Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(3)ARBLR325(SC); 2003(4)AWC3415(SC); JT2003(Suppl2)SC197; 2003(8)SCALE82; (2003)8SCC193; [2003]48SCL67(SC); 2004(1)LC391(SC)
ORDER1. The interpretation of Sub-section 3 of Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter called, for the sake of brevity, 'the Act') arises for consideration in this appeal, which arises out of the judgment and order dated 31st July, 1997 passed by the High Court of Bombay, Appellate Side, Panaji Bench, Goa in Appeal No. 7 of 1997.2. The appellant and the respondent herein entered into an agreement whereby and whereunder the appellant undertook to carry out certain constructions. The agreement also provided for resolution of dispute by an Arbitrator. It appears certain dispute arose as a result of which the appellant herein preferred a claim on 19th September, 1990 and subsequently on 26th October, 1990, first reference was made. On 12th March, 1991, the respondent herein terminated the agreement. As a result of termination of agreement, the appellant herein made another reference on 26th June, 1991 and put in second claim on 27th September, 1991. The Arbitrator appointed, w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(72)DRJ356
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard parties.3. This appeal is filed against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 31st March, 1997 in LPA No. 50 of 1997.4. Briefly stated the facts are:That the concerned property was evacuee property which was auctioned on 22nd June, 1959. In that auction the respondents were declared as the successful bidder. Instead of paying the price, they asked for adjustment of the price against the compensation claims they had as evacuees.Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 13th November, 1959. That Notification excluded the Government lands and evacuee properties. A sale certificate came to be issued in favour of the respondents on 31st January, 1961 wherein it has been declared that they were the purchasers with effect from 1st October, 1960. Thereafter Notification under Section 6 was issued on 2nd January, 1969. An award came to be passed on 17th February, 1982. Possession of one of the pieces of land, namely, Khasra ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3318; 2003CriLJ4964; JT2003(Suppl1)SC583; 2003(7)SCALE624; (2003)8SCC625
Santosh Hegde, J.1. In these appeals, the appellants were charged for offences punishable under Sections 420, 477(a), 468, 420 read with Section 109, 409 read with 109 and 468 read with 109 IPC. The trial court, namely, the VIth Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Thiruchirapalli, convicted the appellants under various sections, among them, for offences punishable under Section 420 and Section 420 read with 109 IPC. It awarded a maximum sentence of 5 years R.I. 2. On an appeal filed by the convicted accused, the appellate court confirmed the conviction recorded by the trial court but reduced the sentence to 2 1/2 years each and further acting purportedly under various GOs. of the Government, it granted remission of the said sentence of 2 1/2 years also. 3. In a revision filed by the complainant, the High Court of Judicature at Madras considering the question of jurisdiction of the court to remit the sentence under the various G.Os. came to the conclusion that such a remission could no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC4420; 2004(1)ALT1(SC); JT2003(8)SC443; 2003(8)SCALE79; (2003)10SCC152; 2004(1)SLJ286(SC)
ORDER1. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (in short 'the BCCL') is a subsidiary company of Coal India Limited. On 27th March, 1975, the appellant was appointed in BCCL as a Draftsman. It is alleged that subsequently on 20th November, 1987, the appellant was promoted to Executive cadre as Public Relation Officer in E-2 Grade. On 9th May, 1990, the appellant took charge of the office of Public Relations Manager, which was of E-5 Grade. 2. On 20th January, 1993, a circular was issued providing therein that for promotion from Non-executive cadre to the Executive cadre in public relations office, the candidate must possess a Post Graduate Degree/Diploma in Journalism/Public Relations and also to pass the qualifying examination. The appellant was not subsequently promoted allegedly on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualification. 3. It is at this stage the appellant herein filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Calcutta High Court for issuing a dire...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3365; 2003CriLJ4976; JT2003(Suppl1)SC244; 2003(7)SCALE580; (2003)11SCC488
B.P. Singh, J.1. In those five appeals by Special leave the five appellants have impugned the common judgment and order of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla dated August 3, 2001 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 94, 95, 98, 111 and 112 of 1997 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeals preferred by the appellants affirming the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division, Rampur in Sessions Trial No. 10-R/7 of 1995 dated 20th February, 1997. All the appellants were found guilty of the offences under Sections 457, 376 and 380 IPC and were sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each under Section 457 IPC; seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- each under Section 376 IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each under Section 380 IPC. They were also sentenced to various terms of imprisonment for default in payment of fine. It was further directed that a sum of Rs.10.000/- be paid to the victi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC4238; 2003(7)SCALE589; (2003)11SCC714
B.N. Agrawal, J. 1. These appeals by special leave, are directed against the judgment rendered by Goa Bench of Bombay High Court in a writ application, which was filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the contesting respondents') by way of public interest litigation, whereby the same has been allowed, permissions granted to the appellants for change of land use, construction and felling of trees in relation to Survey No. 69/4 measuring 11275 sq. mtrs. situate in Village Penha De Franca concerning the project undertaken by appellant No. 1 over the said land quashed, and the appellants were directed to remove all development works done thereon. 2. Survey No. 69/4 measuring 13593 sq. mtrs., by virtue of deed of partition amongst the co-owners of the property, came to the share of Manohar Lal Bhandiye (respondent No. 10) and his wife Shantabai Bhandiye in the month of December, 1965 wherein this property situate in Village Penha De Franca was specifically described a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC4349; 2003(6)ALT20(SC); 2003(3)ARBLR314(SC); 2003(4)AWC3300(SC); JT2003(Suppl1)SC353; 2003(8)SCALE9; (2003)8SCC131; [2003]47SCL799(SC); 2004(1)LC242(SC)
ORDER1. The appellant and the respondent entered into an agreement under which the respondent undertook to construct certain project. The appellant herein from time to time issued work orders which the respondent alleges to have completed. It appears that certain disputes arose between the appellant and the respondent as a result of which the respondent filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for appointment of an arbitrator. An arbitrator was appointed who gave an award. Subsequently, the arbitrator filed an interim award before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) for being made rule of the court. After the notices were issued, the respondent filed an application for making the said interim award a rule of court. An interim order was passed whereby the appellant was directed to pay the final bill to the respondent in relation whereof an application was filed by the respondent purported to be under Section 18 of the Act. Civil Su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC4317; 2004(2)ALT8(SC); JT2003(Suppl1)SC319; 2003(8)SCALE12; (2003)8SCC458; 2004(1)SLJ238(SC)
ORDER1. The respondent herein was recruited as a Constable on the rolls of Patiala Police, Punjab. His appointing authority was Superintendent of Police, Patiala. Subsequently, the respondent was promoted to the post of Head Constable. Certain misconduct committed by the respondent in the year 1984 came to the notice of the appellants and as a result of which the respondent was placed under suspension in view of contemplated inquiry. While the respondent was under suspension, he absented himself atleast on three occasions without any kind of leave from the Superintendent of Police. In view of unauthorised absence, the appellants herein initiated a departmental inquiry against the respondent. The respondent was served with a charge-sheet to which he filed a reply. In his explanation, it was stated that he had gone to attend a court case at Patiala where he had learnt that his wife was ill and, therefore, he went to his home town and in such circumstances he could not take any permission...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3393; JT2003(Suppl1)SC359; 2003(3)KLT813(SC); (2003)IIILLJ855SC; 2003(7)SCALE604; (2003)10SCC303; (2003)3UPLBEC2682
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.1. The appellants were contractors in respect of toddy shops during the given period. Toddy shops were run on the basis of yearly auction conducted by the Excise Department of the Government of Kerala. Various guidelines were issued by the Board of Revenue and the State Government from time to time for running toddy shops. The employees working in the toddy shops during the period in question were not brought under the coverage of the ESI Scheme mainly on the ground that the provisions of ESI Scheme were not applicable to the toddy shops according to the appellants; assuming that the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') was applicable to the toddy shops in the previous years, that did not create any continuing liability of the appellants. On the basis of the inspection conducted by the officers of the respondent Corporation, respondents took up the position that the toddy shops were covered under the Act and assessed to the contribution; recov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2003(Suppl1)SC196; 2004(7)KarLJ557; 2003(7)SCALE576; (2003)10SCC521
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. The Court of law is described as a temple of justice. Logically, the Presiding Officer is the 'Pujak' and members of staff are the 'Sewaks'. It is, therefore, a matter of grave concern when a 'Sewak' is alleged to have misappropriated funds of the temple.2. Appellant who was the property clerk in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chikodi, allegedly misappropriated properties belonging to the Court and sold them to four other persons who were acquitted by the trial Court along with the present appellant. While the appellant stood charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') the rest four stood charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 411 IPC. The prosecution alleged that while the properties in question were under the domain of the appellant, he sold them to accused Nos. 2 to 5 during the period 2.3.1979 to 6.6.1985 and, therefore, committed the offence as alleged. A...
Tag this Judgment!