Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2364; 89(2000)CLT31(SC); JT1999(5)SC3; 1999(II)OLR(SC)536; 1999(4)SCALE183; (1999)6SCC6; [1999]3SCR904; 1999(2)LC1236(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellants, who had been elected as the members of the Zilla Parishad, cease to hold office for the reason that they had not taken the oath of allegiance as contemplated by Section 36 of the Orissa Zilla Parishad Act (for short 'the Act').3. The brief facts are that a election to the said Zilla Parishad took place and the results were declared on 29-1-1997. According to Section 36 of the Act the elected members, including the President and the Vice-President of the Parishad are required to take oath of a allegiance within three months of the date with effect from which they hold office or at any one of the first three meetings of the Parishad, whichever is latter. If the oath is not taken then such person ceases to hold office. 4. In the present case first meeting of the Parishad was held on 15-2-1997. According to the counter-affidavit of Shri S.K. Satpathi, Collector-cum-District ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2355; 1999(2)ALD(Cri)337; 1999CriLJ3663; 1999(3)Crimes133(SC); 1999(66)ECC574; JT1999(4)SC540; RLW1999(2)SC318; 1999(4)SCALE89; (1999)6SCC1; [1999]3SCR897; 1999(2)
ORDERG.T. Nanavati, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 544 of 1989. The High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 8(c) read with Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and dismissed the appeal.2. A complaint was filed by the respondent against the appellant alleging that the appellant was found in possession of 150 gms of heroin without a valid permit on 13.4.1988 at about 6 P.M. while he was passing on a road in the city of Madras and thus he had committed the aforesaid offence.3. In order to prove its case the prosecution led the evidence of Gladys Lilly (P.W.1), who was then working as an Intelligence Officer in the Narcotics Intelligence Bureau, at Madras and who had searched and arrested the appellant. It also examined N. Muthu (P.W.4) who was taken as an independent witness to witness the search and arrest and in whose presence the search and arrest were mad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2002]253ITR800(SC)
The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedHigh Court refused to decide question of law whether benefit of Section 80HHC can be claimed on total income after deducting unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed losses. Supreme Court directed Tribunal to refer question to High Court again for disposal....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2334; JT1999(4)SC520; 1999(4)SCALE93; (1999)6SCC150; [1999]3SCR875; 1999(2)LC1302(SC)
ORDERSujata V. Manohar, J.1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted in special leave petitions.3. This group of appeals is filed by the Union of India, the State of West Bengal and the State of Uttar Pradesh against a judgment and order dated 31.8.1995 of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No. 4408 and 4703 of 1993; while the writ petition is filed by the Eastern India Motion Picture Association against the Union of India and others. This group of appeals and the writ petition raise a common question of law as to the validity of certain provisions of (1) the West Bengal Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1954 and a notification No. 7277-F dated 20.9.1957- issued thereunder, (2) the Cinematograph Act, 1952, (3) the U.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 and (4) the Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 1981.4. The respondents in the appeals are Associations of organisations engaged in the business of distribution and exhibition of motion pictures in the area of Delhi and U.P. commonly known as the Delhi-Uttar Pradesh C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2332; 1999(2)ALD(Cri)340; 1999CriLJ3661; 1999(3)Crimes117(SC); JT1999(4)SC537; 1999(II)OLR(SC)344; 1999(4)SCALE86; (1999)5SCC740; [1999]3SCR870; 1999(2)LC1270(SC)
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. Leave granted.2. A godman is now in the dock. One who was initiated by him as his devotee has later turned to be his betenoire, and the godman is facing a prosecution for the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. When he moved the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings pending against him, the motion was dismissed as per the impugned order against which the present appeal has been filed by special leave.3. Facts, thus far developed, are stated below:An FIR happened to be registered on the complaint lodged by one Venkatakrishna Reddy with the Town Police Station, Nellore, containing the following allegations. Appellant (Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishanandha Maharaj) who is a youngman, son of a teacher of Gummaluru Village (A.P.) claimed to possess occult faculties and attracted a number of devotees. He represented to have divine healing powers through his touches, particularly of chronic diseases. Complainant ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1999)3CALLT85(SC); JT1999(9)SC98; 2003(10)SCALE53; (1999)6SCC365
ORDER1. Heard both sides.2. In view of the investigations regardingallegations of malpractices relating to trafficking in children raised against two organisations in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the four petitioners before us who are not connected in any way with those organisations are being prevented from proceeding with applications for guardianship filed by them before the Family Court/District Court in respect. of specific children in their custody. The petitioners also contend that even in respect of those children in their custody where after scrutiny a guardianship certificate has been issued by the Family Court/District Court concerned the child in question is not being allowed to be sent abroad to the guardian so appointed. This is on account of a letter dated 6-4-1999 issued by the Secretary, Department of Women Development, Child Welfare & Disabled Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh.3. There are no allegations of any malpractice against the four petitioners. Under the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2405; 1999CriLJ3696; 1999(3)Crimes103(SC); 1999(2)CTC643; JT1999(4)SC499; 1999(2)KLT782(SC); 1999(II)OLR(SC)334; 1999(4)SCALE82; (1999)5SCC690; [1999]3SCR864
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J. 1. Leave granted.2. In July 1989, respondent retired from Government service as Superintending Engineer of the P.W.D. under the government of Kerala. About three years thereafter he was arraigned along with certain other persons before a Special Judge for offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 (for short 'the P.C. Act') and Sections 406, 409, 201 read with Sections 120B and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondent for want of sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC (for short 'the code'). State of Kerala, aggrieved by the said order of the High Court, has come up with this appeal by special leave.3. The case against the respondent, in short, is that while he was working as Executive Engineer at the Moovartupuzha Valley Irrigation Project Division, he joined himself into a criminal conspiracy with four other accused for defrauding the Governmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)0LLJ0SC
ORDERMr. G.B. Pattanaik, J.1. Leave Granted.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The appellant has been dismissed from service after finding him guilty in a departmental proceeding and he lost in appeal as well as in the writ petition filed in the High Court. The finding of guilt having been based on the materials in course of a departmental proceeding cannot be interfered with. But, taking into consideration that the appellant has already put in 28 years of service and an order of dismissal would be very harsh and would deprive him of the retrial benefits also, this Court issued limited notice as to why the order of dismissal should not be converted to the one of compulsory retirement in the context of facts of the present case. The respondents have entered appearance and filed show cause.4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having applied our mind to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case whe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2354; 1999(2)ARBLR685(SC); [1999]97CompCas683(SC); (1999)3CompLJ161(SC); JT1999(4)SC545; (1999)123PLR613; 1999(4)SCALE85; (1999)5SCC688; [1999]3SCR861; 1999(2)LC12
ORDER1. On a winding up petition having been filed by the respondent before the High Court, the petitioner herein moved an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, inter alia, contending that the High Court should refer the matter to arbitration.2. The Single Judge dismissed the application and the same was upheld by the Division Bench, while dismissing the appeal the High Court referred to similar cases relating to applications which have been filed under the provisions of the Indians Arbitration Act, 1940 where the consistent view of the High Courts was that the question regarding the winding up of a company could not be referred to an arbitrator.3. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the language of Section 8 of the 1996 Act is different. Mr. Jaitely, submits that according to Section 8(1) the Judicial Authority is bound to refer that matter to the arbitration when an arbitration agreement exists between the parties.4. Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1999(9)SC523; (1999)6SCC34
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. Though ordinarily this Court does not interfere with an interim order passed by the High Court, but in the case in hand the High Court having entertained a writ petition while the grievance of the respondents is still pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal and having passed an interim order annulling the order of the Tribunal, we think it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court.4. We have no doubt in our mind that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining a writ application when the legality of the order; of transfer is a subject-matter of a pending proceeding before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal has passed an order of status quo. If the appellant authority has violated any interim direction of the Tribunal, the appropriate remedy is to file an application for contempt and we are told that such application has been filed, which is pending before...
Tag this Judgment!