Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(2)ALD(Cri)842; JT2004(8)SC583; 2007(I)OLR(SC)278; 2004(8)SCALE452; (2005)9SCC765
B.N. Agarwal, J. 1. The appellant-Anjlus Dungdung along with his brother Jowakim Dungdung, accused Silbestor Dungdung and Rajesh Yadav @ Raju Gowala was chargesheeted by the police. Before the commencement of trial as Jowakim Dungdung died, the other three accused persons, including the appellant, were tried and by judgment rendered by the trial court, all of them were convicted under Section 302/120B of the Penal Code. So far the appellant is concerned, he was awarded death penalty whereas other two accused persons were sentenced to imprisonment for life. All the three accused persons were further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. On appeal being preferred before the High Court of Jharkhand, their conviction and sentence have been upheld. 2. The short facts are that on the basis of fardbayan of one Kajmir Kerketta - informant (PW 19) recorded on 24th November, 1998 at 5.30 p.m., a First Information Repo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(2)ALD(Cri)916; 2004(3)BLJR2112; JT2004(9)SC235; RLW2005(1)SC1; 2004(8)SCALE456; (2004)10SCC786
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Three appellants filed the present appeal questioning correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court upholding their conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 32 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and the sentence of imprisonment for life as imposed by Learned Sessions Judge, Gaya, Bihar in Sessions Trial No. 145 of 1983. It was pointed out that during pendency of the appeal before this Court appellant No.2 has died and therefore appeal stands abated so far as he is concerned.2. The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows :Kalamuddin and Alauddin Mian of village Nasirpur informed Isheaq Ahmed (PW-10) and other members of the prosecution party at their house in village Chatarghat in the early morning hours on 6.3.1981 that Saista Khatoon (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') has expired. He was told that some guests had come to the deceased's house; after serving ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(6)ALD75(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)339; 2005(1)ARC630; 2004(4)AWC3208(SC); 2004(3)BLJR1938; 2004(5)CTC67; [2005(1)JCR141(SC)]; JT2004(8)SC255; 2004(3)KLT654(SC); (2004)4MLJ1
S.B. Sinha, J. INTRODUCTION :1. What would be the date from which a decree becomes enforceable for execution thereof within the meaning of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (the Act) is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and decree dated 30th March, 2001 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8954 of 2001.FACTS2. A suit for partition was filed by the Respondents herein against the Appellants wherein a preliminary decree was passed on 25.4.1962. A final decree proceeding was thereafter initiated whereupon the final decree was prepared on 7.5.1968. On or about 6.8.1968 an execution case marked as Execution Case No. 279 of 1968 was filed by the Respondents. As against the said final decree, however, in the meanwhile a First Appeal had been filed which was marked as Civil Appeal No. 502 of 1968. It was dismissed by an order dated 21.3.1969. A Second Appeal there against was preferred by the Appellants whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC5003; 2004(6)ALD120(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)103; 2004(6)ALT39(SC); 2004(4)AWC3197(SC); [2004(4)JCR111(SC)]; JT2004(8)SC202; 2005(1)MhLj366; 2005MPLJ1(SC); 2004(8)SCAL
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.1. Certain agricultural lands including lands of these appellants were acquired pursuant to the Notification dated 23.1.1965 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short `the Act'). Award was made in March, 1969 fixing the compensation @ Rs. 2,000/- per bigha. The appellants and other claimants, not satisfied with the amount of compensation so awarded, sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Additional District Judge, i.e., the reference court enhanced the compensation @2,200/- per bigha from Rs. 2,000/-. The appellants and four other claimants filed appeals before the High Court seeking further enhancement of the compensation amount. The High Court disposed of six appeals including two appeals of these appellants by common judgment on 11.10.1984 fixing the compensation @ Rs. 4,000/- per bigha. These appellants did not pursue the matter any further, if aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment of the High Court. However, Pratap Sin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC5111; 2004(6)ALD80(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)59; 2004(6)ALT61(SC); 2004(4)AWC3206(SC); 2004(4)CTC774; 114(2004)DLT1(SC); II(2004)DMC586SC; [2004(4)JCR95(SC)]; JT2004(8)
S.N. Variava, J.1. Special leave granted.2. Heard parties.3. These Appeals are against the Judgment dated 14th August, 2002 of the Delhi High Court. By this Judgment, two Letters Patent Appeals have been disposed of.4. Briefly stated the facts are as follows.The Appellant and the Respondent were married on 18th November, 1981. The Appellant claims that the Respondent left the matrimonial home on 28th January, 1987. The Respondent denies this. The Respondent claims that she was driven out of the matrimonial home. She claims that she was always and even now is ready to stay with the Appellant. On a question from Court, counsel for the Appellant states that the Appellant is not willing to take back the Respondent.5. On 27th April, 1991, the Appellant filed a Divorce Petition on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence of the parties and the material on record, held that the Respondent had not proved cruelty or desertion and thus dismissed the Petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2005)1GLR159; JT2004(8)SC425; 2004(8)SCALE438; (2004)8SCC121; 2005(1)LC462(SC)
Shivaraj V. Patil J. 1. The appellants are the legal representatives of Padhiar Jagdevsinghji Ramsinghji who was ex-ruler of erstwhile State of Umeta which comprised of five villages including Umeta. According to him, the lands of these villages belonged to him. In the year 1948, the State of Umeta was merged into India under the Merger Agreement dated 24.05.1948. The land bearing Survey No. 410 which is the disputed land is situated at village Umeta. By virtue of Merger Agreement, this land was also given to ex-ruler as Talukdar. The land bearing Survey No. 410 comprised of large area - 742 acres and 32 guntas. The Bombay Talukdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 (for short `the Act') came into force on 15.8.1950. According to the respondent-State, the said land bearing Survey No. 410 vested in the Government by virtue of Section 6 of the Act. The Government transferred 560 acres out of this land to the District Panchyat, Kheda. Hence, the ex-ruler filed Civil Suit O.S. No. 5 of 1970 conte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(5)CTC74; JT2004(8)SC171; (2004)4MLJ147(SC); 2004(8)SCALE376; (2004)8SCC579
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. These two appeals are interlinked in the sense that identical issues in law are involved. We shall indicate the factual position in C.A. No. 7467 of 2003 as basically the impugned judgment in the said case is the foundation of the judgments impugned in C.A. No. 4463 of 2004.2. Factual background in C.A. No. 7467 of 2003 is as follows:Undisputedly, respondent No.1 was the landlord and on the basis of a lease agreement, the appellant Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'tenant') occupied the premises. The lease was operative from 1.4.1958 to 31.5.1978. A petrol pump was set up in the leased property. It is to be noted that the lease dated 7.10.1960 was executed between the Erstwhile Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd. (in short 'Burmah Shell') the Predecessor-in-title of the tenant and respondent No. 1. In view of the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976, the currency of the lease agreeme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC5009; JT2004(8)SC272; 2004(3)KLT686(SC); (2005)ILLJ117SC; 2004(8)SCALE475; (2004)8SCC402; (2005)1UPLBEC175
A.K. Mathur, J. 1. In all these appeals common question of law is involved, therefore, they are disposed of by common order.2. The main question involved in these appeals is what is the scope of Apprentices Act, 1961 vis a vis the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Indian Boilers Act, 1923. 3. The Apprentices Act, 1961 was promulgated primarily for the purpose of recruiting the apprentices. The idea behind was strong industrial base across the country. For the industrial growth it was necessary to have trained man power and for that purpose the apprentices were recruited. 4. The Introduction, Objects and Reasons for enacting this Act reads as under :-INTRODUCTION ' After India gained independence, a wave to have its own strong industrial base swept the country. Backed by Government policies, industrial growth had a quantum leap. With the industrial growth a need was felt to have trained man-power and for that steps were taken to arrange for train...
Tag this Judgment!