Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-12-2005
Reported in : 2005(1)ALD(Cri)594; 2005CriLJ929; JT2005(11)SC209; (2005)2SCC409; 2005(1)LC446(SC)
H.K. Sema, J.1. All these appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 19th March, 2001 passed by the Designated Court No.3 at Ahmedabad in Terrorist Case No.2 of 1997, Terrorist Case No. 33 of 1994 and Terrorist Case No. 16 of 1995. The two-Judge bench before whom these appeals were posted for hearing referred the matters to a three-Judge Bench by an order dated 24.9.2002. The said Order reads as under:-'The issue involved concerns the admissibility of a confession in terms of Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 ( in short 'TADA ACT'). Consequently, therefore, the other provisions as contained in Sections 12 and 18 have to be read in order to assess the legislative intent therein.This Court in State v. Nalini : 1999CriLJ3124 stated the law to be as below:-'80. Section 12 of TADA enables the Designated Court to jointly try, at the same trial, any offence under TADA together with any other offence 'with which the accused may be charg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-09-2005
Reported in : AIR2005SC2345; 2005(2)ALD(Cri)363; 2005CriLJ2608; JT2005(5)SC358; (2005)11SCC133; 2005(2)LC915(SC)
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. The three appellants before this Court by special leave impugn the judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan which has convicted them on charges under Sections 364, 302/34 IPC and sentenced them appropriately thereunder.2. At about 11:40 a.m. on 3rd November, 1996, a written complaint was lodged by Rameshwar (PW 1) with the Police Station, Govindgarh, District Jaipur regarding abduction of his brother, Ramlal stating thus: On 2nd November, 19% in the night around 6:30 p.m. Ramlal had left Ring us for his village Bagdi. He took a lift in camel cart of Manaram (PW 2) of village Gudiliya. When the camel cart was passing by (Manawali Dhani), the field of Khemaram, Khemaram and his family members stopped the camel cart, pulled Ramlal down the camel cart, beat him up and took him inside the house of Khemaram. Ramlal was beaten inside the house and, thereafter, taken to some unknown place. The camel cart owner, on his way, informed one Girdhari Lal Kumawat a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-25-2005
Reported in : III(2005)ACC717; 2005ACJ2084; AIR2005SC3280; 2005(5)ALD85(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)1090; 2005(4)AWC3868E(SC); 2006(1)BomCR338; IV(2005)CPJ14(SC); 2005(4)CTC627; JT2005(7)SC606;
R.C. Lahoti, C.J.1. The plaintiffs-respondents, respectively husband and wife, filed a suit against the State of Punjab, the appellant before us and a lady surgeon who was in the State Government's employment at the relevant time, for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of a female child having been born to them in spite of the wife-respondent No. 2 having undergone a tubectomy operation performed by the lady surgeon. According to the plaintiffs-respondents, they already had a son and two daughters from the wed-lock lasting over 17 years. In response to a publicity campaign carried out by the Family Welfare Department of the appellant-State, respondent No. 2 with the consent of respondent No. 1, underwent a sterilization operation on 1.8.1984. A certificate in this regard bearing mark of identification No. 505, duly signed by the lady surgeon who performed the said surgery, was issued to her. She was given a cash award of Rs. 150/- as an incentive for the opera...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-05-2005
Reported in : 2005ACJ1840; AIR2005SC3180; 2005(2)ALD(Cri)334; 2005(5)ALD52(SC); 2005(3)AWC2756(SC); III(2005)CPJ9(SC); 2005CriLJ3710; 2005(4)CTC540; 122(2005)DLT83(SC); 2005(85)DRJ330; (
R.C. Lahoti, C.J.1. Ashok Kumar Sharma, the respondent No. 2 herein filed a First Information Report with police station, Division No. 3, Ludhiana, whereupon an offence under Section 304A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') was registered. The gist of the information is that on 15.2.1995, the informant's father, late Jiwan Lal Sharma was admitted as a patient in a private ward of CMC Hospital, Ludhiana. On 22.2.1995 at about 11 p.m., Jiwan Lal felt difficulty in breathing. The complainant's elder brother, Vijay Sharma who was present in the room contacted the duty nurse, who in her turn called some doctor to attend to the patient. No doctor turned up for about 20 to 25 minutes. Then, Dr. Jacob Mathew, the appellant before us and Dr. Allen Joseph came to the room of the patient. An oxygen cylinder was brought and connected to the mouth of the patient but the breathing problem increased further. The patient tried to get up but the medical staff asked him t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-05-2005
Reported in : 2005(3)CTC741; [2005(106)FLR190]; JT2005(5)SC170; (2005)IILLJ831SC; (2005)3MLJ146(SC); (2005)5SCC1; (2005)2UPLBEC1387
D.M. Dharmadhikari J.1. This present Appeal along with other connected cases has been listed before this Constitution Bench of five judges on a reference made by a Bench of three Honourable judges of this Court finding an apparent conflict between the decisions of two Benches of this Court in the cases of Chief Conservator of Forests v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare : (1996)ILLJ1223SC of three judges and State of Gujarat v. Pratam singh Nar singh Parmar of two judges.2. On the question of whether 'social forestry' department of State, which is a welfare scheme undertaken for improvement of the environment, would be covered by the definition of 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the aforesaid Benches (supra) of this Court culled out differently the ratio of the seven judges' Bench decision of this Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa : (1978)ILLJ349SC (shortly hereinafter referred to as the Bangalore Water case). The Ben...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-05-2005
Reported in : AIR2005SC514; 2005(2)ALD34(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)191; 2005(2)ALT32(SC); 2005(2)AWC1872(SC); 2005(3)BomCR781; (2005)107BOMLR967; (2005)2CALLT59(SC); 2005(1)CTC304; 118(2005)D
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal impugns the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in a Letters Patent appeal holding that the amended provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') would not apply to the suits on the Original Side of the High Court and that such suits would continue to be governed by the High Court Original Side Rules.Facts:3. The appellant company filed Suit No. 3092 of 2002 on 16.9.2002 on the Original Side of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay claiming about Rs. 1000 crores on the ground that it had suffered loss and/or damages on account of an alleged fraud on the part of the respondent, a foreign corporation incorporated in the United States of America. The appellant also obtained an ex parte order against the respondent in the nature of an attachment before judgment of receivables in India. On 17.9.2002, the first respondent claims to have dispatch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-18-2005
Reported in : AIR2005SC3836; JT2005(6)SC298; [2005]142STC1(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. These appeals are inter-linked and, therefore, are taken up together for disposal. Civil Appeal Nos. 2641 and 2642 of 2000 relate to respondent- Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. (in short 'Gujarat Ambuja') while Civil Appeal Nos. 3744-46 of 2000 relate to respondent-Associated Cement Ltd. (in short 'ACC'). The common question so far as the appeals are concerned linking the respondents in the appeals relates to one issue i.e. liability to pay purchase tax on the royalty paid by the respondents. As other issues are involved in Gujarat Ambuja's cases, the factual scenario in Civil Appeal Nos. 2641-2642 of 2000 needs to be noted in some detail.2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgments rendered by a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. Writ Petitions were filed by the present respondents questioning the action taken by the Sales Tax Authorities and the revisional orders passed setting aside the orders of assessment framed for the assessment years 1995-96...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-24-2005
Reported in : AIR2005SC2775; 2005(2)AWC1296(SC); (2005)2CALLT96(SC); 2005(3)ESC297; [2005(105)FLR1058]; JT2005(2)SC562; (2005)3SCC618; 2005(2)SLJ198(SC); 2005(2)LC783(SC); (2005)2UPLBEC1
ORDERIn exercise of the powers conferred by Section 6(2) of the Food Corporation Act, 1964, the Central Government is pleased to issue/reiterate the following policy instructions to the Food Corporation of India:-i. There shall not be any creation/upgradation of posts of any level except where completely unavoidable, New Divisions/offices or reorganization etc., shall not be not up/done unless absolutely essential: Even in such cases, matching saving should be provided by surrender of posts in the same group or of posts in the immediate lines of promotion. In such cases, specific prior approval of the Board of Directors and of the Government shall be taken.ii. The existing vacancies shall not be filled up by fresh recruitment. If, however, for specific operational reasons filling up of any vacant post is considered absolutely essential, prior approval of the Board and the Government shall be obtained.iii. FCI shall not arrive at any understanding with Staff Association in regard to res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-03-2005
Reported in : 2005(4)ALD106(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)816; 2005(2)AWC1685(SC); 2005(2)BLJR1316; 2005(5)BomCR605; 100(2005)CLT198(SC); 2005(2)CTC801; JT2005(11)SC8; 2005(3)MhLj747; (2005)5SCC1
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. A two-Judge Bench of this Court by an order dated 6.9.2001 referred the matter for decision by a bench of three Judges in view of the purported conflict recorded in Kartar Singh v. Harjinder Singh and Ors : AIR1990SC854 and Rachakonda Narayana v. Ponthala Parvathamma and Anr. : AIR2001SC3353.2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. 3. Balwant Singh father of the Appellant herein was the owner of the suit land measuring 153 Kanals 19 Marlas. He allegedly entered into an agreement to sell the said land on a consideration of Rs. 500/- per Bigha. The total consideration of Rs. 16,000/- in terms of the said agreement for sale dated 22.7.1964 is said to have been paid. However, for some reason or the other no sale-deed could be executed and registered pursuant to or in furtherance thereof. It is stated that Arjan Singh had paid a further sum of Rs. 14,000/- in addition to the said sum of Rs. 16,000/-. The said Balwant Singh died on 11.2.1968 whereafter the Appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-05-2005
Reported in : AIR2005SC2622; 2005(4)ALD10(SC); III(2005)BC119(SC); [2005]125CompCas513(SC); (2005)4CompLJ464(SC); 2005(3)CTC39; (2005)195CTR(SC)465; 119(2005)DLT687(SC); 2005(100)ECC457;
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.(Editor: Majority opinion by K.G. Balakrishnan, Arun Kumar, D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ.)1. Leave granted.2. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1748 of 1999 filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay challenging various notices issued to them under Section 50 read with Section 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short, the FERA Act) and contended that the appellant company was not liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 56 of the FERA Act. In this appeal filed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, dated 7th November, 1998, the appellant contends that no criminal proceedings can be initiated against the appellant-company for the offence under Section 56(1) of the FERA Act as the minimum punishment prescribed under Section 56(1)(i) is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months and with fine. Section 56 of the FERA Act, 1973 reads as follows :'56. Offences and prosecutions - (1) Wi...
Tag this Judgment!