Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC3396; 2002(6)ALD54(SC); 2002(3)ALLMR(SC)582; 2002(3)BLJR2493; [2002(3)JCR198(SC)]; JT2002(7)SC428; 2003(1)MhLj468; (2003)1MLJ72(SC); 2002(7)SCALE144; (2002)8SCC146
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. The appellant, who was plaintiff No.4 in the suit, entered into an agreement dated 8th September, 1966 with Respondent No.1 and 2 for the purchase of Flat No. 71, on the 7th Floor of the building known as 'Divya Prabha' situated at 12-A, Foreshore Road, Bombay. The sale consideration payable under the agreement is Rs. 60,000/-. The agreement stipulated that the building was to be completed and possession of the flat delivered to the appellant by 30th June, 1969 up to which time, the appellant had already paid Rs. 35,000/- out of the sale consideration leading a balance of Rs. 25,000/- Just a few days before the date fixed for completion and delivery of possession, the lease of the plot of land on which the flats were being constructed was cancelled by the Bombay Municipal Corporation. At that stage, the building was incomplete. Admittedly, it is incomplete till date.2. Similar agreements in respect of different flats were also entered into by the sellers with other...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 100(2002)DLT50(SC); [2002(95)FLR641]; JT2002(7)SC425; (2003)ILLJ501SC; (2003)1MLJ67(SC); RLW2003(1)SC123; (2002)8SCC65; 2003(1)SLJ204b(SC); 2002(2)LC1431(SC); (2003)1UPLBEC
D. Raju, J.1. Leave granted.2. The respondent's father, late Umed Singh, working as a Security Guard in the office of NOIDA Export Processing Zone, Ministry of Commerce, died on 20.02.1999, while in service. Claiming to be entitled to compassionate appointment in Group 'C' or Group 'D' vacancies of Post, under the policy in vogue the respondent applied for such appointment, on 3.3.1999. Since the appointment on compassionate grounds could be only against the 5 per cent of the vacancies arising, the request for his appointment could not be complied with the percentage reserved therefore having been already exhausted and the Department of Personnel and Training also declining to relax the regulation relating to ceiling of 5 per cent, noticed above. The chances of accommodating elsewhere also were found to be remote, after exploring the possibility.3. Consequently, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A. No. 1636 of 2000 and by an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC3560; 2002(4)ALLMR(SC)857; 2003(1)AWC220(SC); [2002(3)JCR185(SC)]; JT2002(7)SC490; RLW2003(1)SC135; 2002(7)SCALE137; (2002)7SCC478; [2002]SUPP2SCR698; 2002(4)SCT44
Variava, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment dated 7th February, 2000.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The Appellant appeared for M.A. Examination in Islamic History and Culture held by the Calcutta University in November, 1984. The result of the examination was announced on 6th June, 1985. However the result of the Appellant was not declared. The Appellant then took admission in the Law Course. On 9th December, 1990, the Appellant wrote to the Controller of Examinations and requested that his result, of the examination held in 1984, be declared. He also wrote to the Vice Chancellor on 14th February, 1991 and made the same request. He then filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Calcutta for issuance of Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding publication of his result. On 12th July, 1991, the result of the Appellant was declared and he was found to have failed. The Appellant has not challenged the result of the examination and has accepted the fact that he has faile...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC3563; (2002)177CTR(SC)281; 2002(83)ECC731; 2002LC275(SC); 2002(145)ELT266(SC); [2002]258ITR761(SC); JT2002(7)SC439; 2002(7)SCALE88; (2002)7SCC591; [2002]SUPP2SCR6
S.N. Variava, J.1. Civil Appeal Nos. 6260-6265 of 2000 are against a Judgment dated 7th March, 2000 passed by the High Court of Kerala. All the other Appeals are against a Judgment dated 14th November, 2000 passed by the High Court of Gujarat. In all these Appeals a common question arises. Therefore all these Appeals are being disposed of by this common Judgment.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The Respondents in Civil Appeal Nos. 6260-6265 of 2000 and the Appellants in all other Appeals are Directors/Officers of M/s Appollo Tyres Limited. M/s Appollo Tyres has a factory in Kerala and another in Gujarat. M/s Appollo Tyres Ltd. were clearing certain tyres on the basis that the tyres were for use on trailers. It was found that these tyres were then being fitted to Light Commercial Vehicles. The Commissioners of Central Excise at Kerala and in Gujarat issued show cause notices to the Company as to why excise duty and penalty be not levied. In the same Show Cause Notice the Direc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC3456; 2003(1)AWC213(SC); JT2002(7)SC481; RLW2003(1)SC141; 2002(7)SCALE81; (2002)8SCC31; [2002]SUPP2SCR686
S.N. Variava, J. 1. These Appeals are against a Judgment dated 20th September, 1993 by which the Writ Petition filed by the Appellants has been dismissed. This Judgment dated 20th September, 1993 was based on a Judgment rendered by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court on 20th May, 1993. The questions which wee referred and considered by the Full Bench were as follows:'1. Whether an agreement of lease between the landlord and the tenant for letting and occupation of a building in contravention of the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is void?2. Whether the said agreement is enforceable in law and a decree for ejectment of the tenant can be passed in favour of the landlord on the basis thereof?'2. The Respondent has remained absent in spite of notice served. This Court therefore requested Mr. R.N. Trivedi, the Additional Solicitor General of India, to assist the Court as an Amicus Curie. Mr. Trivedi has very ably assisted this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(8)SC336
ORDER1. The learned magistrate first class, Aizwal district, Aizwal has on a private complaint filed by the respondent taken cognizance under Sections 323, 352 and 365 IPC against the petitioners and by order dated 30.9.1999 directed notices to be issued to the petitioners requiring their presence before the learned magistrate at Aizwal. On 11.11.1999 as the petitioners failed to appear before the learned magistrate, he directed notices to be issued once again along with an observation that if the petitioners did not make appearance then warrants shall be issued for enforcing their attendance.2. It is not disputed that the respondent, posted at Aizwal, was married to Smt. Ranjana, who is resident of Siwan (Bihar). The marriage failed and ultimately ended in divorce on 15.7.1997. The couple had a male child named Gulshan. The child seems to have been taken by the mother with herself. The respondent went to the house of his in-laws where his erstwhile wife was residing and demanded the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC3462; JT2002(7)SC496; 2002(7)SCALE50; (2002)8SCC372
D. Raju, J.1. These two appeals are dealt with together, since they relate to the same occurrence and arise out of a common judgment of the court below. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 634 of 2001 was accused No. 1 and the third accused is appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1191 of 2001. These two along with Harvinder Singh (A2), Tikka Singh (A4) and Jaswant Singh (A5) stood charged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, under Sections 302, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, for having caused the death of Naresh Kumar, brother of PWs-8 and 10, and son of PW-11, at about 8 or 8.30 P.M. on 9.11.1990. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are own brothers and son of one Baldev Singh, accused No. 3 is the brother's son of Baldev Singh and cousin of A1 and A2, and while A4 is the friend of Baldev Singh, A5 is the servant of Baldev Singh. After trial, the learned Trial Judge by his judgment dated 7.10.1995 found A1 (Jagtar Singh) guilty under Section 302, IPC, and acqu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(8)SC223
ORDER1. The state is in appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.2. The learned first additional sessions judge, Shahjahanpur, convicted the accused persons under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment and further convicted them under Section 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- each together with a default clause.3. There is some confusion as regards inclusion of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and the High Court, however, clarified it in its judgment even at the introductory stage that in fact accused persons were tried under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.4. The contextual facts depict that the deceased one Durjan and two injured Churai and Shri Ram, PW. 4 and four appellants used to reside in village Indalpur, which is about 4 and a half miles from the police station Banda, di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(8)SC305
ORDER1. Appellants in both these appeals were convicted by sessions court for offences under Sections 302/34, 323/34 and 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code. For offence under section 302 read with 34, life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) on each of them was imposed and in default for payment of fine, they were directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years. For other two offences, one year's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs 500/- and one month's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- was respectively imposed. All substantive sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. The appeals challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the sessions court were dismissed by the High Court and, therefore, these appeals have been filed on grant of leave.2. The prosecution case in brief is that the appellants visited the house of deceased Om Singh at about 10.30/11.00 p.m. on 1st May, 1999. Om Singh went with them on a motor cycle. All the three h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(8)SC311
ORDER1. The petitioner by an order dated 3.5.2002 has been ordered to be detained in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a view to prevent him from smuggling goods in future. The order has been issued in the name of the governor by the secretary to the government of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner was informed of his right to make a representation to the detaining authority, viz. the state government and also to the government of India, if he so desired in writing against the order under which had been kept under detention. The petitioner made representation dated 22nd May, 2002 to the central government. That representation was rejected on 5th July, 2002.2. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashing of the detention order. The only point argued for the writ petitioner is regarding inordinate and unreasonable delay of the central gove...
Tag this Judgment!