Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(1)ALD(Cri)127; JT2000(8)SC260; (2001)10SCC198
G.B. Pattanaik, J.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. The only question that arises for consideration is whether on the finding that the accused-appellant was found to be near the lorry, can it be said that prosecution case under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act has been proved beyond reasonable doubt?4. In the impugned order, the High Court itself recorded a finding that the petitioner-accused was seen near the lorry and the presence of the revision-petitioner near the lorry, therefore, has been proved. On this finding, it is difficult to sustain the ultimate conclusion that the offence under Section 55(a) of the Act has been committed. Consequently, the conviction and sentence against the appellant cannot be sustained.5. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant and he is acquitted of the same. The appeal is allowed accordingly. The bail bonds stand cancelled....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2272; JT2000(6)SC491; 2000(4)SCALE446; (2000)5SCC287
ORDERS. Rajendra Babu, J.1. Leave granted in all the three sets of petitions.2. Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation issued a Notice inviting tenders for appointment of agents for collection of Octroi subject to the terms and conditions set forth therein fixing 4 p.m. on March 23, 2000 to be the time of submission of the tender and fixing 5 p.m. on the same day for opening of the tenders. On March 21, 2000 M/s. Millenium Infrastructure (P) Ltd. filed a writ petition. No. 1456 of 2000 in the High Court at Mumbai challenging the imposition of two conditions contained in Clauses 6(a) and 6(b) of the Tender Booklet as unconstitutional and seeking deletion of these two conditions as pre-requisite for its participation in the tender. On March 21, 2000, a Division Bench of the High Court and having heard the parties adjourned the matter till March 24, 2000 at 11 a.m. by making it clear that there shall be no interim relief except that the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation shall not issue work orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(3)ALT58(SC); 2001(49)BLJR839; 2000(3)CTC558; JT2000(6)SC272; RLW2001(1)SC107; 2000(4)SCALE640; (2000)5SCC458
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal filed by the defendants is directed against the judgment/order of the Madras High Court in Second Appeal No. 807 of 1996 and CMP Nos. 7569/96 and 1085/ 96, along with the application filed by the respondents 1 & 2 under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) Civil Procedure Code (CPC for short) seeking permission of the Court to withdraw the suit with leave to file a fresh suit.3. The factual matrix of the case relevant for appreciation of the questions raised in the appeal may be stated thus: Respondents 1 & 2 herein filed O.S. No. 197/89 (subsequently re-numbered as 614/89) in the Court of the District Munsif, Erode arraying the appellants and respondents 3 & 4 as defendants in the suit. In the said suit the plaintiffs sought relief inter alia, of injunction against defendants 1 & 2 restraining them from establishing and running a flour mill on their property and for further injunction restraining them from disturbing the plaintiffs' exclusive us...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(6)SC542; 2000(4)SCALE502; (2000)5SCC641; 2000(2)LC1026(SC)
ORDER1. The present Haj Committee Act, 1959 [51 of 1959], which had replaced the Port Haj Committee Act, 1932, was enacted for the objects and reasons set out in the Gazette of India, 1959, Extra., Pt. II Section 2, page 1161, which are as follows:According to the Port Haj Committees Act, 1932, as originally enacted, three Port Haj Committees were constituted at the three ports of Bombay, Calcutta and Karachi. Consequent upon constitutional changes in the country, the Act was suitably amended to provide for the continuance of the Calcutta and the Bombay Committees only, the reference to the Karachi Committee being omitted therefrom. The Calcutta Committee, however, ceased to function from 1948 owing to the partition of Bengal and there is a balance of about Rs. 15,000 lying to the credit of the defunct Port Haj Fund, Calcutta, which cannot be utilised or any other purpose or transferred to any Fort Haj Fund unless the Act is amended. Further all pilgrim traffic to Saudi Arabia, Iraq an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(8)SC332; (2001)1MLJ32(SC)
ORDERB.N. Kirpal, J.1. Leave granted.2. Deemed service has been effected without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. We are of the opinion that the High Court ought not to have stayed the operation of the Finance Act more so, when the order in question does not contain any reason as to why stay was being granted. Normally operation of Finance Act is not stayed pending the hearing of a writ petition unless there are some compelling circumstances which have not been shown in the present case. We therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order dated 7th April, 1999 of the High Court which had stayed to the extent same had stayed the operation of provision of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended by Finance Act No. 2 of 1998 in so far as it related to Chartered Accountants....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)10SCC482
The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedAppeals of petitioner not maintainable as they were not covered under Scheme. Petitioner can go to any other court to get their grievances redressed. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(8)SC324; (2000)9SCC401
G.B. Pattanaik, J.1. Leave granted.2. Though, this appeal is directed against an interim order of Bombay High Court directing appointment of S.M. Chattarji as the Principal -in-Charge on a provisional basis, but having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we think it appropriate to interfere with the said order. As in our view, no rights can be said to have accrued on the selected personnel until and unless the selection made by the Selection Committee is approved by the competent authority, and on the basis of such approval order is communicated to the person concerned. It is no doubt true that not having a Principal in an institution would not be in the interest of institution itself, but the Vice-Chancellor, who is the competent authority having come to the conclusion that there has been some controversy in the process of selection, and having interfered with the same, and the matter being pending before the High Court in a writ petition while we do not think it proper ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(8)SC268; (2001)1MLJ10(SC); (2000)9SCC174
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 who is the only contesting respondent - the original applicant under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 finally in this appeal.3. The short question is whether in an application moved by respondent No.1 under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC could have been allowed and the nature of the dispute could have been changed drastically. Such a claim cannot be well-sustained in view of decision of this Court in CA No. 63 of 1990 decided on 17.8.1999 reported : AIR1999SC3033 . Only on this short ground, the appeals are allowed. The order granting amendment of the application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 by the trial court and as confirmed by the High Court by the impugned order are set aside. Consequently, further interim orders based on the amended petition passed by the trial court under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(8)SC316; (2001)1MLJ28(SC); (2002)9SCC562
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, J.1. Seen the Office Report of 3rd May, 2000. Respondent nos. 2 to 5 are also represented by their Counsel Mr. C.N. Sree Kumar.2. I.A. Nos. 6-10 - Applications for sub situation of deceased respondent No. 1 (Pally Mani) are allowed.3. Leave granted.4. A limited notice was issued on 11th July, 1995 as under:Issue notice on the special leave petitions limited to the question of applicability of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Notice to indicate that the matters will be finally disposed of at the notice stage itself.No orders on the stay application.5. The respondents are served. No one has appeared to contest these proceedings when the matter was called out. The question involved in these proceedings is squarely covered against the respondents by a decision of this Court in the case of K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. : AIR1995SC1012 . In view of this decision the benefit of Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 ('the Act' f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(3)CTC72; JT2000(6)SC507; 2000(II)OLR(SC)158; 2000(4)SCALE471; (2000)5SCC64; 2000(2)LC1071(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration and possession. The said suit was dismissed. An appeal against the said decree was also dismissed. Thereafter the plaintiff-respondent filed a second appeal before the High Court. The High Court without formulating any substantial question of law, as required under Sub-section (4) of Section 100 of CPC allowed the second appeal and decreed the suit. It is against the said judgment the defendant-appellant is in appeal. This Court on more than one occasion has held that under Sub-section (4) of Section 100 of CPC, the High Court is required to frame substantial question of law and only then it acquires jurisdiction to decide a Second Appeal on merits. In this case the High Court without framing any substantial question of law has allowed the appeal and this in itself is a sufficient ground to set aside the judgment under appeal. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment under appeal and send the matter back to t...
Tag this Judgment!