Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC666; 2005(2)BLJR853; 2005(1)CTC764; 2005(2)ESC198; JT2005(1)SC340; 2005(1)KLT723(SC); (2005)2SCC65; (2005)1UPLBEC876
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. About two decades ago, on June 22, 1984 in Dr. Pradeep Jain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. : (1984)IILLJ481SC, it was directed that admissions in medical colleges or institutions run by the Union of India or State Government or a Municipal or other local authorities for MBBS and BDS courses to the extent of at least 30% shall be granted on the basis of All India Entrance Examination and 50% in respect of post graduate courses. The percentage of seats to be allotted on All India basis was modified in Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Ors. (II) v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and Ors. : AIR1985SC1059 and in Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Ors. (II) v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and Ors. : [1986]3SCR345. For MBBS/BDS courses, the All India Quota was directed to be 15% of the total number of seats and 25% of total number of seats for post-graduate courses. The percentage of post-graduate courses has been increased to 50% {Saurabh Chaudri and Ors. v. Union of Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2005)3CALLT7(SC); (SCSuppl)2005(3)CHN42; JT2005(1)SC275; (2006)142PLR743; (2005)2SCC400
G.P. Mathur, J.1. In view of difference of opinion between two learned Judges, the present appeal was placed for hearing before this larger Bench and the issue involved is whether an appeal preferred under Section 20 of the Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') without payment to the landlord or deposit with the appellate court all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected on that ground alone.2. Respondent No. 1 - Gouranga Chandra Dey filed an eviction petition under Section 12 of the Act on the ground of bona fide requirement and also default in payment of rent. The appellant-tenant contested the petition taking various pleas. The Rent Control Court, after appraisal of evidence on record, recorded a finding that the plea raised by the landlord regarding bona fide requirement of the premises was not established, but the appellants were defaulters in payment of rent and accordi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC710; 2005(1)ALD(Cri)610; 2005CriLJ898; [2005(1)JCR213(SC)]; JT2005(2)SC365; 2005(1)KLT19(SC); (2005)3SCC260
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court upholding view of the trial Court that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') was guilty of offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the 'IPC') and has been rightly convicted under such provision with corresponding sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment. Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolencherry convicted the accused and sentenced him which was confirmed by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. The revision application filed by the accused under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') was dismissed by the impugned order.3. The prosecution case is that on 27.10.1992 at about 5.30 p.m. while Krishnan Kutty (PW-1) was walking along the public road near Pulinchode Cruz Junction, the accused hit him on his hea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC722; 2005(1)BLJR335; 2005CriLJ904; [2005(2)JCR48(SC)]; JT2005(2)SC336; (2005)10SCC369
B.P. Singh, J.1. This batch of appeals by special leave arises out of a common judgment and order of the High Court of judicature at Patna dated 25th February, 1999 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 513 & 515 of 1986.2. There were 10 appellants before the High Court and those ten appellants have preferred these 4 appeals before us. Out of them, three have since died namely, Tribeni Ahir, Ramshish Ahir and Surajdev Dubey.3. The appellants were tried by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah in Sessions Trial No. 69/77. By judgment and order dated 30th September, 1986 the trial court found them guilty and convicted them of the offences with which they were charged and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment. What is of significance is the fact that appellants Tribeni Ahir (since deceased), Dhorha Ahir, Nand Kumar Ahir and Jugeshwar Dubey have been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC. The remaining appellants have been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(1)ALD(Cri)594; 2005CriLJ929; JT2005(11)SC209; (2005)2SCC409; 2005(1)LC446(SC)
H.K. Sema, J.1. All these appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 19th March, 2001 passed by the Designated Court No.3 at Ahmedabad in Terrorist Case No.2 of 1997, Terrorist Case No. 33 of 1994 and Terrorist Case No. 16 of 1995. The two-Judge bench before whom these appeals were posted for hearing referred the matters to a three-Judge Bench by an order dated 24.9.2002. The said Order reads as under:-'The issue involved concerns the admissibility of a confession in terms of Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 ( in short 'TADA ACT'). Consequently, therefore, the other provisions as contained in Sections 12 and 18 have to be read in order to assess the legislative intent therein.This Court in State v. Nalini : 1999CriLJ3124 stated the law to be as below:-'80. Section 12 of TADA enables the Designated Court to jointly try, at the same trial, any offence under TADA together with any other offence 'with which the accused may be charg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(2)ALT49(SC); 2005(1)BLJR468; [2005(2)JCR52(SC)]; JT2005(2)SC249; (2005)2SCC1; 2005(2)LC1168(SC)
A.K. Mathur, J.1. The appeal is directed against the order passed by the Learned Single Judge or the Patna High Court dated September 26, 2003 wherein the Election Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed with costs of Rs. 1000/-. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant election petitioner against the aforesaid order.2. The appellant was a contesting candidate in the State Assembly General Election from 38 Sararya Assembly Constituency which took place on 17th February, 2000. In that election the appellant lost the election and the respondent No. 1 Ram Das Rat was declared elected. Therefore, the appellant filed the petition challenging the aforesaid election on the various grounds i.e. non-compliance of provisions of Act and Rules and also non-compliance of the directions given by the Election Commission of India. But the main ground of challenge was miscounting of ballot papers resulting in not counting the valid votes cast in his favour. The difference of vote...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC688; 2005(79)DRJ305; JT2005(1)SC173; 2005(1)KLT510(SC); (2005)2MLJ27(SC); (2005)1SCC754
ORDER73. In view of the majority opinion, Civil Appeal No. 8213 of 2001, K. Prabhakaran v. P. Jayarajan, : [2002]SUPP3SCR1 is allowed. The judgment of the High Court dated 5.10.2001 is set aside. The election petition filed by the appellant is allowed. The election of the respondent P. Jayarajan from No. 14 Kuthuparamba Assembly Constituency to the Kerala State Legislative Assembly, which was declared on 13.5.2001, is set aside. The respondent No. 1 shall bear the costs of the appellant throughout.74. Civil Appeal No. 6691 of 2002 is also allowed. The judgment of the High Court dated 5.7.2002 is set aside. The election petition filed by the appellant shall stand allowed. The election of the respondent Nafe Singh from 37-Bahadurgarh Assembly Constituency is declared void as he was disqualified from being a candidate under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The respondent No. 1 shall bear the costs of the appellant throughout. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC862; 2005(3)BomCR139; JT2005(1)SC370; 2005(2)MhLj392; 2005(1)MPHT497; 2005MPLJ181(SC); (2005)2SCC591; 2005(2)LC812(SC)
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.1. The Constitutional validity of the Bombay City Civil Court and Bombay Court of Small Causes (Enhancement of Pecuniary Jurisdiction & Amendment) Act, 1986 (Maharashtra Act No. XV of 1987) (for short 'the 1987 Act), which received assent of the President on 4.5.1987, Maharashtra High Court (Hearing of Writ Petitions by Division Bench and Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1986 (Maharashtra Act XVII of 1986) (for short 'the 1986 Act'), which received the assent of the President on 28.2.1986, and the correctness of the Full Bench decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh striking down the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Letters Patent Appeals Samapti) Adhiniyam, 1981 (for short 'the Adhiniyam) abolishing Letters Patent appeals as invalid are under challenge in these matters.Civil Appeal No. 2452/19922. This appeal is directed against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Maharashtra made in Writ Petition No. 738 of 1992. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2005(1)SC263; (2005)2SCC92
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. The provisions of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution have evolved a separate scheme for the administration of the tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Tripura through the institution of District Councils or Regional Councils. These councils are vested with legislative power on specified subjects, allotted sources of taxation and given powers to set up and administer their system of justice and maintain administrative and welfare services in respect of land, revenue, forests, education, public health etc.2. The Mara Autonomous District Council, hereinafter to be referred as 'MADC' has thus been constituted as per the provisions of Paragraph 2(1) read with Paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India. The MADC consists of 19 elected members and the election is through adult franchise and 4 members are nominated by the Governor of Mizoram by virtue of the powers conferred on him under Paragraph 2(1) read with Paragraph 20BB of the Si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC807; 2005CriLJ1411; JT2005(2)SC407; (2005)10SCC417
B.P. Singh, J.1. Delay condoned.2. Application for substitution is allowed.3. In this appeal by special appeal the judgment and order of the High Court of judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated 20th November, 1998 in Criminal Appeal No. 196/94 has been challenged.4. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order affirmed the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The High Court upheld the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 of the Act but reduced the sentence of one and a half years under Section 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Act to one year rigorous imprisonment.5. The facts of the case are that at the relevant time the appellant was In-charge General Manager of the District Industries center at Ongole. His co-accused was an Attender in the District Industries center.6. The case of the prosecution is that PW-1 Samapat...
Tag this Judgment!