Court : Supreme Court of India
M.K. Mukharji and; K.T. Thomas, JJ.1. Thirteen persons were arraigned before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur for rioting, murder and other cognate offences. On conclusion of the trial the trial Judge convicted four of them (A-1, A-8, A-12 and A-13) under Sections 302/34 IPC and the other nine under Sections 304 (Part II)/34 IPC. Besides two of them (A-5 and A-10) were convicted under Sections 325/34 IPC and eight others under Sections 323/34 IPC. In appeals preferred by them the High Court acquitted two of them (A-5 and A-10) while maintaining the convictions and sentences of the others. Assailing the judgment of the High Court the convicts filed two special leave petitions in this Court, one of which was filed by A-1, A-8, A-12 and A-13 and the other by the seven other convicts. While refusing leave to the former group of convicts this Court granted leave to appeal to the latter.2. In distinguishing the case of the seven appellants from that of the other four convicts regard...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(2)ALD(Cri)695; 1998CriLJ89; JT1997(8)SC310; 1997(6)SCALE315; (1997)8SCC158; 1998(1)LC101(SC)
1. The Sessions Court of East Thanjavur at Nagappattinam as also the High Court at Madras by their concurrent judgments and orders found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 IPC and accordingly sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment on first count and RI for ten years on second count. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellant by Special Leave has filed this appeal to this Court.2. The facts of the prosecution case lie in a very narrow compass and shorn of details may be summarised as under:Panchapagesa Iyer, a stone deaf in his sixties was staying with his wife Mohambal since deceased in Mel Agraharam in Mudikondan. The couple had no child. They owned some agricultural lands which were supervised by Mohambal with the help of appellant. They belonged to an affluent family having various jewellery items of jewels, diamonds and gold. The appellant was said to be a trusted servant and a man of her confidence. Mohambal was f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)11SCC626
ORDER 1. The son of the petitioner in this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has applied for admission to the Engineering course in the Engineering Colleges in the State of Karnataka. Such admission is governed by the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Engineering, Medical and Dental Courses Rules, 1997, hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”. Under the Rules 15% seats falling in the payment category are reserved for non-Karnataka students. The son of the petitioner has applied for admission as a non-Karnataka student. The Rules provide for holding an entrance test for determination of merit and thereafter counselling is held in two rounds, viz., the Preliminary Round and the Admission Round. The grievance of the petitioner is that counselling for the purpose of admission for non-Karnataka students is fixed in November 1997 after both the rounds of counselling for Karnataka students is completed which means that it will ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC124
The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedThe appellant was denied admission to MBBS Course in 1994-95 and 1995-96 sessions, as she could not produce community certificate, which was wrongfully denied by the State authorities. Thus, court directed to give her admission in the 1997-98 session against an available vacancy and if no vacancy was there then she should be accommodated in the first available vacancy. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)8SCC520
J.S. Verma, C.J. and; B.N. Kirpal, J.1. Learned Additional Solicitor General informs us that pursuant to our observations made at the last hearing, the learned Solicitor General has suggested to the Central Government that the terms of reference of the Justice Shetty Commission will be enlarged to include therein the revision of pay scales and other service conditions of the staff attached to the subordinate courts so that the exercise before the Commission is not confined merely to examining the matter relating to the Subordinate Judges alone. This is appropriate because for the proper and effective functioning of the subordinate courts as well, not merely the Judges of those courts but the entire staff associated with the functioning of the subordinate courts, is required to be taken care of properly. Learned Additional Solicitor General added that the question of enlargement of the terms of reference of the Shetty Commission will be considered in this light and appropriate steps are...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC1537; JT1997(8)SC290; 1997(6)SCALE278; (1997)8SCC89; [1997]Supp4SCR327; (1997)3UPLBEC2055
G.N. Ray, J. 1. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.2. The appeal arising out of S.L.P. No. 25014/96 is directed against Order dated October 29,1986 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 2122/95. The appeal arising out of S.L.P. No. 24361/96 is directed against order dated August 22, 1996 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in O.A. No. 184/92 and the appeal arising out S.L.P. No. 9068/97 is directed against order dated March 7, 1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 2563/96.3. As the common question is involved in all the said appeals as to the interpretation of para 7.3 of the Scheme for making appointments to the posts of General Managers and equivalent in the Indian Railways, all the appeals have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. It will be appropriate if a sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3956; JT1997(8)SC263; 1997(2)KLT753(SC); 1997(6)SCALE290; (1997)7SCC665; [1997]Supp4SCR346; 1998(1)LC19(SC)
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, J.1. Leave granted in all the cognate Special Leave Petitions.2. By consent of learned advocates of parties all these appeals were heard finally and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation (in short 'the Corporation') functioning in the State of Kerala as well as in the State of Karnataka in the appeals concerned, have posed for our consideration the following question of law :Whether a suspended employee and his employer are liable to remit under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the requisite contributions under the said Act in connection with the subsistence allowance amounts received by the suspended employee during the period of his suspension pending domestic enquiry.3. In the impugned judgments under appeal the High Courts of Kerala and Karnataka have taken the view that there is no such liability on the part of the suspended employee or his employer. The learned C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1560; (1997)8SCC712
ORDER1. In this Transfer Petition moved on behalf of the wife for transferring the Divorce Petition of the respondent-husband pending in the Court of District Judge, Bokaro, Bihar State to the District Court at Delhi, the parties have filed a copy of the Memorandum of Settlement along with a copy of the petition for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13-B(1) and (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Both the parties have agreed that the marriage between them should be dissolved by mutual consent under Section 13-B(1) and (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act. We have taken the copies of the Petition and the Memorandum of .Settlement on record. In view of this development we direct transfer of the respondent's divorce petition from the Court of District Judge, Bokaro, Bihar State to the District Court at Delhi. The parties are given liberty to file petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the transferee Court at Delhi wherein appropriate orders ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3939; 1998(1)ALLMR(SC)161; 1998(1)ALT1(SC); JT1997(8)SC317; (1998)IMLJ38(SC); RLW1998(1)SC10; 1997(6)SCALE328; (1997)8SCC47; [1997]Supp4SCR362; 1997(2)LC761(SC)
K. Venkataswamj, J.1. Though before the High Court of Bombay, Panaji Bench (Goa) three questions were raised and answered, before us learned Counsel for the appellants confined the argument to one of the questions raised before the High Court, namely, whether the declaration made/published under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the 'Act') was barred by limitation.2. To appreciate the above question, certain dates are necessary. Initially a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act for acquiring land for construction and black topping of St. Sebastian Chapel Road was published on 8.11.90. That Notification lapsed as no declaration as required under Section 6 of the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984 was made. Therefore, a fresh Notification was made under Section 4(1) of the Act for the same purpose on 23.6.92, The said Notification under Section 4(1) was first published in the English daily 'O Heraldo' on 29.6.92, and in the Marathi daily 'Nav Prabha' on 2.7.92. Public...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998(99)ELT199(SC); JT1998(9)SC51; (1998)9SCC630
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The only point decided by the High Court is that the Finance Minister's statement on the floor of the House must be held to be binding and the Union was stopped from realising the disputed cess from the appellants. It has been stated that the writ petitioner had acted to his prejudice on the basis of the promise made by the Finance Minister. We are of the view that speech made in Parliament by the Finance Minister cannot be treated as a promise or representation made to the writ petitioner and the principle of promissory estoppel was wrongly applied by the High Court. No case of promissory estoppel has been made out on the facts of this case.3. In that view of the matter, the judgment under appeal is set aside. The appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!