Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000CriLJ591; JT1999(10)SC121; [1999]Supp5SCR485
M.B. Shah, J.1. Appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 5 TADA Act, 1987 by the Designated Court, Delhi vide its judgment and order dated 6.8.1999/ 13.8.1999 in Sessions Case No. 7/97 and FIR No. 279/92. It is alleged that in the broad day light, in the presence of police party, Khalil Ahmad-informer of the police, was murdered by Mohd. Anwar by firing of shot from the revolver. It is the prosecution version that there was information about activities of dacoits in Delhi, which was conveyed to SI Pankaj Singh. On 19.9.1992, SI Pankaj Singh along with the deceased-informer Khialil, SI Shiv Lal (PW3), ASI Raghbir Singh (PW1), Constable Devender (PW16), Constable Ramesh, Constable Satbir Singh (PW13) and Constable Jagpal (PW10) went for patrolling near Naulakha Niwas, Model Basti, Delhi. At about 1.50 p.m., three boys were seen coming to Model Basti from Rani Jhansi Road. On seeing the police party, they turned back...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC617; JT1999(10)SC166; 1999(7)SCALE543; (2000)1SCC557; [1999]Supp5SCR452
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. This order shall govern the disposal of a bunch of appeals grouped into three and arising in the backdrop of events stated hereinafter.2. The Uttar Pradesh Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979 (U.P. Act No. 28 of 1979) was enacted and came into force in the State of U.P. on August 16, 1981. It introduced the levy of the entertainment tax payable at a certain percentage on all payments for admission to any entertainment. 'Entertainment' as defined in the interpretation clause includes cinematograph exhibitions amongst others. With a view to encouraging cinema construction the state of Uttar Pradesh extended a scheme of grant-in-aid for permanent cinema houses constructed within a specified period through a Government Order dated 17th September, 1983. Permanent cinema houses constructed under the scheme depending on the population of the areas/towns wherein they were constructed were allowed grant-in-aid equivalent to 100%, 75%, 50% respectively for the first, secon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(2000)ACC8; AIR2000SC423; 2000(1)ALD(Cri)198; 2000CriLJ584; JT1999(10)SC138; 1999(7)SCALE539; (2000)1SCC662; [1999]Supp5SCR422; 2000(1)LC95(SC)
G.B. Pattanaik, J.1. The appellant, a truck driver was convicted under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 33 of 1994. On appeal, the said conviction and sentence has been upheld by the High Court of Rajasthan. The present appeal is directed against the said conviction and sentence.2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that on 26.8.92 at 10.55 p.m., deceased Munir Khan was going on his scooter and the appellant who was the truck driver, intentionally dashed against him and crushed him under the truck, as a result of which, said Munir Khan died. Initially, a case under Section 304A IPC had been registered but later on, charge-sheet was filed under Section 302 IPC and the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC, as already stated. PW4 gave a report at Suratgarh Police Station, Exh.P4 at 11.15 p.m., which was treated as F.I.R. and the police started investigation. On the basis of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC420; 2000(1)ALT(Cri)125; 2000CriLJ581; JT1999(10)SC131; 1999(7)SCALE549; (2000)2SCC92; [1999]Supp5SCR506
K.T. Thomas, J. 1. The carnage fuelled by the assassination of Indira Gandhi scored a heavy toll on the Sikh Community in Delhi and this case relates to a macabre which took place during then. Four sons of Harbai were roasted to death in front of her eyes on 2-11-1984 at Trilokpuri in Delhi. The present appellants - Jaggu and Mannu - were tried before a Sessions Court for offences under Sections 302 and 396 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court convicted them of those offences and sentenced them to death on the first count and to life imprisonment on the next. A Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi confirmed the conviction and sentence. The appellants filed this criminal appeal by special leave.2. PW-1 Harbai was the wife of Hooda Singh. They were living in an apartment situated at Trilokpuri. They had 4 sons - Darshan Singh, Laxman Singh, Chaman Singh and Hoshiar Singh. Among them Darshan Singh was living with his wife Shantibai in a house situated adjac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC551; JT1999(10)SC145; 1999(7)SCALE567; (2000)2SCC321; [1999]Supp5SCR466
Nanavati, J.1. Leave granted.2. These eight appeals arise out of three different judgments of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 15530-31 of 1995, 15532-35 of 1995 and 15705-15706 15705-15706 of 1995. S.L.P. (C) Nos. 4973-4974 of 1997 are against the decision in Writ Petition Nos. 15530-31 of 1995, S.L.P. (C) Nos. 5589-92 of 1997 are against the decision in Writ Petition Nos. 15532-35 of 1995 and S.L.P. (C) Nos. 5441-52 of 1997 are against the decision in Writ Petition Nos. 15705-15706 15705-15706 of 1995.3. The appellant in the appeals arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 4973-74 of 1997 and S.L.P. (C) Nos. 5589 to 5592 of 1997 is Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Arooran Sugars')- Arooran Sugars is engaged in manufacturing sugar in its units at Vadapathimangalam and Tirumandankudi. The Madras Sugar Factories Control Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the Rules framed thereunder and the Sugar Control Order, 1966 apply to its sugar manufacturing a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC680; JT1999(10)SC201; 1999(7)SCALE580; (2000)1SCC688; [1999]Supp5SCR428; [2000]117STC395(SC); 2000(1)LC558(SC)
Kirpal, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the notification dated 12th March, 1997 issued by the State of Rajasthan under Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act [for short 'the Act'] whereby it reduced the rate of sales tax on inter-state sale of cement by any dealer from that State to 4% and did away with the requirement of furnishing of declaration in Form-C or certificate in Form-D contemplated by Section 8(4) of the Act.2. Shri Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd and M/s Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., petitioners no. 1 and 3 herein, manufacture cement and have their manufacturing units in the State of Gujarat. The cement manufactured by them is sold in Gujarat and elsewhere. The State of Rajasthan had issued under Section 8(5) notifications dated 8th January, 1990 and 27th June, 1990, which had the effect of reducing tax on inter-state sale effected by dealers from Rajasthan to 7% even though in respect of local sales the tax was 16%. These notifications were challenged by the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC562; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)85; 2000(1)ALD(Cri)426; 2000(1)ALT(Cri)132; 2000CriLJ756; JT1999(10)SC275; 2000(1)SCALE1; (2000)2SCC83; [1999]Supp5SCR494
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Having been sentenced to death and ordered to be hanged by neck till death by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court of Delhi, the appellant Kishori filed the Special Leave Petition seeking leave of this Court to challenge the judgment of the High Court. By order dated 27.9.1999 this Court issued notice to the respondents and stayed execution of the death penalty until the disposal of the case.2. Leave granted.3. The fact situation of the case leading to the present proceeding may be shortly stated thus:4. Immediately following the assassination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister, large scale rioting and arson took place in different parts of Delhi on the 1st and 2nd November, 1984. Many persons, young, old and children belonging to Sikh community were mercilessly killed. The Incident in the present case took place in Block No. 30, 32 and 34 of Trilok Puri on 1.11.1984. Amongst the large number of persons killed during the riots were Darshan Si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(1)CTC507; JT1999(10)SC223; (2000)2MLJ64(SC); 1999(7)SCALE559; (2000)10SCC130; [1999]Supp5SCR512
M. Jagannadha Rao, J.1. On May 6th, 1996 this Court delivered judgment in Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co.(P) Ltd. : AIR1996SC2005 . Thereafter, various other issues regarding the Skipper group of Companies continued to pose serious issues of law and fact. Sometimes, it looked like a maze which could baffle lawyers and courts alike. More claims with regard to Jhandevalan property-which was the subject matter of the above case, -of persons who claimed to be purchasers of space proposed to be built at Jhandevalan came before us. In addition, claims of similar purchasers of property at Barakhamba Road and also in regard to Technology Park, came before us. In this judgment, we propose to deal with certain issues concerning the Jhandevalan property which have remained undecided or not decided finally in the earlier orders of this Court.2. In order to understand how these issues arise, it is necessary to go back (A) to the long history of events set out in the above sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1999(10)SC403; (2001)10SCC462
ORDERG.B. Pattanaik, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Designated Judge granting bail to the accused respondent, who had mis-utilised his liberty granted and became terror in the area. The respondent is facing trial under the provisions of TADA before the learned Designated Judge, and is alleged to be a member of the known Dawood Ibrahim group. He was released on bail in October, 1993, but jumped bail, and it was formidable task for the investigating agency to again take him into custody. Two years after some time in September, 1995 herein Delhi, he was found to be having a forged passport in respect of which separate criminal proceedings is pending. After being taken into custody, a fresh application being filed, the learned Designated Judge considered the question of granting him bail, and by the impugned order has granted him bail, though with very strict condition. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the state of Maharasht...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC454; [2000(84)FLR364]; JT1999(10)SC12; (2000)ILLJ533SC; 1999(7)SCALE526; [1999]Supp5SCR403; 2000(1)LC235(SC); (2000)1UPLBEC280
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. This appeal on grant of special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India by the Management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi against Respondent No. 1, who is the only contesting party, has brought in challenge the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No. 93 of 1982 by which the High Court directed reinstatement of Respondent No. 1 in service with continuity entitling him to receive all salaries and allowances from the appellant-Corporation. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant-Corporation against the said order, a few relevant introductory facts need to be noticed at the outset.Background Facts:2. Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent-workman') was appointed by the appellant-Corporation on the temporary post of Section Officer (Civil) on 5.5.1964 with the condition that he would be considered for confirmation after one year of satisfactory service. I...
Tag this Judgment!