Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1301; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)471; (1999)2CALLT44(SC); 1999CriLJ2034; 1999(1)Crimes119(SC); JT1999(2)SC1; 1999(1)SCALE648; (1999)2SCC530; [1999]1SCR922; 1999(1)LC544(SC)
ORDERG.B. Pattanaik, J.1. Both these appeals are directed against the Judgment of a learned single judge of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Criminal Revision No. 245 of 1992. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has upheld the conviction and sentence against the two appellants under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed criminal breach of trust in respect of 4300 litres of diesel oil.2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that both the accused persons were posted in the office of Government Heat Treatment center at Bahadurgarh and on 23.2.82, they were authorised to bring 10,000 litres of light diesel oil from the Indian Oil Corporation, Delhi. For that purpose the letter of authority as well as the bank draft to the tune of Rs. 28,275.83 were given to them. The said two accused persons deposited the bank draft with Indian Oil Corporation and took delivery of 10,000 litres of light diesel oil but ultimately the quantity of diesel was found to be less by 4300 litr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1056; [1999(81)FLR746]; JT1999(2)SC37; (1999)ILLJ1012SC; 1999(1)SCALE655; (1999)3SCC14; [1999]1SCR930; 2000(1)SLJ254(SC); 1999(1)LC540(SC); (1999)2UPLBEC951
M. Jagannadha Rao, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant who holds a post-graduate degree was appointed as a typist/clerk on 15.12.1987 by the City Board, Etawah, respondent in this appeal. Her services were terminated on 12.4.1988. The appellant raised an industrial dispute and the same was referred to the Labour Court by the State of U.P. under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the 'Act') on 7.9.1991. The Labour Court held that the termination of the appellant's appointment w.e.f. 12.4.1988 could not be termed as invalid but held that, even so, the principle of 'last come, first go' applied even in the case of those employed on daily wages and, therefore, passed an award to the effect that in case workmen Junior to the appellant were retained, the appellant must be considered for regularisation by re-appointment on the basis of her seniority. This award was passed on 28.1.1993.3. The respondent filed Writ Petition No. 15674 of 1994 in the High Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC338
B.N. Kirpal and; S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. The respondent was a driver of an RTC bus. It met with an accident which resulted in the death of one person.3. The respondent was prosecuted and convicted by the Magistrate under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. On appeal, the Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, reduced the sentence to three months. A revision petition was filed in the High Court and the High Court allowed the same by observing as follows:“I perused the entire evidence available on record and also the judgments of the lower courts. There is no acceptable evidence to indicate that the petitioner-accused was responsible for causing the accident and that he drove the vehicle rashly and negligently.I do not find any ground to convict the accused basing on the little evidence available. Therefore the criminal revision case is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the lower courts are set aside...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1104; 1999(2)ALLMR(SC)404; JT1999(2)SC45; 1999(1)SCALE634; (1999)2SCC635; [1999]1SCR901; 1999(1)LC697(SC)
M. Jagannadha Rao, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff in the suit against the judgment and decree of the Bombay High Court in S. A. No. 543 of 1979, dated 19-1 -1987. By that judgment the Second Appeal was allowed, the judgment dated 16-3-1979 of the lower appellate Court decreeing the plaintiff-appellant's suit was set aside and the judgment of the trial Court in Civil Suit No. 151 of 1975 passed by the Third Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad dated 23-2-1977 was restored. The dispute between the parties, who are neighbours, covers an extent pf 25' x 11' upon which the defendant constructed two rooms. The appellant's case is that the above extent is part of the appellant's property and that the defendant-respondent has encroached upon it and has made the construction of the two rooms. The suit is for possession of the area of 25' x 11' and for directing removal of the two rooms. Pending these proceedings, the plaintiff-appellant died and her legal represe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1195; JT1999(2)SC41; 1999(2)KLT113(SC); 1999(1)SCALE641; (1999)2SCC622
ORDERS.S. Mohammed Quadri, J.1. This appeal by the State of Kerala and others, is against the judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala in CRP No. 1158 of 1985 dated September 25, 1987. The short question that is posed here is whether Explanation I to Sub-section (1) of Section 87 applies when land under Section 81(1)(k) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act ceases to be exempted.2. This question arises in the following factual backdrop:3. The respondent is a partner of a firm, an industrial undertaking. He claimed exemption of the land in question under Section 81(1)(k) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act'). The Taluk Land Board, Kodungallur, in proceeding under Section 85 of the Act opined that he was not entitled to the exemption as the land was not actually put to industrial use and directed him to surrender the excess land measuring 3.22.250 acres. The respondent carried the matter in revision before the High Court. Observing that there was nothing on record to show t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1999(1)SCALE645a; 1999(1)LC592(SC)
ORDER1. This morning while the Court proceedings were going on, Mr. Nand Lal Balwani who claims to be an Advocate enrolled with the Bombay Bar Association since 1995, and had apparently on case on the Board of this Bench shouted slogans in the open Court and thereafter hurled his shoe towards the Court thereby interrupting the Court proceedings. He was informed that his action was aimed at intimidating the Court and causing interference in conduct of judicial proceedings and amounted to gross contempt of this Court. He was informed of the charge and asked if he had anything to say in his defence. At his request, time was given to him to file an affidavit in response to the charge. The affidavit has been filed.2. Mr. Nand Lal Balwani is present before us and accepts that the charge has been read out to him and he has understood the same. He states that he has filed this affidavit in which he has admitted his intemperate behavior in the Court this morning. The contemnor was asked if he h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1300; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)587; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)186; 1999CriLJ2032; JT1999(2)SC61; RLW1999(3)SC465; 1999(1)SCALE645; (1999)2SCC743; [1999]1SCR937; (1999)2UPLBEC934
ORDER1. This morning while the Court proceedings were going on, Mr. Nand Lal Balwani, who claims to be an Advocate enrolled with the Bombay Bar Association since 1995, and had apparently no case on the Board of this Bench, shouted slogans in the open Court and thereafter hurled his shoe towards the Court thereby interrupting the Court proceedings. He was informed that his action was aimed at intimidating the Court and causing interference in conduct of judicial proceedings and amounted to gross contempt of this Court. He was informed of the charge and asked if he had anything to say in his defence. At his request, time was given to him to file an affidavit in response to the charge. The affidavit has been filed.2. Mr. Nand Lal Balwani is present before us and accepts that the charge has been read out to him and he has understood the same. He states that he has filed this affidavit in which he has admitted his intemperate behavior in the Court this morning. The contemnor was asked if he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1322; 88(1999)CLT329(SC); JT1999(2)SC63; 1999(1)SCALE662; (1999)3SCC357; [1999]1SCR895; 1999(1)LC469(SC)
A.S. Anand, C.J.1. This appeal calls in question the judgment and order of the High Court of Orissa dated 23rd December, 1997, dismissing an Election Petition filed by the appellant herein.2. Elections to 56 Puri Assembly Constituency of the Orissa Legislative Assembly were held in the month of March, 1995. The last date for filing of nomination papers was 17th January, 1995. It appears that the appellant and respondent No. 1 filed their nomination papers as 'official candidates' of Janata Dal. Their nomination papers were supported by authorisations in Forms A and B under the signatures of Shri S.R. Bommai, President of the Janata Dal. Since two candidates had claimed the reserved symbol of Janata Dal and before the last date fixed for withdrawal of candidature, no communication was received by the Returning Officer as to which one out of the two was the official candidate, the Returning Officer treated both the appellant and respondent No. 1 as independent candidates and allotted the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1999)9SCC38
A.S. Anand, C.J. and; B.N. Kirpal, J.1. This appeal by special leave calls in question an order made in Election Petition No. 6 of 1995 by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, dated 12-3-1996, whereby three applications filed by the appellant seeking dismissal of the election petition, in limine, under Section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (hereinafter called “the Act”) were rejected.2. The election in question relates to 115 Mangrulpir Legislative Assembly Constituency. The appellant is the returned candidate. After the result of the election was announced and the appellant declared elected, an election petition was filed by Respondent 1 challenging the election of the appellant on various grounds. The returned candidate, thereupon, filed three applications seeking dismissal of the election petition in limine.3. The first application was filed by the appellant on 29-9-1995 and it sought dismissal of the election petition ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC48
S.P. Bharucha,; M.B. Shah and; N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.1. The appeal is directed against an order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat declining to call for a reference of the following question:“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in cancelling the penalty holding that it is levied on uncertain and alternative grounds?”The High Court gave no reasons for its refusal.2. In the application under Section 262(1) the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the reference should be refused because its earlier order had held that the authority imposing the penalty must be sure of the charge and the basis on which the penalty is imposed. In such a situation, the authority imposing the penalty must say that the assessee is guilty of concealing the income and furnishing inaccurate particulars but it cannot use the word “or” because that indicates the lack of a firm basis for the imposition of a penalty.3. This, ...
Tag this Judgment!