Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC5050; 2004(2)ALD(Cri)977; JT2004(8)SC322; 2005MPLJ241(SC); RLW2004(4)SC588; 2004(8)SCALE139; (2005)9SCC103
K.G. Balakrishnan, J. 1. These appeals are preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh assailing the acquittal of the three respondents accused of the offences charged against them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The respondents-accused were found guilty by the Sessions Court, Rampur, for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for having caused the death of one Khurshid Mian.2. The incident giving rise to the present appeals happened on 2.8.1978 at about 5.45 P.M. in Mohalla Mazar Tat. On the date of occurrence, Achhey Mian, brother of deceased Khurshid Mian, who lived in Mohalla Nalapar, visited his brother Khurshid Mian. Their father, Banney Mian, had died 28 days prior to the date of occurrence and Achhey Mian visited his brother Khurshid Mian to discuss about the arrangements for the Chaalisvan [the fortieth day ceremony] of their late father. Achhey Mian found the house of his brother locked. There, he met Wajid Khan, who told him that Khurshid Mian...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(2)ALD(Cri)989; 2004CriLJ4634; 2004(4)MhLj963; 2004(8)SCALE107; (2005)9SCC36; 2005(1)LC85(SC)
ORDER FOR REMOVAL OF NUISANCE. (1) Whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub-divisional magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government, on receiving the report of a police officer or other information and on taking such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit, considers - (a) xx xx xx(b) that the conduct of any trade or occupation, or the keeping of any goods or merchandise, is injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community, and that in consequence such trade or occupation should be prohibited or regulated or such goods or merchandise should be removed or the keeping there of regulated; or(c) to (f) xx xx xxsuch Magistrate may make a conditional order requiring the person causing such obstruction or nuisance, or carrying on such trade or occupation, or keeping any such goods or merchandise, or owning, possessing or controlling such building, tent, structure, substance, tank, well or excavation, or owning or possessing such...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(6)ALD66(SC); 2004(4)AWC3224(SC); 2004(4)CTC789; JT2004(7)SC576; (2005)ILLJ6SC; (2004)4MLJ159(SC); 2004(8)SCALE116; (2005)9SCC748; 2005(1)SLJ390(SC)
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Leave granted.2. The above appeal was filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.07.2003 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 10285/CAT/2003 wherein the High Court as dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-herein and confirmed the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement3. The short facts are as follows:The appellant was appointed in the Northern Railways in Ministerial Service on 14.07.1965 and was due to retire on 31.05.2002. The appellant, while working as Head Clerk in the Northern Railways was issued a Merit Certificate, wherein his work and conduct had been highly commended. The appellant was also selected for being promoted as Office Superintendent Grade-II. However, he was not given posting of the supervisory post A junior to the appellant was favoured with the said posting and the appellant had protested against the favoured treatm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(1)ALT49; 2005(1)ESC52; JT2004(8)SC1; 2004(8)SCALE97; (2004)7SCC702
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Leave granted.2. The above appeals directed against the final judgment dated 13.8.2002 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 9653 of 2002 following the judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 9182 of 2002 allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein.3. During the year 2001, as an advance action for the year 2002, the State Government of Andhra Pradesh's General Administrative Department vide their D.O. letter No. 1875/Spl.A/2001-02 dated 25.10.2001 decided to send necessary proposals to the Union Public Service Commission for preparation of select list of Non-State Civil Service Officers for the year 2002 for appointment to the IAS under provisions of the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'). By this letter, ail the Secretaries of the State Government Departments had been requested to furnish the names of eligible Non-SCS officers for appointment to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(3)JKJ17; JT2004(8)SC422; RLW2004(4)SC585; 2004(8)SCALE104; (2005)9SCC243
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J. 1. Leave granted.2. The appellants were the defendants in the two suits filed by Madan Gopal, who is no more and is now represented by his legal representatives who are respondents herein. The first suit was filed to restrain the first defendant (appellant herein) from making any construction on the spot marked 'CB' in the sketch annexed to the plaint or in any other part of the land and also to restore the original position of the land at point 'CB' and to restore the entry gate to the suit property. The second suit was filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from changing the nature of the suit land or raising any construction or transferring the same to the detriment of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining defendants No.1 and 5 from installing and working the sawing machine at point 'A' as shown in the sketch plan.3. The original plaintiff's father and defendants' fathers were brothers being th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004CriLJ4639; 2004(96)ECC265; 2004(177)ELT8(SC); 2004(8)SCALE86; (2004)7SCC625
S.B. Sinha, J.1. These appeals arising out of the judgments and orders dated 04.04.2004 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 1397 and 1432 of 2003 involving similar questions of law an fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, the factual matrix of the matter is being noticed from Criminal Appeal No. 821 of 2004.2. The Appellant is the wife of the detenu Vinod Kumar Garg who was detained by an order dated 20th October, 2003 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Revenue, New Delhi purported to be under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the COFEPOSA Act').3. The grounds of detention indicate that the said order of detention was passed primarily on two allegations viz.,:(a) the export consignment was misdeclared stating it to be alloy steel forging (machined) although...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : III(2004)ACC292; 2004ACJ2094; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)1184; 2004(4)AWC3369(SC); 2004(3)BLJR1929; [2005]123CompCas327(SC); [2005(1)JCR41(SC)]; JT2004(7)SC519; 2004(3)KLT454(SC); (20
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. Leave granted.2. National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'insurer') calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court holding the insurer to be liable for indemnifying the award of compensation.3. Background facts in nutshell are as follows:Three persons were traveling in an auto rickshaw which met with an accident on 9.5.1992. Two persons lost their lives while one was seriously injured. Claim petitions were filed by the legal representatives of the two deceased persons while the injured filed separate petition claiming compensation in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act') The auto rickshaw in question belonged to Challa Atchayya (hereinafter referred to as the 'insured'). The insurer resisted the claim on the ground that the insured had not obtained permit to ply the vehicle and therefore in terms of the policy of the insurance the insurer ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004CriLJ4600; 2004(8)SCALE75; (2004)8SCC591; 2005(1)LC219(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Respondent No. 1-Sanjai Pratap Gupta @ Pappu (hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu') was detained pursuant to an order of detention passed under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (in short the 'Act'). The order dated 23.12.2002 was served on the detenu on that day itself. According to the order and grounds of detention, the activities of the detenu were considered to be prejudicial to public order. Specific reference was made to an incident dated 13.10.2002. One Anand Kumar Jain lost his life because of the firing done by the detenu and his associates. Attempt to take away the life of one Ajay Kumar Jain, son of aforesaid Anand Kumar Jain was made, but luckily he had escaped. Case was registered for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Reference was also made to several earlier incidents which according to the detaining authority highlighted the criminal an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(1)ALD45(SC); 2004(4)AWC3313(SC); [2005(1)JCR67(SC)]; JT2004(7)SC541; 2004(8)SCALE68; (2004)8SCC321
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. These four writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, though slightly differing on facts, raise the same issue of law and, therefore, can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.Writ Petition No. 344 of 2000:2. This writ petition is by a society of the residents of a colony known as 'Defense Enclave' in Meerut. The respondents to the writ petition are the State of U.P., the Meerut Development Authority and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Meerut, U.P.3. The second respondent, Meerut Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the authority') is a statutory authority constituted under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The objectives of the authority are securing the development of the development area according to plan and for that purpose the authority has the power to acquire, hold, manage and dispose of land and other property, to carry out building, engi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)1137; 2004(4)AWC3385(SC); JT2004(9)SC185; 2004(8)SCALE188; (2004)12SCC299; (2005)1UPLBEC64
ORDERArijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The respondent No. 1, while working as a teacher in Sanskrit in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, (AOC) Jabalpur, M.P. questioned his transfer to J & K. Smt. Sushila Pandey, respondent No. 5 in the present appeal was transferred to Jabalpur in place of respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 filed Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (in short 'Tribunal'). The transfer order was mainly assailed on the ground of alleged malafides and to be a punitive transfer issued in colourable exercise of power. The Tribunal noticed that the allegations of malafides were not established and the transfer was not vitiated on any score. Plea of the present respondent No. 1 that he and wife should be posted at same place was also held to be not acceptable. It was observed that the situation where the husband and the wife can be kept together would always depend upon the availability of vaca...
Tag this Judgment!