Petitioner in first of the appeals corresponding to SLP No. 1824/2000) v. State of Rajasthan and connected Writ Petitions are under challenge in these appeals apart from the Division Bench Judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Naval Kishore Sharma. The full Bench followed its earlier judgment in Deepak Kumar Suthar v. State of Rajasthan (W.P. No. 1917/1995) and disposed of the Writ Petitions on the same terms as in the previous full Bench reference case. At the outset, it may be stated that the judgment of the full Bench rendered on O...
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!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-16-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC3018; (SCSuppl)2002(4)CHN202; 2002CriLJ3939; 2002(4)Crimes5(SC); JT2002(6)SC144; 2002(5)SCALE608; (2002)7SCC11; [2002]SUPP1SCR556
Brijesh Kumar, J. 1. Maha Singh and the appellant Hardeep, father and son respectively have been prosecuted for murder of one Rajinder Singh. The Sessions Court on trial of the case acquitted Maha Singh but convicted the present appellant Hardeep under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default whereof further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.2. Aggrieved by the said order, Hardeep filed an appeal to the High Court against his conviction and sentence and the State of Punjab filed an appeal against the acquittal of Maha Singh as well as against acquittal of Hardeep under Section 302 IPC in place whereof he had been convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC as indicated earlier. A revision was also preferred by Baljeet Singh against the said order passed by the Sessions Court. The High Court by order dated September 20, 2000 allowed the appeal of the State and convicted the a...
Tag this Judgment!