Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2502; 2003(4)ALLMR(SC)1186; 2003(3)AWC2495(SC); 2003(2)BLJR1293; 96(2003)CLT473(SC); (2003)3CompLJ123(SC); 2003(2)CTC497; 104(2003)DLT658(SC); 2003(69)DRJ116; 2003(6)SCC186
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. Leave granted in SLP(C) Nos. 4477/2002 and 23108/2002.2. This common judgment disposes of two appeals by specialleave under Article 136 of the Constitution, an appeal under Section38 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and a civil writ petition layingchallenge to the constitutional validity of Section 48AA of theAdvocates Act, 1961, hereinafter, the Act for short.3. Smt. D. Anuradha, the respondent No. 1 in the Civil Appeals is the wife of D. Saibaba, the appellant. The marriage has broken down and the spouses have fallen apart. On 25.8.1999, the wife filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Act complaining of professional misconduct committed by the appellant, alleging that in spite of his being a duly enrolled advocate, he was running a telephone booth allotted to him in the handicapped person's quota. After hearing the appellant's response the State Bar Council of India, vide its order dated 6.11.1999, directed the complaint to be dropped forming an opinion that no case f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2236; JT2004(6)SC587; 2003(4)SCALE590; (2003)5SCC298
Khare, C.J.1. The question that arises in these appeals is, whether the BangaloreCity Planning Area Zonal Regulations (Amendment & Validation) Act,1996 (Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1996) [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'], isconstitutionally valid?2. Civil Appeal No. 831/98 has been filed at the instance of the State ofKarnataka whereas Civil Appeal No. 8951/97 is by the builders [hereinafterreferred to as 'the builders'].3. In the year 1980 the builders were granted permission to constructeight-storied building eighty feet in height in the locality of 9th Main Road,Rajmahal Vilas Extension, Bangalore by the Karnataka MunicipalCorporation, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation').4. The respondent has the property adjoining to the site where eight-storiedbuildings were to be constructed. When the builders were about toconstruct the building, the respondent herein filed a petition challenging thepermission granted to the builders to construct eight-storied residentialbuil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(4)SCALE673
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The appellant had filed Special Civil Suit No. 358/1992 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur on 13.4.1992 seeking for certain reliefs. During pendency of the Civil Suit, the appellant filed Original Petition No. 188/1995 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 8.11.1995. During the pendency of the dispute before the National Commission, the appellant withdrew the Civil Suit. Thereafter, the National Commission dismissed his petition on the basis of limitation as well as on the ground that he has a remedy under civil law, which he had availed of.3. Inasmuch as he had already withdrawn the suit, that remedy was not available to him. In the circumstances he approached this Court challenging the order of the Commission but he withdrew the same and moved a petition for Review before the Commission. The Review Petition having been dismissed, the appellant is before us.4. It is difficult to understand as to why the appellant s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Since copies of the impugned order is received only on 2nd/3rd May, 2003 let the same be placed on record.2. The appellant is granted leave to amend the Memorandum of Appeal.3. By consent of the parties the following order is passed: Until such time as this Court hears and decides the present appeal, the Regulatory Commission, (2nd respondent) will not pass only further orders on the pplication (Case No. 3 of 2001) that has been made before it by the 1st respondent, Maharashtra State Electricity Board. Equally, during that time, the arbitration proceedings which have been commenced by the appellant-Dabhol Power Company against respondent No. 1 shall not be proceeded with. Till such time as this Court disposes of the present appeal, the interim orders that have been passed by the Commission upto date shallcontinue to operate.4. The letter of Credit No. 39/1999 shall not be enforced until after six weeks of disposal of this appeal. All questions regarding the enforceability of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(3)CTC315
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The appellant made an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to recall his wife and her witness for cross-examination explaining under that circumstances his wife and her witness could not be cross-examined. The Trial Court dismissed the said application. The appellant filed Civil Revision No. 5143 of 2002 before the High Court challenging the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing his application filed under Section 151, C.P.C. Unfortunately for him, the High Court also dismissed the Civil Revision Petition. Hence this appeal.3. Learned counsel for the appellant explained the circumstances under which the appellant could not take appropriate steps to cross-examine his wife and her witness, one of the reasons being that on one date the lawyers went on strike. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant has no intention to drag on the proceedings. If an opportunity is provided, he will cooperated and proceed with the proceedings in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2177; 2003(2)ALD(Cri)170; JT2003(4)SC471; 2003(4)SCALE520; (2003)7SCC375; [2003]3SCR1179; 2003(2)LC1204(SC); (2003)2UPLBEC1428
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. The main matter, i.e., Civil Appeal No. 7919/2001 stands disposed of by the judgment separately pronounced by us today. An unsavoury off-shoot of that litigation wherein the respondent in Civil Appeal is facing a charge under Section 14 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, because of scurrilous attack against an eminent brother judge of ours in this Court made through irresponsible, unfounded and reckless allegations contained in his affidavits filed during the course of proceedings, remains to be disposed of, which we hereby do.2. The plaintiff-respondent in the Civil Appeal, the contemnor herein, served with the charge sheet, has shown cause. We have heard him at length and with patience. Fortunately, at the end good sense has prevailed upon the contemnor. He has felt genuinely apologetic, and said so with folded hands regretting all that has happened leading to initiation of proceedings of contempt. He has, during the course of hearing, posed and reposed, expressed and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2508; 2003(4)ALD10(SC); 2003(4)ALLMR(SC)1193; 2003(3)AWC2511(SC); JT2003(4)SC450; 2003(4)MhLj579; (2003)3MLJ26(SC); 2003MPLJ439(SC); (2003)134PLR636; 2003(4)SCALE6
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. The present lis, having attained the age of 15 years by this time, is one harrowing tale of laws' delays causing frustration in the mind of a suitor who deprived of his property rushed promptly to the Court for vindicating his rights and seeking protection under the arm of law. He faced adjournments and adjournments without any substantial progress at the trial in an over-burdened Trial Court, at the lowest rung of the judicial hierarchy, unable to spare such time as the individual cases demand so as to have a firm grip over the progress of each case. Several revisions taken to the High Court at interlocutory stages of the trial, too contributed to the delay, adding fuel to the fire of the plaintiff's agony. The record of tardy proceedings in the Trial Court, at least at the initial state, reflects the defendant's impunity; he felt that he as beyond the reach of the law, though fortunately such hope of the defendant proved to be only a nightmare. The case has witnesse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(5)CTC608
ORDER1. This writ petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, is filed on the basis that in respect of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 there is a conflict of decision between the case of Nambi Francis Nwazor v. Union of India, : (1998)8SCC534 and the cases of Sarjudas and Anr. v. State of Gujarat, : 2000CriLJ509 and State of Punjab v. Baldey Singh, . In our view there is no conflict. Law on the subject is very clear and it is as laid down in the cases of Sarjudas and Anr. v. State of Gujarat, : 2000CriLJ509 and State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh . In the case of Nambi Francis Nwazor, the question whether Section 50 would be applicable if the seizure is from a bag carried by the person did not arise at all. In that case the seized articles were brought from some other place to the place where search took place and then it was held that Section 50 did not apply. The question whether Section 50 would apply if the search and seizure are from ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 104(2003)DLT618(SC); JT2003(4)SC505; 2003(4)SCALE494; (2003)9SCC630; [2003]3SCR1092; 2003(3)SLJ288(SC); 2003(2)LC849(SC); (2003)2UPLBEC1479
B.P. Singh, J.1. The Union of India has preferred this appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated August 3, 1995 in Civil Writ Petition No. 245 of 1986 whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein and while setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the Court Martial after trial, directed his reinstatement in the same post which he held when he was dismissed, but made his continuation in the same post subject to medical fitness. It also directed payment of 50% of the back wages to the respondent from the date of dismissal till the date of the judgment. 2. The case of the respondent in the writ petition was that the was commissioned in the Indian Air Force on 27th June, 1970 and was appointed to the substantive post of Flight Lieutenant on 27th June, 1976. In the year 1976 he was posted at Udhampur. In the course of his duties he found certain irregularities in the matter of transportation of explosives,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2545; 2003(2)ALD(Cri)292; 2003(2)ALT(Cri)142; 2003(51)BLJR1697; 2003CriLJ3041; 2003(3)CTC356; (2003)182CTR(SC)1; 104(2003)DLT699(SC); 2003(87)ECC473; 2003(155)ELT4
AR. Lakshmanan, J. 1. Leave granted.2. These two appeals arise out of the final judgment and order passed by theHigh Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Miscellaneous (M) Nos. 360/2002 and447/2002 filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Article227 of the Constitution of India by the appellants herein seeking the invocation of theinherent powers of the High Court for quashing the F.I.Rs and the proceedingsinitiated in pursuance thereto, as also the process issued by the Chief MetropolitanMagistrate, Delhi. The learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court, by theimpugned final orders, held against the appellants that obtaining from the Ministry ofHealth Customs Duty Exemption Certificate, that was meant for 'actual user' on falseassertion makes out the offence under Section 120B reads with Section 420 of theIndian Penal Code.3. The respondent hearing (Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi) initiatedcriminal proceedings under Section 120B read with Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!