Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2616; [2001(90)FLR812]; JT2001(5)SC470; 2001LabIC2795; 2001(4)SCALE371; (2001)6SCC89; [2001]3SCR992; 2001(3)SCT820(SC); 2002(1)SLJ197(SC); 2001(2)LC1410(SC)
B.N. Agrawal, J.1. These appeals by special leave are against five judges Full Bench judgment of Rajasthan High Court passed in three different writ applications whereby by a majority of 3:2, the same have been dismissed. In the writ petition out of which Civil Appeal No. 6469 of 1998 arises, the selection of respondent Nos. 3 to 12 who were appointed to the cadre of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service by order dated 20th April, 1993 pursuant to advertisement dated 21st December, 1996 and recommendation of the High Court has been assailed by challenging the validity of Rules 8(ii) and 15(ii) of The Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') making only those advocates eligible for consideration to the post of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service who are practising in the Rajasthan High Court and courts subordinate thereto, on grounds, inter alia, that the same were violative of Fundamental Right, guaranteed to a citizen of India, enshrined under A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)10SCC636
G.B. Pattanaik and; U.C. Banerjee, JJ.1. These two appeals by the Notified Area Council are directed against the judgment and order of the Orissa High Court dated 8-8-1997. By the impugned order the High Court has directed the State Government to pay the contractual amount to 34 employees of the Notified Area Council in the Octroi Department and has further directed to sanction the posts and thereafter consider the question of regularisation. It transpires from the impugned judgment that the Notified Area Council though filed a counter-affidavit but indicated therein that there are no records available with them. The Court therefore called upon the State Counsel to produce the records and on production of the same, it perused the records and ultimately passed the orders in question.2. Though the Court had the opportunity of going through the records produced by the State Government but it has not noticed the manner in which these respondents were appointed by the Notified Area Council....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2001(10)SC203; (2002)10SCC193
K.T. Thomas and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.1. In this case appellant Durga Domar is alleged to have killed five persons, all of them children (including a two-and-a-half-year-old female child and a five-year-old male child) in a very ferocious manner. All the children are said to be his close relatives. From the description of the narration we did not come across any motive for the massacre. The mental condition of the appellant has not been considered at any stage of the case — whether he was afflicted by any schizophrenic paranoia — or any other mental illness. Looking at the conspectus of the facts of the case we have a feeling that we should first exercise our mind on the question whether the accused was mentally sound or not at the relevant time. He had no counsel of his own in the trial court. Even after his conviction and sentence of death, he could not engage a counsel in the High Court of his own. The High Court appointed an advocate on State brief. Hence he, perhaps, had no ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2630; 2001(4)ALLMR(SC)273; 2001(49)BLJR1900; [2001]106CompCas659(SC); (2001)3CompLJ376(SC); III(2001)CPJ8(SC); JT2001(5)SC425; (2001)3MLJ123(SC); 2001(4)SCALE335;
S. N. Variava, J. 1. This Appeal is against an Order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 11th March, 1999.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The 1st Respondent had entrusted to the Appellant 125 cartoon of goods, of the value of Rs. 9,30,188/- for transport from Nanguneri to Itchalkaranji. The goods were not delivered. The 1st Respondent had insured the goods with the 2nd Respondent. The 1st Respondent lodged a claim with the 2nd Respondent for loss of goods. The 2nd Respondent settled the claim of 1st Respondent by paying a sum of Rs. 9,30,188/-. The 2nd Respondent took a letter, which is termed as a 'Letter of Subrogation, and a Special Power of Attorney'. On the basis of this letter the 2nd Respondent filed a complaint before the State Consumer Redressal Forum. The 1st Respondent was also a party to this complaint. The State Consumer Redressal Forum by its Order dated 16th December, 1988 directed the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 9,30,188/- with inte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2628; JT2001(5)SC463; 2001(4)SCALE369; (2001)6SCC13
S.N. Variava, J. 1. This Appeal is against an Order dated 4 th November, 1997.Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The Appellant was inducted by the Respondent as tenant in the concerned premises with effect from 1 st July, 1988. A sum of Rs. 3,000/- was paid as advance. The Appellant was to pay every monthly a rent Rs. 300/-.2. The Respondent filed R.C.O.P. No. No. 2210 of 1989 before the Rent Controller,Madras under Section 10(2)(1) of the Tamil Nandu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The Respondent claimed that the Appellant had defaulted in making the payment of rent from the very first month itself.The Respondent claimed that there were arrears of rent in the sum of Rs. 3,600/-. The Appellant contested this application.The Appellant claimed that he had sent a money order which was refused by the Respondent.The Appellant claim that he had sent a Notice dated 13 th November, 1988 calling upon the landlord to disclose his bank a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2631; JT2001(5)SC416; 2001(4)SCALE327; (2001)6SCC50; [2001]3SCR969
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 23.6.1999 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 14282 of 1998 in which the orders of the State Government appointing the Commission under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act'), vide G.O.Ms.No.83 dated 5.2.1997 and G.O.Ms. No. 468 dated 2.6.1997 were set aside holding, inter alia, that the Government did not form any opinion to appoint the Commission under the Act.3. The factual backdrop of the case leading to the present proceeding may be shortly stated thus :4. For construction of Yeleru Left Canal, land in Visakhapatnam District was acquired on the requisition of the Irrigation Department. Awards were passed by the Land Acquisition Officer after completing the formalities under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officers, the Awardees sought reference under Section 18. The Subor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(4)SCALE221; (2002)10SCC111
ORDER 1. The Union of India has responded to the suggestions made by the Election Commission of India through an affidavit filed by Shri Surender Kumar, Under-Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs. 2. During the course of hearing, we got an impression that learned counsel for all the parties, including the Union of India and the Election Commission of India, are agreed that there is a need to check criminalisation of politics and misuse of money or muscle power during elections. So far as this aspect is concerned, therefore, all the parties appear to be in agreement. 3. Before we take up the matter for final disposal, it would be helpful if the Union of India discusses the matter with all concerned, including other political parties, if necessary, to arrive at some consensus to achieve the objective mentioned above. The Union of India may do so in any manner which it considers appropriate. We expect the learned Solicitor-General will inform this Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)170CTR(SC)183; [2001]251ITR11(SC)
ORDER1. Delay in filing the respondent's appearance is condoned.2. Leave granted.3. These appeals arise on references to the High Court of Kerala (see : [2001]248ITR740(Ker) of questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The High Court has come to the conclusion that it is not necessary for it to answer the questions but that the matter requires fresh consideration at the hands of the Tribunal, in view of what is stated, principally, in paragraph seven of its judgment.4. It is, fairly, not disputed that the approach of the High Court is not correct and that the High Court ought to have answered the questions that were referred to it, having regard to the facts found by the Tribunal and on the basis thereof. Accordingly, it is necessary to restore the references to the file of the High Court to be heard and disposed of afresh, having due regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court in such matters.5. The appeals are allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2637; 2001(2)ALD(Cri)276; 2001CriLJ3329; 2001(3)Crimes276(SC); JT2001(5)SC440; 2001(4)SCALE348; (2001)6SCC181; [2001]3SCR942
ORDERSyed Shah Mahoammed Quadri, J. 1. Leave is granted in all the special leave petitions.2. These four appeals arise out of the common judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in WA Nos.2708/1999, 2709/1999, 2710/1999,8/2000, 52/2000 and 200/2000 dated February 29, 2000. Criminal Appeal Nos 689 of 2001 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1522/2000) is filed by T.T. Antony, Deputy Collector and Executive Magistrate, Kannur, Civil Appeal No. 4066 of 2001 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8840/2000) is filed by fourteen police constables; and Criminal Appeal Nos. 690-691 of 2001 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)Nos. 2724-25/2000 are filed by the State of Kerala. These appeals relate to the same incident and raise common questions of facts and law so they are being dealt with together.3. The relevant facts, giving rise to these appeals, which have a strong political backdrop, need to be noticed for appreciating the contentions of the parties.4. The Communist Party of India (Mar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2651; 2001(2)ALT(Cri)202; [2001]106CompCas619(SC); (2001)4CompLJ28(SC); 2001CriLJ3322; 2001(3)Crimes270(SC); JT2001(5)SC398; 2001(4)SCALE323; (2001)6SCC30; [2001]3
Thomas, J. 1. Leave granted.2. A renowned hospital in the Metropolis of Madras (Chennai) has been caricatured in a newspaper as the abattoir of human kidneys for trafficking purposes. When the Director of the Hospital complained of defamation, the publisher of the newspaper sought shelter under the umbrage that the libel is not against the Director personally, but against the hospital only and hence he cannot feel aggrieved. The accused/publisher, who raised the objection before the trial court, on being summoned by the court to appear before it, succeeded in stalling the progress of the trial by clinging to the said contention which the trial magistrate has upheld. But the High Court of Madras disapproved the action of the magistrate and directed the trial to proceed. Hence the accused has come up to this Court by filing the special leave petition. But after hearing the learned senior counsel, who argued for the appellant, we did not fiend the necessity to wait for the respondent - co...
Tag this Judgment!