Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(5)SC357
ORDER1. Leave granted. 2. A suit was filed by the respondent forspecific performance in respect of the property measuring about 21 cents which was agreed to be sold for Rs. 3,150/- at the rate of 150 per cent under an agreement dated 9.8.1982.3. The trial court on the basis of the proceedings placed before it raised the following issues:1) Is the suit not maintainable? 2) Is the Karar set up in the plaint true? 3) Whether the defendant has received any amount as advance from the plaintiff? 4} Whether the plaintiff has got a cause of action against the defendant? 5} Whether the plaintiff is entitled to reliefs claimed in the plaint? 6) Reliefs and costs? 4. The trial court answered the issues framed in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. On first appeal filed, the first appellate court examined the matter and affirmed the decree passed by the trial court. On a second appeal, the High Court, while affirming the findings recorded by the courts below, found that it was a fit case...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(5)SC398; (2003)10SCC234
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The accused-appellants and few others were prosecuted on charges under sections 498A and 323 of the IPC. On trial, they are found guilty and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/- each for offence under Section 498A and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months each for offence under Section 323 I.P.C. The appellants preferred an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal there was a compromise between the appellant and Kamlesh Kumari Devi, the complainant. In view of compromise the appellants were acquitted of the offence under Section 323 IPC but the conviction and sentence under Section 498A IPC was maintained as it is not compoundable. Criminal revision preferred by appellants before the High Court was dismissed.3. From the contents of the compromise application and affidavit dated 6.11.2001 sworn in by Kamlesh Kumari Devi it appears that complainant's marriage having been dissolved, she has remarried. Her grievanc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1621; 2002CriLJ2024; 2002(2)Crimes42(SC); JT2002(3)SC387; 2002(5)MPHT54; RLW2002(2)SC347; 2002(3)SCALE169; (2002)4SCC85
Sethi, J. 1. The appellants, alongwith two others, were charged under Sections 148, 302, 336, 337, 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur and after trial acquitted by the trial court vide its judgment dated 24th June, 1987. The appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal was allowed by the High Court vide the judgment impugned convicting the appellants for offences under Section 302/149 and sentencing them to life imprisonment besides paying a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default of which they have been directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year each.2. They were also convicted for the commission of offence under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each. Not satisfied with the judgment of the High Court, the appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Order XXI Rules 12 to 29 of the Supreme Court Rules, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1633; 2002(2)AWC1340(SC); JT2002(3)SC431; 2002(3)SCALE187; (2002)4SCC98; [2002]2SCR838
V.N. Khare, J.1. Leave granted in S.L.P.(Civil) Nos. 472/2002, 473/2002, 13106/2001 and 2908/2002.2. The short question which falls for our consideration in this group of appeals is whether the State government or the Licensing Authority can issue direction for refusal of renewal of licences granted to petty dealers under the U.P. High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supplies and Distribution) Order, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the ('Statutory Order' ) if their places of business are within a radius of five kilometers of retail outlet run by a government oil company.3. Since common question of fact and law is involved in this group of appeals, learned counsel for the parties have advanced arguments in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 472/2002. Therefore, we propose to notice the facts which have given rise to Civil Appeal No/2002 (arising out of S.L.P (Civil) No. 472/2002.4. Earlier, the sale of Light Diesel Oil and High Speed Diesel Oil in the State of U.P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1574; JT2002(3)SC254; 2002(3)SCALE194; (2002)4SCC326; [2002]2SCR825; (2002)2UPLBEC1558
Raju, J.1. Special leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 2.3.2000 of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No.2083 of 1996, wherein the relief sought in the nature of a writ of certiorari to quash the entire acquisition proceedings pertaining to Survey No.81/6 in Agrahara Dasarahalli Village, Yeswanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, and the Award said to have been passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development Authority, on 22.2.1995, came to be rejected on the ground that the matter is covered against the appellant by an earlier Division Bench Judgment reported in Khoday Distilleries Limited Vs . State of Karnataka : ILR1997KAR1419 . For appreciating the points raised as well as the grievance sought to be made out, it would be necessary to advert to certain salient factual details pertaining to the matter.3. The appellant claims to be the owner in possession of the land comprised in Survey No.81/6, Agra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1582; (2002)177CTR(SC)1; [2002]258ITR70(SC); JT2002(3)SC295; 2002(3)SCALE100; (2002)4SCC57; [2002]2SCR743; [2002]126STC288(SC); [2002]122TAXMAN437(SC); 2002(1)LC60
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9445 OF 1996 1. In the light of the contentions raised and submissions made on behalf of the parties, the issue that arises for consideration and decision in this appeal is whether the Trust - Sai Publication Fund, which has been set up by some devotees of Saibaba of Shridi for spreading his message, can be held to be a 'dealer' in respect of sale of books, booklets, pamphlets, photos, stickers and other publications containing message of Saibaba and the turnover of such publication can be assessed to sales tax under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short `the Act').2. The relevant and material facts, leading to filing of this appeal in brief, are that the assessee (the respondent herein) is a Trust created by four devotees of Saibaba of Shridi under a trust deed dated 6.8.1984. The object of the Trust is to spread message of Saibaba of Shridi. In furtherance of and to accomplish the said object, the assessee publishes books, pamphlets and other...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1661; 2002CriLJ2034; 2002(2)Crimes133(SC); 97(2002)DLT57(SC); JT2002(3)SC264; 2002(3)SCALE139; (2002)5SCC234; [2002]2SCR767
ORDER OF THE COURT 36. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court standsconfirmed by dismissal of the appeal filed by the accused-appellant and thedeath reference is accordingly answered.Shah, J.37. By judgment and order dated 24/25.8.2001, in Sessions CaseNo. 4 of 2000, the Designated Court-1, New Delhi convicted theappellant for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(i) of Terroristand Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referredto as the 'TADA') and Section 120B read with Section 302 307, 326 324 323 436 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencedhim to death and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. He was alsosentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years for theoffence punishable under Section 4 and 5 of TADA and to pay a fineof Rs. 10,000/-. Against the judgment and order, the appellant hasfiled Criminal Appeal No. 993 of 2001 and for confirmation of deathsentence, the State has filed Death Reference Case (Crl.) No. 2 of 2001before ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1568; 2002(2)ALLMR(SC)944; 2002(5)BomCR182; (2002)3BOMLR712; JT2002(3)SC356; 2002(3)MhLj69; 2002(3)SCALE92; (2002)4SCC481; [2002]2SCR755; 2002(1)LC597(SC)
S.N. Variaya, J. 1. The Appeal is against the judgment of the Bombay High Courtdated 23rd August, 1999. 2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows: One Narayan Motlwale was the owner of certain places of land. Hehad a son named Dattatraya and a daughter named Tarabai. On thedeath of Narayan Motiwale, Dattatraya became the owner of theproperties. By a registered Settlement Deed dated 12th January,1927, Dattatraya gave Survey Nos. 21/3, 20 and 20/1 to his sisterTarabai as she was poor and unable to maintain herself. The saidDeed of Settlement, inter alia , provided as follows: 'Land bearing No. 21 and the well in the same isgiven to along with trees and things thereon has beengiven to your possession for maintenance until life.Therefore you may cultivate the said land by paying theGovernment assessment for maintenance. After yourlifetime that land shall again come to me or to my heirs.' Pursuant to the Deed of Settlement the name of Tarabai was enteredin the revenue records as Kabjedar. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1589; JT2002(3)SC412; 2002LabIC1492; 2002(3)SCALE175; (2002)4SCC524; [2002]2SCR808; 2002(2)SCT768(SC); 2002(3)SLJ192(SC)
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. Leave granted.2. On 2.7.1977, Kuladhar Phukan, the respondent No. 1, was appointed as a judicial officer in Assam Judicial Services Grade-III and on 5.7.1977, he was posted as Judicial Magistrate Second Class at Tinsukia. On 27.2.1986, the Government of Assam, Judicial Department : Judicial Branch made an advertisement inviting applications for appointment for a post of Deputy Secretary in Grade III of Assam Legal Service. Such appointment was to be made under Regulation 3(e) of APSC (Limitation of Function) Regulations, 1951 to meet the immediate need. The appointment was temporary and terminable without notice on the post being filled up through the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) by way of regular recruitment. The field of recruitment was advocates or pleaders with five years practice or judicial officers with five years standing. The respondent No. 1 made an application which was forwarded by the High Court of Assam. He was selected and appointed 'temporari...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2002]255ITR178(SC); (2002)10SCC337
S.B. Bharucha, C.J.; N. Santosh Hegde; Arijit Pasayat, JJ.1. The question to be considered reads thus:“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee firm is an industrial undertaking eligible for deduction under Sections 80-HH, 80-I and 80-J of the Income Tax Act, 1961?”All that is on record in regard to the “process” that the assessee carries on is stated in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax thus:“But if an analysis of the activity of making powder from the chicory roots is made, it will be found out that there are only two processes in making the powder from chicory roots: (i) roots are roasted, and (ii) after that they are powdered.”2. We have asked learned counsel for the assessee whether there is anything else that describes the process. There is apparently nothing else. If that is the only process, it does not satisfy the test laid down by this Court in Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. v. CIT1.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!