Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC622; 2006(1)ALD(Cri)218; JT2005(12)SC562; RLW2005(4)SC3069; 2005(8)SCALE498
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. 1434 of 2002.4. The trial Court convicted the accused under Section 394 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 5 years. The High Court partly allowed the appeal and while upholding the conviction of the accused under Section 394 I.P.C. reduced the sentence to the period already undergone which is about 358 days.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.6. The High Court has not assigned any satisfactory reason for reducing the sentence to less than one year.7. That apart, the High Court has written a very short and cryptic judgment. To say the least, the appeal has been disposed of in a most unsatisfactory manner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC572; 2005(2)ALD(Cri)958; [2006(1)JCR86(SC)]; JT2005(9)SC22; (2005)8SCC11
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.712 of 2000.4. The trial Court convicted the accused under Section 376(2)(g) I.P.C. and sentenced each one of them to 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- 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 under Section 376(2)(g) I.P.C. reduced the sentence to the period already undergone which is nearly 4 years and 8 months for the first respondent and 4 years and 3 months for the second respondent. 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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC4403; 2005(3)BLJR2229; [2005(107)FLR819]; JT2005(9)SC166; 2005(8)SCALE424; (2005)8SCC325; 2006(1)SLJ503(SC)
Arijit Pasasyat, J.1.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court holding that respondent is entitled to pension under the Central Civil Services Pension Rules (in short the 'Rules'). The view expressed by the Central Administrative Tribunal about the respondent's entitlement to suspension was upheld.2. The undisputed factual background is as follows:-The respondent was serving as a temporary Sorter on being appointed by the Superintendent, Railway Mail Service, 'U' Division, Muzaffarpur w.e.f. 14.10.1959. He was posted in the office of SRO Sonepur. He tendered his resignation on 16.5.1977 to contest election to Bihar Legislative Assembly. The resignation was accepted by letter dated 17.5.1977. Long after the resignation was accepted i.e. nearly after about two decades, the respondent filed a representation before the Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna for grant of pension. The same was rejected on the ground that since th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC623; 2005(6)ALT70(SC); 2005(5)CTC282; [2006(1)JCR82(SC)]; JT2005(9)SC47; RLW2006(2)SC1506; 2005(8)SCALE427; (2006)1SCC168
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The above appeal was filed by the unsuccessful defendants against the final judgment and order dated 06.08.1998 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Second Appeal No. 500 of 1989 whereby the High Court allowed the Second Appeal filed by the respondent/Plaintiff. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The respondent/plaintiff executed a sale deed in favour of Mst. Hasrat Bi after obtaining a loan of Rs. 400/- and also executed an agreement stating therein that in case she returns Rs. 400/- to Mst. Hasrat Bi within 3 years, property shall be reconveyed to him. The respondent failed to repay the loan within the stipulated period of 3 years. Therefore, Mst. Hasrat Bi got her name recorded in the revenue and sold the property to the appellant Ramlal Shyamlal and one Pyarelal by a registered sale deed for a sum of Rs. 4,000/-. According to the appellants, they came in possession of the property and are cultivating since then. Respondent No.1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC4397; 2005(6)ALD83(SC); 2006(1)ALT43(SC); 2005(5)CTC370; [2006(1)JCR75(SC)]; JT2005(9)SC1; (2006)2MLJ7(SC); RLW2006(1)SC130; 2005(8)SCALE473; (2005)13SCC71
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 06.03.1998 passed by the High Court of Madras in Second Appeal No. 1966 of 1984 allowing the same and reversing the judgment and order dated 15.11.1983 passed in A.S. No. 51 and 1982 by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri and restoring the order and judgment dated 20.11.1981 passed by the District Munsiff, House in O.S. No. 542 of 1978. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:-The defendant is the appellant in this civil appeal. One Munimalaiyan (plaintiff) executed a simple mortgage in favour of the appellant for a sum of Rs. 3,000/-. For securing the due repayment, 3 items of properties belonging to Munimalaiyan was given as security. Munimalaiyan was unable to discharge the simple mortgage and on the intervention of Panchayatdars, a deed was executed by Munimalaiyan in favour of the appellant herein (Chennammal). In and by the said deed, one of the properties which w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC4395; 2005(6)ALT75(SC); 2006(1)AWC23(SC); (SCSuppl)2006(1)CHN116; JT2005(9)SC171; 2005(8)SCALE585; (2005)12SCC588
ORDERArijit Pasayat, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal relates to a judgment delivered by a learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court in Second Appeal No. 174/90-D. It may be noted that by a common judgment dated 09.12.1997 two appeals, both filed by the present respondent No. 1 were disposed of. Second Appeal No. 174/1990 to which the present appeal relates was directed against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 42 of 1986 of Sub Court, Palakkad. Same was filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 118 of 1970 of the Munsiff's Court, Palakkad. The other Second Appeal No. 531 of 1990 was preferred against the judgment and decree passed by Sub-Judge, Palakkad in appeal which was filed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 126 of 1977 of the Munsiff's Court, Palakkad. By a common judgment, as noted above, the High Court disposed of both the matters. Learned Single Judge dismissed Second Appeal No. 531 of 1990, but set aside the judgment and decree ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC124; [2005(107)FLR840]; JT2005(12)SC515; 2005(8)SCALE397; (2005)8SCC760; 2006(1)SLJ312(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted in S.L.P.(C) 21363 of 2005/CC No. 6855 of 1999.2. Both these appeals have matrix in a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal filed by Ashok Kumar, the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 1999 and the appellant in the connected appeal. For the sake of convenience said Ashok Kumar is described hereinafter as the 'delinquent officer'. By the impugned judgment the High Court held that the removal of the delinquent officer from service was in violation of the provisions contained in Section 10 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (in short 'the Act') read with Rule 20 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (in short 'the Rules). The appeal filed by the delinquent officer was allowed upsetting the judgment of the learned Single Judge who had dismissed the writ petition filed by the delinquent officer.3. Factual position, filtering out unnecessary details, is as follows:There was a raid in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC50; [2006(1)JCR106(SC)]; JT2005(9)SC358; 2005(8)SCALE494; (2005)8SCC496
Altamas Kabir, J.1. O.S. No. 683/1970 before the X Asstt. Judge, City Civil Court, Madras was a partition suit in which a preliminary decree for partition was passed on 28.4.1972 and was followed by a final decree for partition on 1.12.1975. The 1st defendant in the suit is the father and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants and the 1st plaintiff are the sons. The 1st plaintiff having died, his legal representatives were brought on record as plaintiffs in his place. 2. Several Civil Revision Petitions, being C.R.P. Nos. 711/1993, 4, 5, and 7 of 1995, all arising out of the aforesaid suit, were taken up for hearing and disposal together by a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court and were disposed of by his judgment and order dated 22.11.1995. 3. The suit was in respect of a house property and by the preliminary decree, the 1/5th share of each of the parties was declared. By the final decree, the 1st plaintiff and 2nd and 3rd defendants were directed to sell their 3/5th share to the 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC4405; 2005(102)ECC529; 2005(188)ELT365(SC); 2005(8)SCALE394; (2005)12SCC731
S.H. Kapadia, J.Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal') was right in classifying 'motor-vibrator with actuators' under residuary sub-heading 8479.89 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (for short 'CTA'), is the question which arises for determination in this civil appeal filed by the assessee against the impugned judgment of the tribunal dated 10.11.1999.The appellant herein imported a complement of pulp-making machinery for conversion of wood-chips into pulp. The said machinery comprised of five components, namely, deliberator, screw feeder chutes, motor vibrator with actuator, sealing water system and high temperature protection equipment. According to the appellant, the function of the motor vibrator is to work in conjunction with the deliberator in feeding the wood-chips into the screw feeder at a predetermined rate. According to the appellant, since the said motor vibrator wor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC141; 2005(103)ECC1; 2005(189)ELT3(SC); JT2005(12)SC435; 2005(8)SCALE435; (2005)8SCC300
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Interpretation of an exemption notification dated 28.02.1982, as amended by several notifications, is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 05.03.2003 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai (for short, 'the Tribunal) in Appeal No.E/1801/02, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the Appellant herein from a judgment and order dated 01.02.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals) Vadodara, was dismissed.2. The Appellant, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, is engaged in the manufacture and production of excisable goods, i.e. cardboard containers. It is a Small Scale Industry. It opted for the benefit contained in Section AA of Chapter V of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 so as to avail the MODVAT credit of the specified duties on plastic coated paper known as 'LDPE coated paper'. It, however, did not avail of any MODVAT credit ...
Tag this Judgment!