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 : Jul-15-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC2659; 2002(2)ARBLR641(SC); 2002(6)BomCR619; JT2002(5)SC444; 2002(5)SCALE193; (2002)6SCC201; [2002]SUPP1SCR148
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Leave is granted in all the SLPs.2. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, dated 29th February, 2000. Indeed both the parties to the dispute have filed appeals assailing the judgment of the High Court.3. M/s. Shyama Charan Agarwala & Sons (hereinafter referred to as 'the Contractor') were entrusted with the work of construction of married accommodation for 80MCPOs/CPOs/80Pos and 16 sailors at Goa Naval Area, Varunapuri, Mangor Hill, Vasco-da-Gama, by the Union of India (for short 'the UOI') through the Chief Engineer (Navy), Cochin Naval Base under the agreement No. CECZ/GOA-12 of 1990-91. The work order was placed vide letter No. 8319/43/E-8, dated 20-7-1990 for Rs. 2,62,44,057-94. The date of commencement of the work was 16-8-1990 and the work was to be completed by 15-11-1991.4. The same contractor by another agreement No. CECZ/GOA/40 of 1991-92 was entrusted with the work of construction of married accommodation for ...
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 : 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 : May-10-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC2256; 2002(4)ALD24(SC); JT2002(Suppl1)SC219; (2002)2PLR625; 2002(4)SCALE560; (2002)5SCC397; [2002]3SCR1078
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. Leave granted.2 .An eviction petition filed by the landlord-respondent urging the ground for eviction under Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter the Act, for short), was dismissed by the Rent Controller but allowed by the Appellate Authority. The decree has been maintained in civil revision preferred by the tenant in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The tenant has filed this appeal by special leave.3. The finding of fact arrived at, and immune from challenge before this Court, is that the suit premises situated on the ground floor of the building owned by the landlord-respondent is in occupation of the tenant-appellant for non-residential purpose. The same is required by the landlord-respondent for the office of his son who is a chartered accountant residing with the landlord-respondent. On 31.8.2001 Shri S.P. Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the appellant placed forceful reliance on a Division Bench decision of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-01-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC2137; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)65; 2002(2)BLJR1399; 2002CriLJ2819; 2002(2)Crimes417(SC); 2002(4)SCALE285; (2002)5SCC724; [2002]3SCR676
Raju, J.1. The above appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30.7.1999 of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1987 confirming the judgment dated 18.12.1986 of the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, convicting and sentencing the appellants for various offences in Sessions Trial No. 30 of 1983. Of the seven accused, who were charged and stood trial before the Sessions Court, the fifth accused, by name Ram Prasad Yadav, died on 2.7.1994 and during the pendency of the appeal in this Court, the second accused Malhu Yadav died on 5.6.2001.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 1.2.1981 at about 7.30 a.m., Rajendra Yadav, the informant, (PW-10), who is the brother of the deceased Sotilal Yadav, had gone to see the standing Kerao crop on his land and noticed the first accused Lal Bachan Yadav (A-1), son of Shibu Yadav (A-3), stealthily uprooting the crops, resulting in a scuffle between them when he caught hold of A-1. On hearing the...
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 : Apr-05-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC1814; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)311; 2002CriLJ2533; 2002(2)Crimes170(SC); JT2002(3)SC566; 2002(3)MhLj171; 2002MPLJ1(SC); 2002(3)SCALE355; (2002)4SCC571; 2002(1)LC619(SC); 200
B.N. Agrawal, J.1. Leave granted.2. Judgment impugned in this appeal has been rendered by Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court whereby criminal appeal preferred by the appellants has been dismissed confirming the convictions and sentences awarded against the appellants by the trial court under Sections 326 and 325 read with Sections 34 of the Indian Penal Code.3. The said criminal appeal was filed in the year 1987 and duly admitted. The same was placed for hearing in the year 2001 and after hearing the parties, the High Court passed an order in four pages. The impugned judgment, runs into seven paragraphs and after referring to the prosecution case and defence version in paras 1 to 5, the Court has disposed of the appeal in two paragraphs which runs thus:-'6. After re-appreciation of the evidence and re-scrutiny of the record, I find that there is no error apparent in the finding recorded by the learned Judge, therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the order of conviction p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-03-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC1685; JT2002(3)SC476; 2002(3)SCALE265; (2002)4SCC539; [2002]2SCR902; 2002(3)SLJ17(SC)
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. Colonel P.G. Sarcar, the father of the two appellants before us,was serving as Superintending Engineer (Civil), Selection Grade,equivalent to Colonel in the General Reserve Engineering Force, whichis said to be an integral part of the Armed Forces. He retired from hispost on 31st March 1995. On 14th September, 1995, his two majordaughters, who are the appellants, claiming themselves to be residingwith their father and as dependent on him, initiated proceedings foreviction of the tenant, the respondent before us, under Section 13(1)(ff)of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as'the Act', for short) by having recourse to summary procedure underChapter VIA of the Act. The tenant sought for leave to defend whichwas denied on the ground that the application seeking leave to defend wasfiled beyond the time prescribed therefore. The tenant, laying challenge tothe order of the Rent Controller, preferred a petition under Article 227 ofthe Consti...
Tag this Judgment!