Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(4)ALD62(SC); 2003(51)BLJR1677; [2003(3)JCR162(SC)]; JT2003(4)SC578; (2003)134PLR570; 2003(4)SCALE648; (2003)6SCC265
K.G. Balakrishanan, J. 1. The plaintiff appellant filed two suit against the respondents. First respondent in both the suits is a partnership firm engaged in engineering works. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are its partners. In the first suit, O.S. No. 1921/80 hich was filed for recovery of Rs. 59,775.95 with interest thereon, the plaintiff alleged that for the purpose of expansion of industry of the respondent, a loan of Rs. 40,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the respondents on 5.12.1974. The loan was to be re-paid after 9 months in instalments. They respondents had also executed the requisite documents in favour of the plaintiff bank. spondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their written statement admitted that the respondents had borrowed Rs. 40,000/- from the appellant, but they contended that the first respondent firm was dissolved and the fourth respondent took over the entire liability and, herefore, they are not liable for the suit claim. The Trial Court passed the decree only against Respondent-1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(2)ALD(Cri)109; 104(2003)DLT64(SC); (2004)1GLR570; 2003(2)JKJ464[SC]; JT2003(4)SC605; 2003(4)SCALE629; (2003)6SCC641; 2003(2)LC1233(SC)
ORDER DATED 11-7-2002, WHEREBYTHE APPLICATION MADE ON BEHALF OFAPPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR ESCHEWING/EXCLUSION OFEVIDENCE RELATING TO ALLEGED INTERCEPTEDCOMMUNICATION WAS DISMISSED.'10. The affidavit in support of the Appeal, inter-alia, read as follows:'2. That the accompanying memorandum of appeal has been draftedby the counsel under my instructions. I have read and understood thecontents thereof and the same are true and correct to my knowledge.'11. Thus Respondent Geelani had not invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hehad filed an appeal under Section 34, POTA against the order dated 11th July, 2002. AsSection 482 Criminal Procedure Code was invoked the petition was numbered as aCriminal Misc. Petition and was placed before a single Judge of the High Court. Itnevertheless remained an Appeal under Section 34, POTA.12. It would be appropriate to set out, at this stage, Section 34, POTA. It reads asfollows:'34. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, an appeal shall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(2)JKJ216[SC]; 2003(4)SCALE689; (2003)9SCC592; 2003(1)SLJ139(SC)
D. Raju, J.1. The above Writ Petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking for a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order bearing No. 283 dated 4.7.2002 an order Nos. 142-143 dated 27.4.2002 and also to quash the grant of selection grade and super-time scale to the third respondent herein, including the recommendations said to have been made for consideration of the name of R-3 for further elevation. In addition thereto, relief of Certiorari was sought even to quash the grant of selection grade to respondents 4 to 8 on the ground that the criteria on which it was accorded to them was wholly arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. As a consequence to the above, relief in the nature of Mandamus was also sought to direct the second respondent to grant selection grade to the petitioners 1 to 3 with effect from 28.6.2001 and further grant to the petitioners 1 of 3 super-time scale with effec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(2)CTC690; [2003(4)JCR30(SC)]; JT2003(4)SC583; 2003(5)SCALE1; (2003)10SCC349
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. The appellants herein filed two suits praying for a decree of permanent injunction against the respondent-village Panchayat so as to restrain the members and officials of Panchayat and its assignees from interfering with plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the land. The extent of land covered by the two suits is 1 acre 38 guntas. The main issue framed and contested in the suit was whether the plaintiffs proved that they were in lawful possession of the suit land. The learned III Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore granted injunction against the defendant while making it clear that injunction does not operate against the persons in occupation of the houses and huts. The respondent-Panchayat filed appeals against the said judgment and decree. By the impugned judgment dated 24.8.1989, the learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the appeals holding that the suit schedule land forming part of Gramathana area (village site) vested with the Government ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2003(5)SC353; 2003(4)SCALE702; (2003)6SCC452
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. General Elections to the Assam Legislative Assembly were held in the months of April/May, 2001. For No. 115, Moran Legislative Assembly Constituency, the appellant, the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 filed their nomination papersrespectively as candidates of the Indian National Congress, Asom Gana Parishad and Nationalist Congress Party. The respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 filed their nomination papers as independent candidates. The appellant's election symbol was 'Hand' while that of the respondent No. 1 was 'Elephant'. The respondent No. 1 was declared elected, defeating the nearest rival, the appellant, by a margin of 850 votes. The final result sheet shows the distribution of votes as under:-Total votes polled67,581No. of Rejected votes 2,436Jibontara Ghatowar (App.) 26,927Sarbananda Sonowal (R-1) 27,777Hareshwar Changmai (R-2)1,241Joy Chandra Nagbanshi (R-3) 7,902Biren Borah (R-4) 995Lukua Changmai (R-5) 3032. The appellant filed an election petition laying cha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(2)SCALE683; (2003)10SCC560
ORDERWPs (C) Nos. 663 and 664 of 20021. Issue notice returnable on 25-7-2003. The Delhi Government will file a reply by the next date of hearing.TCs (C) Nos. 78 and 79 of 20022. Let a reply be filed by the Delhi Government within four weeks. Rejoinder be filed in another two weeks. List these cases on 25-7-2003.Re. pricing of CNG by IGL3. In order to resolve the controversy which has arisen, it has become necessary that the Ministry of Petroleum as well as the Delhi Government filed their response within four weeks to the report of Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority (EPCA) dated March 2003 and also to the affidavits filed by IGL dated 20-8-2002 (regarding first report of EPCA) and dated 7-5-2003 (regarding second report of EPCA). Meanwhile, IGL shall publish a notice for the public that there is no limitation on taking delivery of any amount of CNG i.e. up to their fullest capacity. List after summer vacation.Re. Amount deposited by NCT of Delhi (Transport Departm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3991; 2003CriLJ3528; [2004(2)JCR51(SC)]; JT2003(4)SC558; 2003(4)SCALE608; (2003)9SCC110
Bhan, J.1. Seven person Meharbansingh, A1, Pratap Singh, A2, Mahendra Singh A3, Uday Bhan Singh, A4, Nawab Singh, A5, Nirpat Singh, A6, and Jandel Singh, A7, were named in the First Information Report No. 246 of 1979 recorded at Police Station Dabara on 30th September, 1979 at 8.45 P.M. for the murder of Prakash which took place at Village Kheri, which is at a distance of 3 Km. from the Police Station. The First Information Report was lodged by Ramgopal Chipa, PW1, who was present at the place of occurrence when the incident took place.2. A3 died during trial AND A6, who is convicted, has not preferred any appeal. We are told at the hearing that he has also since died.3. A1 Meharbansingh and A2 Pratap Singh absconded. Their trial was separated from the other three accused.4. Uday Bhan Singh, A4, Nawab Singh, A5, Nirpat Singh, A6 (since deceased) and Jandel Singh, A7 were tried in Criminal Trial No. 54/1980. They were convicted under Section 120B, 147, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(3)ARBLR109(SC); (2003)3CompLJ193(SC); 2003(4)SCALE622; (2003)6SCC56; [2003]44SCL460(SC); 2003(2)LC1227(SC)
Shah, J.1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 27th April, 2000 passed by the High Court of Bombay, Goa Bench, in Arbitration Appeal No.1 of 1993 etc. etc.2. In pending appeals, a contention was raised by the appellant that appeals filed by the respondents under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Old Act'), are required to be decided on the basis of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'New Act') because the arbitration agreement provides as under:--'Subject as aforesaid the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940, or any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof and the Rules made thereunder and for the time being in force shall apply to the arbitration proceedings under this clause.'3. That contention was rejected by the High Court. Hence, these appeals.4. In support of aforesaid contention, learned senior counsel Mr. Desai for the appellant relied upon the decision in Thyssen Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2186; 2003(4)ALLMR(SC)1135; 2003(4)SCALE604; (2003)9SCC439; 2003(2)LC1148(SC)
Arijit Pasayat J. 1. Leave granted.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the factual backgroundgiving rise to the present appeal is as follows:-3. Respondent No. 1 as plaintiff filed a suit in theordinary original civil jurisdiction of the Bombay HighCourt, inter alia, with the following prayers:-'a) that the Defendant No. 1 be ordered topay the Plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 1.61,13,173.24(Rupees one crore sixty one lakhs thirteenthousand one hundred and seventy three andtwenty four paise) details of which are givenin the enclosure at Annexure 'A' to thisplaint and the Defendant No. 1 be directed topay interest @ 21% till the date of actualpayment. a-1) That Defendant No. 1 be ordered anddecreed to pay a sum of US $ 4140 per monthalongwith interest @ 18% per annum from duedate till payment/realization with effectfrom 1st November, 1997 towards lease rentuntil all the 92 containers are returned. In the alternative and without prejudice: a-2) If this Honourable Court holds that thePlaintiffs are no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2532; (2003)181CTR(SC)564; [2003]261ITR367(SC); JT2003(4)SC528; 2003(4)SCALE674; (2003)5SCC461
B.P. Singh, J.1. These four appeals by special leave have been preferred by the revenue impugned the common judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dated July 9, 1996 in M.C.C. Nos. 368 - 369 of 1993 and Misc. Petition Nos. 2750 of 1984 and 3773 of 1987.2. The question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the respondents are entitled to the refund of income-tax paid by them by way of advance tax and self-assessment tax in the event of assessment framed being nullified by the Tribunal on the ground of jurisdiction and there being no possibility of framing a fresh assessment. The High Court by its common judgment and order has answered the question in the affirmative rejecting the submission of the department that the refund must be limited to income-tax paid pursuant to order of assessment, other than income tax paid by way of advance tax and self-assessment tax. 3. The facts of the case, i...
Tag this Judgment!