Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(7)SC577; (2001)9SCC726
ORDERS.B. Majmudar and U.C. Banerjee, JJ.1. This appeal is on grant of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.2. The Appellants have challenged the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala confirming the grant of probate of Will as ordered by the trial court. The Respondents herein had filed original petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of probate in respect of an unregistered Will alleged to have been jointly executed by one Ummamma Amma and Kunhiraman Nair, on 14.10.1966. Ummamma Amma died on 3.11.1966 and Kunhiraman Nair, the other co-testator died on 18.7.1978. The deceased were members of the Kunnath Tavazhi. Respondent nos. 1 to 7 were members of a collateral branch of the Tavazhi while 8th Respondent was maid servant and was dependent of the co-testator Kunhiraman Nair. Kunhiraman Nair was the manager of a school. He had several other properties. Under the Will the school and its site had been bequeathed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2319; JT2000(5)SC345; 2000(4)SCALE20; (2000)5SCC684; 2000(2)LC1056(SC); (2000)2UPLBEC1629
ORDERS. Rajendra Babu, J.1. Students who had qualified for medical degree course got admission under the All India quota of 15 per cent and migrated to different States to pursue the course of study and are now seeking admission into Postgraduate courses. Their grievance is that the States or concerned authorities have framed admission rules in such a way that they can neither pursue their studies in the migrated State nor in their home State.2. Before we address to the controversy we may briefly survey a few decide cases. In Jagadish Saran (Dr.) v. Union of India : [1980]2SCR831 , the admission rules prescribed by the Delhi University provided that 70% of the seats at the post graduate level in the medical courses shall be reserved for students who had obtained their MBBS degree from the same university and the remaining 30% seats were open to all, including the graduates of Delhi. After considering the decisions rendered till that day, this Court took the view that 'university-wise p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2161; 2000(1)ALD(Cri)844; 2000CriLJ3182; JT2000(5)SC260; 2000(4)SCALE43; (2000)4SCC454
ORDERRajendra Babu, J.1. The appellant before us had been charged for offences under Sections 3 and 5 of Terrorists and Disruptive Activities Act, 1987 and under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, The case against the appellant and accused No. 2 (who was absconding whose case was separated) are rowdy elements and are so recorded in the concerned Police Stations. It is alleged that there are 17 cases registered against them the details of which are riot forthcoming. On the charge sheet being filed before the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he committed to the Court of the Principal Session Judge at Kolar. Later, the case had been treated as one arising under TADA and filed by the Designated Court.2. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is also recorded. The defence taken up by the appellant is that the case pleaded against them is totally concocted and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2000(86)FLR461]; JT2000(6)SC471; 2000(4)SCALE241; (2000)9SCC71
ORDERG. B. Pattanaik, J.I.A. 2/99.1. This is an application by Union of India, seeking clarifications, being of the opinion that the Judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. P.N. Lal and Ors. in S.L.P. Nos. 3384-86/86 runs contrary to the Judgment of this Court dated 13.2.97 in the case of Union of India v. Madras Telephone SC/ST Social Welfare Association in C.A. No. 4339 of 1995. By this application, the department also seeks further directions as to the manner in which judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 5.1.96 as well as the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 28.10.97, passed in Writ Petition No. 23522/ 97 would be implemented, since according to the department, the directions contained therein run contrary to the principle enunciated in the judgment of this Court in P.N. Lai's case. The Union of India has filed an application for condonation of delay in filing application for directions, which has been numbered as I.A. No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002CriLJ261; 2000(71)ECC19; JT2000(7)SC478; 2000(6)SCALE37; (2000)7SCC606
ORDERG.B. Pattanaik, Doraiswamy Raju and S.N. Variava, JJ.1. This is an application under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by a detenu under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short COFEPOSA) assailing the order of detention dated 17.12.1999. The order of detention is assailed primarily on two grounds, namely, that the representation made to the Central Government as well as to the State Government have not been disposed of within a reasonable despatch as a result of which the constitutional right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution has been infringed. When the case was listed before a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court, a contention was advanced that the very fact that on receipt of the representation of the detenu on 3.1.2000, the officers of the department called for a parawise comments from the sponsoring authority, and thereafter the matter was dealt with, would indicate that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(3)BLJR1803; 85(2000)DLT223(SC); JT2000(5)SC266; 2000(4)SCALE104; (2000)4SCC577
ORDERD.P. Wadhwa, J.1. Appellant Civil Appeal No. 4104 of 1998 is aggrieved by judgment dated July 7, 1997 of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court dismissing his writ petition wherein he had sought setting aside the order of assessment dated March 12, 1991 assessing the rateable value of his property for the purpose of property tax under Section 116 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short the 'Act'). The property of the appellant comprised of his house constructed on a plot of land bearing No. II-1787 Chitranjan Park, New Delhi, measuring 311 Sq. yards. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court relying on its earlier judgment in the case of Ravish Chancier Rastogi v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi decided by the same Division Bench on May 29, 1997. Civil Appeal No. 4105 of 1998 is against that judgment of the High Court. It would, therefore, be appropriate to refer to the facts in the case of Ravish Chander Rastogi.2. The appellant Ravish Chander Rastogi is th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2181; 2000(3)ALLMR(SC)644; 2000(2)BLJR1604; [2002]110CompCas499(SC); 2000(2)CTC752; JT2000(5)SC287; 2000(4)SCALE111; (2000)5SCC122; 2000(2)LC1555(SC)
ORDERD.P. Wadhwa, J.1. This appeals is directed against the order dated June 21,1996 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission) holding that there was no negligence on the part of the respondent Bank in dealing with its security of pledged shares of the appellant or its release in part to him and that the Bank could also not be faulted on its practice not to dispose of shares through brokers not on the approved list of the Bank and lastly that it could not be said that there was any deficiency in service by the Bank as defined in Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ('Act' for short). Leave was granted limited to the claim of the appellant to his shares of Castrol Limited pledged with the Bank.2. On the request of the appellant, Bank sanctioned to him on September 20,1990 an overdraft limit of Rs. 5,00,0007- against pledge of sharp of various companies, value of all the shares being Rs. 10,60,900/- at the relevant time. Out of these num...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2324; 2000(2)ALD(Cri)467; 2000CriLJ2993; I(2000)DMC645SC; JT2000(5)SC223; 2000(3)SCALE429; (2000)5SCC207
ORDER1. Sunita Kumari married on 9th July, 1985 was found dead on 23rd October, 1988 at the residence of her in-laws at Batala in Punjab, The death was found to have occurred not under the ordinary circumstances but was the result of the asphyxia. On post-mortem it was found that the deceased had injuries on her person including the ligature mark 20 cm x 2 cm on the front, right and left side of neck, reddish brown in colour starting from left side of neck, 2 cm below the left angle of jaw passing just above the thyroid cartilage and going upto a point 2 cm below the right angle of jaw. The parents of the deceased were allegedly not informed about her death. It was a shocking occasion for Ram Kishan, PW5 when he came to deliver some customary presents to her sister on the occasion of Karva Chauth, a fast observed by married women for the safety and long life of their husbands, when he found the dead body of his sister Sunita lying at the entrance room and the respondents were making pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000CriLJ2780; JT2000(6)SC623; 2000(4)SCALE153; (2000)5SCC668
ORDERRutna Pal, J.1. These appeals have been preferred from the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court holding the appellants guilty under Section 302 and Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in connection with the death of Shamsher Singh and Amar Singh. The Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana as well as the High Court accepted the case of the prosecution and found the guilt of the appellants was established beyond reasonable doubt.2. The case of the prosecution was that on 24th April, 1986 at about 7.30 p.m., Karnail Singh (PW3) was driving a Car with Gunnel Singh (PW4) sitting next to him and Shamsher Singh and Amar Singh seated in the rear. All of them had been to village Bharthala to inquire about 'purbias' (labourers) from Dilbagh Singh. They did not find Dilbagh Singh nor any 'purbia' and were on their way back to Samrala when a truck started continuously blowing its horn behind the car. Shamsher Singh asked PW 3 to stop the car which PW 3 did. Shamsher Singh got do...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2684; 2000(4)ALT1(SC); JT2000(5)SC365; (2000)3MLJ94(SC); RLW2000(2)SC309; 2000(4)SCALE313; (2000)5SCC662
ORDER1. The short question posed for our consideration in this appeal on grant of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is as to whether application moved under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 (for short 'the Act') by respondent No. 1, who was the decree-holder in the partition suit, was maintainable in law.2. A few facts leading to this appeal are required to be noted at the outset to appreciate this controversy between the parties.3. Respondent No. 1 had brought a suit for partition and separate possession of his 1/ 4th share in a dwelling house situated at Indore in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The said dwelling house consisted of two portions belonging to an undivided family. One portion out of the two portions of the house had been sold to non-applicant No. 3 before the High Court Babu Rao who was a stranger to the family and the rest portion of it had been bought in a court auction in execution of a mortgage decree by one Kundanbai, whose legal represe...
Tag this Judgment!