Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIAD(SC)361; AIR2001SC3750; JT2001(7)SC456; 2001(6)SCALE102; (2001)6SCC763
ORDER1. The special leave petitions are filed against the order of the High Court dated 2.9.1999 and 12.1.2001 (in fact it is found to be 12.1.2000). Notice was issued on the special leave petitions on 10.7.2001. The respondents filed IAs. for revoking the notice on the allegation that correct facts were not brought to the notice of the Court.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. We are not inclined to consider these special leave petitions on merits for two reasons; first, notice was ordered on the basis, gathered from the documents filed in the special leave petitions, that the impugned order was passed on 12.1.2001: if that were to be correct there was no delay in filing the special leave petitions and it was accordingly so observed. Now, it turns out that the impugned order was passed on 12.1.2000 and not on 12.1.2000 and not on 12.1.2001 and on the material on record we are satisfied that it is not a case of typographical error. Thus, there is a delay of more than a year...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(2002)ACC613; 2002ACJ613; 2002(5)ALD91(SC); JT2001(10)SC396; 2008(1)MhLj565
Thomas, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appears to be an unfortunate case where the dependents of a victim in a motor accident though succeeded in getting an award from Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a sum of Rs.4.95 lakhs are disabled from collecting the amount from the insurance company. The tribunal directed the New India Assurance Company to pay the awarded sum but the insurance company wanted to disown the liability on the premise that at the time of the accident there was no policy of insurance covering the vehicle concerned. Hence, they filed an appeal before the High Court. The impugned judgment rendered by a division bench of the High Court exonerated the insurance company from,,the liability under the award by holding that at the time when the accident took place, there was no policy of insurance for the vehicle.3. The vehicle involved in the accident was in fact covered by a policy of insurance issued by the same insurance company on 8. 2.1995 which was to expire bythe midnigh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(3)ARBLR275(SC); JT2001(7)SC358; 2001(6)SCALE128; (2001)7SCC328; 2002(1)LC13(SC)
Rajendra Babu, J.1. A contract [bearing No. S-142] for supply of aluminum rods of 2400 metric tones @ 200 MT per shipment every month from January to December 1991 was proposed by the respondent to the appellant on 31.8.1990 containing an arbitration clause. In the letter accompanying the contract, it was stated to sign and return copy for sake of good order. The appellant did not sign nor return the said contract. Reminders were sent in this regard from time to time. On 4.2.1991, letter from the respondent enclosing the amendment to the contract was sent to the appellant but without any result. On 25.2.1991, another contract [bearing No. S-336] was proposed by the respondent to the appellant for supply of 2,000 MT of aluminum rods @ 500 MT per shipment. In the first contract, initially there was no arbitration clause. However, on 18.3.1991, the contract bearing the same number, i.e., S-142, was sent containing the arbitration clause with certain amendment for signature and return of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2001(7)SC186; 2001(6)SCALE17; (2001)7SCC201
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The appellant before us filed a writ petition in the High Court of Rajasthan challenging the validity of Rule 21 and Rule 65-A of the Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'); for quashing the notification dated October 10, 1994 declaring the marble policy of the State Government; and for the relief of directing the grant of lease of minor mineral in respect of certain lands delineated a plots Nos. 2,3 and 5 in Morwad area and for certain other incidental reliefs. The High Court dismissed the said writ petition in view of its earlier decision in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 865 of 1995. Hence these appeals. 2. The facts leading to the writ petition are that the appellant filed an application on 2.12.1993 under Rule 5 of the Rules in the prescribed form before the Mining Engineer, Department of Mines & Geology for grant of mining lease in respect of marble which is a minor mineral for a period of 10 years in respect ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIAD(SC)75; AIR2001SC3721; 2001(2)ALT(Cri)291; 2001(3)ARBLR497(SC); II(2007)CPJ41(SC); 2001CriLJ4255; JT2001(7)SC226; 2002MPLJ321(SC); RLW2001(3)SC405; 2001(6)SCALE29;
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellants are running a non-banking financial institution, by name, Messrs Deluxe Leasing Private Limited. The respondent, Sudhir Mehra, partner of a partnership firm, entered into a hire purchase agreement with the appellants on 3.5.1994 whereunder a motor vehicle was handed over to the respondent. The total consideration agreed to be paid by the respondent was Rs. 3,02,884/- and the respondent made an initial payment of Rs. 69,308/- and the balance amount was to be paid in 36 monthly instalments of Rs. 8,400/- each starting from 3.6.1994. According to the respondent, he had been paying the instalments regularly. The respondent filed a criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar on 3.12.1998 alleging that the motor vehicle in question had developed some trouble and it was entrusted to a motor mechanic on 14.9.1996 for carrying out repairs and that in the night of 16.9.1996 the appellants forcibly took away the vehicle from ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC3654; [2001(91)FLR999]; JT2001(7)SC233; 2001LabIC3354; 2001(6)SCALE34; (2001)8SCC119; 2002(1)SLJ100(SC)
Brijesh Kumar, J.1. The present appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated September 18, 1998 passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, allowing the writ petition and setting aside the selection of the appellant for the post of Chief Municipal engineer (Civil) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation.2. Whereas the S.L.P. No. 15062/98 is preferred against another judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated August 11, 1998, dismissing the writ petition filed by Subhendu Maiti & Ors. challenging the same selection though on different grounds. Since both the matters relate to the same selection and for the same post, they have been listed and heard together. Hence, common order.3. The post of Chief Municipal Engineer (Civil) fell vacant in Calcutta Municipal Corporation. The recruitment to such posts is made in accordance with the provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act 1980 and Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Recruitment of officers appointed by Mayor-i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC3478; 2001(2)Crimes212(SC); JT2001(7)SC422; 2001(6)SCALE1; (2001)8SCC329
Banerjee, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellants herein, moved this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India seeking special leave to appeal against the orders of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the matter of dismissal of the writ petition being No. 2226 of 1999 dated 10th July, 2000 as also an order of dismissal of the Review Petition dated 6th November, 2000. By the impugned order of dismissal, the High Court did lend its concurrence to an order of demolition of an additional floor constructed by the appellants in Panchgani said to be in violation of the Municipal Rules as also of the direction contained in an earlier judgment of the same High Court in a public interest litigation being No. 2754 of 1997 wherein the High Court has dealt with a circular issued by Urban Development, Public Health and Housing Department in 1971. Incidentally, be it noted that various public interest petitions have been filed before the High Court seeking to preve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC3576; 2001(2)ALD(Cri)634; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)69; II(2001)DMC544SC; JT2001(7)SC219; 2001(6)SCALE42; (2001)7SCC487
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 486 of 1999 reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras. The learned Single Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 494 IPC.3. The appellant, S. Nagalingam married respondent-complainant Sivagami on 6.9.1970. Three children were born from that wedlock. The respondent alleged that the appellant started ill-treating her and on many occasions she was physically tortured. As a result of ill-treatment and severe torture inflicted by the appellant as well as his mother, she left her marital home and started staying with her parents. While so, the respondent came to know that the appellant that entered into a marriage with another woman on 18.6.1984, by name Kasturi, and that the marriage was performed in a Marriage Hall at Thiruthani. The respondent then filed a criminal co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIAD(SC)224; 2001(49)BLJR2095; JT2001(7)SC457; 2001(6)SCALE109; (2001)6SCC767
ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2.Delay is condoned.3.Leave is granted.4.This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Patna in Second Appeal No. 353/1993 dated May 16, 2000. By the impugned judgment, the High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court and restored that of the Trial Court.5. A perusal of the judgment shows that the High Court not framed any substantial question of law before proceeding to dispose of the Second Appeal. This Court has in Panchugopal Barug and Ors. Vs . Umesh Chandra Goswami and Ors. : [1997]2SCR12 ; shiresh Chandra Purkait Vs . Santosh Kumar Parkait and Ors. : AIR1997SC2517 ; The Tehsildar and Ors. v. G.V. Gopalakrishnappa and Ors. (disposed of on 25.9.2000) and Dyamappa H. Gondar v. Ganeshappa S. Sudambi and Anr. (disposed of on 28.9.2000) held that having regard to the provisions of Section 100 and 101 C.P.C. the High Court can entertain the Second Appeal only when a substantia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC3570; 2002(1)ALD(Cri)259; 2001(49)BLJR2103; 2001CriLJ4242; JT2001(7)SC377; 2001(6)SCALE119; (2001)7SCC690
Thomas, J.1. Leave granted.2. A railway burial was contrived for eliminating the corpse of a business broker of Ludhiana. The coffin made for that purpose was camouflaged as parcel container to be despatched to a distant destination. But the parcel narrowly missed from being consigned to the railway bogie as some employees at the Parcel Service Center smelled foul. The suspicion led to the disinterring of a strangled body which was later identified to be that of the aforesaid on the main count and to lesser terms of imprisonment on the other two counts. A Division Bench of the High Court or Punjab and Haryana confirmed the conviction and sentence as per the judgment which is now being challenged.3. Amar Kumar Gupta (deceased) and his wife Veena were living with their two little daughters (Sonia and Dimple) in their house at Ludhiana. He was making his livelihood through the brokerage earned by him in the business transactions with the manufactures of hosiery goods. It appears that the ...
Tag this Judgment!