Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jul-22-2008
T. Vaiphei, J.1. The constitutional validity of the provisions of Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (Prevention of Defection) Act, 2003 ('the Act' for short) and the rules made thereunder, namely, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (Prevention of Defection) Rules, 2005. ('the Rules') whereunder the writ petitioner has been disqualified as Member of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council ('the District Council' for short), is called into question in this writ petition.2. The material facts of the case are not in dispute. The petitioner was elected as Member of the District Council form No. 13, Laitkroh District Council Constituency in the election held in the year 2004 for a term of five years. After holding the office of the Executive Member, Law and Elaka Administration Department in the District Council for sometime, he was ultimately appointed as the Chief Executive Member till he was removed on 5.2.2008 by a No-Confidence Motion moved against him. After his removal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-22-2008
Reported in : AIR2008SC3200; 2008(10)SCALE292; (2008)11SCC637
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant questions legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur Bench. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur found the accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and sentenced him to undergo RI for life and to pay a fine with default stipulation. He was also convicted for offence punishable under Section 447 IPC and sentenced to undergo 15 days' RI. Additionally, he was convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years RI and pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. Similarly, in respect of offence punishable under Section 324 IPC he was sentenced to undergo RI for one year. In appeal, by the impugned judgment, High Court confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence.3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:On 3.8.1999, Vaje Singh (PW-1) lodged a First Information Repo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Decided on : Jul-17-2008
..... the district of darbhanga. this order has been challenged therefore in the present writ application.2. some basic facts are not under dispute. petitioner's father is a nepali resident as well as its citizen. the mother is alleged to be the woman of indian origin married to petitioner's father. subsequently after matrimony it is stated ..... that she too acquired nepali citizenship voluntarily. petitioner after coming of age entered into a matrimony with one mithilesh prasad in the year, 1988. she was supposed to be of 18 years of ..... her. not only this the private respondent had brought enough evidence to show that it is not in dispute that the father and mother of the petitioner are nepalis citizens and she was brought up in nepal. mere matrimony therefore could not confer citizenship upon the petitioner.7. this court had occasion to deal with similar .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-16-2008
Reported in : 2008(121)ECC1; 2008(157)LC1(SC); JT2008(8)SC426; 2008(10)SCALE498; 2008AIRSCW5954.
Ashok Bhan, J.1. The instant appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the final judgment and order No. 1-1255/KOL/2001 dated 23rd November, 2001 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Bench, Kolkata (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the Commissioner.2. The three Bills of Entry which are the bone of contentions in the present case are detailed below:(i) Bill of Entry Sl. No. 2256 dated 30th April, 1998, per Vessel X-Press Singapore Voy-257, Rot. No. 258/98 dated 7th April, 1998, Line No. 97, Country of origin - India, Goods 135 cartons 2/64 NM Merino Wool 100% Raw White on paper cone, Assessable Value - Rs. 36,63,829/-. (ii) Bill of Entry Sl. No. 2440 dated 29th May, 1998, per Vessel S.S. Acacia V. 818, Rot No. 370/98, Line No. 154, Country of Origin - India, Goods - 20 pallets Polyester 100% Semi Dull Ring Spun Yarn for weaving NE 24/2, Assessable...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-16-2008
Reported in : 2008(10)SCALE249
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court holding the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC.2. The appellant and his father Baldu had filed the appeal before the High Court questioning the correctness of the conviction and imposition of sentence as done by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Sessions Trial No. 287 of 1980. The appellant's father Baldu died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court and, therefore, the appeal stood abated so far as he is concerned.3. The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is essentially as follows:Kali Charan, first informant (PW-1), his father Lachhi Ram (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') and his mother Smt. Ram Kunwar were returning after ploughing the land of Chandra Bhan with their bullocks on 28.7.1980 through th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-14-2008
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC4003
..... was in the form of plot no. 209 area 2.54 acres alongwith building standing on a portion thereof was acquired.2. the property in dispute was popularly known as nepali kothi situate in mahmoorganj which was within the limits of municipal corporation, varanasi. notification under section 4 of land acquisition act was published in the gazette on 17.2.1973 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-11-2008
Reported in : 2009(2)BomCR321; (2008)110BOMLR2344
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. These two writ petitions are filed by the trustees of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust ('Trust' for short), which is duly registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 ('B.P.T. Act for short). Since both the petitions challenge the decision of the Joint Charity Commissioner ('Jt. C.C.' for short) dated 3-6-2008, both the petitions are heard together finally at the stage of admission and disposed of by this common judgment.2. The impugned order dated 3-6-2008 is an interim order passed by the Jt. C.C. in an application filed by a permanent trustee of the Trust under Section 41D of the B.P.T. Act. The said application was filed seeking removal of nine trustees of the Trust inter alia on the ground that the said trustees during the period from 2001 to 2006 had siphoned off the Trust funds running into several crores of rupees and further they have committed act of malfeasance, misfeasance, breach of Trust, gross negligence etc. which are detrimental to the in...
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 : House of Lords
Decided on : Jul-09-2008
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. The Achilleas is a single-decker bulk carrier of some 69,000 dwt built in 1994. By a time charter dated 22 January 2003 the owners let her to the charterers for about five to seven months at a daily hire rate of US$13,500. By an addendum dated 12 September 2003 the parties fixed the vessel for a further five to seven months at a daily rate of US$16,750. The latest date for redelivery was 2 May 2004. 2. By April 2004, market rates had more than doubled compared with the previous September. On 20 April 2004 the charterers gave notice of redelivery between 30 April and 2 May 2004. On the following day, the owners fixed the vessel for a new four to six month hire to another charterer, following on from the current charter, at a daily rate of US$39,500. The latest date for delivery to the new charterers, after which they were entitled to cancel, was 8 May 2004. 3. With less than a fortnight of the charter to run, the charterers fixed the vessel under a subcharter ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jul-09-2008
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead. For the reasons he gives, with which I agree, I too would allow this appeal. LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 2. This case raises important questions about the interaction between provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA 1998”) on the one hand and provisions of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (“FOISA 2002”) on the other. The corresponding provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA 2000”), which extends to the whole of the United Kingdom and applies to UK public authorities located in Scotland, are not engaged directly. The appellant, the Common Services Agency (“the Agency”), is a special Health Board the regulation of whose functions is a matter for the Scottish Parliament: see FOIA 2000, section 80. But much of the wording of section 38 of FOISA 2002, which address...
Tag this Judgment!