Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-24-2008
Reported in : 2008(2)ALD(Cri)301; 2008(3)ALT(Cri)472; JT2008(8)SC411; 2008(10)SCALE536; 2008AIRSCW5578; 2008(3)Crimes141; 2008(4)LH(SC)2972
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowing the appeal filed by the State of U.P. questioning the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge (E.C. Act), Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. 169 of 1993. Two persons i.e. the present appellant and his wife Smt. Kapoori Devi were tried for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') for the murder of one Jagat Singh (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased'). The trial Court directed acquittal of the appellant primarily on the ground that there was discrepancy between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence, independent witnesses were not examined. In appeal filed by the State, the High Court held that while the acquittal of Smt. Kapoori Devi (A-2) was correct, the same was not sustainable so far as the present appellant is concerned.2. Background facts in a n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-25-2008
Reported in : 152(2008)DLT132; 2008(106)DRJ241
Vipin Sanghi, J.WP(C) No. 4584/2008Rule.CM No. 8838/20081. The petitioners viz. Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee (DSGMC), Shri Guru Tegh Bahadur Khalsa College, Shri Guru Nank Dev P.G. College, Shri Guru Gobind Singh College of Commerce, Mata Sundri College for Women have jointly filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that the aforesaid four colleges, namely, petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 which are being managed by the petitioner No. 1 DSGMC are Minority Educational Institutions (MEI for short) within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 (NCMEI Act for short) and Section 2(f) of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (CEI (R and A) Act for short). They have also sought a declaration that the reservation policy of the Central Government for admission and recruitment of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) is not enforceable against petitioner Nos. 2 to 5. A direction is also sought th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on : Jul-29-2008
1. In this OA applicant has challenged recovery of penal rent from his gratuity for overstaying in the quarter unauthorisedly on the ground that without following the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, no recovery could have been made.2. He has further sought 18% interest on delayed payment of gratuity and leave encashment.3. It is stated by the applicant that he was allotted Quarter No. 9C/1, NPL Colony, New Delhi while working as Technical Officer 'C'. He retired on 31.1.2001 and was allowed to retain the said quarter up to 31.5.2001. As his wife was very sick, he sought further extension vide letters dated 24.5.2001, 4.11.2003 and 29.4.2004 but no reply was given. They asked him to vacate and filed OA No. 3046/2002 seeking direction to the applicant herein to vacate the premises and for recovery of dues. The said OA was dismissed on 21.10.2003 (page 37) for want of jurisdiction.4. Grievance of applicant is that respondents have deducted pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-29-2008
Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj382
Prakash Tatia, J.1. These three D.B. Criminal Appeals have been preferred to challenge the judgment and order dated 29.9.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge.Bali passed in Sessions Case No. 61/99 (39/02), by which the trial Court convicted the appellant Bhanwar Singh @ Chhatar Singh and Madho Singh under Section 302, IPC as well as under Section 302/120B, IPC, whereas convicted appellant Kishan Chand under Section 302/120B as well as under Section 302.115, IPC. The accused Kishan Chand has been acquitted of charge under Section 302/34, IPC. The accused Bhanwar Singh @ Chhatar Singh and Madho Singh have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302, IPC with fine of Rs. 20,000/- to each and in default thereof, to undergo sue months rigorous imprisonment. They have also been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302/120B, IPC with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default thereof, to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. Kishan Chand has been sente...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jul-30-2008
LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 1. The question in this case is whether a local authority can obtain a summary order for possession against an occupier of a site which it owns and has been used for many years as a gipsy and travellers’ caravan site. His licence to occupy the site has come to an end. He has no enforceable right to remain there under English property law. But he claims that his removal would violate his rights under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The facts 2. The local authority, the respondent, is the freeholder of the site which is known as the Travellers’ Site, Tameside Drive, Castle Vale, Birmingham. The site comprises 16 concrete stands for caravans and four ablution blocks. The appellant was granted a licence by the respondent to station a caravan on plot 12 in September 1987. His licence was extended to include plot 14 in November 1998. He and his family had been resident on the site for about 17 years when on 4 March 2004 the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jul-30-2008
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. This appeal concerns the assessability for non-domestic rating of a group of buildings belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (commonly known as the Mormon Church) in the Borough of Chorley in Lancashire. The largest and most imposing is the Temple, which stands 48m high and has 6306m2 of internal floor space on five floors. It is fully air conditioned and is fitted and finished both externally and internally to the highest standards. In addition, in proximity to the Temple, there are (i) the Stake Centre, a single storey building containing a space of 1227m2 divided by a moveable partition into a chapel and a multi-purpose hall, together with a number of small meeting rooms, an office and a baptistery (ii) the Missionary Training Centre, a three storey building containing class rooms, dormitory rooms, cafeteria and ancillary rooms, as well as the President’s flat, which is subject to council tax (iii) the Patrons’ Services B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jul-30-2008
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. For the reasons given by Patten J and Collins LJ, as well as those of my noble and learned friends Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, I would allow this appeal. LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE My Lords, 2. This appeal raises a very short point of construction of section 18(2) of the Capital Allowances Act 1990. Since my opinion on the point differs from that of a majority of your Lordships it will suffice for me to explain the reasons for my dissent quite shortly. I am enabled to do so because I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinions of my noble and learned friends Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, who, with my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann, constitute the majority, and can gratefully adopt their description of the facts and relevant statutory background. 3. The issue is whether the warehouse in which the respondent, Maco, stores the stock that it purchases from its Austrian parent, Maye...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jul-30-2008
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. In these two appeals, heard together, there is a common underlying problem: if the police are alerted to a threat that D may kill or inflict violence on V, and the police take no action to prevent that occurrence, and D does kill or inflict violence on V, may V or his relatives obtain civil redress against the police, and if so, how and in what circumstances? 2. The two appeals arise on different facts and in a different way: (1) In the first (Van Colle) case the threat was made by a man known in the case as Daniel Brougham against Giles Van Colle (“Giles”) and culminated in the murder of Giles by Brougham. In the second (Smith) case, the threat was made against the respondent (Stephen Paul Smith) by his former partner (Gareth Jeffrey) and culminated in the infliction of serious injury on Mr Smith by Jeffrey. (2) In the Van Colle case the claimants are Giles’ parents, suing on behalf of his estate and on their own behalf. In the S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jul-30-2008
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. Mr Caldarelli challenges a decision of the Queen’s Bench Divisional Court (Laws LJ and Tomlinson J: [2007] EWHC 1624 (Admin), [2008] 1 WLR 31) upholding an order that he be surrendered pursuant to a European arrest warrant issued on 6 October 2006 by the Court of Naples. He complains that the warrant is bad because it seeks his surrender as an accused person and not (as he claims to be) a convicted person. The Divisional Court has neatly expressed the point to be decided in its certified question: “Where a fugitive has been convicted and sentenced in his absence in the requesting state, but the conviction and sentence are neither final nor enforceable, may his case be treated as an accusation case even though he does not enjoy an unqualified right to a retrial on the merits?” 2. The appellant is said to have been party to the unlawful smuggling of drugs into a Naples prison in which he was incarcerated at the time. On 6 October 20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jul-30-2008
LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. I agree with it, and for the reasons he gives I would allow the appeal and make the order that he proposes. 2. The exercise which is contemplated by para 4 of Schedule 1 to the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order 1997 (1997 SI/1984), as amended by the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) (Amendment) Order 2001 (2001 SI/3561), leaves much to the judgment of the rent officer. But, as its rather complex formula indicates, the area within which that judgment is to be exercised is not unlimited. It follows that, if his decision is challenged, the rent officer must be in a position to show that he has conducted the exercise in the way that is required by the paragraph. 3. The principle of valuation which the rent officer is asked to apply requires him to make an assessment based on a comparison with the rents payable for dw...
Tag this Judgment!