Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(2)ALD(Cri)270; JT2004(3)SC391; 2004(3)SCALE267; (2004)11SCC585
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. The matrix of these three appeals is a judgment rendered by the III Additional Metropolitan Session Judge, Hyderabad acting as the Designated court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short the 'TADA').2. Nine persons were alleged to be responsible for homicidal death of one Joga Singh (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'). Five of them faced trial and one of them Nishan Singh (A-3) died during the trial and therefore the case abated so far he is concerned. The accused persons who faced trial were Esher Singh (A-1), Nanak Singh Nishter (A-2), Nishan Singh (A-3), Dilbagh Singh (A-4) and Rajender Singh Dhingra (A-6). Ram Singh (A-9) absconded. Charge sheets was filed against A-1 to A-9 for offences punishable under Sections 120B and 302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'), Section 3(3) of TADA and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 (in short the 'Arms Act'), read with Sections 5 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(2)AWC1794(SC); 2004(3)MPHT222; (2004)10SCC126
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. The suit property consists of a piece of land measuring 11.37 acres comprising in Survey No. 392 and the structure standing thereon known as Bungalow No. 39 in Sagar Cantonment area. A suit for declaration of title filed by the review-petitioner was directed to be decreed by the Trial Court and the decree was upheld by the High Court in First Appeal. The Chief Executive Officer of Cantonment Board, Sagar preferred an appeal by special leave which was allowed by this Court and the suit filed by the review-petitioner was directed to be dismissed. A perusal of the judgment under review reveals that in forming opinion against the review-petitioner in the matter of title over the land in suit, this Court placed reliance on Order No. 179 of 1836 of the Governor General in Council whereunder the land forming part of the suit property is known as one held under 'old grant'. This Court also noted with approval the view of the law taken in Shri Raj Singh v. The Union of In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004CriLJ3337; JT2004(3)SC547; 2004(3)SCALE295; (2004)10SCC620
B.P. Singh, J.1. This appeal by special leave has been preferred by the wife of the deceased, who is said to have been murdered by respondents 1, 2 and others on January 9, 1992 at about 6.30 p.m. The appellant has impugned the judgment and order of the High Court acquitting the respondents 1 and 2 herein of the charge under Section 302 IPC and convicting them instead under Sections 326 and 324 IPC respectively. The aforesaid respondents shall be referred to hereinafter as A-1 and A-2. According to the appellant, the facts proved by the prosecution clearly established an offence under Section 302 IPC and therefore, the High Court was not justified in acquitting them of the charge under Section 302 IPC and convicting them under Section 324 IPC respectively.2. The occurrence giving rise to the instant appeal is alleged to have taken place at about 6.30 p.m. on January 9, 1992. The case of the prosecution was that six persons including A-1 and A-2 way laid the deceased and assaulted him w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(2)LC916(SC)
B.P. Singh, J. 1. In this appeal by special leave the appellants are Ram Swaroop and his two sons Ram Kalyan and Hiralal. They alongwith two others namely, - Dakhan, wife of Ram Swaroop and Ram Kanya wife of Ram Kalyan were tried by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bundi, in Sessions Case No. 55 of 1986 charged variously of offences under Sections 302, 302/34 and 323 IPC.2. It was the case of the prosecution that in the occurrence giving rise to the instant appeal, they had assaulted Bhanwarlal, brother of appellant Ram Swaroop, who succumbed to his injuries, and had assaulted and caused injuries to Ram Kanwari (PW-9), wife of the deceased and Madan Lal (PW-8), son of the deceased. The trial court after an exhaustive consideration of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The witnesses examined by the prosecution in support of its case were not found to be reliable, their evidence was not consist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006ACJ441; AIR2004SC5147; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)58; II(2007)CPJ1(SC); 2004(3)CTC127; (2004)4MLJ109(SC); (2004)11SCC545
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. Appeal admitted.3. A complaint was filed for recovery of Rs. 21,04,835.83 p. by the appellant against the respondent under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, 'the National Commission'). According to the complaint, the respondent was a common carrier and was liable to compensate the appellant for the loss suffered because the appellant had effected delivery of goods entrusted to it by the appellant without obtaining the original lorry receipts from the consignee.4. The National Commission followed its earlier decision in the case of Delhi Assam Roadways Corporation v. B.L. Sharma (First Appeal No. 107 of 2001) decided on 12th December, 2002 and held that in the absence of a notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act, 1865, the complaint cannot be entertained under the Consumer Protection Act against a common carrier. The special leave petition filed against the decision in the case of B.L. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(2)AWC1956(SC); [2004(101)FLR648]; (2004)IILLJ806SC; 2004(3)SCALE570; (2004)9SCC754
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. In our view the High Court should have considered the grievance of the appellant on merits pertaining to his claim for higher special allowances. Merely because in the earlier writ petition the High Court had provided only for making representation, it would not mean that the matter is closed and the petitioner was not entitled to approach the High Court, later even though the representation was rejected and no relief was granted to him. The High Court never considered the case on merits.4. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court and remand the matter for consideration on merits....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1904; 2004(4)ALD25(SC); 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)435; 2004(2)AWC1342(SC); 2004(2)CTC307; [2004(2)JCR179(SC)]; JT2004(3)SC272; 2004(3)SCALE234; (2004)4SCC79; (2004)2UPLBEC18
G.P. Mathur, J.1. In view of conflict of opinion in two decisions of this Court, namely, Shri Vijay Cotton & Oil Mills v. State of Gujarat : AIR1991SC656 and Union of India v. Budh Singh and Ors. 1995 (9) SCC 233 the appeal has been placed for hearing before this larger Bench and the question in issue is whether in a case where possession is taken before the issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the claimant (owner of land) is entitled to interest for such anterior period in accordance with Section 34 of the said Act.2. The relevant facts may be noticed in brief. The Chief Commissioner, Delhi, on behalf of the Delhi Administration, issued a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 13.11.1959 for acquisition of a large area of 34070 acres of land including 1 bigha 11 biswa area in khasra No. 223 of village Kharera for the planned development of Delhi. This was followed by a declar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC4004; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)1050; (SCSuppl)2004(3)CHN77; 2004(2)KLT370(SC); 2004(3)SCALE288; (2004)3SCC437
ORDER1. Respondent has made appearance on caveat and takes notice.2. Leave granted.3. We are in a dilemma. Whether we allow or dismiss the appeals it would be an unpleasant duty done.4. A brief factual backdrop. The suit premises are situated in Jalandhar city. The respondent is the landlord and appellant is the tenant. On 15.4.1996, the respondent initiated proceedings for eviction of the appellant from the suit premises on the ground that the premises were required bona fide to satisfy the requirement of the respondent and his family members. On 24.5.2000, the Rent Controller directed the appellant to be evicted. An appeal preferred by the respondent came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The respondent filed a revision petition in the High Court under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The learned single Judge before whom the matter came up for hearing on admission seems to have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner with patience and dealin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(1)BLJR816; 2004CriLJ3328; JT2004(3)SC367; 2004(3)SCALE245
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. A Division Bench of the Patna High Court found the appellants guilty of offenses punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). In addition, appellants Lakhan Singh, Janardan Singh, Ram Janam Singh, Dani Singh, Raghu Singh, Ram Charitar Singh and Chandar Singh were found guilty of offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and sentenced each to undergo five rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- with default stipulation. It directed that the fine on realisation was to be paid to the informant by way of compensation. Appellant Lakhan Singh was additionally convicted for offence punishable under Section 436 IPC to undergo life imprisonment. 2. The present appeals have been filed by 21 persons. Twenty seven persons were named in the FIR and charge sheet was filed initially against 24 persons. In terms of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'), three more persons were add...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1866; 2004(2)BLJR1121; 2004CriLJ1796; JT2004(3)SC442; 2004(3)SCALE257; (2004)7SCC528
N. Santosh Hegde, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Leave granted.3. The appellant herein is the complainant in CBI Case No. RC.12(S)/98/SIC.IV/New Delhi. According to the said complaint, the first respondent herein conspired with the other accused named in the said complaint to murder his brother Ajit Sarkar who was then a MLA from Purnea constituency in the State of Bihar. The incident leading to the murder of said Ajit Sarkar took place on 14.6.1998 when said Ajit Sarkar was returning in his official car with 3 others after attending a Panchayat. It is the prosecution case that some other accused named in the complaint followed the car in which said Ajit Sarkar was travelling on two motorbikes and attacked Ajit Sarkar, his friends Asfaq Alam, Hamender Sharma and Ajit Sarkar's bodyguard Ramesh Oraon with sophisticated weapons consequent to which said Ajit Sarkar, Asfaq Alam and Hamender Sharma died and Ramesh Oraon was seriously injured. A complaint in this regard was re...
Tag this Judgment!