Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3667; 2005CriLJ4363; (2005)8SCC8
G.P. Mathur, J.1. Delay in filing the special leave petition is condoned.2. Leave granted.3. This appeal has been preferred by the State of M.P. against the judgment and order dated 13.8.2003 of Justice N.S. Azad of M.P. High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 1739 of 2002.4. The trial Court convicted the accused under Section 376(2)(g) I.P.C. They were awarded a sentence of 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of six months. The High Court partly allowed the appeal and while upholding the conviction of the accused reduced the sentence to the period already undergone which is nearly 8 months.5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the sentence imposed by the High Court is wholly inadequate looking to the nature of the offence and is contrary to the minimum prescribed by law.6. Sub-section (1) of Section 376 I.P.C. provides that whoever, except in the cases provided for by Sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with im...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC763; JT2005(12)SC417; (2005)8SCC13(2)
G.P. Mathur, J.1. Delay in filing the special leave petition is condoned.2. Leave granted.3. This appeal has been preferred by the State of M.P. against the judgment and order dated 5.8.2003 of Justice N.S. Azad of M.P. High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 67 of 2003.4. The trial Court convicted the accused under Section 376 I.P.C. He was awarded a sentence of 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of six months. The High Court partly allowed the appeal and while upholding the conviction of the accused reduced the sentence to the period already undergone which is nearly 1 year and 4 months.5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the sentence imposed by the High Court is wholly inadequate looking to the nature of the offence and is contrary to the minimum prescribed by law.6. Sub-section (1) of Section 376 I.P.C. provides that whoever, except in the cases provided for by Sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with imp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC765; [2006(1)JCR116(SC)]; JT2005(12)SC411; (2005)8SCC14(2)
G.P. Mathur, J.1. Delay in filing the special leave petition is condoned.2. Leave granted.3. This appeal has been preferred by the State of M.P. against the judgment and order dated 27.9.2003 of Justice N.S. Azad of M.P. High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 255 of 1999.4. The trial Court convicted the accused under Section 376 I.P.C. He was awarded a sentence of 7 years R.I. The High Court partly allowed the appeal and while upholding the conviction of the accused reduced the sentence to the period already undergone which is nearly 3 years.5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the sentence imposed by the High Court is wholly inadequate looking to the nature of the offence and is contrary to the minimum prescribed by law.6. Sub-section (1) of Section 376 I.P.C. provides that whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than 7 years but which may be for li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC777; JT2005(12)SC414; (2005)8SCC14(1)
G.P. Mathur, J.1. Delay in filing the special leave petition is condoned.2. Leave granted.3. This appeal has been preferred by the State of M.P. against the judgment and order dated 25.7.2003 of Justice N.S. Azad of M.P. High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 1353 of 2002.4. The trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 376 and 306 I.P.C. He was awarded a sentence of 7 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of six months under each count. The High Court partly allowed the appeal and while upholding the conviction of the accused on various counts reduced the sentence to the period already undergone which is nearly 2 years and 4 months.5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the sentence imposed by the High Court is wholly inadequate looking to the nature of the offence and is contrary to the minimum prescribed by law.6. Sub-section (1) of Section 376 I.P.C. provides that whoever, except in the cases provided for by Sub-secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC4421; 2005CriLJ4539; JT2005(12)SC428; (2005)8SCC276
B.P. Singh, J.1. Special leave granted.2. In this appeal the appellant impugns the order of detention passed against him by the State of Bihar on September 4, 2002 in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The High Court by its impugned judgment and order dated September 17, 2003 dismissed the writ petition and held that this was not an appropriate case in which the High Court could exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash an order of detention even before its execution. The correctness of the aforesaid view of the High Court is challenged before us. 3. The facts of the case are few and not disputed.The appellant claims to be one of the partners of M/s. Prakash Transport, a partnership firm having its principal place of business at Kolkatta with branch offices all over India including one at Raxau...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC161; [2005(107)FLR994]; JT2005(12)SC475; (2006)ILLJ431SC; 2005(8)SCALE482; (2006)9SCC321
S.N. Variava, J.Delay condoned.Special leave granted in S. L. Ps.1) In all these Appeals, the Respondents were daily wagers who were appointed as ledger clerks, ledger keepers, pump operators, mali-cum-chowkidar, fitters, petrol men, surveyors etc. All of them claimed the minimum wages payable under the pay-scale of regular Class IV employees from the date of their appointments. The question whether or not these persons were entitled to the minimum of the pay-scale of a regular Class IV employee was referred to a Full Bench for consideration. The Full Bench gave its decision. Following the Full Bench decision all these Writ Petitions have been disposed off with short Orders. In all these cases the Respondents have been directed to be given the minimum of the wages in the scale payable to a regular Class IV employee from the date of the filing of the respective Petition. 2) One other fact which must be mentioned is that, whilst these Appeals were pending before this Court, all the Respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC80; 2006(1)BomCR661; [2005(107)FLR1006]; JT2005(9)SC506; 2006(1)MhLj1; 2006MPLJ1(SC); 2005(8)SCALE202; (2005)8SCC351; 2006(1)SLJ303(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) dismissing the writ petition filed by him holding that the order of compulsory retirement passed by the authorities was in order.2. The background facts leading to the passing of the order of compulsory retirement are as under:-Appellant was appointed to the permanent Commission as a Pilot Officer in the Logistics Branch of Indian Air Force on 14th April, 1973. Prior to his posting at Nagpur vide order dated 17th November, 1990 he was posted at Trivandrum since 28th October, 1987. During tenure of his service in the Indian Air Force, the appellant was posted at Leh in Laddakh, Nal in Rajasthan and few other places.3. Appellant was married to Mrs. Roopa Malhotra on 19th October, 1973 as per Hindu rites. The marriage was also registered with the Registrar of Marriage on 5th September, 1974. On 21st March, 1992, Mrs. Roopa Malhotra lodged a complai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC4430; 2005(3)ARBLR429(SC); JT2005(9)SC173; (2005)3MLJ85(SC); 2005(8)SCALE372; (2006)1SCC86
S.N. Variava, J.These Appeals are against the Judgment dated 10th December 1999 of the Rajasthan High Court.Briefly stated the facts are as follows.The Appellants invited tenders for construction of Bhimsagar Dam. Pursuant thereto, various tenders were received. Ultimately the tender of the Respondent was accepted. A contract was awarded to the Respondent on 18th January 1979. Under the contract, the work was to be started on 16th November 1978 and to be completed by 15th May 1981. The work was not completed within this time and time was extended. It appears that the work was not completed within the extended time also. The Appellants terminated the contract and got the balance work completed from some other contractor. The Respondent raised various claims which were rejected by the Appellants. The Respondent, therefore, moved an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for referring the claims mentioned therein to arbitration. By an Order dated 11th November 1982, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3629; 2005CriLJ4365; JT2005(12)SC116; 2005(4)MPHT281; RLW2005(4)SC2858; (2005)8SCC13
G.P. Mathur, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been preferred by the State of M.P. against the judgment and order dated 13.8.2003 of Justice N.S. Azad of M.P. High Court in Crl. Appeal Nos. 979 of 2002.3. The trial Court convicted the accused under Section 376 I.P.C. and awarded him a sentence of 7 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. The High Court partly allowed the appeal and while upholding the conviction of the accused reduced the sentence to the period already undergone which is nearly 1 year and 2 months. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the sentence imposed by the High Court is wholly inadequate looking to the nature of the offence and is contrary to the minimum prescribed by law.5. Sub-section (1) of Section 376 I.P.C. provides that whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a ter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2006(1)JCR129(SC)]; 2005(4)MPHT480; RLW2005(4)SC2810; (2005)8SCC13(3)
G.P. Mathur, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been preferred by the State of M.P. against the judgment and order dated 4.8.2003 of Justice N.S. Azad of M.P. High Court in Crl. Appeal Nos. 273 of 2003.3. The trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment and fine. He was awarded a sentence of 7 years R.I. under Section 376 I.P.C. The High Court partly allowed the appeal and while upholding the conviction of the accused on various counts reduced the sentence to the period already undergone which is nearly 1 year and 7 months. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the sentence imposed by the High Court is wholly inadequate looking to the nature of the offence and is contrary to the minimum prescribed by law.5. Sub-section (1) of Section 376 I.P.C. provides that whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either descriptio...
Tag this Judgment!