Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC257
ORDER 1. There were 6 accused before the Additional Sessions Court at Ahmedabad to face the trial for the offence under Section 20(b) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The Sessions Judge convicted 5 out of them and acquitted the 6th man — Indrajitsing Shivpalsing. The remaining 5 were convicted under the aforesaid sections and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs 1,00,000. All the convicted persons preferred an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat. A Division Bench of the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed their appeal. It appears that 2nd accused Saeed Suleman Shah has accepted the verdict of the High Court and he did not bother to come to this Court but the remaining convicted persons filed these appeals by special leave, as per separate special leave petitions. 2. The summary of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3417; JT1999(7)SC219; 1999(6)SCALE13; (1999)9SCC538; [1999]Supp2SCR410; 2000(1)LC64(SC)
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his election petition, challenging the election of the returned candidate-respondent No. 1, vide order of the High Court dated 23rd of December, 1998, the appellant has filed this appeal.2. For the purpose of this appeal however only a few facts are relevant and necessary to be noticed.3. The last date for filing nominations in respect of the Assembly Constituencies in the State of Orissa for the elections held in the year 1995 was 17th of January, 1995. Thirteen persons including the appellant and the respondents filed their nomination papers for 66, Bhanjnagar Assembly Constituency. At the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers on 19th January, 1995, the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7. While the nomination papers of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that the same were found to be defective, the nomination papers of respondent No. 7-Panchanan Das was reje...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1999(7)SCALE176; (2000)10SCC551a
ORDERI.A. No. 451. This I.A. has been filed by IDBI stating, inter alia, that it is not able to disburse the loan in respect of 30 per cent share of the cost as ordered by this Court, since several industrial units have not complied with the terms of the grant of such loan.2. By order dated 5.12.1997, this Court had categorically indicated that in respect of the loan amount to be advanced by the IDBI, it will be secured by the security of the property of the industrial units which are members of various societies and the societies were directed to furnish to the DSIDC the list of the properties of those members which were supposed to have been provided as security to the IDBI. The said order further stated that if required information is not furnished within three weeks from the date of the order, steps should be taken by the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) to ensure that the industrial unit which has not furnished the required information is closed down and. for such purpose,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : RLW2000(1)SC74; (1999)8SCC315a
1. Leave is granted.2. The short but a question of some significance which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the period of limitation, under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, will start from the date of the decree or from the date when the decree is actually drawn up and signed by the Judge.3. The facts giving rise to the question may be noticed here.4. On June 11, 1980, the appellant filed Suit No. 504 of 1980 in the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta against the respondents for recovery of a sum of Rs. 82,933.80 p. with interest. On March 8, 1982, the High Court decreed the suit ex-parte for the said amount with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum. However, the decree was actually drawn up and signed by the learned Judge on August 9, 1983. The appellant filed application, G. A. No. 374 of 1995, for execution of the decree before the High Court on June 5, 1995. The learned Executing Judge ordered execution of the decree. But, on appeal by the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001ALLMR(Cri)997(SC); (2001)2SCC577
K.T. THOMAS, J.— 1. A bride in her incipient twenties was whacked to death at her nuptial home. After gagging her mouth the assailants treated her for some time as a football by kicking her incessantly and thereafter as a hockey puck, by lambasting her with truncheons until she died of bilateral tension haemothorax. Her husband and his brother and father were indicted for her murder. But when all the material witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution the trial court, being foreclosed against all options, acquitted them. 2. Undeterred by the said acquittal the State of Karnataka made a venture by filing an appeal before the High Court of Karnataka. A Division Bench of the High Court, looking at the factual matrix of the case, lamented O Tempora O Mores as the learned judges said by way of prologue that “it is virtually a matter of shame that in this day and date, indiscriminate attacks and abnormally high degree of violence are directed against married women in certa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(1999)ACC691; AIR1999SC3571; (2000)1CALLT22(SC); JT1999(6)SC565; (2000)125PLR165; 1999(5)SCALE467; (1999)7SCC435; [1999]Supp2SCR339; 2000(1)LC126(SC)
M. Jagannadha Rao, J.1. The appellant was the plaintiff in title Suit No. 40 of 1978, on the file of the Assistant District Judge, Jorhat. He filed the suit for damages for malicious prosecution against three defendants, the State of Assam and two Police Officers for recovery of various amounts shown in Schedules A, B and C. Schedule A of the suit was an amount of Rs. 2,53,425 claimed as damages towards mental pain, social and public humiliation, wrongful confinement and expenses incurred for defending the criminal cases (For convenience we shall describe them as non-pecuniary damages). Schedules B and C comprised the value of paddy and rice of the appellant which was seized and then sold by the police officers, defendants 2 and 3 (For convenience we shall describe them as pecuniary damages). The trial Court dismissed the suit on 16.7.84. But on appeal, the High Court while holding that the defendants 1 to 3 were guilty of malicious prosecution, abuse of power and unauthorised action, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3667; JT1999(7)SC295; 1999(5)SCALE486; (2000)1SCC533; [1999]Supp2SCR354
M. Srinivasan, J. 1. There are three sets of appeals. Civil Appeal Nos. 6986-87 of 1994 are filed by Tulsi Co-operative Housing Society, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Society'). Civil Appeal Nos. 6988-6991 of 1994 are by the State of Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'Government'). Civil Appeal Nos. 6992-6993 of 1994 are by Syed Azam (hereinafter referred to as the 'landowner').2. The Society entered into an agreement in April 1975 with the land owner for purchase of an extent of 24 acres of land and paid in advance a sum of Rs. 20,000. In June 1975, the Govt. issued a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Acquisition Act') for acquiring an extent of 18.03 acres out of the subject-matter of these proceedings for purposes of Housing Project under HUDCO Scheme. The Notification included an extent of 2 acres belonging to another person with which we are not concerned. The Government also invoked urgency clause un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3421; JT1999(6)SC599; (2000)1MLJ44(SC); (1999)123PLR618; 1999(5)SCALE504; (1999)8SCC315; [1999]Supp2SCR399; 2000(1)LC107(SC)
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. 1. Leave is granted.2. The short but a question of some significance which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the period of limitation, under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, will start from the date of the decree or from the date when the decree is actually drawn up and signed by the judge.3. The facts giving rise to the question may be noticed here.4. On June 11, 1980, the appellant filed Suit No. 504 of 1980 in the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta against the respondents for recovery of a sum of Rs. 82, 933.80 with interest. On March 8, 1982, the High Court decreed the suit ex-parte for the said amount with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum. However, the decree was actually drawn up and signed by the learned Judge on August 9, 1983. The appellant filed application, G.A. No. 374 of 1995, for execution of the decree before the High Court on June 5, 1995. The learned Executing Judge ordered execution of the decree. B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1999(7)SCALE115
ORDER1. In I.A. No. 67: In view of the additional affidavit filed in this LA., we direct issuance of the notice to the Greater Noida Authority.In rest of the matters:2. In response to the order passed by this Court dated 2nd August, 1999, the Union of India has filed an affidavit of compliance, annexing therewith orders passed by the Government in the disciplinary inquiries conducted against its officers. With a view to examine whether appropriate action has been taken against those officers, it has become necessary to direct the Union of India to produce the entire file relating to the disciplinary proceedings including recommendations of the Union Public Service Commission in respect of each of the officers by 26-10-99.3. During the last several hearings, learned Amicus Curiae and other learned Counsel have been heard. Several issues which arise between various parties have now crystalised. These issues require fairly elaborate arguments and consideration. In the circumstances, we ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3318; 1999(2)ALD(Cri)855; (2000)1CALLT15(SC); 1999CriLJ4294; JT1999(6)SC548; 1999(5)SCALE445; (1999)7SCC280; [1999]Supp2SCR318; 2000(1)LC121(SC)
D.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. Though the cases from which these appeals arise were disposed of by judgments rendered by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh on different dates the questions of fact and law involved in all the cases are similar. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties all the cases were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The State of Himachal Pradesh is well known throughout the country for its apples. In the State there are large tracts of apple orchard and a good number of persons are engaged in growing apples. The apple season in the State is between the months of July to October. In the year 1983 the apple orchards in different areas of the State like Jubbal and Rohru were afflicted by a disease called 'scab' rendering the fruits unfit for human consumption. Feeling concerned about the heavy financial loss which apple growers in the State were facing and keeping in view the danger to public health if the scab affected apples a...
Tag this Judgment!