Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3618
1.In this appeal by special leave appellant is challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to life imprisonment plus a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. The case against him is that he killed his wife Saroj on the evening of 5-11-1995 inside their abode.2. The case was registered on the basis of the first information statement lodged by P.W. 2-Yad Ram. He told the police that he heard the noise of cries from the house of the accused and he called out for help from others. With the help of P.W. 6-Santosh Kumar, who reached the scene, P.W. 2 went inside the room of the accused and found Saroj lying badly injured. Accused was found standing nearby. Saroj was later removed to the hospital for which accused did not render any help. Saroj was declared dead by the time she was brought to the hospital.3. Since there was no eye-witness to the occurrence, prosecution depended upon circumstantial evidence alone. We have noticed the follo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC347
JM.agannadha Rao and; N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.1. This is an application for review of the judgment of this Court dated 29-4-19991. It was held that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the finding of fact arrived at by the lower appellate court which decreed the plaintiff's suit reversing the decree of the trial court.2. The point raised in the review petition is that the lower appellate court relied only on the voters' list (Ex. A-15) which does not have probative value and not on any other evidence. Thus, the finding of the appellate court is to be treated as based on no evidence.3. This contention in our view is not correct. The lower appellate court relied upon the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and, in particular, the evidence of PW 4 who stated that he knew that the plaintiff was the son of the late Haritheertham. Another document, Ex. A-14, the plaint filed by the cooperative society was also relied upon. In addition, the oral evidence adduced by the defendant was rejected. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3192; 1999(5)SCALE278; (1999)6SCC611; [1999]Supp2SCR124
ORDERM. Jagannadha Rao, J. 1. This application has been filed by the Gas Authority of India Limited (for short 'GAIL') for the following reliefs:(a) extend the schedule for supply of gas to industries in Zone-I of Agra City, laid down vide the order dated 3/04/98 passed by this Hon'ble Court in such a manner that in respect of cupola based industries supply of gas by GAIL coincides with the readiness of the consumer industries to draw gas;(b) direct non-cupola based industries in Zone-I of Agra to draw gas latest by September, 1999;(c) direct the Secretary, PWD, Government of Uttar Pradesh and Secretary/Director General, Government of India, Ministry of Surface Transport to grant the permission for underpinning the gas pipeline to the Yamuna Road Bridge within four weeks so that GAIL may be able to the schedule for supply of gas to Zone-II and III laid down by this Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 3/04/98.2. The first relief concerns Zone-I and the second relief concerns Zone-II and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3190; JT1999(6)SC405; (2000)1MLJ25(SC); 1999(5)SCALE290; (1999)7SCC275; [1999]Supp2SCR143; 1999(2)LC1414(SC)
V.N. Khare, J. 1. The appellants herein are the landlords (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord'). The landlord filed a petition before the Rent Controller under Sections 10(2)(ii)(a), 10(2)(vii) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamilnadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for eviction of the respondents-tenants from the premises. The respondents-tenants contested the said petition denying the alleged requirements of the landlord for the premises as bonafide. The Rent Controller allowed the petition filed by the landlord and ordered eviction of the tenants. The appeals preferred by the tenants were also rejected by the Appellate Authority. However, the High Court in the revision petitions filed by the tenants set aside the orders of the two Courts below and allowed the revisions. The High Court was of the view that the landlord having not set out his need much less bonafide need for the premises in the petition, no order for eviction could have...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3675; JT1999(6)SC391; (1999)IILLJ950SC; 1999(5)SCALE299; (1999)7SCC350; [1999]Supp2SCR149; 2000(2)SLJ1(SC); 1999(2)LC1516(SC); (2000)1UPLBEC152
S.N. Phukan, J. 1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.2. Two appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 21.05.97 of the High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition (C) No. 7150/93 as also against the order dated 27.02.98 in review petition in CMA No. 81970/97. The High Court upheld the judgment and order dated 24.11.92 passed by the U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow and the review petition filed by the present appellants was also dismissed by the High Court. Respondent No. 1 Ram Krishna was appointed as Nalkoop Chalak w.e.f.15.5.77. As he was found absent from his duty without obtaining leave a notice dated 26.7.79 was given to him and then by an order dated 6.8.79 his services were terminated with effect from 26.7.79. Respondent filed a representation against the above order before the Authority and on an assurance given by the respondent that he would not commit any mistake in future he was given a fresh appointment on 1.9.79 for three months and again on 18.12.79 for t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3335; JT1999(6)SC400; (2000)1MLJ41(SC); 1999(5)SCALE303; (1999)6SCC632; [1999]Supp2SCR116; 1999(2)LC1512(SC)
K.T. Thomas, J. 1. A landlord approached the Rent Control Court prematurely and lost the cause not only regarding the timing of her approach to the Court but on merits as well. The High Court found that the claim of the landlord for eviction of the tenant from the building lost its tenability on account of the factors which sprouted up pendente life. The unsuccessful landlord has, therefore, reached this Court by special leave.2. The tenant has been residing in the building of the landlord for nearly half a century by now, (a few more years from now may mark the golden jubilee year of the tenancy). When the building was originally leased in 1956, it was in the ownership of appellant's father. He executed a gift deed in favour of his daughter (the appellant) on 2-8-1980, as per Ext.B-10. But the appellant, bereft of patience to wait for the expiry of the moratorium period of one year, hastened to file the petition for eviction of the tenant on 1-7-198] under Section 11(3) of the Kerala ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3438; 2000(3)ALLMR(SC)502; [1999]98CompCas828(SC); JT1999(6)SC410; (2000)1MLJ35(SC); 1999(2)MPLJ425; 1999(5)SCALE307; (1999)7SCC488; [1999]Supp2SCR133; 1999(2)LC14
Umesh C. Banerjee, J. 1. Leave granted.2. Authority of Receivers to effect sale of immovable properties prior to the passing of the decree is the focal point for consideration in this appeal, by the grant of special leave being directed against the Bench decision of the Bombay High Court. The Bench in deciding the issue however did rely upon the decision of an earlier Full Bench judgment in the case of State Bank of India v. Trade Aid Paper and Allied Products (India) Ltd. and Ors. : AIR1995Bom268 ,3. Mr. R.F. Nariman, Senior Advocate, appearing in support of the appeal very strongly contended that the Full Bench decision in State Bank of India's case (supra) cannot be said to have laid down the law in a correct perspective and as such it would be convenient at this juncture to note the observations of the Full Bench pertaining thereto. The Full Bench observed:10. As mentioned hereinabove, the decisions referred to in the judgment as regards the ambit of power of the court to appoint R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1999(6)SC342; (1999)IILLJ924SC; 1999(5)SCALE313; (1999)7SCC547; [1999]Supp2SCR89
S.B. Majmudar, J. 1. This appeal, on certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Bombay, brings in challenge the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court in Appeal No. 685 of 1984 decided on 18th July, 1986. It raises the question of correct interpretation of Section 3(25) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BIR Act'). The said provision defines the term 'Member' of a trade union which is registered under the BIR Act. In order to appreciate the nature of the controversy centering round the aforesaid question a few introductory facts deserve to be noted at the outset.BACKGROUND FACTS :2. The appellant is a union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. It is functioning at Greater Bombay and seeks to cater to the problems of its members who are workmen engaged in cotton textile industry situated therein. Respondent No. 4 is duly registered as a representative union in the cotton textile industry for the local area of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(10)SCALE536; (2001)9SCC379
A.S. Anand, C.J.,; M. Srinivasan and; R.C. Lahoti, JJ.1. Through this application, the Union of India seeks modification and/or clarification of some of the directions given by this Court on 6-2-19841 in regard to inter-country adoptions. The submission of the learned Attorney General for India is that the period of three months which has been permitted for the biological parents to take a decision to relinquish the child for giving in adoption, needs to be reduced because according to him, the experience has shown that only 10-15 days' period is generally taken by the parents to make up their mind and it is not more than three per cent of the relinquished children who have been taken back by the biological parents in the period already prescribed under directions of this Court. It is stated that if this period is reduced, it would accelerate the process of adoption and the period of uncertainty would be curtailed even insofar as the child is concerned, who, we are informed is kept in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC354
S.P. Bharucha and; Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, JJ.1. The transfer petition is filed by the wife. She seeks transfer of matrimonial proceedings filed by the husband in Amritsar to a court in Delhi.2. It is clear from the cause title of the matrimonial proceedings filed in Amritsar that the husband is a resident of Delhi, as is the wife. It is imminently reasonable, in the circumstances, that she should not be exposed to the hardship of having to travel from Delhi to Amritsar to attend to the matrimonial proceedings.3. The transfer petition is accordingly allowed and Hindu Marriage Act Case No. 76 of 1997 pending before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar is transferred to the Court of the District Judge, Delhi, who shall hear it himself or assign it for hearing to an appropriate court.4. No order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!