Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(2004)ACC728; 2002ACJ1158; AIR2004SC2107; 2004(3)ALD81(SC); 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)674; 2004(5)ALT11(SC); 2004(2)AWC2011(SC); [2004]120CompCas292(SC); 110(2004)DLT523(SC); 2004(7
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) No. 708 of 2003.Reference to this Bench:2. A Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 19.04.2002 doubting the correctness of 2-Judge Bench decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hansrajbhai V. Kodala and Ors. : [2001]2SCR999 (Kodala) has referred the matter to a 3-Judge Bench whereby and whereunder the proceedings under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to and called for the sake of brevity as 'the Act') has been held to be a final proceeding as a result whereof the claimants had been debarred from proceeding with their further claims made on the basis of fault liability in terms of Section 165 thereof.Subject matter:3. The appeals arise out of judgment and order dated 9.11.2000 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal No. 2272 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the claims of the appellants have been calculated limiting the income of the deceased at Rs. 40,000/- per annum. Two r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004CriLJ1815; 2004(92)ECC705; JT2004(4)SC386; 2004(3)SCALE474; (2004)3SCC619; 2004(2)LC1034(SC)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Grant of bail to the respondent by a learned Single Judge of Bombay High Court is questioned by the Narcotics Control Bureau (in short the 'NCB'). The respondent is facing trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 29 read with Sections 8(c), 22, 28 and 30 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the 'NDPS Act'). The allegations against the respondent Dilip Pralhad Namade (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') were that he was involved in the manufacturing of mandrax tablets and he is the person who has supplied the technical know how of preparation for the tablets.3. Officers of the appellant-Bureau, Mumbai Zonal Unit, got information that one Suresh Faturmal Jain was travelling in a red Ford Escort car and was carrying 20,000 Mandrax Tablets to be delivered to two persons at a particular place. Acting on the information, two officers of the Bureau went to the vicinity of the place whe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC3892; 2004(2)AWC1721(SC); (SCSuppl)2004(3)CHN152; [2004(3)JCR85(SC)]; JT2004(4)SC127; (2004)3MLJ72(SC); 2004(3)SCALE481; (2004)3SCC682
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant is the landlord-owner of the suit premises in occupation of respondent as the tenant Proceedings for eviction of the respondent were initiated by the landlord on the grounds available under Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972). The appellant's case was that the premises in occupation of the respondent were required bona fide by the appellant for his own business of fertilizers and agricultural implements. It was also alleged that the shop in occupation of the respondent was in a dilapidated condition. It was an old construction. Cracks had developed in the walls and the lintel. The corners of walls had given way. The local municipality had served a notice on the appellant on 27.02.1985 to demolish the verandah and lintel. Hence, It was necessary to demolish the shop and reconstruct the same.3. The Prescribed Autho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1887; (SCSuppl)2004(3)CHN72; 110(2004)DLT404(SC); JT2004(4)SC435; 2004(3)SCALE470; (2004)4SCC1
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as 'the Rent Act') was amended by Act No. 57 of 1988. The said Amending Act came into effect from 1.12.1988. Section 3(c) of the Amending Act provided that the provisions of the Rent Act will not apply to premises whose monthly rent exceeded Rs. 3,500/-. The question which arises for determination in this civil appeal is--whether Section 3(c) as amended was applicable to standard rent application, which was pending before the Court on 1.12.1988 when the Amending Act came into force?2. On 7th May, 1976, an agreement was entered into between the appellant-tenant and the respondent-landlord, under which the appellant took on lease a shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/- per month. On 11.4.1978, the appellant filed a petition for fixation of standard rent under Section 9 of the Rent Act. The contention of the appellant was that the standard rent would be fixed at Rs. 1,350/- per month and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(2)BLJR943; 2004CriLJ3348; (2004)2GLR1313; JT2004(4)SC536; 2004(3)SCALE355; (2004)3SCC444; 2004(2)LC954(SC)
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. An incident took place at about 7.45 a.m. on 27.2.2002 when the Sabarmati Express was stopped near Godhra Railway Station and a coach was set on fire resulting in death of 59 persons and serious injuries to 48 others. The petitioner herein was arrested in connection with the said offence on 6.2.2003 and is charged for committing offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 332, 337, 338, 435, 186, 120(b), 153(a), 302, 307, 395, 397 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2) and Section 3(3) of the POTA, and Sections 141, 151 and 152 of the Indian Railways Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Properties Act. He moved an application for being enlarged on bail, which was rejected by the learned Special Judge (POTA) on 7.7.2003 and the appeal preferred by him against the said order was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 2.8.2003. The present Special Leave Petition has been preferred challenging the aforesaid orders.2. We have heard Shri Ram...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC2421; 2004(5)ALD84(SC); 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)793; 2005(2)ALT4; 2004(4)AWC3560(SC); 2004(3)BLJR1739; [2004]121CompCas99(SC); (2005)4CompLJ503(SC); [2004(2)JCR284(SC)]; 2
Ruma Pal, J. 1. Leave granted.2. The appellant had been sanctioned a sum of Rs. 70 lakhs by the Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'BICICO') in April 1992 for financing the construction of a hotel. According to the appellant, BICICO only disbursed a sum of Rs. 44.56 lakhs in instalments as a result of which the appellant could not complete the project without a huge cost overrun. From time to time upto 2001-2002, the appellant repaid about Rs. 14.23 lakh to BICICO. However, the outstanding amount, due from the appellant according to BICICO as on March 2002, was Rs. 191.3 lakhs including interest. Proceedings were therefore commenced by BICICO under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 for sale of the hotel which had been mortgaged by the appellant to BICICO by way of security against the loan.The hotel was valued on 3rd July 2001 by BICICO through its valuer. According to this valuation, the property was worth Rs. 2.16 cro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC2170; 2004CriLJ2020; (2004)2GLR1350; JT2004(4)SC262; 2004(3)SCALE372; (2004)9SCC300; 2004(2)LC1023(SC)
N. Santosh Hegde, J.1. The appellant herein was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as also under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. He was convicted for the said offences to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month by the Special Judge, Ahmedabad.2. An appeal filed against the said judgment and conviction to the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad having failed, the appellant is now before us in this appeal.3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this case are as follows:When the appellant was working as a Senior Clerk in the office of Licensing Board, Gujarat, the complainant was working as a Junior Assistant Electrical Inspector. The appellant while holding the said post was responsible for clearing TA, DA, bills of the complainant. It is the case of the prosecution that for clearing one such bill of the complainant, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC2141; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)771; 2004(4)ALT50(SC); [2004]121CompCas409(SC); (2004)3CompLJ159(SC); II(2004)CPJ12(SC); 2004(2)CTC535; JT2004(5)SC17; 2004(2)KLT999(SC); (20
ORDER1. In this batch of matters the question is whether grant of interest at the rate of 18% per annum by the Consumer Forums in all cases is justifiable. As facts are varying, at this stage, this Court is only dealing with the question of law. Thereafter this Court shall take up each case separately.2. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission considered a bunch of matters, the lead matter being the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Darsh Kumar. The Commission held, in those cases, that in cases of deficiency of service by development authorities like HUDA and GDA, interest must be awarded at the rate of 18% per annum and that this would take into consideration the escalation in the cost of construction as well.3. Pursuant to this Judgment the National Commission has been disposing of all subsequent matters with a one paragraph order which, for all practical purposes, reads as under:-'We have already taken a view in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authori...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(2)BLJR849; 2004CriLJ2833; JT2004(3)SC461; 2004(3)SCALE362; (2004)11SCC576
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. The appeal presents a strange scenario where the accusation is that appellant No. 2, a doctor doctored documents so that his son appellant No. 1 would get admission to a medical college and become a doctor. Allegations were to the effect that they manipulated mark sheets and on the basis of forged mark sheets he got admission which otherwise would not have been available to him. The mark sheets related to the two pre-degree examinations of the Kerala University conducted in 1978-79 and 1979-80, for two years i.e. Ist and IInd year respectively. they faced trial with two others. For the sake of convenience they are described as A-1 and A-2 and the other two who are acquitted as A-3 and A-4.2. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is essentially as follows:A-1 is the son A-2, who was running a nursing home at Ernakulam during the relevant period and A-4 was an Assistant Registrar, Examination Wing, Kerala University. A-1 was a Pre-degree student during the aca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1933; 2004(1)ALD(Cri)642; 2004CriLJ1791; I(2004)DMC586SC; JT2004(3)SC560; 2004(3)SCALE339; (2004)4SCC470
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. The State of Andhra Pradesh has questioned legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court holding respondents to be not guilty of the alleged offences for which the Trial Court had convicted them i.e. offences punishable under Section 304B and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (for short 'the IPC'). Three persons faced trial relating to the alleged suicidal death of one Mangala (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). A-3 was her husband, while A-1 and A-2 were her brother-in-law and mother-in-law respectively. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court. A-2 expired and the appeal was held to be abated so far she was concerned.2. Accusations which led to the trial were as follows:The deceased and A-3 were married on 6.7.1989. Admittedly, the accused committed suicide at about 11.30 a.m. on the date of occurrence i.e. 2.4.1990. The accused persons took her to the hospital where she was declared to be ...
Tag this Judgment!