Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VAD(SC)445; AIR1996SC3390; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)483; 1996CriLJ3461; 1996(3)Crimes119(SC); JT1996(6)SC739; 1996(5)SCALE318; (1996)10SCC193; [1996]Supp3SCR479
ORDERDR. A.S. Anand, J. 1. This batch of appeals by special leave arise out of the Judgment and Order of High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 27.11.1991. The appellants in these appeals are Executive Engineers, Deputy Executive Engineers, Section Officers and contractors of Nellore North Division, Nellore South Division and Gandipalem Project Division. They alongwith a Superintending Engineer (since dead) and various contractors were tried for offences under Sections 120B 420/34, 377A/34 I.P.C. and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and on being found guilty were sentenced to different terms of imprisonment for the said offences. The circumstances under which the cases arose are:A Call Attention Motion was moved in the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly in 1981 alleging large scale fraud, irregularities and illegalities committed in the execution of jungle clearance work by the engineers and contractors in various divisions of Nellore District dur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC3431; 1996CriLJ3499; 1996(5)SCALE136
ORDERS.P. Kurdukar, J.1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellants (accused) challenging the legality and correctness of the order of conviction and sentence dated 12-4-1989 in Sessions Case No. 77 of 1986 passed by the Designated Court under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 6(1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (for short 'TADA').2. The prosecution case may be briefly summarised as under:On 7-7-1986 at about 7.00 a.m., Rajinder (PW5) and his uncle Kishan Lal (PW 6) were coming out of the house of the latter in order to go to their fields. When they came out of the house, they noticed Jai Kishan (A-2) was armed with a gun and standing by the side of Panchayat Ghar. Rai Singh (A-3) was standing there with a 12 bore pistol. Bhagirath (A-1) was standing behind the bitora with a DBBL gun near the Panchayat Ghar. It is alleged by the prosecution that they gave lalkara to Rajinder (PW 5) and Kishan ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VAD(SC)229; AIR1996SC2184; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)926; 1996(2)ALT(Cri)418; 1996(2)BLJR1329; 1996CriLJ3237; 1996(3)Crimes35(SC); II(1997)DMC100SC; JT1996(6)SC268; 1996(II)OLR(SC
ORDERDr. A.S. Anand, J.1. The appellant alongwith his brother was tried for offences under Section 420 I.P.C. read with Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The trial court convicted them both and sentenced them to undergo 9 months R.I. and to a fine of Rs. 500 each and in default to undergo S.I. for months for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. and to R.I. for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 1000 each and in default S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act.) In an appeal against their sentence and conviction, the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge held that no offence under Section 420 I.P.C. was made out and set aside their conviction and sentence for the said offence while confirming their conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 4 of the Act. Both the convicts unsuccessfully invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.2. This appeal by special leave filed by the appellant is directed against the o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC2184; 1996(3)Crimes35; 1996(102)CriLJ3237; 1996(5)SCALE78; 1996(4)SCC596; 1996SCC(Cri)792; 1996(1)MLJ(Crl)730
Dr. ANAND, J.The appellant along with his brother was tried for offences under Section 420, IPC read with Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The trial Court convicted them both and sentenced them to undergo 9 months' R.I. and to a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to undergo S.I. for four months for the offence under Section 420, IPC and to R.I. for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). In an appeal against their sentence and conviction, the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge held that no offence under Section 420, IPC was made out and set aside their conviction and sentence for the said offence while confirming their conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 4 of the Act. Both the convicts unsuccessfully invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.2. This appeal by special leave filed by the appellant is directed against the order of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VAD(SC)606; AIR1997SC59; JT1996(6)SC468; 1996(5)SCALE302; (1996)5SCC344; [1996]Supp3SCR466; 1996(2)LC703(SC)
ORDERG.T. Nanavati, J. 1. Leave granted.2. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 3600 of 1990. The appellant had filed that writ petition against the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court whereby the judgment of the Small Causes Court, Bombay, was reversed and the appellant's suit was dismissed.3. The appellant is an owner of a flat and a garage in the building known as 'Tarangini' in Bombay. This suit premises belonged to her father and were gifted to her in 1972. By an agreement dated 29.3.1972 the said premises were given by the appellant to Respondent No.1 firm on leave and licence basis for the purpose of its use and occupation by Respondent No. 2 who is a partner of that firm. She filed Suit No. R.A.E. 372/1276/83 in the Court of small Causes at Bombay seeking eviction of the respondents on the ground that she requires the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for her personal occupa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VAD(SC)355; AIR1996SC3429; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)921; 1996(2)ALT(Cri)560; 1996CriLJ3496; 1996(3)Crimes1(SC); JT1996(6)SC629; 1996(5)SCALE150; (1996)9SCC204
ORDERS.P. Kurdukar, J.1. On 17.9.1975 at about 5.00 p.m. in a small village called Baddapur, under Police Station Loni Katra in district Barabanki, three gruesome murders of Ram Sewak, Hari Prasad and Bhola took place. Ram Sewak and Hari Prasad were real brothers. Bhola was the son of Hari Prasad. On the fateful day, Ram Sewak had gone to Haidergarh market while complainant Jang Bahadur (PW 1) had gone to Tejwapur market. Jang Bhadur after finishing his work in the market was returning to his village alongwith Devi Dayal and Hanuman on the Canal Patri and when they reached near the grove of Jagdamba Singh, they heard a big sound of explosion of hand grenade. They also heard cries coming from the side of the field of Gaya Prasad. When Jang Bahadur (P.W. 1) looked towards the said field, he noticed Ram Sewak being attacked by accused persons, namely, Bishambhar, Maharaj Din, Deoki Nandan, Rameshwar, Ram Lakhan, Sri Chand, Jagat and four unknown persons. Due to murderous assault, Ram Sewa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC605
ORDER 1. The appellant challenged the order of requisition made by the Collector under Section 4(1) of the West Bengal Fisheries (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965 (the Act) by way of a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court. Before the learned Single Judge the constitutional validity of Section 4 of the Act was challenged. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Before the Letters Patent Bench attack on the ground of vires was given up. The appellant, however, raised the question of quantum of compensation payable under the Act, by challenging the vires of clause (c) of Explanation to sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act. The Bench summarily dismissed the appeal. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. There is no factual basis whatsoever in the special leave petition to support the attack on the vires of clause (c) of sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act. Even otherwise, we see no basis for such an argument. The appeal is dismissed. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)9SCC176
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J. and; K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. Special leave granted.2. Heard counsel for the parties. We see considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for LIC that since the policy has yet to mature at a future date, the grant of interest at 12% p.a. on the modified amount is unsustainable. Even otherwise that amount was not payable to the policy-holder, but merely an entry in regard thereto had to be made in the policies concerned so that, at the time of maturity of the policy, these dues would be taken into consideration in ascertaining the total amount to which the policy-holder would be entitled. We see considerable force in this submission and find it difficult to sustain the direction in regard to grant of interest. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the stipulation in regard to grant of interest at 12% p.a. on the modified amount.3. Mr Bobde, the learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the respondent had to incur cost for the fai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC2638; JT1996(6)SC579; 1996LabIC2268; 1996(5)SCALE404; (1996)10SCC62; [1996]Supp3SCR424; 1996(3)SLJ21(SC); 1996(2)LC643(SC); (1996)3UPLBEC1959
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J.1. This special leave petition arises from the judgment and order dated March 27, 1996 made by Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 258 of 1996. The petitioners came to join as L.T. Grade teachers in S.S.V. Inter College, Ghaziabad. It is claimed that 16 substantive vacancies and arisen in the said college and the intimation thereof was claimed to have been issued to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission at Allahabad (for short, the 'Commission'). But before recommendation came to be made by the Commission for appointment of the teachers, advertisement notifying the said 16 vacancies appears to have been issued in two newspapers on June 28 and July 3, 1991 and interviews are claimed to have been conducted by the Management of the said college on July 12, 1991 and the petitioners were allowed, as stated above, to join as teachers on July 15 and 16, 1991. When papers were sent on November 2, 1991 to District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad for accord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)9SCC166
Kuldip Singh,; M.M. Punchhi,; N.P. Singh,; M.K. Mukharji and; S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court upholding the constitutional validity of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 217 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 as amended by the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Amendment Act, 1975.2. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Shyam Kishore v. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi1 has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 170(b) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, which is almost in similar terms as Section 217 of the Maharashtra Act. Mr P.H. Parekh, learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, does not press the attack on the ground of vires.3. Mr Parekh has, however, contended that Section 217 of the Maharashtra Act be given the same interpretation as was given by this Court to Section 170(b) of the Delhi Act. Mr Nariman, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation has invited our attention to the impugne...
Tag this Judgment!