Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-04-2008
Reported in : 2009AIRSCW244; AIR2009SC1085; 2009(2)ALT41(SC); 2009(1)AWC391(SC); 2009(1)KLT1(SC); (2009)2MLJ750(SC); 2009(3)MPHT528(SC); RLW2009(2)SC1589; 2008(16)SCALE109; (2009)1SCC714; 2009(1)LHSC68.
Altamas Kabir, J.1. The only question which falls for determination in this Civil Appeal by way of Special Leave is whether a marriage entered into by a Hindu with a Christian is valid under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.2. The appellant, who is a Roman Catholic Christian allegedly married the respondent, who is a Hindu, on 24.10.1996, in a temple only by exchange of `Thali' and in the absence of any representative from either side. Subsequently, the marriage was registered on 2.11.1996 under Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the '1955 Act'.3. Soon thereafter, on 13.3.1997, the respondent- wife filed a petition before the Family Court at Vishakapatnam, being O.P. No. 84 of 1997, under Section 12(1)(c) of 1955 Act, for a decree of nullity of the marriage entered into between the parties on 24.10.1996 on the grounds mentioned in the said petition.4. The main ground for declaring the marriage to be a nullity was mainly misrepresentation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-12-2008
Reported in : AIR2009SC1411; 2009(3)KarLJ529; 2008(16)SCALE1; 2009AIRSCW871; 2009(1)LHSC385
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Appellant is before us, aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment of conviction and sentence dated 7.6.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1999 reversing a judgment of acquittal dated 15.9.1998 in S.C. No. 30/91 passed in his favour by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore.2. There is a small village `Rammanahalli' situate near the town of Mysore. It has two streets called `Kelaginakeri' and `Melinakeri'. A cinema tent was put therein. There were two groups in the village residing in one or the other said streets. One group intended the owner of cinema/theatre to exhibit films starring Dr. Rajkumar and the other group asked them to exhibit the films starring Sri Vishnuvardhan. They had been asking the proprietor of the theatre to release the films in which their favourite stars were acting. The occurrence took place at about 8.00 a.m. on 9.12.1990.3. The prosecution case is as under:Maruchhaia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-15-2008
Reported in : 148(2008)DLT60; [2008(117)FLR474]; (2008)IILLJ489Del
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The above captioned appeals raise a common question of law and hence are being decided together.2. Facts relevant to FAO No. 250/1987 are that the first respondent Hotel Corporation of India, intended to set up a five star hotel near the International Airport at Delhi called Centaur Hotel. On 1.2.1981 it awarded the work of constructing the hotel to the second respondent M/s. Tirath Ram Ahuja Pvt. Ltd. The hotel building was stipulated to be completed by December 1983.3. When the work was in progress, a wing consisting of 200 rooms was completed. It be noted that 400 rooms were to be constructed under the original contract. Due to the ensuing Asian Games to be held in the month of November- December 1982, first respondent decided to commence partial operations from the building by putting to use the 200 rooms which were constructed. Appellant learnt that partial operations had commenced from the building. It demanded ESI dues with effect from 1.6.1982. It demand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-02-2008
Reported in : 2009ACJ2116
V.B. Gupta, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by National Insurance Ltd. against the Interim Award passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short as the 'Act') dated 12.03.08, by Dr. T.R. Naval, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short as 'Tribunal'), Karkardooma, Shahdara, Delhi.2. Brief facts are that on 11.02.07, the deceased Sh. Umesh Kumar was going on his cycle, when he reached at National Highway No. 24, near Toll Tax, Gazipur, Delhi, the offending Truck bearing No. RJ-14-2G-7677 hit the deceased from the back side resulting in his death. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver.3. Appellant in its written statement admitted that offending vehicle was insured with it vide insurance policy which was valid for the period 26.04.06 to 25.04.07.4. Vide impugned order, the Ld. Tribunal has granted interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 21...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-26-2008
Reported in : 152(2008)DLT268; 2008(104)DRJ361; [2008(119)FLR184]
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The above captioned appeals lay a challenge to an order dated 24.12.2001 and order dated 30.01.2003 dismissing two petitions filed by the appellant under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. In the petition filed before the learned Judge ESI Court which is the subject matter of FAO No. 88/2002 a challenge was made to an order dated 5/11.12.95 passed by the competent authority under the ESI Act 1948 followed by a letter dated 27/28.5.1996 stating that the demand raised vide order dated 5/11.12.1995 has to be satisfied. In the petition filed before the learned Judge ESI Court which is the subject matter of FAO No. 375/2003 challenge was to an order dated 13.5.1996. 2. Since the facts of both cases are near identical, at the hearing held on 5.5.2008, learned Counsel for the parties stated that reference may be made to the facts of FAO No. 88/2002. It may be stated that the dispute between the parties pertained to 2 LPG bottling plants of the appel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-11-2008
Reported in : 2008(37)PTC656(Del)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. By way of this application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'), the plaintiff seeks an ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, marketing, advertising or in any manner whatsoever using the trademarks 'SUPER BRIGHT', 'SUPER BRIGHT EL', 'SUPER BRIGHT EL-C', 'SUPER BRIGHT EL-81', 'SUPER BRIGHT had ULTRA' and 'SUPER BRIGHT Bleach' or any other trademark which is deceptively similar or confusingly similar to the above trademarks. It is claimed by the plaintiff that it is the proprietor of the said trademarks. The suit has been filed on the allegation that the defendant is passing off its goods as those of the goods of the plaintiff by utilising the aforesaid trademarks for its goods.2. The plaintiff is in the business of manufacturing and selling various detergent products. It is the plaintiff's case that it has developed several unique and novel detergent products s...
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 : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-01-2008
Reported in : 152(2008)DLT201; 2008(105)DRJ303
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. We are concerned with the rampant manipulation and misuse of the statutory right to appeal by convicts who quite palpably take recourse to filing of appeals with the sole objective of defeating justice by obtaining bail and thereafter escaping out of the reach of law. Jural compulsions dictate that this species of appeals should be consciously dismissed on the ground of occasioning gross abuse of judicial process and an annihilation of the ends of justice. This approach has found favour with the High Courts of Bombay and Patna. It is necessary to distinguish between dismissal of appeals in this set of circumstances, namely, where steps have been taken for securing the presence of the appellant by coercive means, including the issuance of non-bailable warrants or proceedings for declaring the appellant a proclaimed offender by recourse to Part C of Chapter VI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC for short) on the one hand, and instances where the appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-17-2008
Reported in : [2010]321ITR104(Delhi); [2009]182TAXMAN59(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the common order dated 21.4.2006 passed in IT Appeal Nos 3416 and 3417/Del/2003 in respect of financial years 2000-01 and 2001-02, respectively. The sole issue sought to be raised in these appeals is whether the services rendered by the non-resident company Noble Denton and Associates Ltd, (NDAL), UAE for the transportation and jacking up of rigs, review of design and issuance of suitability certificate is covered under Section 9(1)(vii) read with Explanation 2 thereto or under Section 44-BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This is in connection with deduction of tax at source.2. The Tribunal concluded that a reading of the provisions of Section 44-BB as well as Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the said Act clearly showed that the consideration in question paid or payable by the assessee to NDAL for the services rendered was covered by the provisions of Section 44-BB and not by Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act.3. This conclusion of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-28-2008
Reported in : AIR2009Delhi44; 2009BusLR280(Del); LC2009(1)252
Manmohan Singh, J.1. The present appeal has been filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC against the order dated 16th July, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court allowing the application of the respondent (plaintiff in the suit) under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC for restraining the appellant/defendant from reproducing, printing, publishing and distributing, selling or offering for sale prints in any form, whatsoever that are colourable imitation or substantial reproduction of the plaintiff's fabric prints including the underlying drawings/sketches thereof and dismissing the application of appellant (defendant in the suit) under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC read with Section 151 for vacation of ex-parte injunction order passed by this court on 2nd February, 2007.2. The Plaintiff-Respondent herein filed a suit CS (OS) No. 183/2007 on 01.02.2007 seeking a decree of permanent injunction, damages and rendition of accounts against the defendant for infringement of the Plaintiff's alleg...
Tag this Judgment!