Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(50)BLJR84; (2002)1CALLT10(SC); JT2001(9)SC18; 2001(8)SCALE338; (2002)9SCC431
A.S. Anand, C.J.,; R.C. Lahoti and; Ashok Bhan, JJ.1. This appeal, by special leave, calls in question conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants for offences under Sections 302/149, 148 and 147 IPC. Learned counsel for the appellants, faced with overwhelming evidence, including medical evidence, connecting the appellants with the crime, submitted that since these two appellants have already undergone the sentence imposed on them and have already been released, he does not wish to press this appeal. Under the circumstances, we dismiss this appeal as not pressed.Criminal Appeal No. 434 of 19972. Ram Charan, Satya Pal, Lalloo, S/o Baldeo, Kallu Singh, Dharampal Singh and Lallu Singh, S/o Yadram Singh were sent up for trial for offences under Sections 302/149, 147 and 148 IPC. The trial court convicted all the accused persons for an offence under Sections 302/149 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. They were also convicted and sentenced for an offence under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIAD(SC)659; AIR2001SC3676; JT2001(7)SC472; 2001(6)SCALE115; (2001)9SCC157; 2001(4)SCT298(SC); (2001)3UPLBEC2397
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in this appeal were admitted to four year Bachelor of Engineering course in Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology in the academic year 1997-98. The said Institute and its Director are appellants before us. Their challenge is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge, has declared that the respondent should be deemed to have passed the first year of their respective course. Accordingly, the appellants were directed to take immediate steps for allowing the respondents to prosecute their studies in the second year.2. During the academic year 1997-98, Clause 17(a) of Schedule I of Academic Regulations governing the appellant-Institute required a student of the first year to repeat the examination if he fails to secure specified credits and/or specified grade and on inability to secure specified grade after repeating, to leave the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIAD(SC)451; AIR2001SC3744; [2001(91)FLR377]; JT2001(7)SC624; 2001LabIC3713; 2001(6)SCALE211; (2001)8SCC129; 2001(4)SCT41(SC); 2002(1)SLJ83(SC); (2001)3UPLBEC2559
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. The Union of India has challenged the orders dated 20th December, 1999 in Writ Petition No. 21818 of 1999 and dated 15th March, 2000 in Review WPMP No. 4223 of 2000 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.4. By the impugned orders the High Court has directed as under :-'Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, brought to our notice that the petitioner's husband has not been relieved by the State of Andhra Pradesh who has been transferred to West Bengal cadre. Under these circumstances, considering the fact that the petitioner's husband has not been relieved by the State of Andhra Pradesh, and in the light of the new guide-lines issued, we direct the respondent to consider the request of the petitioner for her transfer to the State of Andhra Pradesh, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.'5. It is the contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2392; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)302; 2002CriLJ2979; JT2001(10)SC266; (2002)10SCC203
K.T. Thomas and; S.N. Variava, JJ.1. Muthiah Thevar was a much married person. He and one of his wives along with one of his sons were murdered by a gang of assailants led by yet another son of Muthiah Thevar during the wee hours of 18-9-1985. The trial court convicted four accused persons. Two among them were convicted for murder and the remaining two were convicted for the offence of murder read with Section 34 IPC and all were sentenced to imprisonment for life each. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeals filed by them.2. PW 1 and PW 4 are the daughters of Muthiah Thevar. They were also injured in the incident. They identified the accused as the real assailants, all of whom were armed with lethal weapons like aruval and iron rod.3. As the trial court and the High Court concurrently found that the four accused persons had barged into the house of the deceased, killed the three and injured two others, there was little scope for this Court in an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIAD(SC)479; AIR2001SC3707; 2001(3)ARBLR298(SC); JT2001(7)SC500; 2001(6)SCALE209; (2001)8SCC604
V.N. Khare, J.1. The appellants herein is a small scale industry engaged in manufacture and sale of drugs and was registered with the Directorate of Industry (Stores Purchase Section), Kanpur, U.P. As a result of the aforesaid registration, the appellant was an approved contractor for supply of drugs to the government departments. The appellant in pursuance thereof, had been supplying drugs to the U.P. government. It appears that certain irregularities came to the notice of the government in purchase of medicines and, therefore, a vigilance inquiry was set up a result of which the record and product of the appellant were seized. Further, criminal prosecution was also launched against the appellant under provision of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120 IPC. Under such circumstances, the State government served a notice on the appellant to show cause why it should not be blacklisted in its dealing with the government. It appears that the appellant sent a reply to the show ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(133)ELT18(SC); JT2001(7)SC555; 2001(6)SCALE111; (2001)7SCC525; [2002]125STC101(SC)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment/order of the High Court, the assessee-appellant has come up in appeal. By the impugned judgment, the High Court in a reference made under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin (for short 'the Tribunal') has answered the following question of law in the negative.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee's activity of curing coffee amounts to manufacturing and the assessee is entitled to relief under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act?'i.e. against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.2. The High Court opined that the assessee is not entitled to the investment allowance under Section 32A of the Act in respect of the machinery for curing coffee and its sale.3. The relevant facts giving rise to the above question of law are:-4. The Assessment Years in question are 1980-1981 and 1983-1984. The ass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC3510; [2002(94)FLR538]; JT2001(7)SC567; 2001LabIC3996; (2001)IILLJ1146SC; 2001(6)SCALE126; (2001)7SCC469; 2001(4)SCT270(SC); (2001)3UPLBEC2511
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. Leave is granted in S.L.P. (C) No. 7680 of 2001.2. This appeal is directed against the order of a Division Bench of the High Court of judicature of Bombay (for short, 'the High Court') in W.P. No. 2020 of 2001 dated on April 16, 2001. The first appellant is Government of India Undertaking and the second appellant is its General Manager (P & A). The respondent is the union of the workmen of the first appellant.3. This case has a checkered history. It started with filing of W.P. No. 2206 of 1997 in the High Court by the workmen of the first appellant which ended with the judgment of this Court in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs . Shramik Sena & Ors. : (1999)IILLJ696SC . In connection with the interpretation of the said judgment two writ petitions were filed. The second of which gave rise to C.A. No. 892 of 2001 which was allowed by this Court on January 29, 2001. Purporting to give effect to the judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2001(10)SC319; 2001(6)SCALE399; (2001)10SCC172
D.P. Mohapatra and; Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. In compliance with our order dated 31-8-2001 the respondent is present with the child. Appellant 1 is also present in court.3. The controversy raised in this appeal relates to custody of the minor girl named Aaliaya aged about four years. The appellants are maternal grandmother and aunt (mother's sister) of the child and the respondent is her father. The appellants have assailed the order passed by the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court on 11-7-2000 in which he restrained the appellants from forcibly taking custody of the child from the respondent which was confirmed by the Division Bench by the order dated 2-2-2001. The operative portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge reads as under:“I accordingly restrain the defendants from forcibly taking custody of the child from the plaintiff. However, this order will not in any way come in their way to take custody of the child in accordance with law. No furth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2001(9)SC26; 2001(8)SCALE334; (2002)9SCC714
D.P. Mohapatra and; K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ.Leave granted.We have heard learned counsel for the parties.In this appeal filed on behalf of the detenu Pandit Kishan Fulore, the judgment of the Bombay High Court dismissing Criminal Writ Petition No. 1763 of 2000 is under challenge. In the said writ petition the order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, Thane, against the detenu under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (55 of 1981) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was challenged.From the discussions in the judgment of the High Court it appears that the detention order was challenged on the grounds that due to the delay in passing the order of detention by the authority the nexus between the activities allegedly committed by the detenu and the necessity for passing the order of preventive detention was lost; that the in-camera statements recorded by the subordinate offic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(50)BLJR191; [2001(91)FLR1182]; JT2001(9)SC28; (2002)ILLJ546SC; 2001(8)SCALE335; (2002)10SCC679
V.N. Khare and; B.N. Agrawal, JJ.C.A. No. 7632/1997A large tract of land was acquired by the State of Andhra Pradesh for the appellant herein under the Land Acquisition Act. On April 30, 1986, the land acquisition collector gave an award in respect of land acquired. One of the commitments made by the appellant for whom the land was acquired was that the land losers shall be given employment in the company. According to the respondents neither the land holders whose lands were acquired nor their nominees have been given employment by the company as per their commitment. Under such circumstances, the respondents herein filed writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court for issuing a direction to the appellant herein to give employment to the writ petitioners in its company. In the writ petition out of which this appeal arises, the appellant herein filed a counter-affidavit wherein it was asserted that the company had already given employment to the land holders whose land was...
Tag this Judgment!