Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1754; 2003(2)ALLMR(SC)1126; 2003(1)CTC621; JT2003(2)SC226; (2003)2MLJ118(SC); 2003(2)SCALE352; (2003)3SCC552; [2003]2SCR203
The present appellants were defendants before the Trial Court in suit for partition instituted in the Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Kagal, District Kolhapur in the State of Maharashtra. The suit filed by the deceased plaintiff [now represented by his legal representatives impleaded as respondents herein] for partition of the erstwhile Watan or Inam lands of his family was dismissed by the trial court. The First Appellate Court by judgment of reversal decreed the suit of the plaintiff and it has been confirmed by the High Court in second appeal recognising the plaintiff's right of partition of the suit lands to the extent of 1/3 share. The preliminary decree has been framed for passing a final decree and grant of separate possession.Learned counsel appearing for the defendants, assails the decree of partition granted to the plaintiff/respondent but does not dispute the legal position settled by the two Judges Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kalgonda Babgonda Patil vs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1639; 2003(1)ALD(Cri)498; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)326; 2003CriLJ1539; JT2003(2)SC243; 2003(2)SCALE329; (2003)4SCC46; [2003]2SCR231
B.P. Singh, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated 20th April, 1995 in Criminal Appeal No. 428 of 1992 whereby the High Court while dismissing the appeal and upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code reduced the sentence to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Earlier the Sessions Judge, Karwar before whom the appellant was tried in Sessions Case No. 16/90, by his judgment and order dated 27th November, 1992 sentenced the appellant to seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. He also directed that out of the fine, if realized, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- be given to the prosecutrix/complainant. The trial court as well as the High Court have ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1266; JT2003(2)SC335; 2003(2)SCALE288; (2003)9SCC358; [2003]2SCR139; 2003(1)UJ654(SC)
Leave granted in all SLPs.The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control, Bombay Land Requisition and Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1996 (Act No. XVI of 1997) having been struck down as ultra vires of the Constitution and as being beyond legislative competence of the State Legislature, the State of Maharashtra, the Welfare Association of Allottees of Requisitioned Premises, Maharashtra and several others have come up in appeal. The decision by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay was delivered on 27th July 1998. The judgment posed the threat of eviction against several allottees in occupation of premises requisitioned by the State Government. Several Writ Petitions were filed which were all disposed of by the impugned judgment of the Division Bench. The principal question which arises for decision in the batch of appeals is the constitutional validity of Amendment Act No. XVI of 1997 abovesaid. (hereinafter referred to as the Am...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1759; 2003(2)BLJR1340; 2003CriLJ1564; JT2003(3)SC479; 2003(2)SCALE216; (2003)9SCC122
Sema, J.1. A-1 Gaya Yadav s/o Raj Dev Yadav, A-2 Madheshwar Yadav s/o Rohan Yadav, A-3 Khalitra Yadav, A-4 Rahish Yadav s/o Ram Laxman Yadav, A-5 Bhagwat Yadav s/o Ram Kishan Yadav, A-6 Mukhiya Yadav s/o Shiv Nandan Yadav, A-7 Ramashish kr. @ Karu Yadav s/o Shiv (sic) Yadav, A-8 Deo Prasad Yadav s/o Chandrika Yadav (since dead) were convicted for the offence under Sections 302/34, 120B, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under the first two counts. No separate sentences were awarded for the offences under Sections 147 and 148 IPC. Being aggrieved, two appeals were preferred before the High Court. Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 1989 was preferred by five accused and Criminal Appeal No. 216 of 1989 was preferred by three accused. By a common judgment the High Court has dismissed their appeals and confirmed the conviction as recorded by the Trial Court. Before this Court, Criminal Appeal No. 483 of 1996 is preferred by A-1 Gaya Yadav, A-5...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1867; [2003(2)JCR161(SC)]; 2003(2)SCALE458; (2003)4SCC595; [2003]2SCR196; 2003(1)LC598(SC)
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 27th August, 1993 passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 36693 of 1991 whereby and whereunder a writ petition filed by the respondent herein, inter alia, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the appellants herein to grant a licence for carrying on business as a dealer in birds which are bred in captivity, was allowed.2. Before the High Court, the contention of the respondent was that he had been dealing in birds of several varieties specified in the Schedule IV appended to the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 (hereinafter called 'the Act'); where for he had applied for an had been granted a licence which was valid upto 31st December, 1990. For renewal of the said licence for the year 1991, he filed an application but the same had not been granted. According to the respondent, he had mainly been dealing in Munias, Parakeers. Manias and Buntings, which are found...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3436; [2003(2)JCR183(SC)]; 2003(2)SCALE226; (2003)4SCC378; [2003]2SCR75
Rajendra Babu, J.W.P.[C] Nos. 12598/85, 1600/86, 1487/86 & 1260/86.1. The Bihar Sugar undertakings [Acquisition] Act, 1976 [Bihar Act XIII of1977] [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] was passed by the State Legislatureand received the assent of the President on June 4, 1977 and was published inthe Gazette on June 30, 1977. The act was to provide for acquisition andtransfer of certain sugar undertakings in the State of Bihar and for mattersconnected therewith or incidental thereto. Under Section 3 of the Act, theundertakings listed in the Schedule stood transferred to and vested in theGovernment of Bihar or a Corporation with all he assets, liabilities, rights, titles,interest and obligation including any mortgage, charge of other encumbrance orlien trust of similar obligations attaching to the undertaking. Under Section 2(h)of the Act 'schedule undertaking' is defined to mean an undertaking engaged inthe manufacture or production of sugar by means of vacuum pans and with theaid of m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1800; 2003(2)AWC1581(SC); 103(2003)DLT197(SC); [2003(97)FLR1]; JT2003(2)SC514; 2003(2)SCALE209; (2003)3SCC464; [2003]2SCR129; 2003(2)SLJ359(SC)
Rajendra Babu, J. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2531/20011. The appellant in this appeal was serving as a Constable in Delhi Police. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the appellant by an order made on 11.11.1991 under Section 21 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978. The allegation against him is that while he was posted at Police Station Chanakya Puri, New Delhi he proceeded to avail medical rest for three days on 31.1.1990; that he was to report back on 2.2.1990 when he again extended his leave till 9.2.1990; that again he further sought seven days medical leave; that he was due to report back on duty on 16.2.1990, but he did not resume his duty nor sent any information nor submitted application for further medical leave and thus he was marked absent; that thereafter, a notice was sent to his native place through the Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, U.P., to the effect that he remained absent from duty; that though he received that notice on 23.4.1990, he did not respond to the same nor di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1796; 2003(2)ALLMR(SC)696; 2003(3)CTC494; [2003(97)FLR1153]; JT2003(5)SC494; (2003)IILLJ324SC; 2003(2)SCALE358; (2003)3SCC583; [2003]2SCR100; 2003(2)SLJ409(SC); 20
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Order of dismissal from service having been restored by Division Bench of Delhi High Court setting aside judgment of the learned Single Judge this appeal has been filed.2. Factual background filtering out unnecessary details is as follows:3. Appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the employee') joined services of the Lakshmi Commercial Bank in 1976 as a Clerk. The said bank was merged with Canara Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the employer') in October, 1985. As a consequence, services of the employee stood transferred to the employee-Bank. He was posted as a Clerk in Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg, New Delhi Branch and was deputed to work at AIWC extension of the said branch.4. One customer of the Bank i.e. S.V. Deshpande, advocate lodged a complaint with the police stating that there has been unauthorized withdrawal of Rs. 1.07 lakhs from his account in the Bank. An internal investigation was also undertaken by the employer in respect of the complaint. Report of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1805; 2003(4)ALD27(SC); [2003(2)JCR175(SC)]; JT2003(5)SC210; (2003)2MLJ57(SC); 2003(2)SCALE429; (2003)3SCC472; [2003]2SCR180
Syed Shah Mohammed Quardi, J.1. These two appeals are from the common judgment of aDivision Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WritPetition (C) No. 3414 of 1982 and Appeal Suit No. 2291 of1986 dated 24th January, 1989.2. The appeals arise on the same facts and one set of theparties is common. The subject matter of litigation is anextent of acres 2423.37 in Jatprole Jagir, Kollapur Taluk,Mahboobnagar District in the erstwhile the Nizam's State ofHyderabad. After the accession of the Nizam's State ofHyderabad with the Union of India, the Andhra Pradesh(Abolition of Jagirs) Regulations, 1358 Fasli (hereinafterreferred to as 'the Regulation') came into force on September20, 1949. Under that Regulations, all Jagirs, including theJatprole Jagir, stood abolished from that date and theiradministration stood vested in the State. Raja S.V.Jagannadha Rao was the last Jagirdar. Respondent No.s 3 and 4are his legal representatives [hereinafter referred to as 'thePattedars']. It is the cas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1713; 2003(3)CTC244; [2003(97)FLR7]; JT2003(5)SC144; RLW2003(3)SC347; 2003(2)SCALE264; (2003)3SCC485; [2003]2SCR112; 2003(1)SLJ1(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. The only point involved in this appeal is whether the appellant's termination from service is in order. Factual scenario which is almost undisputed is as follows:-2. The appellant was appointed by the Local Self-Government Department. Government of Rajasthan by order of appointment dated 27.11.1974, and posted as Lady Doctor under the Municipal Council, Ganganagar. There was a stipulation in the order of appointment that she was being posted purely on temporary basis for the period of six months or till the candidate selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Service Commission') is available whichever is earlier. The working period of the appellant continued to be extended. The appointment was made in exercise of powers conferred under Section 308 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (in short 'the Act) read with Rules 26 and 27 of the Rajasthan Municipal Service Rules, 1963 (in short 'the Rules'). Though the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!