Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2734; 2001ALLMR(Cri)1949(SC); 2001(2)ALT(Cri)310; 2001CriLJ3993; 2001(4)Crimes127(SC); 93(2001)DLT44(SC); 2001(132)ELT529(SC); JT2001(6)SC419; RLW2002(1)SC5; 2001(
Ruma Pal, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant is under trial for offences alleged to have bene committed under Sections 21 23 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (referred to hereafter as the 'Act'). The respondent No. 1. was a co-accused. The appellant has challenged an order dated 31.1.2000 by which the High Court upheld an order of the Central Government granting the respondent No. 1 immunity from prosecution under Section 64 of the Act. In this appeal, we are concerned with the scope of the power under Section 64 of the Act and whether it can be exercised by the Central Government in favour of a person after the Sessions Judge has rejected an application by such person for pardon under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.3. Proceedings under the act were initiated against inter alia the appellant and the respondent No. 1 on two separate complaints of the Narcotics Control Bureau (briefly referred to as 'NCB') being SC No. 136/89 and SC...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIAD(SC)230; AIR2001SC3338; [2001(90)FLR1030]; JT2001(6)SC510; 2001LabIC2901; 2001(5)SCALE198; (2001)6SCC637; 2001(3)SCT1042(SC); (2001)3UPLBEC2323
Rajendra Babu, J.1. The appellants before us are serving in the Zoological Survey of India under the control of the ministry of Environment & Forests. Most of them were appointed as Assistant Zoologists by direct recruitment and some of them were promoted to the post of Assistant Zoologist under the Zoological Survey of India (Central Service Class 1 and Class II posts] Recruitment Rules, 1963, as amended from time to time. They contended that they were governed by the Recruitment rules, which prescribed only the Master's degree in Zoology as essential qualification for the post of Assistant Zoologist and experience relating to the posts above that of the Assistant Zoologist would be Scientist-B and so on.2. Annexure-II to the Recruitment Rules provided the norms for recruitment to the scientific posts as under:Sr. No.Name of the candidateParty affiliationNo of valid votes polled1.Rao Om Parkash, EngineerBSP58192.Sh. Jagat SinghJD[U]1133.Sh. Narender SinghINC317554.Sh. J.D. YadavHVP500...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2749; 93(2001)DLT23(SC); [2001(90)FLR1033]; JT2001(6)SC413; 2001LabIC2895; 2001(5)SCALE218; (2001)6SCC571; 2001(4)SCT104(SC); 2002(1)SLJ77(SC); 2001(2)LC1356(SC);
Rajendra Babu, J.1. In these cases we have to decide the issue as to whether the certificates of candidates belonging to backward classes in States other than Delhi could hold good for the purpose of recruitment to the post of primary and nursery teachers in Municipal Corporation of Delhi in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. An ancillary question would also arise as to whether the Other Backward Classes (for short 'OBCs') of the States other than Delhi can be treated as OBCs in Delhi and can be extended the benefits related thereto in Delhi.2. The facts leading to the present cases, in brief, are as follows:3. Applications were invited from Indian citizens for appointment to the posts of primary and nursery teachers in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 16.7.1996. In the course of the notification the following was mentioned by a Note:'NOTE : Candidates, seeking reservation as ST/SC/OBC/Exs/OH may submit the prescribed certificate from the competent authority in support of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2752; 2001ALLMR(Cri)1960(SC); 2002(1)ALT(Cri)12; I(2002)BC148(SC); [2001]106CompCas730(SC); 2001CriLJ4167; 2001(4)Crimes122(SC); JT2001(6)SC403; RLW2002(1)SC41; 20
Shaj, J. 1. Leave granted.2. Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of the respondents.3. By impugned judgment and order dated 27.11.2000 the High Court of Madras allowed Criminal OP No. 14007 of 1999 and quashed the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that there was breach of mandatory provision in issuing the notice as the cheque was returned on 13th January, 1994 and complainant issued notice on 29th January, 1994, which fell outside the period of 15 days.4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that appellant filed criminal complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, on the ground that in respect of a liability on a promissory not, a cheque was issued in favour of the complainant on 12.1.1994 for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs.When the cheque was presented in bank, it was returned on 13.1.1994 with an endorsement ' payment stopped by drawer'. Hence, appellant iss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2743; 2001(5)ALT33(SC); JT2001(6)SC466; 2001(5)SCALE205; (2001)8SCC694; 2001(4)SCT101(SC); (2001)3UPLBEC2261
Raju, J.1. These appeals involve a challenged to the powers as well as the right of the State Government to provide for reservation of seats for admission to Post Graduate Medical Courses for in-service candidates and the reasonableness or other wise of the extent upto which such reservations could be made.Before the learned Single Judge, challenged was made to the decision of the Government/University fixing 33% to be the qualifying marks for in-service candidates to render them eligible for admission to the Post-Graduate courses.The second ground of challenged was to the decision of the Government to increase the reservation of seats for admission into Post-Graduate course for in-service candidates from 25% to 50% out of the remaining 75% of the seats after excluding 25% of the seats reserved for central quota.2. The learned Singh Judge by his order dated 22.2.1998 repelled the challenged based on the first ground and held that the State, which is authorized to regulate the admission...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2889; 2001(77)ECC241; 2001(132)ELT514(SC); JT2001(6)SC495; 2001(5)SCALE307; (2001)6SCC756
Kirpal, J.:1. The main question which arises for consideration in the present case is whether the show cause notice which was issued by the appellant to the respondent beyond the period of one year of the import of the items in question is covered by the provisions of Section 28(1) proviso of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act') and, therefore, within time.2. Briefly stated the facts are that on 19th October, 1988 the respondent imported and cleared 55 units of Haemodialysers under the Open General Licence (OGL). It claimed the benefit of Customs Notification No. 208 of 1981 and no duty was paid on the said import.3. The goods were then taken to Kandla and were sought to be exported to USSR. On 2nd December, 1988, the customs authorities at Kandla were of the opinion that the goods which had been imported from abroad could not be so exported to Russia. On advice having been received from Joint Chief Controller of Import & Export, a show cause notice on 25th March, 1989 was issue...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIAD(SC)234; AIR2001SC3389; JT2001(6)SC537; (2002)1MLJ31(SC); 2001(5)SCALE210; (2001)6SCC652
Shivaraj V. Patil, J. 1. This appeal by the defendants in the suit O.S. No. 93 of 1976 is directed against and aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 29.4.1992 passed by the High Court of Madras in S.A. No. 1858/84. 2. In brief, the facts and circumstances leading to filing of this appeal are the following:3. According to the appellants, Arulighu Mariamman temple at Rajapalayam has been administered and managed from time immemorial by the religious denomination of community of Rajus of Singarajakottai (for short `Rajus'). Originally members of the said religious denomination were worshiping in the temple and as time passed on, persons belonging to other communities also started worshiping in the temple. The administration of the temple has always been by the trustees elected among Rajus and at no time, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department (H.R.& C.E. Deptt.) interfered with their management. Rajus permitted pandarams to perform puja in the temple as poojaries.4. Seve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(2)ALD(Cri)528; 2001ALLMR(Cri)2174(SC); 2001(49)BLJR2328; 2001CriLJ4173; 93(2001)DLT8(SC); JT2001(6)SC405; 2001(5)SCALE224; (2001)6SCC670; 2001(2)LC1349(SC)
Shah, J. 1. Leave granted in S.L.P.(crl.) No. 620 of 2001.2. The High Court of Delhi in Criminal Misc.(Main) No.1818 of 2000 vide judgement and order dated 03.7.2000 arrived at the conclusion that 'the Court was totally unjustified in summoning the petitioner when the petitioner was not shown in the column of accused persons in the charge sheet'. Relying on section 319 Cr.P.C., the High Court held that such persons could be summoned by the Court under section 319 only after the evidence has been recorded.That order is challenged in this appeal.3. Learned senior counsel.Dr.Singhvi, appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the High Court ignored the provisions of Section 190 Cr.P.C. and there was no question of referring to section 319 Cr.P.C. at the stage.As against this, learned senior counsel, Mr. R.K. Jain, appearing for respondent no.2 supported the impugned order and submitted that in the charge-sheet, respondent no.2 was not shown as accused and his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIAD(SC)403; AIR2001SC3341; 2001(4)ALLMR(SC)874; JT2001(7)SC4; 2002(1)KLT381(SC); 2001(5)SCALE367; (2001)7SCC650
V.N. Khare, J. 1. A large track of land in the village Manakunnam in the district of Cochin was sought to be acquired for setting up a bottling plant by the respondent - Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was issued on 23.8.1990 which was followed y issue of notification under Section 6 of the Act on 22.2.1991. The appellants' land measuring 7.13 acres is covered by the aforesaid notifications. The Collector on 5.5.1992 gave an award and offered compensation to the claimants @ Rs. 1225/- per are Rs. 500 percent. The claimants sought reference for enhancement of the compensation. The Additional Sub-Judge, Ernakulam enhanced the compensation to @ Rs. 7000/- per cent. Aggrieved, the respondents filed appeals before the High Court. The High Court was of the view that the compensation awarded by the reference court was on higher side and, therefore, reduced the compensation to @ Rs. 4000/- per cent fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIAD(SC)179; AIR2001SC3234; 2002(50)BLJR450; [2001(91)FLR626]; JT2001(6)SC368; 2001LabIC3281; 2001(5)SCALE233; (2001)7SCC161; 2001(3)SCT1114(SC); 2001(2)LC1281(SC)
B.N. Agrawal, J.:1. Leave granted.2. Common judgment impugned in these appeals has been passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court in Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the respondents in these appeals, excepting civil appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.11675 of 2000, which was preferred by the present appellant, whereby the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the appellant has been dismissed and the order of learned single Judge allowing the writ application upheld, but other appeals have been allowed and the judgment rendered by learned single Judge dismissing the writ applications has been set aside.3. Necessary facts giving rise to these appeals are that respondents in these appeals, excepting Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11675 and 11704 of 2000, were appointed as Civil Judges (Trainee), Class II, on different dates temporarily on officiating basis upon the recommendations of the State Public Service Commission under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Classif...
Tag this Judgment!