Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC4095; 2004(2)ALD(Cri)486; JT2004(6)SC168; 2004(6)SCALE346; (2004)6SCC488; 2004(2)LC1510(SC)
S.N. Variava, J.1. This Appeal is against the Judgment dated 10th December, 1997 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The Respondent was, at the relevant time, functioning as the Secretary of Visakhapatnam Port Trust. He was also a Member of the Tender Committee. He was also officiating as the Secretary of the Board of Trustees of Visakhapatnam Port Trust. The Visakhapatnam Port Trust had floated a tender, in response to which one M/s Ramesh Chandra & Company had submitted a quotation for Rs. 1,33,84,702.80. The tender of M/s. Ramesh Chandra & Company was the lowest. The complainant one Mr. G. Subrahmanyam was the Manager and General Power of Attorney holder of M/s. Ramesh Chandra & Company. According to the prosecution, on 23 rd December, 1991 the Complainant was called to the house of the Respondent. He was there informed that there were many complications in the tender and that in order to clear those complications a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- woul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC3940; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)943; 2004(5)ALT39(SC); 2004(3)AWC2603(SC); 99(2005)CLT83(SC); [2004(4)JCR97(SC)]; JT2004(6)SC254; 2004(6)SCALE418; (2005)9SCC367
Ashok Bhan, J.1. Plaintiff/appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellant') entered into a registered agreement to sell the land measuring 3.40 acres on 8.4.1986 with the defendant/respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'respondents'). Two suits were filed in the Trial Court. Suit No. 139 of 1987 was filed by the appellant for cancellation of the written agreement dated 8.4.1986 with the averment that the appellant was Bhumidhar in possession of the disputed plots mentioned in the plaint, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were money lenders and defendant No. 3 was their servant (who has not been impleaded as party in the civil appeal). Appellant needed Rs. 1000/-. Defendant No. 3 took the appellant to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who declined to advance the loan of Rs. 1000/- on a promissory note and insisted to advance the loan through a registered document. Appellant agreed to execute the registered agreement to secure the loan and went to the office of the Sub-Registrar along with the defend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC3942; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)1082; 2004(6)ALT43(SC); 2004(3)AWC2598(SC); 99(2005)CLT10(SC); [2005(3)JCR233(SC)]; JT2004(6)SC172; 2005(1)KarLJ298; RLW2004(3)SC459; 2004(6)
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is filed by the defendants against the judgment and order of the Karnataka High Court dated 31 st August, 1998 passed in R.S.A. No.76 of 1996 whereby the High Court allowed the second appeal and restored the judgment and decree of the trial Court decreeing the original suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for declaration of title to property described more particularly in schedule 'A' and for possession of seven rooms in possession of the defendants-appellants herein, which seven rooms form part of schedule 'A' and more particularly described as schedule 'B' to the plaint. 2. The short point which arises for consideration in this civil appeal is whether the suit for possession filed by the respondents-plaintiffs stood abated in its entirety as held by the Civil Judge at Kolar Gold Fields in Regular Appeal No.13 of 1991 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as 'the lower appellate Court'). 3. The facts giving rise to this c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2004)4CompLJ104(SC); 2004(95)ECC329; 2004(170)ELT257(SC); JT2004(6)SC107; 2004(6)SCALE343; (2004)11SCC203
A.K. Mathur,J. 1. Both these appeals arise out of the common order of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') dated June 7,2002. Therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.2. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of both appeals are as under. M/s.Rollatainers Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant'), is a limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant is engaged in manufacture of various products in seven of its factories situated in different premises, each of them duly and separately registered with the Central Excise Department. Out of the seven factories, two factories which are relevant for the purpose of these appeals are: (i) Paper Board Factory and (ii) Specialty Paper Factory. The paper board division is situated in Shed No.1, Narela Road, Kundli and engaged in manufacture of duplex board independently with its own set of plant and machinery, staff and workers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC4096; 2004(6)ALD31(SC); 2004(4)AWC3625(SC); 2004(3)BLJR1720; 97(2004)CLT426(SC); 2004(172)ELT446(SC); [2004(4)JCR63(SC)]; JT2004(6)SC93; 2004(6)SCALE327; (2004)12S
1. An application purported to be for clarification and/or modification of a judgment and order dated 9th October, 2003 has been filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 6 of the Appeal contending that certain factual errors had crept in the said judgment which could not be pointed as they were not present at the hearing of the appeal. Two apparent factual errors have been pointed out at page No. 7 and at page No. 6 of the judgment wherein the date of the consent decree passed in F.A. No. 450 of 1981 has been mentioned as 22.5.1988 in stead and place of 22.5.1998 and the said consent decree was passed by a Single Judge in stead of a Division Bench of the High Court.2. It has further been pointed out that although this Court noticed that the appellant herein was not a party to the First Appeal before the High Court but the same had wrongly been considered to be a ground for passing the impugned judgment as they could not have been impleaded. It has further been urged that the consent decree p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC3946; 2004(2)ALD(Cri)620; 2004CriLJ3860; (2005)1GLR585; JT2004(6)SC227; 2004(6)SCALE320; (2004)6SCC672; 2004(2)LC1484(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. The scope and ambit of Section 49(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (in short the 'POTA') fall for consideration in this appeal. Since the legal issue involved in this appeal relates to the question as to during what period prayer for police custody can be made, brief reference to the factual aspects is sufficient.2. On 27.2.2002 some persons died at Godhra in the State of Gujarat and several persons were injured when allegedly a train was attacked and set ablaze. The first information report was lodged and various persons were arrested in connection with the alleged occurrence.3. Initially, the case was registered for alleged commission of offences punishable under various provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'), Indian Railways Act, 1989 (in short the 'Railways Act') and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (in short the 'Public Property Act') read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (in short the 'Bombay...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC3954; 99(2005)CLT174(SC); JT2004(6)SC65; 2004(6)SCALE339; (2004)6SCC178; (2004)3UPLBEC2852
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. The Appellant Talcher Municipality constructed a market purported to be in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 295 of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950. The control of the said market is vested in the Municipal Council in terms of Section 296 thereof. Agricultural produces within the meaning of provisions of the Orissa Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') are bought and sold in the said market.2. The Respondent-Market Committee sent a requisition dated 13.2.1996 to the Executive Officer of the Appellant stating therein that as it was in possession of the said market where agricultural produces were being bought and sold it was liable to transfer the same in terms of Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Act. A similar request was made to hand over the Hat and the land situated at Angarua in terms of a letter dated 19.7.1996.3. The Appellant having failed and/or neglected to comply with the said statutory requisition, the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC4138; III(2004)CPJ4(SC); JT2004(6)SC283; 2004(6)SCALE315; (2005)9SCC443
S.N. Variava, J. 1. Before this Court a large number of Appeals have been filed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority and/or the Ghaziabad Development Authority challenging Orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, granting to Complainants, interest at the rate of 18% per annum irrespective of the fact of each case. This Court has, in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh : AIR2004SC2141 , deprecated this practice. This Court has held that interest at the rate of 18% cannot be granted in all cases irrespective of the facts of the case. This Court has held that the Consumer Forums could grant damages/compensation for mental agony/harassment where It finds misfeasance in public office. This Court has held that such compensation is a recompense for the loss or injury and it necessarily has to be based on a finding of loss or injury and must co-relate with the amount of loss or injury. This Court has held that the Forum or the Commission thus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC4133; 2004(3)BLJR1761; III(2004)CPJ8(SC); JT2004(6)SC99; 2004(6)SCALE311; (2005)9SCC433; (2004)3UPLBEC2189
S.N. Variava, J. 1. Before this Court a large number of Appeals have been filed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority and/or the Ghaziabad Development Authority challenging Orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, granting to Complainants, interest at the rate of 18% per annum irrespective of the fact of each case. This Court has, in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh : AIR2004SC2141 , deprecated this practice. This Court has held that interest at the rate of 18% cannot be granted in all cases irrespective of the facts of the case. This Court has held that the Consumer Forums could grant damages/compensation for mental agony/harassment where It finds misfeasance in public office. This Court has held that such compensation is a recompense for the loss or injury and it necessarily has to be based on a finding of loss or injury and must co-relate with the amount of loss or injury, this Court has held that the Forum or the Commission thus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(3)BLJR1773; III(2004)CPJ6(SC); JT2004(6)SC102; 2004(6)SCALE313; (2005)9SCC436; (2004)3UPLBEC2379
S.N. Variava, J. 1. Before this Court a large number of Appeals have been filed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority and/or the Ghaziabad Development Authority challenging Orders of the National consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, granting to Complainants, interest at the rate of 18% per annum irrespective of the fact of each case. This Court has, in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh reported in : AIR2004SC2141 , deprecated this practice. This Court has held that interest at the rate of 18% cannot be granted in all cases irrespective of the facts of the case. This Court has held that the Consumer Forums could grant damages/compensation for mental agony/harassment where it finds misfeasance in public office. This Court has held that such compensation is a recompense for the loss or injury and it necessarily has to be based on a finding of loss or injury and must co-relate with the amount of loss or injury. This Court has held that the Forum or the Com...
Tag this Judgment!