Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2063; 2002(3)ALLMR(SC)262; [2002(3)JCR26(SC)]; JT2002(4)SC649; (2002)3MLJ39(SC); 2002(4)SCALE415; (2002)5SCC15; 2002(5)WLN727
D.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. The appellant Tarak Nath Sha is the landlord of the suit property of which the respondent No.1 M/s Bhutoria Bros.Pvt. Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') was the lessee. The lease was for a period of 21 years commencing from 23rd March, 1963. The rent stipulated to be paid by the lessee was Rs.700/- per month. The suit property was in occupation of Mr. Manmal Bhutoria respondent No.2 herein, who was the Director of the respondent No.1 company Before expiry of the period of lease the lessee is alleged to have sent the letter dated 18.4.1974 in which it was stated that Manmal Bhutoria had voluntarily resigned as Director of the Company; that the company was no longer in need of the suit premises; and that the landlord was requested to take over possession of the property. From the endorsement made in the letter it appears that a copy was sent to Manmal Bhutoria with a request to negotiate with the landlord. 2. After expiry of the period of lease in 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2441; JT2002(Suppl1)SC58; 2002(4)SCALE422; (2002)5SCC19; [2002]3SCR795
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The proceedings for eviction were initiated under Section 21(1)(h) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. The landlord, having lost from the High Court, has filed this appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.3. During the pendency of these proceedings, Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 has come into force with effect from 31.12.2001. According to the counter filed in this Court by the tenant-respondent, the area of the suit premises let out for non-residential purpose exceeds 14square metres and, therefore, the premises are exempt from the provisions of the 1999 Act. It is the plea of the tenant-respondent that Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 being not applicable to the suit premises by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 2(3)(g), the proceedings shall stand abated under Section 70(2)(c) of the 1999 Act.The dimension of the premises, its being non-residential and the applicability of the relevant provisions of the 1999 Act referred to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2185; 2002(4)ALLMR(SC)251; 2002(2)ARBLR236(SC); (SCSuppl)2002(3)CHN137; JT2002(Suppl1)SC235; 2002(4)SCALE389; (2002)5SCC679
Bhan, J. 1. Leave granted.2. The West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') and TheSuperintendent, Oil Installation Warehouse have filed this appeal by special leave against the judgment and order passed by the Calcutta High Court in favour of Sushil Kumar Kayan (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') 3. In the year 1985 the respondent imported 338 coils weighing 1995.180 Metric Tons of Seconds/Defective ZincAluminium Sheets (sic) from European Economic Community and declared the value of the goods at Rs. 2,440.76per metric ton. The Customs Authorities assessed the value of the goods at Rs. 3995/- per metric ton. The goods were kept in the godown of the corporation. Respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court saying that there was no basis for assessing the value of goods at such an enhanced rate. A learned Single Judge issued an interim direction for the goods to be released to the respondent upon furnishing a bank guarant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2188; 2002(2)Crimes393(SC); (2002)174CTR(SC)513; [2002]254ITR258(SC); [2002(3)JCR112(SC)]; JT2002(4)SC565; (2002)3MLJ42(SC); 2002(4)SCALE327; (2002)6SCC259; [2002]
K.G. Balakrishnan, J. 1. In both these appeals, the constitutional validity of Sections 269SS and271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), is challenged. InCriminal Appeal No. 601 of 1992, the learned Single Judge of he Madras HighCourt quashed the prosecution initiated against the respondent by holding thatSection 269SS is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and, therefore, theprosecution initiated against the respondent was not legal. The learned SingleJudge granted certificate under Article 134A of the Constitution and the presentappeal has been filed by the Department.2. In Civil Appeal No. 4478 of 2000, the appellant had challenged theconstitutional validity of Sections 269SS and 271D of the Act before the HighCourt. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Thereupon theappellant filed an appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench in WritAppeal No. 5447 of 1999 affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. Thejudgment of the Division...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2180; (SCSuppl)2002(3)CHN144; 98(2002)DLT6(SC); [2002(3)JCR45(SC)]; JT2002(Suppl1)SC418; 2002(4)SCALE394; (2002)5SCC647
S.N. Variava, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard parties. 3. Briefly stated the facts are as follows: One Lt. Dina Nath Ahluwalia filed Suit No. 2248 of 1985, against Respondents 7 to 9 (herein). In the Suit the said Lt. Dina Nath Ahluwalia claimed that he has become the absolute owner of the Annexe Building on land measuring 163 Sq. Metres in No. 6, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi together with easementary rights andpassages. The claim to ownership was based on a Will Dated 28th August, 1984 executed by the then owner of the property one Rajeswari Devi. Respondent 7 to 9 claimed to have inherited this property through the same Smt. Rajeshwari Devi but by a will dated 23rd May, 1982. 4. An interim application seeking an injunction against Respondents 7 to 9 restraining them from transferring or alienating the annexe in question was also filed. Initially, an order of status quo came to be passed. Pending this application (and the suit) Respondents 7 to 9 sold this property to the Appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : III(2004)BC166; [2004]120CompCas282(SC); JT2002(6)SC31; (2002)7SCC150; 2002(4)WLN772; 2002(5)WLN721
ORDER1. Leave is granted.2. This appeal is preferred against the order of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in criminal revision petition No. 1071 of 1999 dated January 11, 2001.3. The complainant is the appellant. The gravamen of the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 relates to dishonouring of thecheque - exhibit P-1 said to have been issued by respondent No. 1 in favour of the appellant. After trial the learned judicial first class magistrate-II, Thrissur, found respondent no, 1 guilty of the offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 90,000/- in default of payment of fine he has to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The order further says that if the fine amount is realised, the entire amount will be given to PW1 by way of compensation under Section 357Cr.P.C. The appellate court confirmed his conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the rising o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2235; 2002(2)ALD(Cri)159; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)59; 2002(2)BLJR1228; 2002CriLJ2951; 2002(2)Crimes386(SC); 97(2002)DLT681(SC); JT2002(Suppl1)SC304; RLW2002(4)SC567; (2002)5SCC745; 2002SCC(Cri)1210; 2002(4)SCALE400; 2002(3)Supreme655; 2002(3)SLT484; 2002(2)JCC1043; 2002(2)RecentCR764; 2002(5)CRJ541; 2002(6)SRJ258; 2002(2)CCR184; 2002ALLMR(CRI)2063; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)59,AIR2002SCW2346; 2002(2)CURCRIR184; 2002CRLR470; 2002(97)DLT681; 2002(2)UC321; 2002(1)UJ759; 2002(2)EASTCRIC191; 2002(2)BLJR1228; 2002(4)RAJLW567; 2002(3)RAJCRIC643; 2002(2)RCR(Cri)764
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. It is necessary for the courts to have a sensitive approach when dealing with cases of child rape. The effect of such a crime on the mind of the child is likely to be lifelong. A special safeguard has been provided for children in the Constitution of India in Article 39 which, inter alia, stipulates that the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the tender age of the children is not abused and the children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that the childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment. In the present case, the victim at the time of occurrence of rape was a child aged eight years. The accused was youth aged 18 years.The Additional District and Sessions Judge found him guilty for offence under Section 376, Indian Penal Code and imposed rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.1,000/- an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2051; 2002(4)ALD70(SC); JT2002(4)SC589; 2002(2)KLT291(SC); 2002(4)SCALE377; (2002)5SCC361; [2002]3SCR783
B.N. Agrawal, J.1. Leave granted.2. The judgment impugned in this appeal has been passed by Kerala High Court in a Second Appeal whereby the same has been allowed, appellate decree, upholding that of the trial court dismissing the suit, set aside and the suit has been decreed.3. The short facts are that the appellant-Corporation, which was established by an Act promulgated by Kerala Legislature, owned a building constructed by it in the year 1972 and immediately after construction the plaintiff-respondent was put in its occupation as a licensee on payment of license fee at the rate of Rs. 4325/- per month wherein he was running a lodging house as well as a restaurant. As the plaintiff-respondent defaulted in making payment of license fee, the license was terminated on 1.3.1989 whereafter the plaintiff's continuance in occupation of the building in question became unauthorized leading to issuance of a notice by the Estate Officer under Section 4 of the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2286; 2002(3)ALD109(SC); 2002(4)AWC2709(SC); 2002(2)BLJR1483; JT2002(Suppl1)SC29; (2002)3MLJ73(SC); (2002)2PLR830; 2002(4)SCALE384; (2002)5SCC161; [2002]3SCR775; 2
ORDER IX RULE 13, CPC 'Setting Aside decree ex parte against defendant: In any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against a defendant, he may apply to the Court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside; and if he satisfies the Court that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on the hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit: Provided that where the decree is of such a nature that it cannot be set aside as against such defendant only it may be set aside as against all or any of the other defendants also: [Provided further that no Court shall set aside a decree passed ex parte merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of summons, if it is satisfied that the defendant had notice of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2046; 2002(142)ELT3(SC); JT2002(4)SC484; (2002)9SCC17; [2002]3SCR730; 2002(5)WLN734
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration is whether 'instant tea' manufactured and exported by the respondent is liable for levy of cess under Section 25 of the Tea Act, 1953.2. The respondent is engaged in the manufacture of 'instant tea'. Show cause notices were issued to the respondent as to why on 'instant tea' cleared by them during the given period, cess should not be levied under Section 25 of the Tea Act, 1953 (for short the Act). The reply of the respondent was that 'instant tea' was not 'tea' falling within the definition of Section 3(n) of the Act and that the show cause notices issued were patently illegal. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand. The respondent filed appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), Cochin, who upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The respondent took up the matter before the CEGAT which set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) taking a view that 'instant tea' cannot be considered as 'tea' wit...
Tag this Judgment!