Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2165; JT2002(4)SC341; 2002(4)SCALE26; (2002)4SCC566; [2002]3SCR345
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. 1. Delay condoned.2. Special leave granted. 3. The only question that is required to be determined in these appeals is about the validity of the levy of transit fee under Rule 5 of U.P. Transit of Timber and Other Forest Produce Rules, 1978 (for short 'the Rules'). TheHigh Court has held the Rule to be constitutionally valid but levy of transit fee has been invalidated in absence of quid pro quo. The Rule has not been struck down as in the view of the High Court it is open to the State Government to support the levy of transit fee by rendering service as quid pro quo. This aspect alone is under challenge in these High Court by the State Government aggrieved by the conclusion of the High Courtthat the levy of transit fee is invalid.4. The Rules have been framed in exercise of the powers under Sections 41 42 51 and 76 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Rule 3 provides for regulation of transit of forest produce by means of passes. It places restrictions on movement of for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2148; 2002(1)ALD(Cri)934; 2002CriLJ2826; 2002(2)Crimes279(SC); JT2002(4)SC303; 2002(4)SCALE62; (2002)5SCC323; [2002]3SCR307
Sethi, J. 1. Shrieks and wails of a blossoming young helpless women pleading for mercy, praying for sparing her life and honour did not deter the vulture like culprits in committing the most ghastliest crime, known under the sky, of rape and culpable homicide for quenching their thrust for passion and revenge. Overawed by the might of the accused, the unfortunate husband, apparently concerned with the safety of his son and self, could not rescue his wife from the clutches of the accused. The alleged crime, committed by the couple, for which they were punished by the accused was the self-conceived notions of the culprits regarding publication of some material against them by the deceased and her husband, both press Reporters. The accused persons clothed themselves with the powers of both the police and the courts, presumably on account of the political influence they wielded in the area. Inaction by the local police resulted in public agitation whereafter the investigation of the case w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)3CALLT77(SC); JT2002(4)SC489; (2002)3MLJ35(SC); (2002)5SCC377; [2002]3SCR352; 2002(1)LC773(SC); AIR2002SC2370
ORDER1. This is a landlord-tenant litigation. The tenant is aggrieved by an ex-parte decree dated 9.10.1993 for recovery ofarrears of rent and eviction from the suit premises bearing plot No. 9, Chowk Shakti Nagar, Amritsar where ten tenant carries on his business of selling shoes. An application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the C.P.C. seeking setting aside of the ex-partedecree was filed which was opposed, enquired into and rejected by the Trial Court. The Civil Revision preferred by the tenant met with the same fate. The tenant has filed this appeal by Special Leave. 2. A perusal of the record of proceedings shows that the process server was entrusted with summons for service on the defendant-tenant. The date of hearing appointed was 23.2.1993. According to the process server, Narinderjeet Singh, he went to the shop of the tenant-appellant on 22.2.1993 and tendered to him the summons accompanied by a copy of the plaint. The tenant refused to accept the summons. Then, he returned the sum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(2)ALD(Cri)438; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)339; 2002(3)BLJR2007; JT2002(Suppl1)SC555
ORDER1. For the deaths of Ashok Singh and Dadan Singh, the appellant along with seven others was tried and charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 207, 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. All the accused persons were convicted for the offences with which they were charged and sentenced to various punishments including the imprisonment for life for the commission of the major offence, vide judgment of the trial court. The appeal filed by the convicted accused persons was disposed of by the High Court vide judgment impugned in this appeal, acquitting seven out of the eight accused persons. Only the appellant was found to have committed the offence of murder of two persons for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment. The state has opted not to file any appeal against the order of acquittal, so far as other seven accused persons are concerned. 2. According to the prosecution the occurrence took place on 12.11.1984, at about...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2068; 2002(3)ALD129(SC); JT2002(Suppl1)SC383; 2002(4)SCALE75; (2002)4SCC743; [2002]3SCR326
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. 1. Leave granted.2. Application for substitution allowed.3. The dispute in these appeals relates to the partition of the estate of the family of one Lachiah Setty - one of the wealthiest families in the erstwhile Mysore State. The family had extensive business in Coffee and other commodities. The family possessed considerable movable and immovable properties including Coffee estates. Lachiah Setty died in the year 1936. Despite the desire expressed by him that even after his death, his childrenshould live in harmony, united and without any difference as he felt that the vast properties had been acquired on account of the family remaining united, the disputes started between brothers within about two years of his death. i.e., in 1938. 4. The disputes were referred to three arbitrators for division of the family properties. The arbitrators entered upon reference on 1st April, 1940. The arbitration proceedings were, however, not very smooth. Difference arose with regard...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1890; 2002CriLJ2790; 2002(2)Crimes271(SC); 2002(81)ECC1; JT2002(4)SC263; 2002(4)SCALE1; (2002)5SCC285; [2002]38SCL669(SC); [2002]3SCR268; 2002(2)LC892(SC)
Shah, J.1. Leave granted.2. By order dated 8th February 2000, the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of revenue, Government of India made a detention order under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA Act') directing that one B. Sankar be detained and kept in custody with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. The said order was served upon detenu on 15th February, 2000 along with grounds of detention and copies of the documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority. That order was challenged by filing Writ Petition (HC) No. 41 of 2000 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. By the impugned judgment and order dated 2nd November, 2000, the High Court quashed and set aside the detention order on the ground that what was considered to be criminal violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (her...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2002(94)FLR453]; JT2002(Suppl1)SC520
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the direction of the government to hold a departmental inquiry could rightly be interfered with by the tribunal.4. As it appears, a criminal prosecution was launched against the delinquent respondent under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act on the basis of a trap that was laid. The prosecution case was that the respondent demanded bribe, received the bribe and that money was seized from his possession. The learned special judge accepted the fact that the accused respondent accepted the money, but came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish whether there was any earlier demand on the part of the accused and whether the money that was accepted by the accused was as a bribe for showing any favour to the complainant or not. It is on this conclusion the accused was acquitted of the charges leveled against him. The departmental proceedings were thereafter initia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1895; JT2002(Suppl1)SC254; 2002(4)SCALE7; (2002)5SCC203; [2002]3SCR278; [2002]127STC280(SC)
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad has, by its impugned judgment dated April 11, 1990, allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent National Thermal Power Corporation ltd. (hereinafter 'NTPCL', for short) and declared that the levy of duty by the State of Andhra Pradesh on the sales of electrical energy generated by the Corporation-respondent No. 1 at its thermal power station set up at Ramagundam, within the State of Andhra Pradesh, and sold to the Electricity Boards of Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and the State of Goa in pursuance of contracts of sales occasioning inter-State movement of electricity is incompetent and outside the power of State Legislature. Consequently, the tax levied and collected has also been held to be without authority of law, hence liable to the refunded in accordance with law. On a prayer made by the learned Advocate General on behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the High Court certified that the case involves a substant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(6)SC52
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Between the parties there were arbitration proceedings wherein an award has been made under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Proceedings for making the award a rule of the court are pending in the court of additional civil judge, senior division, Patiala. Objection petition under Section 30/33 of the Arbitration Act has been filed by the appellant. On 9.4.2001, the appellant moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking amendment in the objection petition by incorporating additional grounds of objection. This prayer for amendment has been rejected by the trial court on the ground that on the date of moving of the application for amendment the limitation for filing objections had expired and that the grounds, which were sought to be added by way of amendment cannot be termed as left out earlier by 'typographical errors' as was the cause mentioned in application for amendment.3. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)10SCC512
V.N. Khare and; Ashok Bhan, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant herein sustained injuries in an accident alleged to have been caused due to the negligent driving of a dumper. The appellant, therefore, filed an application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (in short “the Tribunal”) claiming compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal allowed the application and ordered that the respondents jointly and severally deposit a sum of Rs 3,80,000 within one month from the date of the order.3. Aggrieved, the respondent Company filed an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat. The appeal was admitted. However, on the stay application moved by the respondent, the Court by an order dated 2-8-2001 directed that the award given by the Tribunal shall remain stayed provided the respondent deposits the amount awarded by the Tribunal, which shall be invested in an interest-bearing fixed deposit. It is against the said order of the Tribunal, the claimant...
Tag this Judgment!