Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC177; (2002)2CompLJ193(SC); (2002)IIIGLR2138; (2002)3GLR290; JT2002(3)SC609; 2002(3)SCALE406; (2002)4SCC388; [2002]2SCR1006
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. These writ petitions have come up before us as a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court referred the firstmentioned writ petition to a Constitution Bench observing thus :'Whether the judgment of this Court dated March 10, 1997 in Civil Appeal No.1843 of 1997 can be regarded as a nullity and whether a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution can be aintained to question the validity of a judgment of this Court after the petition for review of the said judgment has been dismissed are, in our opinion, questions which need to be considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court.'2. The other writ petitions were tagged to that case.3. In these cases the following question of constitutional law of considerable significance arises for consideration :whether an aggrieved person is entitled to any relief against a final judgment/order of this Court, after dismissal of review etition, either under Article 32 of the Constitution or otherwise.5. In our...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(Suppl1)SC569
ORDER1. Daljit Kaur, wife of respondent No. 1, and daughter-in-law of respondents 2 and 3died an unnatural death on 2nd August, 1992 regarding which the FIR was registered in the police station, Sadar, Jallalabad in the State of Punjab. The FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of Mukhtiar Kaur, PW 2, who is the sister of the deceased. Being not sure about the nature of the offence allegedly committed by the respondents, the prosecution initially filed a charge-sheet against them under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Perhaps as there was no evidence regarding the date of the marriage and demand of dowry, the public prosecutor filed an application for amendment of the charge which was accepted and the respondents were charged under Section 302/34 and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. After concluding the trial and mainly relying on the testimony of Mukhtiar Kaur PW 2, the court held the respondents guilty for the commission of offences punishable under S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1808; 2002(50)BLJR891; 2002(6)BomCR731; JT2002(3)SC605; 2002(2)SCALE380; (2002)4SCC212; 2002(2)SCT753(SC); 2002(1)LC710(SC)
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. The appellant, an advocate on the rolls of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, has been found guilty of professional misconduct and by order dated 22.1.2000, passed under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, his name has been directed to be removed from the State roll of advocates. The appeal to the Bar Council of India preferred by the appellant has been dismissed on 22.12.2000. Feeling aggrieved by the said two orders these appeals have been preferred under Section 38 of the Advocates Act.2. A brief resume of the facts would suffice for the purpose of this order. It appears that there were large scale land acquisition proceedings in the village to which the appellant belongs. There were about 150 villagers whose lands were involved. Some land owned by the family members of the appellant also suffered acquisition. Inasmuch as the appellant was an advocate and also personally interested in defending against the proposed acquisition of land belonging to his fami...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(83)ECC292; 2002LC314(SC); 2002(143)ELT247(SC); JT2002(5)SC463; (2002)10SCC734
ORDER1. The Revenue is in appeal against an order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal.2. The assessee manufactures block board. It submitted a classification list classifying block board under Tariff Entry 4410.90 attracting 'nil' rate of duty. The Assistant Commissioner did not accept that classification; he classified it under Tariff Entry 4408.90 attracting excise duty, which the assessee paid. The respondent's appeal against such classification was dismissed. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the respondent's contention and allowed the appeal. The Revenue preferred an appeal to this Court. Stay having been refused in that appeal, the Revenue refunded to the assessee the duty that it had paid. In respect thereof, the respondent gave an undertaking that the amounts refunded would be repaid within seven days in the event of this Court reversing the Tribunal's order. This Court, on 20th March, 1995, reversed the Tribunal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(Suppl1)SC588
ORDER1. Mst. Baby was the wife of appellant Ramdas who had also married Kamlabai, the co-appellant. All the three were living together in the same house. In the intervening night of 7th and 8th of June, 1989, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was found stolen from the house. Next day in the morning the appellants abused the deceased as they apprehended that she had committed the theft. At about 2.00 p.m. both the appellants closed the doors of the house from inside and asked the deceased to return the stolen money. The deceased kept mum. The appellants then poured the kerosene oil and set her ablaze. The accused ran away after setting the deceased on fire. When the accused started crying outside the house Mst. Munnibai (PW6), Mst. Chandrabai (PW7), Mst. Shahjadi (PW8) came at the spot alongwith others. When the appellant Ramdas went to the hospital, the appellant Kamlabai went to the shop of Devidas (PW 10) brother of the appellant Ramdas and told him that both the accused had burnt the deceased. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1691; 2002(2)BLJR1123; (SCSuppl)2002(3)CHN112; 2002CriLJ2060; 2002(2)Crimes193(SC); JT2002(4)SC31; 2002(3)SCALE435; (2002)4SCC713; [2002]2SCR995; 2002(1)LC694(SC);
Shah, J. 1. Leave granted.2. The short question involved in this appeal is whether the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was authorised to investigatean offence, which is punishable under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Wild Life Act') as is contendedthat the said Act is a self contained Code? Before deciding the said question we would narrate brief facts of the case. 3. The appellant, who is resident of Delhi, was arrested inconnection with the offence punishable under Sections 9 39(3) 44,49 50 51 57 and 58 of the Wild Life Act. It is alleged that theofficers of the Sales Tax Department conducted checking of a truck at Mohan Nagar barrier in District Ghaziabad on the night of 18th/19thDecember, 1999 and a bundle of cotton cloth was found therein, which according to the documents, was being transported from Delhi to Siliguri. On opening the bundle, it was found that it contained 50 skins of leopard, 3 skins of tiger and 5 skins of jungle fox. O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1826; (SCSuppl)2002(3)CHN82; 2002CriLJ2534; 2002(2)Crimes183(SC); JT2002(4)SC1; 2002(3)SCALE361; (2002)4SCC697
B.N. Agrawal, J.1. Criminal Appeal Nos. 656-57 of 2001 are by four appellants, namely, Farooq @ Karatta Farooq (accused No. 1), Sathar (accused No. 2). Ayoob @ Blood Ayoob (accused No. 7) and Hashim (accused No. 8) against their convictions and sentences whereas Criminal Appeal Nos. 1049-50 of 2001 are by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the High Court whereby Manaf (accused No. 3) and Sulaiman (accused No. 9) have been acquitted by the High Court. Appellants of Criminal Appeal Nos. 656-57 of 2001 and respondents in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1049-50 of 2001 were charge sheeted accused persons along with accused Anil das, Sajeer and Rafeek whose trial was separated as they were absconders. Nine accused persons were tried and the trial court acquitted three accused persons, namely, Suja (accused No. 4), Shanavas (accused No. 5) and Lalkhan (accused No. 6) whereas convicted the remaining six accused persons under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1733; 2002(4)ALT1(SC); JT2002(3)SC591; (2002)2MLJ143(SC); RLW2002(3)SC457; 2002(3)SCALE368; (2002)4SCC437; [2002]2SCR983
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. The suit property consists of a building situated on Easvarank oil Street of Tirupur city in the State of Tamil Nadu. There are six tenants in the building and the portions in their occupation are identified respectively as door Nos. 64, 64A, 64B, 64C, 64D and 64E. Six petitions for evicting the tenants were filed before the Controller on the ground available under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of The Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control Act) 1960 (hereinafter the 'Act', for short) alleging that the building was bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing it and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished. The tenants resisted the proceedings for eviction. One of the pleas taken by them was that the land, on which the building stood, belonged to Veeraragava Perumal and Visweswara temple and, therefore, the question of the landlord recon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(Suppl1)SC446; (2002)9SCC499
ORDER1. The suit premises are non-residential situated in Sitapur city of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Proceedings for eviction of tenant were initiated by the landlord in the court of munsif exercising small causes jurisdiction on the ground available under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1947 Act' for short) alleging that the tenant was in arrears of rent for more than three months and failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from date of service of the notice of demand upon him. During the pendency of proceedings the 1947 Act was repealed by UP Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter 'the 1972 Act' for short) whereunder the tenant could have escaped from the consequences of default by making deposits in the court which the tenant did not do. It is not disputed that by virtue of Section 1A of 1972 Act, building or part ther...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(Suppl1)SC559
ORDER1. In the suit premises described as C-646, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, the appellant was inducted by the respondent as a tenant for residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs. 11,500/- w.e.f. 1.8.1994. The terms and conditions of the lease are contained in the deed of lease dated 31.7.1984 executed between the parties and registered with the sub-registrar of deeds, New Delhi. It appears that the appellant defaulted in payment of rent and sometime in the year 1986, the respondent initiated proceedings for eviction of the appellant-tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent before the rent controller under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. With effect from 1:12.1988, by virtue of Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988, Clause (c) was added in Section 3 of the Act whereby Delhi Rent Control Act ceased to apply to the suit premises as the monthly rent thereof exceeded Rs. 3500/- per month. In view ofthe amendment, the rent controller lost jurisdictio...
Tag this Judgment!