Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2001(10)SC519; (2002)10SCC588
S. RAJENDRA BABU and DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.The appellant before us was appointed as a canal patwari in the year 1995 and thereafter he sought for regular appointment by applying to the Service Selection Board. That application was rejected. He filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the action of the Board. It was disclosed that the appellant had passed matriculation examination conducted by the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya in the year 1989. It was found later on that the said Vishwavidyalaya is not a university established by law in India nor it has been declared to be a deemed university under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and he was found to possess certain qualifications which could not be taken note of and, therefore, the action of the Board was upheld by the High Court in considering his case. Hence, this appeal.It is brought to our notice that the appellant had passed 10 + 2 examination held by the Haryana Education Board which qual...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC3031; 2001(2)ALD(Cri)882; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)157; 2001CriLJ4708; JT2001(8)SC406; 2001(7)SCALE114; (2002)1SCC351
Banerjee, J.1. It is now a well-settled principle of law, that in an appeal against conviction for the offence of murder, Supreme Court would be rather slow to intervene, in the event of there being a concurrent finding of fact, unless of course, the finding reached suffers from some vice and thus violative of fundamental rules or even a definite procedural injustice going to the root of the prosecution case. It is on this perspective that the present appeal against the common judgment dated 28th July, 1999 passed by the High Court of Patna in Crl.A.No. 590 of 1984 and 686 of 1984 shall have to be considered. Before adverting to the contentions in support of the appeal, in the matter in issue, a note of caution shall have to be kept in mind, as has been administered by this Court from time to time, that scrutiny of evidence in a murder trial should be effected with more than ordinary care so as not to affect 'dispassionate judicial scrutiny'.2. The judgment under appeal stands criticis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC3025; 94(2001)DLT185(SC); JT2001(8)SC440; 2001(7)SCALE155; (2001)9SCC545
1. Leave granted.2. Appellant-Punjab State Electricity Board and other States Electricity Boards have filed these appeals against the impugned judgment and order dated 7th March, 2001 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Civil Miscellaneous No.232 of 2001 in FAO No. 131 of 2001. FAO No. 159 of 2000 and FAO No. 88 of 2001. 3. The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission'), constituted under the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by its order dated 21.12.2000 has fixed the norms for tariff for hydro generation and inter-state transmission. That order was challenged by the respondent-National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'NTPC') by filing FAO No. 159 of 2000 under Section 16 of the Act before the High Court of Delhi. The High Court by its interim order has virtually stayed the operation of the impugned order by laying down certain conditions and by observing t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC4041; 2002(1)ALLMR(SC)309; JT2001(8)SC515; (2002)1MLJ103(SC); 2001(7)SCALE225; (2002)1SCC301
Bharucha, J.1. The election to the 11th Karnataka Legislative Assembly from 167 Shikaripura constituency was held on 11th September, 1999. Respondent No. 1 was declared elected. The appellant was one of the candidates at the election and he filed an election petition in the High Court of Karnataka. He prayed therein that the election of the first respondent be declared void and that he, the appellant, be declared duly elected. To the election petition were impleaded the other two contesting candidates, namely, respondent nos. 2 and 3, and the Returning Officer and the District Election Commissioner, as respondent nos. 4 and 5. The latter two were impleaded because of the allegations made against them in the election petition.2. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 moved an interim application in the election petition praying that their names be deleted from the array of parties thereto. An application to the same effect was made by the first respondent; he also moved an application praying that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)9SCC767
K.T. Thomas and; S.N. Variava, JJ.1. The appellant in this case is the wife of the first respondent, a Chartered Accountant. The matrimonial life of the appellant and the first respondent has been under rough weather for a few years and the parties are now engaged in civil litigation before a Family Court. When the appellant filed a petition before the Family Court for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, she also moved an interlocutory application for injuncting the husband from interfering with her right to stay in the matrimonial house. That interlocutory application was resisted by the first respondent for which, it appears, he has relied on a document styling it as “family arrangement”. According to the appellant, the said document is the result of forgery. The appellant, therefore, filed a complaint before the Court of a Judicial Magistrate of First Class alleging offences under Sections 465, 466 and 467 of the Indian P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)10SCC115
M.B. Shah and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. From the judgment rendered by the trial court, it appears that the trial court considered the following Issue 1 in detail:“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration of his ownership of the disputed field and that he is in possession of it?”4. The trial court after considering the evidence on record including revenue records, arrived at the conclusion that the appellants were in possession of the land since 1959 and were cultivating the same. That judgment and decree passed by the trial court was set aside by the District Judge by holding that the appellants have failed to establish adverse possession because they entered into possession as alleged by them on the basis of agreement for sale. The High Court has confirmed the said finding without discussing the evidence.5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court ought to have considered I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC3041; 2002(50)BLJR275; (2002)1CompLJ35(SC); JT2001(9)SC46; (2002)1MLJ55(SC); 2001(7)SCALE60; (2001)8SCC650; 2001(2)LC1542(SC); (2002)1UPLBEC140
Thomas, J. 1. We thought that the question involved in this appeal would generate much interest to the legal profession and hence we issued notices to the Bar Council of India as well as the State Bar Council concerned. But the Bar Council of India did not respond to the notice. WE therefore requested Mr. Dushyant A. Dave, Senior Advocate, the help us as amicus curias. The learned senior counsel did a commendable job to help us by projecting a wide screen focusing on the full profiles of the subject with his usual felicity. We are beholden to him.2. When an advocate was punished for contempt of court can he appear thereafter as a counsel in the courts, unless he purges himself of such contempt if he cannot, then what is the way he can purge himself of such contempt. That question has now come to be determined by the Supreme Court.3. This matter concerns an advocate practising mostly in the courts situated within Ernakulam District of Kerala State. He was hauled up for contempt of court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC3858; [2001]107CompCas461(SC); JT2001(8)SC430; (2002)1MLJ94(SC); 2001(7)SCALE78; (2001)8SCC702; (2002)1UPLBEC222
Santosh Hegde, J. 1. This is a statutory appeal under Section 35 of the Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for short 'the Act') preferred against the order of cease and desist passed on 24.4.1991 under Section 37(1) of the Act by the Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (The Commission).2. The Commission instituted a suo motu enquiry under Section 10(1)(iv) of the Act vide order dated 11.12.1987 against the appellant alleging 3 specific violations of the Act. Since the first two charges thus leveled against the appellant having been found 'not established', it is unnecessary for us to got into the facts of those charges. By the impugned order, the Commission held that the appellant has violated the provisions of Section 2(o)(ii) of the Act, hence, it had passed the order of case and desist against the appellant under Section 37(1) of the Act, as stated above, and has further directed the appellant to pay interest at the prevalent bank rate on all the sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC3049; 2001(2)ALD(Cri)706; 2001ALLMR(Cri)2377(SC); 2001CriLJ4721; 2001(4)Crimes105(SC); JT2001(8)SC390; RLW2002(2)SC328; 2001(7)SCALE51; (2001)9SCC452
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. Mohan and Dilip, the two accused-appellants have been held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs.2000/- each by Sessions Judge, Bilaspur of Madhya Pradesh. Their appeal has been dismissed by the High Court maintaining the conviction as also the sentence. This is an appeal by special leave. 2. The prosecutrix who was aged about 16 years on 5.3.1996, the date of the incident, had lost her parents and therefore was living with her maternal uncle and aunt. On 5.3.1996 the village people were busy celebrating Holi festival. According to prosecution at about 2 p.m. the prosecutrix was alone in her house when the two accused approached her and enquired where was her maternal uncle. On being told that he had gone in the village and was not in the house, the accused Mohan lifted her and took her inside the room. The accused Dilip followed in and closed the door from ins...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2635; 2002(4)ALLMR(SC)265; [2002(92)FLR766]; JT2001(10)SC517; (2002)9SCC650
1. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the appellant, respondent was selected to the post of Testing Assistant Grade II (Operator).2. Out of a panel of 38 selected persons only 22 persons were appointed. The respondent who remained without being appointed filed a writ petition before the High Court. A learned single Judge of the High Court following the decision of the same Court in Shivsingh v. State of M. P., 1988 (1) MPWN 24 held that in the absence of any statutory rule requiring waiting list to lapse beyond prescribed limit, the action of the appellant is arbitrary and on that basis gave a direction to consider the case of the respondent for appointment as per law declared In the said decision. The matter was carried in appeal. In appeal the view expressed by the learned single Judge was reiterated and the appeal stood dismissed. Hence, this appeal by special leave.3. Shri V.R. Reddy, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants brought to our notice that the selections...
Tag this Judgment!