Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC186
M.Jagannadha Rao and; S.N. Phukan, JJ.1. The respondent in this appeal filed a suit in the Court of the Munsif, First Court, Contai, District Midnapore, West Bengal for declaration of title and for permanent injunction bearing Title Suit No. 247 of 1990. The respondent applied for temporary injunction pending the suit. Interim injunction was granted. But the trial court by an order dated 15-12-1990 dismissed the application filed by the respondent and vacated the order of interim injunction which was passed earlier. Against the said order the respondent preferred an appeal before the Assistant District Judge, Second Court and the appellate court reversed the order of the trial court and granted the temporary injunction in favour of the respondent. This order was passed on 4-7-1991. Against the said order the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the High Court at Calcutta in CO No. 2550 of 1991. The said revision application was dismiss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1999LC488(SC); 1999(108)ELT331(SC); (2000)10SCC63
ORDER1. There is a delay of 502 days in filing this appeal. In the application seeking condonation of delay, no explanation, worth the name, let alone a satisfactory or reasonable explanation, has been offered. When faced with this fact situation, the learned Attorney General fairly conceded that the manner in which the delay had been caused in filing the appeal warrants an Enquiry and that the Union of India would take appropriate steps in this behalf, more particularly when many such cases, according to the learned Attorney General, have been brought to his notice in recent time. Be that as it may, in the absence of any satisfactory or cogent explanation for delay, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as barred by time....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC76
ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The short question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be said to be premature as has been held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and upheld by the High Court. It is not necessary to give detailed facts. Suffice it to say that on the basis of complaint filed, the Magistrate took cognizance, but the accused carried the matter in revision to the learned Additional Sessions Judge who was of the opinion that the complaint is premature and, accordingly, allowed the revision. The complainant approached the High Court which affirmed the order of the Additional Sessions Judge. From the reply of the accused to the complainant on receipt of the notice from the complainant, it is crystal clear that the said notice was received by the accused on 28-10-1995. The complaint having been filed on 16-11-1995, the same cannot be held to be prem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1204; 1999LC369(SC); 1999(107)ELT3(SC); [1999(81)FLR830]; JT1999(1)SC632; 1999(1)SCALE612; (1999)3SCC384; [1999]1SCR809; 2000(1)SLJ24(SC)
M. Jagannadha Rao, J.1. We have before us writ petition - W.P. 651 of 1997 and certain Interlocutory Applications bearing Nos. LA. 4, 6 to 8 filed in an earlier Writ Petition No. 306 of 1988. The said W.P. No. 306 of 1988 was disposed of by this Court by Judgment dated 22.11.1996 All India Federation of Central Excise v. Union of India : (1997)1SCC520 . Aggrieved by certain subsequent events, various parties have filed the writ petitions and I.As.2. For the purpose of appreciating the disputes in these matters, it is necessary to set out the following facts:The feeder categories for promotion to the posts in Group A services constituting the Indian Customs and Central Excise (Group A) Service are:(a) Superintendents of Central Excise, Group B (which consists of all promotees from lower cadres;(b) Superintendents of Customs (P) Group B (again all promotees from lower cadres); and(c) (i) Customs Appraisers Group B (consisting of officers directly recruited through UPSC;(ii) Promotees fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1432; JT1999(2)SC32; 1999(1)SCALE623; (1999)2SCC501; [1999]1SCR826; 1999(1)LC763(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The Division Bench of the High Court in writ petitions filed in public interest by various persons and Organisations challenging the regulations made by the appellant in the conduct of Amar Nath Yatra to the Holy cave inter-alia directed the appellant to keep open the Baltal route, on a permanent basis in a manner similar to Vaishno Devi route. Certain other directions were also issued. The State has put in issue the Order of the Division Bench.3. On 17th August 1998, the following Order was made by the Bench :Mr. Dipankar Gupta, learned senior counsel says that the State would comprehensively examine the matter in the light of the judgment of the High Court and respond as to what valuable suggestions made by the High Court are acceptable to it and what objections the State has towards others which are not accepted. Eight weeks' time for doing the needful is granted. List thereafter.4. Subsequently, the supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of State of Ja...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3026; 1999CriLJ4063
1. Leave granted.2. The bail granted to the appellant by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge on 8th August, 1997 was cancelled by the High Court on 28th August, 1997 on a petition filed by the brother of the deceased. The State had, however, not chosen to question the grant of bail in the High Court.3. We have perused the order of the High Court and heard learned Counsel for the parties.4. In Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana : (1995)1SCC349 while drawing a distinction between rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail already granted, it was opined by this Court :.Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are : interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1332; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)576; 1999CriLJ2044; JT1999(1)SC599; 1999(2)KLT21(SC); 1999(1)SCALE570; (1999)3SCC19; [1999]1SCR794; 1999(1)LC529(SC)
Shah, J.1. Leave granted.2. At the time of admission of this matter, the Court had issued notice limited to the question of sentence only. Hence, the question involved in this appeal is whether death sentence imposed requires to be confirmed on the ground that it is the rarest of the rare cases? Whether sentence of imprisonment for life would be inadequate? This is a case in which persistent disputes over a small house in a village between two neighbours and inaction by the authority (despite repeated prayers), led to this case of gruesome murders of seven persons, some totally innocent.3. Before dealing with the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant, we would first refer to a few facts. It is a prosecution version that on 28th January, 1990, Chater Singh (P.W. 4) along with his wife deceased Smt. Daya Kaur was sleeping at his house and his brother Satbir, his wife Smt. Kamlesh and mother Smt. Khazani (deceased) were sleeping at the house of Satbir while inside th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1999(66)ECC20; 1999LC489(SC); 1999(108)ELT14(SC); (1999)9SCC195
Sujata V. Manohar and; R.C. Lahoti, JJ.1. Under Notification No. 132/82-CE dated 21-4-1982 issued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government exempted sugar described in column 1 of the Table in the said notification and falling under sub-rule (1) of sub-item (1) of Item 1 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 from so much duty of excise and special duty of excise leviable thereon as is specified in columns 2 and 3 of that Table. In the said Table, under column 1, sugar produced in a factory during the period commencing on 1-5-1982 and ending with 30-9-1982, which is in excess of the average production of the corresponding period of the preceding three sugar years, is given concessions as described in columns 2 and 3. Explanatory Note 4 of the said notification is as follows:“4. Nothing contained in this notification shall apply to a sugar factory where production during the period mentioned in column 1 of the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC209; 2000CriLJ410; (2000)10SCC84
ORDER1. The petitioner is involved in a murder case and was taken into custody on 21-2-1988. According to the learned Counsel the petitioner continues to be in custody even though the Investigating Agency has laid the final report. The impugned order has been passed on a bail application filed by the petitioner. The order reads thus :Heard counsel for the parties.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed.2. We are unable to find from the aforesaid order as to any reason why the learned Judge did not find any merit in the application for bail. Learned Counsel for the petitioner adhered certain grounds to release the petitioner on bail. We do not know whether he urged such grounds before the High Court, as the impugned order is silent about it. In such a situation we feel that a more feasible course is to permit the petitioner to move the High Court again. If any such application is filed we request the H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC158
The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedThe appeal before the High Court was a regular first appeal and hence High Court should have dealt with the evidence in its judgment, which was not done. Judgment of the High Court set aside and the matter remitted back for disposal in accordance to law. ...
Tag this Judgment!