Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC3524; 2002CriLJ90; JT2001(7)SC652; 2001(6)SCALE414; (2001)8SCC522; 2001(2)LC1588(SC)
Sethi, J.1. Leave granted.2.Aggrieved by the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg by which charges were framed against them for offences punishable under Sections 147 148 323 324 149 427 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code, the respondents filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') praying for quashing the aforesaid order. Holding that the Magistrate, being the court of committal, had no power to add four respondents as accused-persons without adopting procedure as prescribed under Section 203 of the Code, the High Court allowed the petition of the respondents and set aside order the court by which cognizance of offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code was taken. The case has been remanded back to the learned Magistrate to hold inquiry as per the provisions of Section 203(2) of the Code with direction that if he finds that a case under Section 395 IPC is made out, he will pass necessary orders against the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIAD(SC)634; AIR2001SC3729; JT2001(8)SC194; 2001(6)SCALE469; (2001)8SCC568; [2001]124STC562(SC)
ORDERCivil Appeal Nos. 6243-6245 of 1998 1. The challenge in these appeals is to the three show cause notices which were issued by the respondent in respect of the years 1984-85, 1986-87 and 1988-89 proposing to include in the turnover the amount received by the appellant from the industrial pool account and treating the same as sale price. 2. The undisputed facts are that the appellant has a refinery and major portion of its products are sold to different oil companies. According tot eh solicitor General, the main sales of the appellant are of oil to the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL). In respect of the sales so made, according to a prescribed formula and in order to achieve equivalence of price of petroleum products produced by the appellant and other similar companies, the money is paid to it from the industrial pool account in cases where the retention price of the appellant is more than the sale price (equivalent to ex-refinery price) received from the oil companies. 3. Under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIAD(SC)554; AIR2001SC3634; [2001(91)FLR761]; JT2001(8)SC100; 2001LabIC3715; 2001(6)SCALE382; (2001)8SCC71; 2001(4)SCT424(SC); 2002(1)SLJ110(SC)
Shah, J.1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners who were employees of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Assam Oil Division) and retired prior to 1st December 1994. It is pointed out that Assam Oil Division was formed by transfer of the Undertaking of the Assam Oil Co. Ltd., a 100% subsidiary of the Burmah Oil Company which has been nationalized w.e.f. 14.10.1981. Petitioners were transferred from Assam Oil Co. Limited to the Indian Oil Corporation - Assam Oil Division (In short 'AOD'). As per the Assam Oil Company Staff Pension Fund Scheme, they were getting pension on the following basis:-'A sum equal to 40 percent of the average annual basic salary for the last five years of service immediately preceding the date of retirement'2.It is pointed out that the Government of India has issued Notification dated 10.3.1995 providing for revision of pension formula in respect of Indian Oil Corporation (AOD) Officers covered by AOD Staff Pens...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIIAD(SC)544; AIR2001SC3751; [2002]112CompCas112(SC); (2001)4CompLJ353(SC); 2001CriLJ353; JT2001(8)SC10; 2001LabIC3722; (2001)IILLJ1252SC; 2001(6)SCALE373; (2001)10SCC
Rajendra Babu, J.1. When certain proceedings were pending before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) a settlement was reached between the employees of Bus Division and 1537 employees of M/s Hyderabad Allwyn Ltd. [for short 'HAL'] and their management under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']. Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] was also reached on 28.3.1993 with M/s Voltas Ltd., Government of Andhra Pradesh and HAL. In that MOU, one of the clauses provided as follows:'As regards employees numbering 1486, HAL with enter into satisfactory arrangements with the Government of A.P. for their deployment elsewhere.'2. The Government of Andhra Pradesh thereafter considered the modalities of placement of 1486 employees of the company and a Cabinet Sub-Committee was (SIC) which considered the recommendations made by a High Power Committee and the operating agency appointed by BIFR. The Managing Director, HAL was asked to id...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIAD(SC)581; AIR2001SC3887; 2001(3)ARBLR438(SC); JT2001(8)SC84; 2001(6)SCALE390; (2001)8SCC491
Santosh Hegde, J.1. These appeals are preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.10.1993 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 12355/93 filed by the first respondent herein. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeals are as follow :The respondent - M/s. Dinesh Engineering Corporation - (hereinafter referred to as 'the writ petitioner') claims to manufacture certain spare parts of GE governors used by the Indian Railways to control the speed in diesel locomotives. It is stated that originally the diesel governor was manufactured only by M/s. General Electric Company of the United States of America ('GE' for short) and till the year 1974, the same was being imported as also its spare parts. Thereafter, while stopping the import of governors in regard to the spare parts required for replacement in the governors manufactured by General Electric Co., the Railways were approaching the local manufacturers.2. On 9.12.1991...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIAD(SC)687; AIR2001SC3606; JT2001(8)SC8; RLW2001(3)SC426; 2001(6)SCALE361; (2001)7SCC705; 2002(1)LC227(SC)
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. 1. Leave granted.2.The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 1st June, 1991 executed by respondent No. 1 in his favour in respect of agricultural lands. Respondent No. 2 was impleaded in the suit as a proforma defendant. The execution of the agreement was admitted by respondent No. 1. The suit was, however, resisted on the plea that the said agreement was not intended to be a real agreement for sale as it was executed only as a security for the loan advanced by the appellant to respondent No. 1. On the pleading of the parties the trial court framed the following issues:1. Whether defendant no. 1 was in need of Rs. 20,000/- and in this concern, on the demand of money from the plaintiff he had asked to execute an agreement and sale deed by way of security to the loan and the intention of both, the parties was not regarding the re-sale?2. Whether defendant no. 1 had received only Rs. 20,000/- in relation to the disputed agr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2337; 2002(2)Crimes168(SC); JT2001(10)SC543; (2002)9SCC595
A.S. Anand, C.J.,; R.C. Lahoti and; Ashok Bhan, JJ.1. This appeal by special leave assails the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) dated 23-6-1999 vide which conviction and sentence of the appellant, for an offence under Sections 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the NDPS Act”) as recorded by the trial court, was upheld. According to the prosecution case, on 13-1-1988, on receipt of secret information by Bherusingh Malviya, PW 5, Station Officer of Police Station Malhargarh to the effect that certain persons could be processing opium in the jungle between Villages Palewana, Mundedi and Bhuki, PW 5 reportedly recorded that information in the roznamcha, Ext. P-7. He, along with other police staff after associating public witnesses, proceeded towards the jungle and reached there at about 4.35 a.m. It was found that two persons were moving about in suspicious conditions and were carryi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2342; 2002CriLJ2969; 2002(2)Crimes55(SC); JT2001(10)SC548; (2002)10SCC661
M.B. Shah and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.Leave granted.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.By the judgment and order dated 2nd February, 2001, the High Court of Allahabad allowed the Criminal Revision No. 263 of 2001 filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and set aside the order passed by the Sessions Court summoning and arraigning them as accused under S. 319 of Cr. P.C. That order is challenged by filing this appeal.It is apparent from the record that the complainant lodged a report with Police Station Kotwali Thakurdwara, Moradabad on 5-5-1998 that at about 6.30 p.m., he along with his nephew Afroj, Kamal Singh and his son Alam was going towards his house from bus stand and when they reached near the house of Netram son of Dharam Vir, all of a sudden, accused named therein came there and caught Afroj and threatened to kill him for giving evidence against them. Afroj was witness in a case under S. 302, I.P.C. against the accused persons. Accused-Sakhawat exhorted "saale ko goli mar do" and henc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIIAD(SC)672; AIR2001SC3609; JT2001(8)SC29; 2001(6)SCALE363; (2001)8SCC344
Rajendra Babu, J.1. In these tow sets of appeals, the appellants are calling in question two orders made by two Full Benches of the High Court - one on September 2, 1994 and the other on March 4, 1996.CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6656-6657/94, 6658-6659/94, 6642-6646/94, 6647-6650/94 & 6651-6655/94 2. The Government of Andhra Pradesh declared, on 7.1.1974, that the barytes are bearing areas in Management and Anandarajpet of Cuddapah District are reserved exclusively for exploitation in the public sector however excluding the lands that had already been leased to private persons. By two notification issued on 10.2.1975 and 19.2.1983, the Government of Andhra Pradesh granted mining leases over an extent of different areas in favour of the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation [hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation']. On 6.1.1991, the Government of Andhra Pradesh accorded permission for grant of sub-lease by the Corporation subject to certain terms and conditions mentioned in G.O. Ms....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2001(10)SC558; (2002)9SCC604
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Madras High Court in civil miscellaneous second appeal No. 52 of 1997 in which the High Court set aside the judgment of the lower appellate court and restored the judgment of the trial court.3. The respondent herein filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights against the appellant. The said petition was registered as H.M.O.P. No. 64 of 1992 on the file of the subordinate judge, Tenkasi. The gist of the case pleaded by the respondent was that she and the appellant were well-known to each other. Indeed they were related to each other. They were both residents of village Kulasekaramangalam where they lived in houses opposite to each other. Between 1981 and 1983 the relationship became more intimate; they had sexual intercourse with each other as a result of which she became pregnant. She told the respondent about the development, he promised to marry her...
Tag this Judgment!