Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(7)SCALE610; (2000)9SCC545
ORDER1. When the matter reached hearing, we were informed by a learned advocate that Mr. P.S. Mishra was appearing for the appellant and that he was on his legs in another court, and he sought a pass over. We asked where the appellant's advocate-on-record was. We were told that he was coming. So we waited, during which time the learned Solicitor General, appearing for the first respondent, gave us the facts. The same advocate who had said that the advocate-on-record was coming, now appeared again and said that the advocate-on-record, was taking medicines and was coming. It is because of that we continued to wait and the learned Solicitor General went on to read parts of the impugned judgment. About ten minutes later, Mr. Mishra and the advocate-on-record appeared. We asked Mr. Mishra where the advocate-on-record had been all this time and we were told that he had been instructing Mr. Mishra in the other court. We asked, therefore, whether the statement of the learned advocate that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)10SCC695
M.B. Shah and; S.N. Phukan, JJ.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1-6-1998 passed by the Additional Judge, Designated Court, Karnal at Ambala in TADA Case No. 63 of 1996. By the impugned judgment and order the learned Judge acquitted the appellant and three other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the TADA Act and Section 120-B of IPC. However, he convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.2. The learned Judge while awarding the sentence observed that appellant Harjit Singh was not a first offender and that he was found in possession of one AK-56 rifle, one magazine and 70 live cartridges of AK-56 rifle. He also considered that as per the provisions of Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, whoever acquires, has in his possession or carried any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of Section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(1)ALD(Cri)868; JT2000(10)SC490; (2000)10SCC273
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. Appellant in this case was convicted under Section 302 and was sentenced to imprisonment for life on 26.9.1986. He is alleged to have murdered his mother-in-law around 7.30 a.m. on 13.7.1979. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.2. The case rested on circumstantial evidence. The trial court and the High Court referred to various circumstances and concluded that the circumstances have formed themselves into a completed chain. The courts relied on the testimony of PWs 2,3 and 5 as testifying to the important circumstances.3. We do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence. We notice also that appellant would have been in jail for more than 14 years by now. If he was in jail for at least sometime during the pre-conviction period, it is for the authorities now to decide whether the time thus spent by the appellant in jail can be considered for his release.4. With these observations the appeal is dispose...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2769; 2000(5)ALT32(SC); [2000(87)FLR190]; JT2000(10)SC9; (2000)IILLJ1125SC; 2000(6)SCALE198; (2000)7SCC390; [2000]Supp2SCR53; 2000(2)LC1355(SC); (2000)3UPLBEC2444
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.1. Leave granted.2. In this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 5.12.1997 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura and Arunachal Pradesh at Gauhati made in Writ Appeal No. 124/96. In brief, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are the following.3. The appellant joined the services of the respondent- Corporation in 1973 as Receptionist-cum-Telephone Operator. After passing LL.B. degree examination, she was promoted to the post of Legal Assistant in 1981. Subsequently she was promoted as Assistant Law Officer, Law Officer and finally as Senior Law Officer in 1995 [re-designated as Deputy Manager (Law)].4. In 1992 the respondent-Corporation issued a special scheme 'AIDC Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 1992' (for short the 'Scheme'),as a special measure in the form of a golden handshake providing an option to its employees for voluntary retirement who had completed 10 year...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3052; 2000(6)Supreme139; 2000(6)SCALE315; 2000(7)SCC422; 2000(6)SLT630; 2000(8)SRJ440; JT2000(10)SC147
B.N. Kirpal and; Ruma Pal, JJ.B.N. Kirpal, J.1. These applications are filed by the erstwhile brick kiln owners who had their brick kilns in the NCT of Delhi. A prayer in these applications is for the modification of the order dated 10.5.96 and 26.11.96 passed by the Court in I.A.22 in W.P. (C) No. 4677/85 so as to delete the direction by which the applicants had been directed to surrender the land without being paid any compensation.2. This Court was dealing with industrial pollution in Delhi. As per the Master Plan 1990, industries had been placed into different categories. Those industries which were placed in category - H were required to close down and/or to be shifted out of Delhi within three years of the Master Plan coming into effect. When the said industries did not shift or close, Writ Petition was filed which led to the passing of the order dated 10th May, 1996 reported as 1996(4) SCC 351. This order specifically dealt with the case of hazarduous, noxious industries and the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3044; JT2000(9)SC604; 2000(6)SCALE209; (2000)8SCC82; 2000(2)LC1335(SC); 2001(1)MhLJ312
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. Leave granted in S.L.P.(C)No. 21085 of 1998. 2. In all these appeals the controversy arising for decision is whether certain members of the municipal council have incurred disqualification on ground of defection. 3. The Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1986 (Act No. 20 of 1987) (hereinafter the Act, for short) was enacted to provide for disqualification of members of certain local authorities on the ground of defection and for matters incidental and connected therewith. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9 of the Act, the Government of Maharashtra has framed the Rules known as the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Rules, 1987 (hereinafter 'the Rules', for short). 4. We will refer to a few relevant provisions from the Act and the Rules insofar as are necessary for the purpose of the appeals before us. Section 2 is the interpretation clause. The relevant definitions are as under: 2. In this Act unless the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(10)SC491; (2001)10SCC443
ORDER1. In all these appeals, a litigant and his advocate were dealt with under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act for making scurrilous allegations against some judicial personage repeatedly and at different stages. In one such case (miscellaneous criminal case No. 2733/91) the High Court imposed a sentence of imprisonment for four months on the first respondent litigant and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. A sentence was imposed on the advocate who is second respondent herein, to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. We are told by both sides that both the respondents had undergone the sentence of imprisonment and remitted the fine. In regard to the other contempt proceedings, the respondents tendered unconditional apology and that was accepted on 8.3.95 and they were exonerated from the sentence in those cases. These appeals have been filed in challenge of the said order, dated 8.3.95.2. We are told that the respondents have committed all th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)10SCC564
K.T. Thomas and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.1. Issue fresh notice to Respondent 5.SLPs Nos. 7817 and 7969 of 20002. Issue fresh notice to unserved respondents.SLPs Nos. 16506 of 1998 and 8742 of 19993. The main contention relates to the interpretation of Section 163-A read with Section 163-B vis-à-vis the Second Schedule in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Prima facie, we have noticed a lot of anomalies in the Second Schedule. More than that, a three-Judge Bench of this Court adverting to the table provided in the Second Schedule has pointed out several mistakes which are discernible from the figures given in the table. (Vide paragraph 18 of U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra1.) We have also noticed from Item 6 of the Second Schedule that notional income for compensation to those who had no income (before the date of the accident) should be taken as Rs 15,000 per annum. If that was what the legislature intended the anomalous situation has been caricatured by Shri T.L. Vishwanath Iyer, learned Senior ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2773; 2000(2)ALD(Cri)626; 2000(5)ALT22(SC); 2001(49)BLJR806; 2000CriLJ4022; JT2000(9)SC575; 2000(3)KLT651(SC); 2000(6)SCALE163; (2000)7SCC282; [2000]Supp3SCR15; 20
M.B. Shah, J.1.Leave granted.2. The questions involved in this appeal are that in a country having multiple religions and numerous communities or sects, whether a particular community or sect of that community can claim right to add to noise pollution on the ground of religion? Whether beating of drums or reciting of prayers by use of microphones and loudspeakers so as to disturb the peace or tranquillity of neighbourhood should be permitted? Undisputedly no religion prescribes that prayers should be performed by disturbing the peace of others nor does it preach that they should be through voice-amplifiers or beating of drums. In our view, in a civilized society in the name of religion, activities which disturbed old or infirm persons, students or children having their sleep in the early hours or during day-time or other persons carrying on other activities cannot be permitted. It should not be forgotten that young babies in the neighbourhood are also entitled to enjoy their natural ri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2979; JT2000(9)SC529; 2000(3)KLT402(SC); 2000(6)SCALE182; (2000)8SCC216; [2000]Supp3SCR34; 2001(1)LC1(SC)
ORDER Sd/-(K.J. RAO)Secretary, ElectionCommission of India4. In Ernakulam and Trivandrum constituencies electronic voting machines were employed for polling. In all other constituencies of Kerala voting was through ballot papers.5. On 4.10.1999, two writ petitions were filed respectively by the respondents No. 1 & 2 herein, laying challenge to the validity of the above notification. In O.P. No. 24444/ 1999 filed by respondent No. 2, who was a candidate in the election and has been a member of the dissolved Lok Sabha having also held the office of a Minister in the Cabinet, it was alleged that large scale booth capturing had taken place in the Lok Sabha election at Kannur, Allappuzha and Kasaragod constituencies. Similar allegations of both capturing were made as to polling stations throughout the State. At such polling stations, the polling agents of Congress party and their allies were not allowed to sit in the polling booths. In 70 booths polling was above 90%, in 25 booths the perce...
Tag this Judgment!