Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(2005)BC380; 2005(1)ESC118; [2005(104)FLR207]; [2005(3)JCR238(SC)]; JT2004(10)SC192; 2004(10)SCALE45; (2005)10SCC562; (2005)1UPLBEC623
ORDERIntervention application is dismissed.We have been informed that BIFR has already formulated eight schemes which stand approved by all concerned and agencies. Let the scheme as sanctioned by BIFR be implemented. The special leave petition and the transfer petitions stand disposed of accordingly.'8. The respective respondents filed their counter affidavits. According to them, the Department of Public Enterprises has, vide its order No. 2(50)/86-DPE(WC) dated 19.7.1995 denied the benefit of revised IDA pay scales to those Public Sector Undertakings, which are referred to BIFR. It was submitted that the British India Corporation Limited and its two units is a sick public sector undertaking and had been referred to BIFR and BIFR had issued winding-up of these units vide its order dated 31.10.1994. The appeal preferred by the Company in AAIFR was also dismissed and the AAIFR confirmed the order of winding-up of these units. It was, therefore, submitted that as per the Department of Pub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC469; 2005(1)CTC111; 2005(1)CTLJ14(SC); JT2004(10)SC147; 2004(10)SCALE60; (2005)1SCC679
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The present writ petition along with the cases transferred from various High Courts have been placed before this Bench on a difference of opinion between Hon'ble Judges constituting the Division Bench.2. The dispute concerns the terms and conditions of Notices Inviting Tenders [NITs] for supply of High Security Registration Plates to motor vehicles. The tenders have been issued by various State Governments on the guidelines circulated by the Central Government for implementing the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the newly amended Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that all Notices Inviting Tenders (NITs) which have been issued by various State Governments contain conditions which seem to have been tailored to favour companies having foreign collaboration. The tender conditions are described to be discriminatory under Article 14 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC396; 2005(1)ALD(Cri)417; (2005)107BOMLR830; 2005CriLJ659; (2005)3GLR2447; JT2004(10)SC244; 2005(1)KLT67(SC); 2005(1)MhLj322; 2004(10)SCALE37; (2005)1SCC254; (2005)
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. Action for contempt is divisible into two categories, namely, that initiated suo motu by the Court and that instituted otherwise than on the court's own motion. The mode of initiation in each case would necessarily be different. While in the case of suo motu proceedings, it is the Court itself which must initiate by issuing a notice, in the other cases initiation can only be by a party filing an application. Pallav Sheth v. Custodian and Ors. : 2001CriLJ4175 ].2. The main issue for determination in these appeals is whether contempt proceedings were initiated against the appellant suo motu by the court or by respondents. First we may note the background under which these matters were referred to a larger Bench.3. Delhi High Court in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta v. K. Suba Rao and Anr. ILR (1974) 1 Del.1 issued following directions :'The office is to take note that in future if any information is lodged even in the form of a petition inviting this Court to take actio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2005)1CALLT94(SC); (SCSuppl)2005(1)CHN121; 2005(1)ESC109; JT2004(10)SC196; (2005)9SCC53; 2005(2)SLJ90(SC); (2005)1UPLBEC632
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. 1. The appellant Ramakrishna Vivekananda Mission (for short, 'the Mission') has challenged in these appeals a common judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court whereby two appeals challenging the order of a learned Single Judge and a Writ Petition No. 18402(W) of 1997 filed by the Mission were dismissed.2. The Mission is running a school known as Ramakrishna Vivekananda Mission Vidya Bhawan. The school is affiliated to the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (for short, 'the Board') and is governed by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act'). The two private respondents Swapan Panda and Tapan Negoi were appointed as teachers in the school in the years 1977 and 1986 respectively. Both were approved teachers. The other respondents in these appeals are State of West Bengal and the education authorities under the Act.3. The West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Manner of Hearing and Deciding Appeals by Appeal Committee)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(2005)ACC51; AIR2005SC446; 2005(1)AWC220(SC); JT2004(10)SC173; 2004(10)SCALE28b; (2005)1SCC444
G.P. Mathur, J. Civil Appeal No. 6341/20021. This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgment dated 23.72002 of Allahabad High Court by which the scheme dated 13.2.1986 published under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the approved scheme published on 29.5.1993 was quashed.2. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to mention the essential facts, as the case has a long history. The Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'UPSRTC') prepared a draft scheme to nationalize Saharanpur-Shahdara-Delhi route and the same was published on 29.9.1959 in accordance with Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'old Act'). The scheme was challenged by a number of operators and the High Court by its judgments dated 31.10.1961 and 7.2.1962 upheld the scheme as against 50 operators, but quashed the same as against 32 and 18 operators who had filed two gro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC359; 99(2005)CLT348(SC); 2005(1)CTC134; JT2004(10)SC303; 2005(1)KLT80(SC); 2005(I)OLR(SC)357; RLW2005(3)SC414; 2004(10)SCALE50; (2005)1SCC568
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. Can the trial court at the time of framing of charge consider material filed by the accused, is the point for determination in these matters.2. In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr. : (1996)9SCC766 , a two judge Bench judgment, it was observed that if the accused succeeds in producing any reliable material at the stage of taking cognizance or framing of charge which might fatally affect even the very sustainability of the case, it is unjust to suggest that no such material should be looked into by the court at that stage. It was held that the object of providing an opportunity to the accused of making submissions as envisaged in Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') is to enable the court to decide whether it is necessary to proceed to conduct the trial. If the materials produced by the accused even at that early stage would clinch the issue, why should the court shut it out saying that such documents need be produce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC368; 2005(1)ALD(Cri)800; 2005CriLJ646; JT2004(10)SC471; 2005(2)MhLj707; 2004(9)SCALE679; (2005)1SCC343
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The appellants who are described as A-1 and A-2 (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') had questioned correctness of their conviction as recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Osmanabad for offences punishable under Sections 325 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC').3. For offence relatable to Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC each of A-1 to A-3 was sentenced by the learned trial Judge to undergo imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation. But looking to the age of A-4, he was sentenced to imprisonment for one month and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation. No separate sentence was passed for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC.4. By the impugned judgment, the High Court held ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC454; 2005(2)ALD112(SC); 2005(2)AWC1984(SC); JT2004(10)SC113; 2004(9)SCALE660; (2005)4SCC120
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.1. In this appeal, the order dated 21.10.1998 made by the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 429 of 1998 is under challenge. Parties are before this Court for the third time in relation to the same subject matter.2. One Fauzdar Khan donated 5 bighas of land situated at Hyderabad to one Gunnaji, the ancestor of the respondent No. 1 for the purpose of construction of a temple, now known as Sri Jangli Vittobha Temple. Gunnaji died and after his death, his sister Suguna Bai completed the construction of the temple. In 1939, one Golakishan Gir claiming himself to be the Mutawalli of the temple, mismanaged its affairs. The Government having come to know about the same, constituted a committee under Rule 156 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Areas) Wakf Rules. Manik Rao, father of the respondent No. 1, applied to the Registration Officer in 1962 for transfer of Towliatship of temple in his name. The Registration Officer (the Assistant Secretary of Board of Rev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(1)AWC303(SC); 2005(2)BomCR710; JT2004(10)SC577; 2005(2)MhLj502; 2004(9)SCALE683; (2005)1SCC193
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. These two appeals by special leave arise out of different judgments of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, but are factually interconnected. It would, therefore, be convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment.Facts in Civil Appeal No. 6142 of 2002:2. Appellants are two brothers and sons of one Bhagchand Navalmal Gugale. The father of the appellants was the owner of agricultural land in Survey No. 2 of Pathardi village, Distt. Ahmednagar. The father of the appellants sold 14 acres of land from Survey No. 2 to Respondent No. 4, Agricultural Produce Market Committee (A.P.M.C.) by a registered sale deed dated 11.4.1960. Consequent to this sale. Survey No. 2 was divided into two parts, i.e., Survey No. 2/1 and Survey No. 2/2. The portion of the land sold to the Fourth respondent-Committee came to be marked as Survey No. 2/2 and the land which remained with the appellants came to be marked as Survey No. 2/1.3. The Director. Agricultural Prod...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC392; 2005(1)ALD(Cri)438; 99(2005)CLT378(SC); [2005]123CompCas234(SC); 2005CriLJ665; JT2004(10)SC185; 2005(1)KLT111(SC); 2005(2)MhLj442; 2004(9)SCALE655; (2005)1SCC
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. The interpretation of Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code) falls for determination in this petition. The said section reads as under :'188. Offence committed outside India, - When an offence is committed outside India(a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or(b) by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India,he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found:Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.'2. The sole question is about the interpretation of the expression 'at which he may be found' in the aforesaid section. On whom, under Section 188, does the responsibility to find the accused lies the complainant, the Police or the Court? The question ...
Tag this Judgment!