Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2002]253ITR759(SC); (2002)10SCC310
ORDER1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. On the record of the case, no interference is called for. The civil appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)171CTR(SC)187; [2002]253ITR445(SC); (2002)10SCC391
ORDER1. The notice that was issued had stated that the matter appeared to be covered by the decision of this court in Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT : [1997]225ITR792(SC) . We find, now that we have heard learned counsel, that it is so covered. 2. Learned counsel for the assessee stressed that in the instant case, the asses-see had acted to increase its share capital because it had been directed by the Reserve Bank of India so to do. This was because it had to reduce its non-residential holding to forty per cent. It was learned counsel's submission that the only way in which the assessee could do business after the Reserve Bank directive was to issue share capital to comply with it. In his submission, therefore, the decision of this court in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. : [1997]225ITR792(SC) , was distinguishable. 3. Whichever way we look at it, the object of the assessee was to increase its share capital; whether it did ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001IXAD(SC)122; AIR2001SC3846; 2001(2)ALD(Cri)765; 2001CriLJ4733; JT2001(9)SC162; 2001(7)SCALE289; (2002)1SCC555
Sethi, J.1. Leave granted.2. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the High Court quashing her complaint and the order of the Magistrate issuing the process against the respondents for the offences under Section 465 468 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant has approached this Court by way of this appeal for setting aside the order of the High Court with direction to the Magistrate for proceeding with the complaint in accordance with law. It is submitted that the High Court of Calcutta has passed the impugned order in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure completely ignoring the mandate of law as settled by various pronouncements of this Court and other High Court in the country.3. The complainant claims to be a partner of M/s. Chandmal Gangabishan, a firm registered under the Partnership Act and carrying on business of Bhujia and other allied products with the trade mark HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA. According to the averments made in the complai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001IXAD(SC)160; AIR2002SC70; 2001(2)ALD(Cri)904; 2001(2)ALT(Cri)379; 2002(1)BLJR117; 2002CriLJ211; 2002(1)Crimes79(SC); JT2001(9)SC279; RLW2002(1)SC146; 2001(7)SCALE523; (
Shah, J.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur, M.P., the accused has filed this appeal. By the impugned judgment and order dated 19.3.2001, the High Court confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Umariya in Sessions Case No. 117/99 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 376 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to death.2. It is the prosecution case that PW1 Mohan Lal Sahu when returned at his home at about 6.00 p.m. on 25th January, 1999, he found that his grand-daughter (daughter of his late daughter) Jyoti aged about 6 years was not present in the house. He enquired about her from his daughter-in-law and other persons. He was informed that she had gone to visit cinema alongwith the accused. After some time when accused Bantu @ Naresh visited his residence, he enquired about where abouts of Jyoti and accused stated that he did not know anything about Jy...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(4)ALLMR515; 2001(7)SCALE494; (2002)10SCC121
D.P.MOHAPATRA,J. Leave granted. These appeals filed by the writ petitioners are directed against the judgment rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 13th August, 1998 in which eight writ petitions filed by the appellants and others were decided . Six out of the eight writ petition, Nos.4955, 6036, 4091, 8059, 5994 and 5174 of 1997 were dismissed while Writ Petition Nos.5160 and 6012 of 1997 were allowed and the notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act), insofar as it related to the petitioners in those two cases was quashed. The High Court by a separate judgment rendered on 8.4.1999 dismissed eight other similar writ petitions Nos.16399/96, 15228, 15549 of 1997, 403, 3524, 3677, 4752 & 15511 of 1998. In another judgment rendered on 17.2.2000 the High Court dismissed the Civil Writ Petition No.8275/1997. Since the relevant facts and the grounds of challenge against the judgments are similar in all these cases they are being disposed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2002(92)FLR685]; JT2001(10)SC410; (2002)ILLJ1098SC; (2002)10SCC319
G.B. Pattanaik and; Ruma Pal, JJ.This appeal by the State Government is directed against the impugned judgment of the division bench of the Bombay High Court disposing of a writ petition filed by two of the municipal employees granting the relief contained in clauses (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of prayer in the writ petition filed. From the impugned order, it transpires that on the very first day, the High Court made the rule returnable forthwith and after hearing the counsel appearing for all parties concerned, allowed the writ on a finding that the case is fully covered by the government resolution dated 16.4.1984. Having examined the resolution dated 16.4.1984, we find that the resolution deals with the service conditions of the government employees which has got nothing to do with the municipal employees. There appears to be a notification of the directorate of municipal administration purported to have been passed under S. 76(2) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 dated 14t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2002(92)FLR776]; JT2001(10)SC557; (2002)10SCC514; 2002(1)LC457(SC)
G.B. Pattanaik and; Ruma Pal, JJ.This appeal by the Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur is directed against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court.By the impugned judgment the High Court was held the provisions of sections 11(12) of the Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 to be ultra vires. The original Act is of the year 1974 which provided selection for appointment of teachers and officers of the University of Rajasthan. In the year 1984 by virtue of an ordinance which was replaced by an Act, section 11 was added to the same. The aforesaid provision was intended to mitigate the grievances of the teachers who were stagnating either as lecturers or readers and not getting any promotion as the number of posts of readers and professors was limited. Under section 11 the State Government was entitled to create ex cadre posts of professors or readers in each faculty of the university to the extend of one third of the eligible persons as on 1st ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2001(10)SC200; (2002)10SCC570; (2002)1UPLBEC317
M.B. Shah and; Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.Leave granted.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 7-6-2000 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Appeals Nos. 2901, 3078 of 1999 and 7 of 2000, the Land Acquisition Officer (Revenue Divisional Officer), Nalgonda, Andhra Pradesh has filed these appeals.By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court fixed the compensation of the land under acquisition @ Rs. 2, 25, 000 per acre by relying upon Ext. A-10, which relates to the fixation of rate of compensation for Survey No. 367 for which notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for acquiring the land was issued on 29-8-1980.It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order, on the face of it, is illegal and erroneous because the Court ought to have taken into consideration the fact that the relevant date for fixing the market price in the present case was 7-7-1977 i.e. the da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001IXAD(SC)133; AIR2001SC3837; 2001(2)ALD(Cri)873; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)80; 2001CriLJ4724; II(2001)DMC636SC; JT2001(8)SC599; RLW2002(2)SC320; 2001(7)SCALE298; (2001)9SCC618
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against conviction of Ramesh Kumar, the accused-appellant, on charges under Section 306 and 498A IPC. he was sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 306 IPC and to two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A IPC, both the sentences having been directed to run concurrently. The conviction along with sentences has been maintained by the High Court. His father Shiv Kumar, mother Gargi Devi and brother Mahesh were also tried for offences under Sections 306 and 498A IPC. The trial Court found them 'not guilty' and 'innocent' and hence acquitted the three of them of both the charges. That acquittal has achieved a finality as not challenged by any one.2. Seema Devi, daughter of Sohan Lal Sharma (PW16) and Smt. Prabahawati Devi (PW19) was married with accused-appellant on 23.6.1985. On 17.6.1986, within one year of marriage, Seema died of suicide. On 16.6.1986, she poured kerosene on herself and set hersel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2902; 2001(2)ALD(Cri)860; JT2001(8)SC650; 2001(7)SCALE310; (2002)1SCC71
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. Eight accused persons were tried by First Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, Madhya Pradesh on charges under Sections 148 302 302 read with 149 324 read with 149, IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959. On trial, the Sessions Court acquitted all the accused of the offences charged against them. The State of Madhya Pradesh, feeling aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, preferred an appeal before the High Court. It appears that Inderlal alias Indera son of Kashiram (accused-respondent No. 2 before the High Court) expired during the pendency of appeal. A Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the appeal and set aside the acquittal of the accused persons and instead convicted accused-respondent Ramesh under Section 302/149 IPC 148 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act; accused Nanakram under Section 148 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act; accused Kashiram and Teekaram, each under Section 148 and Section 324/149 IPC; accused Suresh and Ratana, each under Section...
Tag this Judgment!