Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC214; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)114; 2004(3)BLJR2295; 2004(5)CTC442; JT2004(9)SC335; (2005)1MLJ70(SC); RLW2005(1)SC151; 2004(9)SCALE205; (2005)9SCC686
R.C. Lahoti, C.J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant-Dharma Prathishthaham is a charitable institution. The respondent is a builder engaged in construction activity. In the year 1985, the appellant proposed to have a building constructed for which purpose it entered into a works contract with the respondent for the construction as per the drawings and specifications given by the appellant. We are not concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties which relate to the question who committed breach of the agreement. Suffice it for our purpose to say that disputes arose between the parties. Clause 35 of the agreement which is the arbitration clause reads as under:-'Settlement of disputes shall be through arbitration as per the Indian Arbitration Act.'3. Obviously and admittedly the reference was to the Arbitration Act, 1940.4. On 12th June, 1989 the respondent appointed one Shri Swami Dayal as the Sole Arbitrator. It appears that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(3)BLJR2155; 2005CriLJ330; 2004(9)SCALE511; (2005)1SCC543
1. The appellant herein, along with Ravindra Singh (co-accused) was put up for trial before the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun. The trial court by its judgment and order dated 16th July, 1980 in Sessions Trial No.150/79 convicted Ravindra Singh under Section 302 Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentenced him to imprisonment for life while convicting Damodar, the appellant herein under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and also sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The High Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence by its impugned judgment and order of 28th July, 1999 in Criminal Appeal No.1962 of 1980. The co-accused Ravindra Singh also preferred a petition for special leave to appeal (Crl.) No.3587/1999 which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 28.10.1999. However, the appellant herein was granted special leave and that is how this appeal comes up for disposal before us. 2. The deceased, namely, Guru Narayan was aged about 70 years. It is alleged th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC186; [2005]126CompCas356(SC); 2004(5)CTC376; JT2004(9)SC379; 2004(9)SCALE215; (2005)1SCC496
R.C. Lahoti, C.J.1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 11607/2001.2. Section 73 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as incorporated by Andhra Pradesh Act No. 17 of 1986, by amending the Central Act in its application to the State, has been struck down by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh as ultra vires the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act as also of Article 14 of the Constitution. The District Registrar and Collector, Registration and Stamps Department, Hyderabad and the Assistant Registrar have come up in appeal by special leave.Relevant Statutory Provisions under the Central Act : 3. Section 73 of the Indian Stamp Act (before the insertion of the text under the impugned State Legislation in its applicability to the State of Andhra Pradesh) reads as under:-'73. Every public officer having in his custody any registers, books, records, papers, documents or proceedings, the inspection whereof may tend to secure any duty, or to prove or lead to the discovery of any fraud or omission in relation to a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC1; 2005(2)BomCR691; JT2004(9)SC418; 2005(I)OLR(SC)84; 2004(9)SCALE166; (2004)8SCC733; (2005)1UPLBEC598
R.C. Lahoti, C.J.1. The Friends Colony Development Committee, the appellant before us, is a society registered in the year 1982 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. One of its objects is to oversee development of the residential area known as 'Friends Colony' in Cuttack city. M/s Modern Mechatech Housing Ltd., the respondent No. 2, is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, and engaged in building activity. Pratap Kumar Biswal, respondent No. 3, is its Managing Director. The other parties impleaded in this appeal are - the State of Orissa, through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, and Cuttack Development Authority (hereinafter the 'Authority' for short). The property involved in this litigation is a six storeyed apartment situated in Friends Colony and known as 'Kalyani Apartment'.2. The background facts leading to the present appeal are briefly stated hereinafter. The property belonged to one Abhiram Panda. He gave a power of atto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(1)ALD74(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)180; (SCSuppl)2005(1)CHN187; 2004(5)CTC468; 2005(1)CTLJ1(SC); [2005(2)JCR187(SC)]; (2005)2MLJ65(SC); RLW2005(1)SC141; 2004(9)SCALE184; (20
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. This civil appeal, by grant of special leave, arises out of judgment and order dated 10.6.1999 of the High Court of Calcutta in FMA No. 37 of 1997 allowing the appeal of the respondent herein and setting aside the order of 2nd Assistant District Judge, Alipore, Calcutta, rescinding the agreement dated 16.8.1980 under section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1963 Act'). 2. Briefly, the facts are as follows. Appellants herein are the Trustees of the Trust Estate of Raja Rajendra Mullick Bahadur owning suit premises bearing nos. 225B and 225C, Lower Circular Road, Calcutta with eight cottages and a main building, more particularly described in the schedule annexed to the lease dated 25.11.1960 executed by the Trustees in favour of Mohd. Ismail for 21 years commencing from 1.5.1960.3. Some of the relevant terms and conditions of the said lease are as follows:'(i) The lessee, i.e. Mohammad Ismail, would pay monthly rent at the rate ment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(1)ESC16; JT2004(9)SC405; 2004(9)SCALE195; (2004)12SCC92; 2005(1)SLJ285(SC); (2005)1UPLBEC391
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. The appellant, a corporal in Indian Air Force was removed form service in exercise of powers under Section 20(3) of the Air Force Act, 1950 read with Rule 18 of the Air Force Rules, 1969 by order dated 30th June, 1998. The writ petition filed by the appellant challenging his removal has been dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment. The appellant is in appeal on grant of leave.2. The facts in brief are that in March, 1994 snags were noticed in 14 aircrafts, as a result, the aircrafts could not be used for flying for two days. The appellant was charged for causing damage to the said training aircrafts. The appellant belongs to electric trade. In substance, the allegations, in so far as the appellant is concerned, were that he had damaged the electric system by breaking wires as a result whereof the aircrafts could not be used for flying.3. The findings recorded in the court of inquiry were that number of wires were found broken on 25t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC9; 2005(1)ALD(Cri)278; 2004(3)BLJR2129; 2005CriLJ92; 2005(I)OLR(SC)51; RLW2005(1)SC135; 2004(9)SCALE177; (2005)1SCC122; 2005SCC(Cri)283
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court holding that the issuance of summons to the appellants by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in complaint case No. 1613 (C) of 2002 filed by the respondent No. 1 is proper.3. Factual background in nutshell is as follows:Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') filed a complaint on 9.8.2002 alleging that the appellants had committed offences punishable under Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The date of occurrence was indicated to be between 12.7.1995 to 8.5.2002. The basic allegations in the complaint were that an advertisement was issued by the appellant No. 1 seeking applications for appointment to the post of Area Manager. The complainant, who was then working in another concern applied for the post, was called to the interview on 14.7.1995 and was asked to repor...
Tag this Judgment!