Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2532; 2002(1)AWC434(SC); JT2001(10)SC268; (2002)9SCC682
1. A large tract of land was proposed to be acquired by the State of West Bengal. Consequently, a notification dated23rd June, 1954 was published on 8th July, 1954 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The land of the appellants was covered by the aforesaid notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. Subsequently, the said notification was followed by a notification under Section 6 of the Act, issued on 19th July, 1954. It is relevant to mention here that in the notification under Section 6 of the Act, the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 17 were also applied, with the result the State was free to take possession without delivery of the award by the Land Acquisition Officer. In view of the application of Sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 17 of the Act, the State of West Bengal took possession of the land on 23rd February, 1955. After taking possession, the Land Acquisition Collector gave an award on 1st February, 1956...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)10SCC109
V.N. Khare and; B.N. Agrawal, JJ.1. The defendant is in appeal before us. The father of the defendant- appellant on 23-7-1964 entered into an agreement for sale of land measuring 153 kanals 19 marlas. After his father's death, Defendant 1 on 17-10-1968 entered into a fresh agreement for sale of the same land jointly owned by him and his sister in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. However, the defendant's sister was not party to the said agreement. It is alleged that the defendant's father received the earnest money under the first agreement. It is also alleged that since the defendant-appellant avoided to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff-respondents brought a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 17-10-1968. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant as well as by his sister who was also the co-sharer of the land. The sister of the appellant denied having entered into an agreement with the plaintiff-respondents for sale of her share. The trial court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC3317; 2002(1)ALD(Cri)256; 2001ALLMR(Cri)2172(SC); 2002(1)ALT(Cri)89; 2001CriLJ4240; 2001(77)ECC465; JT2001(7)SC560; 2001(4)MPHT450; 2001(6)SCALE150; (2001)7SCC673
Sethi, J.1. Leave granted.2. Acting upon a definite information received by the Police Station Jawad, District Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh, force was deployed and the respondent-accused apprehended on the night of 24th March, 2000. After compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), opium weighing 7 kgs. was seized from the accused which he had kept in his bag. After completing necessary procedural formalities and getting the samples tested, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused in the competent court. Application for bail moved by the accused was rejected by the trial court. Dissatisfied with the rejection of his bail application, the respondent-accused moved an application in the High Court which was registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 2050 of 2000. The said application was rejected by the High Court vide order dated 5.6.2000. Without mentioning any change in the circum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIAD(SC)525; AIR2001SC3315; 2001CriLJ4284; JT2001(7)SC577; 2001MPLJ353(SC); 2001(6)SCALE258; (2001)8SCC82; (2001)3UPLBEC2519
ORDER1. The Contempt Petition is filed by the State of Kerala Complainant that the dignity and authority of the Apex Court are undermined by the respondent by publishing a three column new on the front page of the newspaper 'The Kerala Kaumudi' on May 5, 1999. In the said column the alleged contemnor imputed scandalous, malicious, vilificatory, defamatory and libellous criticism against Shri K.N. Bhat, a senior advocate of the Supreme Court, Shri K.N. Bhat, a senior advocate of the Supreme Court, Shri M.K. Damodaran, Advocate General of Kerala State of Shri G. Prakash, standing counsel for the State of Kerala, in the manner of conduct of C.A. No. 1466 of 2000 of this Court.2. This Court issued notice on the Contempt Petition on August 9, 1999. The respondent having entered appearance raised a preliminary objection that the Contempt Petition is not maintainable, inasmuch as consent of the learned Attorney General/Solicitor General under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, was not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2536; [2002(94)FLR756]; JT2001(10)SC351; (2002)9SCC711; 2002(4)SCT607(SC)
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 3-4-1997 made by the Bench at Panaji (Goa) of the High Court of Bombay.2. A writ petition was preferred by the respondent-S. Srinivas Rao who was an employee on the establishment of the appellant as Head Draughtsman at the relevant time. He claimed promotion under the existing rules to the post of Assistant Engineer. That having not been granted, the respondent approached the High Court. The High Court though noticed that the writ petition lacked necessary details as to when the post of Assistant Engineer fell vacant or when he became eligible to be considered for the post of Assistant Engineer, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed, proceeded to consider the several questions raised in view of the importance of the matter.3. The High Court examined the various provisions of the Major Port Trust Act and in particular Sections 27 and 28 thereof and the regulations framed thereunder. The High Court is of the view that under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2002(92)FLR206]; JT2001(10)SC254; (2002)9SCC739
D.P. Mohapatra and; K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. Heard Mr L. Nageswara Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr S. Ram Babu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.3. By the order passed on 2-2-2001, notice was issued to the respondent limited to the question of back wages. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the question. The respondent was engaged as a man mazdoor in the appellant's establishment in December 1978. His service was terminated in September 1978 (sic). The proceeding in the Labour Court to resolve the dispute relating to validity of the order of termination was instituted in 1987. In May 1990 the Labour Court declined to order reinstatement in service but directed differential wages at the rate of Rs 305 p.m. to be paid to the respondent. The said order was challenged by the respondent before the High Court. The High Court remanded the matter to the Labour Court in May 1997 to examine the question whether another work...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)7SCC649
Order 1. The instant appeal involves a question as to whether the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply as against a private complaint for an offence under Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code even in respect of a document which was forged before it was filed in court. Apparently, divergent views have been expressed by this Court. In Gopalakrishna Menon v. D. Raja Reddy1 a two-Judge Bench came to a conclusion that even in respect of such a document which was forged before filing it in court, the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) would apply. Subsequently, however, in the case of Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar2 the decision in Gopalakrishna Menon case1 stands expressly overruled and this Court came to a definite conclusion other than the one that was stated in Sachida Nand case2. For convenience sake, paras 11 and 12 of the judgment in Sachida Nand case2 are set out hereinbelow: (SCC p. 499) “11. The scope of the prelimina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2434; 2002(3)ALD88(SC); 2002(3)ALLMR(SC)918; JT2001(10)SC247; RLW2002(3)SC464; (2002)9SCC477
ORDER1. In a suit for partition in the court of the Vth additional district judge, Jabalpur in C.S. No. 6A/82, the second defendant by way of an amended written statement purporting to base his claim under Section 4 of the Partition Act claimed the right of pre-emption available to a co-sharer in regard to certain portion of the property which is claimed to have been alienated in favour of defendant Nos. 13 and 14. The trial court while granting the preliminary decree for partition, negatived the said claim on the ground that the said right cannot be exercised by defendant No. 2 in a suit brought for partition by a co-sharer but the said right will be available to defendant No. 2 if a suit is brought for partition by the purchaser of the share in the joint family property.2. On appeal, the High Court reversed the said finding and following the judgment of Gujarat High Court in Gulamrasool Sarfuddin Malek and Ors. v. Dulhanbibi and Ors. : AIR1980Guj110 Alekha Mantri v. Jagabandhu Mantri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIAD(SC)137; AIR2001SC3774; 2001(2)ALD(Cri)578; 2001(49)BLJR2235; [2001]107CompCas365(SC); (2002)1CompLJ9(SC); 2001CriLJ4259; 2001(4)Crimes229(SC); JT2001(7)SC390; 200
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. Criminal Courts are normally constituted under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') provides for the classes of criminal courts. In addition to the provisions contained in the Code or the old Code of 1898, from time to time, enactments have been passed providing that in respect of certain offence, there will be a Special Court manned by persons having specified qualifications. In the present appeals, we are concerned with such an enactment, namely, The Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 ('the Act' for short). The passing of the Act was preceded by an Ordinance which was promulgated on 6th June, 1992.2. It is an Act to provide for the establishment of a Special Court for the trial of offences relating to transactions in securities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. In the year 1992, large scale irregularities and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIAD(SC)488; JT2001(7)SC332; 2001(6)SCALE153; (2001)9SCC68
Rajendra Babu, J.1. A scheme framed in respect of the administration of the Tricherumana @ Kottiyoor Devaswom, appellant No. 1 herein, was the subject matter of challenge before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1066/53. By an order made on 5.8.1954, the learned Single Judge before whom the writ petition came up allowed the same and set aside the entire scheme. The matter was carried in appeal.2. The Division Bench of the High Court of Madras, on 17.10.1955, disagreed with the learned Single Judge that no part of the scheme can be salvaged and the whole of it must be set aside. The Division Bench of the High Court observed that so long as the scheme is necessary even radical alterations of the scheme can be made by modification of the original scheme and the parties submitted an agreed scheme for consideration of the High Court. The Division Bench, after considering the same, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and directed the draft scheme, which was attached to that ord...
Tag this Judgment!