Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC61; 2005(1)AWC400(SC); I(2005)BC416(SC); 2005(1)CTLJ239(SC); JT2004(9)SC359; 2004(9)SCALE155; (2005)1SCC348
ORDERIssue notice.Till further orders of this Court, the operation of U.P. Ordinance No. 13 of 1971 shall remain stayed so far as the Receiver is concerned. The status quo, as on July 2, 1971, shall be restored and the petitioner company which admittedly, was running the mills on that date, will be put back in possession, This order will, however, not affect any other proceedings pending and any other orders that may be passed by any competent court or authority hereafter. This order will be further subject to the following condition:-1. The Receiver shall made arrangements for the off season repairs of the machinery etc. and if he takes advances from Bank for this purpose, final orders regarding repayment of the same would be passed at the time of the final disposal of the writ petition.2. The amount of money to be spent on the repairs shall not exceed the average amount spent in the last three veers.3. The Receiver is restrained from removing or disposing of any property of the under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC44; 2005(1)ALD(Cri)87; 2005CriLJ108; 2004(9)SCALE149
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. State of Madhya Pradesh calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, at Jabalpur directing acquittal of the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') on the ground that prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubts. Originally eight persons faced trial. Out of them co-accused Sunita and Kapoor Singh were acquitted. During the pendency of the trial one Ramkishore absconded. Two others Bhoora and Jabar Singh had died during trial. Trial Court convicted accused Komal Singh, Manni and Dharkole. During pendency of the appeal before this Court, accused Komal has died and the appeal stands abated so far as she is concerned. All the three accused were convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Appellant Manni was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 148 I.P.C. while the other two have b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC69; 2004(3)BLJR2390; [2005(1)JCR114(SC)]; JT2004(9)SC218; 2004(9)SCALE81; (2004)8SCC747; (2005)1UPLBEC125
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution, has been filed for quashing the order dated 26th June, 2004 of Chairman of Bihar Legislative Council holding that the petitioner is disqualified for being a member of the House under paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule read with Article 191(2) of the Constitution and consequently the seat held by him in the Bihar Legislative Council had fallen vacant from the said date.2. The petitioner was elected as a member of the Bihar Legislative Council (MLC) from Tirhut Graduate Constituency as a candidate of Indian National Congress. The notification for holding elections to Fourteenth Lok Sabha was issued in March, 2001. The petitioner contested the said election from Maharajganj Parliamentary Constituency as an independent candidate. Shri Salman Rageev, a member of Bihar Legislative Council, sent a petition to the Chairman of the Legislative Council on 10th June, 2004 stating, inter alia, that the petitioner, who was a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC17; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)129; 2005(3)BomCR392; [2005]126CompCas332(SC); (2004)4CompLJ433(SC); JT2004(9)SC258; 2004(9)SCALE99; (2004)12SCC570; [2004]56SCL21(SC); (2005)1
R.C. Lahoti, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 10 of the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short), feeling aggrieved by an order dated 28.7.1998 whereby rejecting an objection petition preferred by the appellant, the Special Court has directed the appellant to hand over possession of all the 56 cars to the custodian within one week from the date of the order.2. The Industrial Finance Corporation of India (hereinafter 'IFCI', for short) is a Corporation constituted under the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Act, 1948 and carries on the business of financing moneys to various borrowers. Vide agreement dated 4.12.1990, the appellant entered into a Lease Finance Agreement with M/s. Fair growth Financial Services Limited (hereinafter 'Fair growth', for short), the respondent No. 3. Pursuant to the letter of offer dated 26.7.1990 under this lease finance agreement, the appellant had taken lease finance ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC137; 2005(1)ESC19; JT2004(9)SC293; 2004(9)SCALE120; (2004)12SCC588; 2005(3)SLJ421(SC); (2005)1UPLBEC680
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. In these matters the validity of the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) and Allied Services and Other Services, Common/Combined Examination Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act') is under challenge to the extent of its retrospective application. The Act was enforced on 27th March, 2002. Section 1 (2) of the Act provides that the Act is deemed to have come into force with effect from 29th August, 1989. Section 1(3) provides that the Act shall apply to those persons who have been appointed or are offered appointment to the services/posts, recruitment to which is made by holding common/combined examination. Section 3 repeals the executive instructions contained in various circulars issued from time to time. We are concerned with circulars dated 22nd March, 1957 and 26th May, 1972. Section 4(1) provides that no appointment shall be made to any post or service to which the Act applies beyond the number of posts advertised. Section 4(2) provides that notwithstanding anyth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2004(10)SC467; 2005(1)MPHT1; RLW2005(1)SC131; 2004(9)SCALE78; (2004)8SCC770
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Appellant faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the 'Act'). While the trial Court acquitted him, Madhya Pradesh High Court by the impugned judgment upset it.2. Factual position as projected by prosecution in nutshell is as follows:S.B. Dubey (PW-1) was appointed by the Government as Food Inspector. The accused Dinesh Kumar was having a kirana shop at Itava Road, Bhind. He used to sell Besan. On 29.3.1988 at about 3.00 p.m. the said Food Inspector went to his shop and inspected the articles and suspecting adulteration took a sample of Besan. He prepared Form No. 6 and thereafter 750 gms. of Besan was taken before the witnesses and Rs. 4.50/- being the price was given to the accused and receipt was obtained. The sample was divided into three equal parts and he sealed it in separate containers. Panchnama (Ex.P-4) was prepared on the spot. One ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC15; JT2004(9)SC283; 2004(9)SCALE95; (2004)8SCC307
G.P. Mathur, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals, by special leave, have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 9.9.2003 of Delhi High Court by which the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1, Ravinder Kumar Suri, under Article 227 of the Constitution was allowed, the order dated 22.5.2001 of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal was set aside and the order dated 193.2001 of the Rent Controller was restored by which the defence of the appellant was struck off. By the same order the writ petition filed by the tenant-appellant was-dismissed.3. The appellant is a tenant of a commercial premises situate in Karol Bagh, New Delhi on a rental of Rs. 30/- per month. The landlord, Ravinder Kumar Suri, filed a petition for eviction of the appellant under Section 14(1)(a) of Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (for short 'the Act') on the ground, inter alia, that the appellant was in arrears of rent. The Rent Controller passed an order under Section 15(1) of the Act on 20.12.1999 directing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC22; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)123; 2005(2)ALT12; JT2004(9)SC269; (2005)139PLR394; 2004(9)SCALE105; (2004)11SCC196
R.C. Lahoti, C.J.1. Elections to the Punjab Legislative Assembly were held in the month of January-February, 2002. We are concerned with 105 Muktsar Assembly Constituency. There were 12 candidates in the fray. The constituency went to polls and after counting the result was declared on 24.2.2002. Sukh Darshan Singh, respondent No. 1, who contested as an independent candidate, secured 32,465 valid votes while the appellant Sardar Harcharan Singh Brar, who was fielded by the Congress party, secured 32,265 valid votes. Other candidates secured lesser votes. The respondent No. 1 was declared elected.2. The appellant filed an election petition under Sections 80, 80A and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short). The main grounds on which the election of respondent No. 1 was sought to be set aside were that the nomination of one on the respondents was improperly accepted which had resulted in the result of the election being materially affected and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC80; JT2004(9)SC287; 2004(9)SCALE20; (2004)11SCC523
Ruma Pal, J.1. Leave granted.2. The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal was constituted under Section 4 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. It consists of three Members. Apart from the Chairman, there are two other Members, who have been nominated by the Chief Justice of India. These two nominees were at the time of their nomination judges of High Courts.3.The Tribunal has been functioning since 1990. The present appeals have been preferred challenging three orders dated 6th July, 2004, 23rd July, 2004 and 3rd August, 2004. The first order was passed by two Members of the Tribunal. Another Order was passed by the Chairman on the same day i.e. on 6th July, 2004. The reason for the two separate orders was a dispute between the Members of the Tribunal and the Chairman relating to the holding of an inspection of the Cauvery River Basin. By their order, the two Members directed the parties namely, the Governments of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Union Territory of Pondichery to sub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC627; 2005CriLJ97; 2004(96)ECC569; RLW2005(1)SC128; 2004(9)SCALE23
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Respondents faced trial for alleged commission of offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the 'Act'). Sans unnecessary details the prosecution version is as follows:3. On 28.6.1987, Inspector Karnail Singh along with Head constable Shamsher Singh, Head Constable Surjit Singh and other Police officials, were going from Moga to Talwandi Dosanjh in Govt. Jeep for the search of suspects. When they reached on the crossing of Talwandi Bhangarian. Dosanjh, a bullock cart was seen coming from opposite side. Accused Sukhwinder Singh was driving that cart whereas his co-accused Kuldip Singh and Balbir Singh were sitting on bags carried on that cart on bags. The police party asked accused Sukhwinder Singh to stop the cart. Accused Kuldip Singh and Balbir Singh ran away whereas accused Sukhwinder Singh was apprehended at the spot. On search of the cart, 18 bags containing poppy husk were recovered from it....
Tag this Judgment!