Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(2)ALD(Cri)312; 2003(2)ALT(Cri)66; 2003CriLJ2543; [2003(3)JCR42(SC)]; 2003(2)KLT756(SC); 2003(4)SCALE252; (2003)11SCC223
B.P. Singh, J.1. The appellant herein was put up for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam Division in Sessions Case No. 68 of 1994 charged of an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. for having committed the murder of the deceased Joseph @ Ouseppachen at about 8.15 p.m. on 25th March, 1994. The Trial Court accepting the evidence produced by the prosecution found the appellant guilty of culpable homicide. In the facts and circumstances of this case it held that though the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained by him, it could not held that the appellant stabbed him with the intention of killing him. He, therefore, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 I.P.C. Part I and sentenced him to 8 years rigorous imprisonment. The appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam being Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 1996 A. The High court by its impugned judgment and order of 20th July, 2001 dismissed the appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2284; 2003(3)ALLMR(SC)745; 2003(3)AWC2291(SC); [2004]118CompCas1(SC); 2003(2)CTC437; 2003(68)DRJ770; JT2003(4)SC144; (2003)3MLJ98(SC); (2003)134PLR486; 2003(4)SCAL
Brijesh Kumar, J.1. The dispute brought before this Court by means of instant appealrelates to refusal to allow amendment of the plaint, in the suit formoney decree filed by the appellant against the respondents in DelhiHigh Court, which, later on has been transferred to the DebtRecovery Tribunal, Delhi.2. The main contesting respondent is Indian Bank and respondentNo. 2 - M/s. Indo-Europe Foods Ltd. has been impleaded as ProformaRespondent in this appeal. The reference of respondent wherevermade in this judgment is for respondent No. 1 - Indian Bank andwherever the word USD has been used it stands for U.S. Dollars.3. As a brief background, to better understand the controversyinvolved, it may only be indicated that a contract was entered intobetween Oswal Agro Mills Limited and Indo Europe Foods Limitedof United Kingdom. An amount of USD 6.00 million was advancedto Oswal Agro by Indo Europe which was liable to be adjustedagainst bills of Oswal Agro on export of agro products by OswalAg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2293; 2003CriLJ2337; [2003(3)JCR18(SC)]; JT2003(4)SC131; 2003(4)SCALE193; (2003)10SCC74
Santosh Hegde, J.1. The respondents herein were charged for offences punishable under Section 302 and under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC by the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Badaun for having committed the murder of one Jagan son of Jaspal Singh (PW-1) on 19.9.1982 at about 10 a.m. by the use of fire arms and lathis. On appeal, the High Court of Allahabad allowed the same and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the respondents and acquitted them.2. It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the State of U.P. is in appeal.3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are:4. There was some dispute between the respondents and Jaspal Singh who has been examined as PW-1 in this case in regard to certain land originally owned by one Naraini. PW-1 claimed that he was in possession of the said land on batai basis whereas the respondents claimed that they were in possession of the said land by virtue of the agreement of sale executed by the said Naraini...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2493; 2003(3)AWC2461(SC); 104(2003)DLT593(SC); 2003(69)DRJ16; JT2003(5)SC369; 2003(4)SCALE466; (2003)10SCC86; [2003]3SCR864; (2003)2UPLBEC1730
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. In this appeal by special leave, the correctness of the marketvalue assessed by the Reference Court and affirmed by the HighCourt of Delhi is in question. An extent of 16 Bighas and 10 Biswasof land in Khasra Nos. 478/14 etc., situated in Village Sadhora Khurdnear Delhi Belonging to the appellants was acquired together withother lands by means of a notification published on 13.11.1959 underSection 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The acquisition was madefor the purpose of planned development of Delhi. Declaration underSection 6 was made on 19.7.1965. An award was passed on19.7.1967 by the Collector fixing the market value of the land inquestion at Rs. 6,000 per Bigha, classifying the same as 'B' Block.The Reference Court, namely, The Additional District Judge, Delhienhanced the market value and fixed the same at Rs. 10,000 perBigha for the land in 'B' Block. Appeals were filed by the Union ofIndia and cross objections were filed by the claimants aggrieved by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2295; 2003(87)ECC255; 2003(154)ELT3(SC); JT2003(4)SC135; 2003(4)SCALE186; (2003)5SCC113; [2003]3SCR814
Brijesh Kumar, J.1. All the above noted appeals have been preferred by the Revenue under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act') against the orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short 'CEGAT), allowing the appeals of he assessee and holding that notional interest on the advances taken by the assessees, from the buyer is not liable to be added in the assessable value of the goods. With minor variations in the facts of each case, the main question involved in all these appeals is the same viz. the notional interest is liable to be included or not in the assessable value of goods. This question has been differently framed in different appeals but crux of the matter of consideration remains the same, hence all these appeals have been heard together and they are being disposed of by one common order. In Appeal No. 410 of 2000, it was also indicated on behalf of the respondent that major part of the demand had b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(3)CTC182
ORDER1. This is a petition under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of Civil Original Suit No. 463/2002 from the City Civil Court at Bangalore, Karnataka to the High Court (Original Side) at New Delhi.2. This is an unfortunate litigation between an old aged mother and her two daughters. The younger daughter, the respondent No.2 appears to be a non-resident Indian. The respondent No. 1 is the elder daughter, who has filed a suit for partition of property in the Court of Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, Karnataka impleading her mother and the other sister as defendants. The suit properties consist of a house property situated at NOIDA in Uttar Pradesh, a house property situated at Bangalore and shares detailed in the Schedules A, B and C annexed with the plaint. There is some controversy whether the house property at NOIDA has been disposed of by sale or not but we do not propose to enter into that controversy. Suffice it for our purposes to note th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2732; JT2003(4)SC216; 2003(4)SCALE174; (2003)10SCC94
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. The present appeal by special leave arises out of the judgment of Kerala High Court in a revision petition filed by the first respondent herein (since died) under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The revision petition was allowed by setting aside the orders of the Land Tribunal and the appellate authority, which were in favour of the appellant, and the application of the appellant claiming tenancy rights under Section 72 of the said Act was rejected in regard to items 1, 2 & 4 to 8 mentioned in the schedule to the application. As far as two other items (3 & 4) are concerned, the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. Items 1, 2, 7 & 8 measuring about two acres are either wet lands or seed-bed lands. Item 5 is a garden house covering an area of 1.58 acres. Item 6, which is said to be the major item or property is cashew garden of an extent of 12.41 acres.2. The appellant filed an appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2325; 2003(2)ALT(Cri)109; 2003CriLJ2340; JT2003(4)SC430; 2003(4)SCALE128; (2003)5SCC488; [2003]3SCR683
Arun Kumar, J.1. The complainant Narendra Nath Khaware filed a Special Leave Petition in this court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 6th April, 1993 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court vide order dated 4th August, 1994 and the matter was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 499 of 1994. The said appeal has come up for final hearing and disposal before this court. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of this appeal. In order to appreciate the objection, brief facts of the case are required to be stated. The respondents were charged for offences under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The incident for which these accused were charged is the murder of Diwakar Khaware, son of the complainant Narendra Nath Khaware (appellant) on 13th June, 1982. As per the case of the prosecut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2719; 2003(3)ALD121(SC); 2004(1)ALT60(SC); 2003(3)AWC2300(SC); 2003(3)CTC307; [2003(97)FLR808]; 2003(2)JKJ239[SC]; JT2003(4)SC155; (2003)IILLJ839SC; (2003)135PLR74
Santosh Hedge, J.1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The respondent while serving as a temporary Accountant with the appellant-Organisation tendered his resignation from the post held by him on 18.11.1988. The said letter of resignation read thus:-'To The Director,North Zone Cultural center,Sheesh Mahal, Patiala.Respected Madam,I hereby tender my resignation with effect from 18.11.88.Thanking you,Yours faithfully,Sd/- Dinesh Kr. Vedpathi)'4. It is the case of the appellant herein that the said resignation was accepted by the Director on the very same day with the following endorsement; 'Accepted, had over charge. Signed- 18/4.' 5. The respondent, however, contends that such acceptance was not made on 18.11.1988 as contended by the appellant and the same was made subsequently. He also contends that he had sent a telegram on 21.11.1988 withdrawing the said resignation, alleging that the resignation was obtained by pressure. It is the further case of the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2629; 2003(3)ALD82(SC); 2003(2)ARBLR5(SC); (2003)3CompLJ1(SC); [2003(4)JCR148(SC)]; JT2003(4)SC171; 2003(4)SCALE92; (2003)5SCC705; [2003]44SCL89(SC); [2003]3SCR691
Shah, J.COURT'S JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 34 OF THEARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 19961. Before dealing with the issues involved in this appeal, we would first decide the main point in controversy, namely--the ambit and scope of Court's jurisdiction in case where award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as the decision in this appeal would depend upon the said finding. In other words -- whether the Court would have jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act to set aside an award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal which is patently illegal or in contravention of the provisions of the Act or any other substantive law governing the parties or is against the terms of the contract?2. Learned senior counsel Mr. Ashok Desai appearing for the appellant submitted that in case where there is clear violation of Sections 28 to 31 of the Act or the terms of the Contract between the partie...
Tag this Judgment!