Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(5)SC542; 2000(4)SCALE334; (2000)6SCC148
ORDERR.P. Sethi, J.1. Invoking the provisions of Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'), the original appellant-tenant approached the authorities under the Act for conferment of occupancy rights on the ground of being in possession on the relevant date. His claim was negatived both by the authorities under the Act and the High Court allegedly on the ground that he had made a concession in proceedings initiated under Section 14 of the Act for resumption of land by the landlord. It was found that as the appellant himself had agreed to forego his claim to the extent to 50% of the land in his occupation, he could not invoke the subsequent amendment made in the Act vide Section 44.2. It is not in dispute that the appellants' father Shri Sadappa was a tenant of the land bearing Survey No. 14 measuring 5 acres 6 guntas situated at Hulaganakatti Village, Kalaghatgi Taluk since about 50 years. The respondents are alleged to have initiated proceeding...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(1)ALD(Cri)112; JT2000(8)SC50; 2003(10)SCALE1012; (2001)10SCC607
ORDERA.S. Anand, C.J.I.1. This appeal by special leave has been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against refusal by the High Court to grant leave in an appeal against acquittal and, consequently, dismissing the appeal against acquittal.2. Shorn of details, the prosecution ease in brief is that on 17.1.1990 at about 8.00 a.m. when the deceased went towards the riverside for easing himself, the accused party armed with lathis and dandas arrived there and started assaulting him. On learning about the assault on their brother Ramesh, Ramphal and Ram Nath, PWs rushed to the spot and found that the accused were chasing Ramesh (deceased) and as soon as Ramesh had reached the outskirts of the village, he was assaulted by the accused party and he fell down. When his brothers and some other prosecution witnesses tried to intervene, they were also given a beating. On hearing noise, some other persons also were attracted to the spot, seeing whom the accused persons ran away. A first information...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(8)SC95; (2002)9SCC582
ORDERA.P. Misra, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th August, 1992 passed by the High Court confirming the dismissal of the suit for specific performance.3. The appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of a contract dated 10th August, 1980 for the sale of an immovable property in accordance with the terms of that contract. The defendants- respondents' had agreed to sell to the appellant (first plaintiff) about 38 grounds of land mentioned in 'A' Schedule to the plaint to develop the area into a housing colony. As per the agreement, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the property from the defendant at a consolidated price to be calculated at the rate of Rs. 8,500/-per ground for the bare land and an additional price to be fixed of the superstructure after getting its valuation from the competent engineer or architect as per the agreement. This agreement was, of course, subject to the permi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(3)CTC487; 85(2000)DLT367(SC); [2000]243ITR730(SC); JT2000(5)SC469; 2000(4)SCALE351; (2000)5SCC552
ORDERD.P. Wadhwa, J.1. This batch of 12 appeals is directed against the judgment dated December 1, 1998 of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court interpreting Section 269UC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the 'Act') and Rule 48L and Form 37-I of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (for short, the 'Rules')2. A number of writ petitions had been filed in the High Court by various parties challenging rejection of Form 37-I by the Appropriate Authority. High Court by its impugned judgment allowed the petitions, set aside the orders of the appropriate authority and requiring it to take fresh decision in each of the cases in accordance with law and keeping in view the principles laid by the High Court in its judgment. Aggrieved Appropriate Authority has filed 11 appeals. M/s. DLF Universal Ltd. (for short, 'DLF') has also filed one appeal. It is aggrieved by that portion of the judgment of the High Court where the High Court said 'no objection by the Appropriate Authority based on an agree...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(2)ALD(Cri)265; 2000(3)BLJR2000; 2000CriLJ2959; JT2000(5)SC515; 2000(4)SCALE434; (2000)9SCC82
ORDERRuma Pal, J.1. These appeals have been preferred from the decision of the Patna High Court dated 9th January 1998 dismissing the appeals filed by the appellants against their conviction and sentence by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act.2. It is the case of the prosecution that on the night of 22nd March 1987, Kishori Sao (PW 6) along with his brother, Parmeshwar Sao were threshing wheat in their 'khalihan' in village Gangti, P.S. Pakribarawan, District Nawadah. Kishori Sao was operating the threshing machine and his brother, Parmeshwar Sao was bringing the wheat bundles from the 'khalihan' to the threshing machine. Wheat bundles were stocked on the north-east corner of the 'khalihan'. The appellants had concealed themselves behind the wheat bundles. At about 11.30 p.m. to 12.00 p.m. when Parmeshwar Sao went to bring wheat bundles for threshing he took a lantern with him. He put down the lanter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(8)SC513; (2001)9SCC704
ORDER1. These appeals are by the 4 accused persons. Two of whom had been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, and their acquittal was set aside by the High Court, and two others were convicted by the Sessions Judge, and their conviction was upheld in appeal by the High Court. Initially, 7 accused persons stood charged under Section 302/149, I.P.C. for having caused the murder of two persons Dalip Singh and Jeet Singh on 26.7.1975 at about 5.00 p.m. by assaulting them with different weapons in their hands. The prosecution case in nutshell, as unfolded in the First Information Report given by PW.1, is to the effect that these accused persons and the deceased belonged to two different groups and had some rivalry, and on the date of occurrence, they were all travelling in the same bus. The bus in question was stopped at a place Khare Chak when one of the passengers got down, and as soon as the said passenger got down at the bus stop, accused Jang Singh snatched the Kirpan from Jeet Sin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)160CTR(SC)401
D. P. Wadhwa, J.This batch of 12 appeals is directed against the judgment dated 1-12-1998 of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court interpreting section 269UC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Rule 48L and Form 37I of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 'Rules')2. A number of writ petitions had been filed in the High Court by various parties challenging rejection of Form 37-I by the Appropriate Authority. High Court by its impugned judgment allowed the petitions, set aside the orders of the Appropriate Authority and requiring it to take fresh decision in each of the cases in accordance with law and keeping in view the principles laid by the High Court in its judgment. Aggrieved Appropriate Authority has filed 11 appeals. M/s. DLF Universal Ltd. (herinafter referred to as 'DLF') has also filed one appeal. It is aggrieved by that portion of the judgment of the High Court where the High Court said 'no objection by the Approp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(2000)ACC65; 2000ACJ1436; 2000(2)ALD(Cri)1; 2001(2)ALT(Cri)1; 2000CriLJ2283; JT2000(5)SC463; 2000(4)SCALE323; (2000)5SCC82
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. Then automobiles have become death traps any leniency shown to drivers who are found guilty of rash driving would be at the risk of further escalation of road accidents. All those who are manning the steering of automobiles, particularly professional drivers, must be kept under constant reminders of their duty to adopt utmost care and also of the consequences befalling them in cases of dereliction. One of the most effective ways of keeping such drivers under mental vigil is to maintain deterrent element in sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and frolic.2. A man who drove a stage carriage knocked down a cyclist who succumbed to his injuries. The said driver was convicted of the offence relating to rash or negligent driving and he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. His appeal and revision were dismissed by the Sessions Court and the High Court respectively. He has now come up with the special...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2231; 2000(2)ALD(Cri)272; 2000CriLJ3471; JT2000(6)SC529; 2000(4)SCALE461; (2000)6SCC188
ORDER1. This appeal has been preferred from the decision of the Karnataka High Court reversing the conviction and sentencing of the respondent under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).2. The case of the prosecution was that prosecutrix, a school girl, was raped by respondent on 6th April, 1988 at about 12 noon. Prosecutrix (PW 1) was residing with her parents at Hosahatti. The school was at Belagur. She had taken the IXth standard examination in March 1988. The results were to be announced in April, 1988.3. During the 1st week of April, 1988 there was Jatra at a Village called Kabbala. Prosecutrix's mother, Gowramma (PW 10), her father Ramaiah (PW 12) and her brother had opened a shop in that Jatra. On 6th April 1988, prosecutrix and her sister Shardamma (PW 11) were in their house at Hosahatti. At about 12 noon, prosecutrix left Hosahatti to go to Kabbala so as to get her bus fare from her parents because she wanted to go to Belagur to ascertain her examination results. Whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3463; JT2000(6)SC538; 2000(3)MPHT299; 2000(4)SCALE488; (2000)5SCC271
ORDERS.P. Bharucha, J.1. The appellant was issued an eligibility certificate under the provisions of an exemption notification dated 9th February, 1977 issued in exercise of the power conferred by Section 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Sthaniya Kshetra -Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976. The said certificate granted to the appellant an exemption for raw materials required by it in the process of manufacture. In the words of the judgment of the High Court, 'The raw material, as per the certificate, included for exemption was Limestone, Laterite & Iron Ore, Gysum, Pozzolanic Materials such as Coal Ash, Cal Slinder, Brick Bats & Calcine Clay, etc., all types of coal, Lubricants and gunny bags. Later, the certificate was amended to include consumable goods including spares and ancillaries... (Emphasis supplied). The period of the exemption under the said certificate commenced on 21st October, 1982 and concluded on 20th October, 1987.2. On 25th March, 1991, long after the period specified...
Tag this Judgment!