Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDERCIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7676 & 7677 OF 1977:1. The respondents applied for allotment of flats under the 5th Self Financing Scheme under Category 2 and Category 3. Even after they made full payment towards the cost of the flats and also after completion of the formalities required to be completed by them, the appellant did not deliver possession of the flats within a reasonable time. The respondents approached the District Consumer Forum seeking damages for the loss suffered by them on account of inordinate delay caused in delivery of possession of flats. The District Forum, after considering the respective contentions and after hearing both the parties, allowed the complaints of the respondents and directed the appellant to pay interest @18% on account of delay caused by it in delivery of possession and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was also awarded as cost to each one of the respondents. The appellant filed appeal before the State Commission challenging the validity and correctness of the order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2003)IIILLJ854SC; (2004)9SCC486
ORDER1. The matter has been heard at considerable length. The parties have settled. Mr. Jamshed P. Cama, learned senior counsel for the appellant states that the workmen involved in this appeal would be made permanent and may be transferred from Pune in Maharashtra or outside Maharashtra to the Branches of the Company, Depots, the Suppliers or dealers of the Company. There would, however, be no change in conditions of service of the workmen involved. The Company would protect the emoluments and service conditions of the workmen subject to the condition that if hours of work and canteen facilities or the like are different in the transferred position/station, the transferred workmen would not decline the transfer on the ground of aforesaid conditions being different. Mr. K.K. Singhvi, learned senior counsel representing the workmen accepts the aforesaid statement made by Mr. Cama. Further, learned counsel Mr. J.P. Cama and Mr. Singhvi submit that Respondent No. 39 - Subhash N. Pawar and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC4688; [2004(1)JCR66b(SC)]; JT2003(Suppl1)SC357; 2003(4)MhLj1041; 2003(7)SCALE332; (2003)10SCC620; 2003(2)LC1531(SC)
Santosh Hegde, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted.3. The question involved in this appeal revolves around a narrow compass that is, does an order made by the Minister for State (Excise), Govt. of Maharashtra in a revision petition under Section 34 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (the Act) require authentication under Article 166 of the Constitution of India The High Court of Judicature, Bombay at Aurangabad in a writ petition filed by the first respondent herein has held that it is necessary.4. The question, therefore, for our consideration is whether a quasi-judicial order made under the provisions of a statute by a revisional authority who is also a Minister in the State Cabinet, require authentication, under Article 166. 5. It is an admitted fact that the order made by the Minister concerned was on a revision petition filed against the order of the Commissioner of Excise who himself was entertaining a petition before him under the provisions of the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3191; 2003(2)ALT(Cri)380; 2003CriLJ4339; JT2003(Suppl1)SC129; 2004(1)MPHT150; 2003(7)SCALE387; (2003)8SCC13
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal appeal No. 1646 of 1996 has questioned correctness of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench, holding that respondent (Ghanshyam Singh) was guilty of offence punishable under Section 304 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'). The sentence imposed was restricted to the period already undergone, which was about 2 years and fine of Rs. 15,000/- which, if deposited, was directed to be paid as compensation to the widow of Sarnam Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') and in her absence to other dependents and heirs of the deceased. In default of payment of amount of fine, the default stipulation was further imprisonment of two years. 2. Six persons including accused Ghanshyam faced trial for allegedly having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 149 IPC, Section 148 IPC, Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. While the respondent Ghanshyam Sing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3196; 2003(2)ALD(Cri)23; 2003CriLJ4344; JT2003(Suppl1)SC150; 2003(7)SCALE381; (2003)10SCC21; 2003(2)LC1509(SC)
Santosh Hegde, J.1. The appellant and three other persons were charged for offences punishable under Sections 302, 392, 397, 414 and 120B IPC before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar in S.C.No. 130 of 1995. The learned Trial Judge found the appellant herein, A-1 Kailash and A-2 Naresh guilty of all the above offences, while the said court found A-4 Indu guilty of offence punishable under Sections 120B and 414 IPC. In an appeal filed against the said judgment and conviction, before the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, the High Court allowed the appeal of A-2 Naresh but confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the other accused. In this appeal, A-3 Rajendra Kumar alone has challenged his conviction. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as follows :A-1 Kailash who was married to A-4 Indu was having an illicit relationship with the deceased Vimla who was married to PW-12 Ram Nivas. It is stated after sometime the accused persons named above conspired to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3187; 2003(4)ALLMR(SC)1178; 97(2004)CLT188(SC); 106(2003)DLT417(SC); JT2003(Suppl1)SC291; (2004)136PLR257; 2003(7)SCALE425; (2003)10SCC38
Arun Kumar, J.1. The question for consideration in this appeal is regarding maintainability of a civil suit to challenge assessment and levy of property tax on a property owned by Respondent. Respondent owns a basement in Property No. 33, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi. The appellant is a statutory body responsible for discharging civic functions in specified areas in the city of Delhi. To generate revenue for itself the appellant is authorized to levy taxes including property tax. The said property was assessed to property tax by the appellant. According to respondent the basement cannot be put to use because it gets filled up with sub-soil water. For this reason the respondent claimed that the basement could not be said to be having any annual rateable value and therefore it could not be assessed to property tax and no tax could be levied. Inspite of this, the appellant assessed the said property to property tax. It was further alleged by the respondent that objections filed by him agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC4399; 2003CriLJ5002; JT2003(Suppl1)SC117; 2003(7)SCALE372; (2004)12SCC311
Santosh Hegde, J.1. Ten accused persons including the appellants in these appeals were chargesheeted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 324, 323, 148 and 149 IPC before the Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur in Sessions Case No.5/1996 (Sessions Trial No.24 of 1996). The trial court acquitted A-6 to A-9 of all the charges framed against them. It convicted A-1 to A-5 and A-10 for various offences punishable under Section 302 simplicitor. Section 302 read with Section 149. 148, 326 read with 149, 324 read with 149, 323 read with 149 and Section 201 IPC. It imposed a sentence of life imprisonment for offences under Sections 302. 302 read with 149 and varying sentences for other lesser offences enumerated hereinabove. An appeal filed by the convicted accused before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh came to be dismissed.Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the courts below. Mohinder Singh A-5 and Jaswinder Singh A-10 have preferred Criminal Appeal No.794 of 2002 and J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3322; 2003(6)ALD110(SC); 96(2003)CLT749(SC); JT2004(6)SC83; 2003(7)SCALE430; (2003)7SCC452
Arun Kumar, J. 1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 19th June, 1998 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh whereby the order of the trial court rejecting an application of the plaintiff under Order XXVI Rules 13 and 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was set aside and the trial court was directed to take steps towards passing a final decree. Briefly the facts are :Parties to the suit are closely related being members of a family of four brothers. Plaintiff No. 1 was the widow of the eldest brother. On 14th May, 1975 she filed a suit for partition of the joint family immoveable properties in the court of the District Judge, Adilabad (A.P.). Plaintiff No. 2 is the daughter of plaintiff No. 1, Defendants are younger brothers of husband of plaintiff No. 1 and members of their families. During the pendency of the suit, arrived at a compromise. A joint application was filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC praying that the compromise be recorded and a decree in ter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3290; 2003(6)ALD72(SC); 2003(6)ALT40(SC); JT2004(6)SC425; 2003(7)SCALE352; (2003)8SCC134
S.N. Variava, J.1. These Appeals are against the judgment dated 25th September, 1996 by which two Writ Petitions seeking writs of prohibition and a contempt petition have been disposed of.2. The dispute in this proceedings relates to 28.58 acres in Survey Numbers 686, 645 and 679 of Tirumala Village. This land is situated on Tirumala Hills where the temple of Sri Venkateshwara Swamy is situated. The Appellants are the statutory Devasthanam in control and management of the temple. The facts leading to the present litigation are set out in the impugned Judgment. In the impugned Judgment the Appellants are referred to as 'T.T.D.' whereas the Respondents are referred to as 'the Tallapaka people'. The facts, as set out in the impugned Judgment, are as follows: '4. Sri Krishna Devaraya one of the greatest Emperors who ruled southern India in the 15th century granted an extent of Ac. 27-04 cents of land on Tirumala Hills (now covered by Survey Nos. 586 and 645) to Sri Tallapaka Annamacharya, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3309; 106(2003)DLT487(SC); JT2003(Suppl1)SC76; 2003(7)SCALE345; (2003)8SCC398
Shah, J.1. It is an admitted fact that in India Society, discrimination against girl child still prevails, may be because of prevailing uncontrolled dowry system despite the Dowry Prohibition Act, as there is no change in the mind-set or also because of insufficient education and/or tradition of women being confined to household activities. Sex selection/sex determination further adds to this adversity. It is also known that number of persons condemn discrimination against women in all its forms, and agree to pursue, by appropriate means, a policy of criminating discrimination against women, still however, we are not in a position to change mental set-up which favours a male child against a female. Advance technology is increasingly used for removal of fetus (may or may not be seen as commission of murder) but it certainly affects the sex ratio. The misuse of modern science and technology by preventing the birth of girl child by sex determination before birth and thereafter abortion is...
Tag this Judgment!