Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(1)ALT(Cri)66; 2001CriLJ124; 2000(7)SCALE192; (2000)8SCC239; [2000]Supp4SCR270
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Leave granted.2. The limited question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the High Court committed any illegality/error in quashing the charge framed under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') against respondents 1 to 3 by the Sessions Judge in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC (for short 'Cr.P.C.')?3. On receipt of a report regarding the murder of one Smt. Sudesh, who was the daughter-in-law of respondent 1 and wife of respondent 2, the police made an investigation and laid a challan against the three respondents under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma, on consideration of the challan and the papers filed along with it, framed charges under Section 498-A/34 IPC against all the three respondents and under Section 304/34 I.P.C. against the respondent 1 and 2 vide the order dated 19th February, 1996. The charge under Section 304/34 I.P.C, which is relevant f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(1)ALD(Cri)612; 2000(7)SCALE197; (2000)8SCC123
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Leave granted.2. The controversy raised in this case relates to eviction of the tenant from the premises described as House No. CK 48/200, Mohalla Harsha, Varanasi. The appellant claiming to be the landlady of the said house filed a petition Under Section 20 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for eviction of respondent No. 1 - tenant from the house. The proceeding was registered as suit No. 457/80 in the Court of the Addl. Judge, Small Causes Court at Varanasi. In the petition, eviction of the tenant was sought on the ground that he had denied the title of the landlady and had defaulted in payment of rent. The appellant also sought recovery of arrears of rent from 18.10.1979 to 11.11.1980. Tracing her interest in the house in question the appellant stated that the house was initially owned by Fakia Bibi @ Fatti Bibi who made a gift (hiba) of the property to her sole ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3191; 2000(6)ALT31(SC); 2000(7)SCALE161; (2000)8SCC196; [2000]Supp4SCR15
M. Jagannadha Rao, J.1. The Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15354/2000 was dismissed at the stage of admission by an order dated 29-9-2000 after hearing learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. It was stated in that order that reasons would follow later. The following is the reasoned order.2. The petitioner is the daughter of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent had filed a declaration under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (Act No. 1 of 1973). The notified date under the Act with respect to which the ceiling of a declarant for his family unit had to be determined was 1-1-75. The 2nd respondent filed a declaration on 11-4-1975 (L.C.C. 2516, 2517/KDK/75). The petitioner was minor as on 1-1-75 and she was included in the family unit of her father, the declarant. It was determined that the father's family unit had excess land to be surrendered. At that stage, the petitioner filed an application before the Land Reforms Tribunal in 1987 in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3185; 2000(7)SCALE168; (2000)8SCC1; [2000]Supp4SCR22
G. B. Pattanaik, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by the Union of India is directed against the judgment dated 28th of January, 1999 of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, dismissing the appeal of the Union of India, arising out of an arbitration proceeding. The undisputed facts are that the respondent had entered into an agreement with the appellant for construction of Annex Building to Telephone Bhawan at Calcutta. The agreement between the parties contained an arbitration clause therein. After the completion of work the final bill was drawn and was sent to the respondent and he agreed to accept the final bill and in fact did receive the money under the final bill without any objection. But thereafter, he wrote a letter to the concerned Chief Engineer, indicating several items of claim and additional works which the respondent had executed pursuant to the directions of the appropriate authority and the said work had not been included in the final bill. He, therefore, requeste...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(6)ALT46(SC); 2000(7)SCALE174; (2000)8SCC343; [2000]Supp4SCR26
M. Jagannadha Rao, J.1. This appeal, which arises out of an award passed under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 concerns the interpretation of a 'variation' clause in the contract which allows the appellant, the National Fertilizers Ltd., to issue directions to the contractor varying the extent of the contract work, both upwards and downwards upto 25%. Question is whether (as contended by the appellant) the said 25% is to be arrived at by taking into account the net overall increase in the work i.e. by adding up the increases in work and deducting therefrom the decreases in work in whether (as contended for the respondent-contractor) the 25% was to be computed by adding up the total variations, both involving the increase in the work and the decrease in the work. The importance of the point is that if the variations exceed 25% of the contract price, the contractor is not confined to the contract rates but can claim market rates.2. The disputes were referred to arbitration and the arbit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001CriLJ132; 2000(7)SCALE210; (2000)8SCC545; [2000]Supp4SCR41
ORDER2. They and four others were chargesheeted by the Central Bureau of Investigation for the offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) and Section 7, 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The first accused is shown as Principal of one P.C. Dental and Nursing College, Bangalore, second accused was shown as the Minister for Health in the Ministry headed by the third accused Bangrappa and the fourth accused was the Chairman of the said P.C. Dental and Nursing College, (apart from being a sitting M.L.A.) and accused No. 5 was Chairman of the Local Enquiry Committee appointed by the Bangalore University.3. The trial court heard the accused in the matter of framing charge and passed a detailed order on 8-1-99 holding that the evidence produced by the prosecution is sufficient to frame charge against the accused persons. The said order of the Special Judge was challenged by the respondents in these appeals before the High ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3195; [2000]246ITR609(SC); 2000(7)SCALE183; (2000)8SCC249; [2000]Supp4SCR1
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.1. This appeal is by the assessee against the judgment and order dated 25-4-1988 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. It relates to the assessment year 1972-73.2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short the 'Tribunal' had referred the following question under 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (for short the 'Act') for the opinion of the High Court:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the release by the assessee who was one of the partners in the firm of 3-Aces, of his rights in the assets of the firm for a consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- when the market value of the assets of the firm in proportion to his share was in excess thereof, did not amount to a gift within the meaning of the Gift-tax Act.3. The High Court by the impugned judgment answered the said question in negative and against the assessee.4. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)164CTR(SC)1
This appeal is by the assessee against the judgment and order dated 25.4.1988 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. It relates to the assessment year 1972- 73.The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short the `Tribunal' ) had referred the following question under 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (for short the `Act') for the opinion of the High Court :-"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the release by the assessee who was one of the partners in the firm of 3-Aces, of his rights in the assets of the firm for a consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- when the market value of the assets of the firm in proportion to his share was in excess thereof, did not amount to a gift within the meaning of the Gift-tax Act."The High Court by the impugned judgment answered the said question in negative and against the assessee.Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows.The app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(6)ALT36(SC); 2001(1)BLJR45; 2000(4)CTC503; 2000(7)SCALE145; (2000)8SCC330; [2000]Supp3SCR733
S.N. Variava, J.1. Leave granted.2. This Appeal is against an Order dated 11th September, 1998 passed by the High Court of Calcutta.3. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:4. One Dr. Jonoranjan Paul was the owner of premises No. 14-C, Sambhu Lane, Calcutta-14. This three-storied building is hereinafter referred to as suit property. The said Dr. Jonoranjan Paul had six sons, namely, Satish, Kiran, Biren, Nilratan, Nirmal and Bimal. During his life time the said Jonoranjan Paul had sold the suit property to one Dr. Trilokya Nath Ghosh. After the death of Dr. Trilokya Nath Ghosh the suit property went to his heirs. The heirs executed a Gift Deed dated 2nd June, 1947. By this they gifted the suit property to Nilratan Paul, Nirode Baran Paul and Bimal Chandra Paul. As stated above, Nilratan Paul and Bimal Chandra Paul were two sons of Jonoranjan Paul. Nirode Baran Paul was the son of Kiran Chandra Paul.5. Nilratan Paul's share went to his son Bejoy Ratan Paul. On 25th February, 1957 Bejo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3187; 2001(1)ALD(Cri)116; 2001ALLMR(Cri)183(SC); 2001(1)ALT(Cri)7; 2000(3)BLJR2407; 2000CriLJ4631; 2000(3)KLT836(SC); 2000(7)SCALE155; (2000)8SCC500; [2000]Supp3SC
G. B. Pattanaik, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant is a public servant and on 26-4-1993, the Sub Divisional Magistrate asked for an explanation from him as to why the encroachment in question is not being removed notwithstanding the direction of the High Court. The said Sub Divisional Magistrate by order dated 25th of June, 1993, appointed the appellant as a Duty Magistrate and one Shri Vinod Pal Singh as Senior In-charge Magistrate of the Police Force, who were required to remove the encroachment in question. The said appellant visited the encroachment site and requested the encroachers for removal of encroachment and on 16.7.1993 was able to remove the encroachment partially and reported the said fact to his senior officer, but on 17-7-1993, when the appellant along with armed force, reached the encroachment site, several miscreants armed with weapons, started hurling stone and as the situation became out of control, after giving due warning, the appellant was compelled to give ord...
Tag this Judgment!