Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(1)ALD(Cri)459; 2006CriLJ553; JT2005(10)SC194; (2005)8SCC11(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 11.7.2003 of Justice N.S. Azad of M.P. High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 1511 of 2002.4. The trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 376(2)(g) and 506 I.P.C. and sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment and fine. He was awarded a sentence of 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.200/- and in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of one month under Section 376(2)(g) 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 3 years and 7 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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC754; JT2005(12)SC559; (2005)8SCC12(1)
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 22.7.2003 of Justice N.S. Azad of M.P. High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 103 of 2001.3. The trial Court convicted the accused under Section 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced him to 7 years R.I. under the first count and 1 year R.I. under the second 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 3 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 d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2006(109)FLR31]; JT2005(12)SC390; (2005)12SCC688; 2006(2)SLJ68(SC)
B.P. Singh, J.Special leave granted in all the matters.In this batch of appeals the common judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated October 11, 2002 has been assailed. The matter relates to the conduct of competitive examination by Karnataka Public Service Commission for recruitment to the post of Gazetted Probationers (Group 'A' and 'B' Posts). Some of the unsuccessful candidates approached Karnataka Administrative Tribunal with a grievance that the competitive examination conducted by the Karnataka Public Service Commission was not fair and impartial. The manner in which the examination was conducted and the evaluation of the answer scripts by the examiners were suspect. In particular allegations were made about the favours shown to one K. Rameshwarappa, the appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 24322 of 2003 and two of his relatives who had secured high positions and were ultimately selected.The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal by its judg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(6)ALT79(SC); 2006(1)AWC17(SC); JT2005(12)SC420; RLW2005(4)SC2920; 2005(2)LC1383(SC)
1. Leave granted.2. This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the order dated 19th June, 2003 of High Court of Gujarat, by which the appeal filed by the appellant under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC was admitted, but no interim order was granted in its favour.3. The appellant filed Special Civil Suit No. 4 of 2000 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) at Jam Khambhalia against the State of Gujarat and Taluka Development Officer, Taluka Panchayat, Dwarka praying that a decree be passed declaring the notice of demand dated 18th November, 1999 for Rs. 62,70,123.89 issued by second defendant as illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently null and void and for a further declaration that the appellant is entitled to pay at the rates as stipulated in the deed of conveyance dated 11th February, 1970. A further relief is sought that the defendants be restrained from taking any steps for recovery of the amount of Rs. 62,70,123.89 on the basis of the aforesaid notice. In th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC4419; 2006(1)ALD(Cri)39; JT2005(10)SC206; 2005(8)SCALE452; (2005)8SCC501
ORDERB.P. Singh, J.1. The President of India in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (1) of Article 317 of the Constitution of India referred to this Court for inquiry and report as to whether Smt. Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi, Member, Maharashtra Public Service Commission, ought, on the grounds of misbehavior, to be removed from the office of the Member of the Commission.2. It appears that the Maharashtra Public Service Commission conducted an examination in the year 1999 for selection of Police Sub Inspectors, Sales Tax Inspectors and Mantralaya Assistants. In view of complaint lodged by the Commission in relation to mal practices in the said examination, Smt. Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi was arrested by the Anti Corruption Bureau on June 8, 2003. A Public Interest Litigation was also filed in the High Court of Bombay alleging conspiracy of agents with high officials in manipulating the results of the examination and Smt. Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi has been named and there is evidence with Anti Corru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC4333; (2005)198CTR(SC)313; [2005]278ITR546(SC); JT2005(12)SC98; 2005(8)SCALE148; (2006)1SCC646
Altamas Kabir, J.1. The question which has been raised in this Civil Appeal appears to have been considered by different High Courts which have expressed divergent views in the matter. The said question has come up before this Court for consideration to resolve the anomalous situation.2. The dispute in the instant case is with regard to disallowance of a sum of Rs. 31,38,017/- for the Assessment Year 1994-1995, which sum was claimed by the assessee as expenses towards rent, repairs, depreciation and maintenance of a guest house which was purportedly used in connection with the business of the company.3. Chapter IV of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), deals with computation of total income and is divided into several parts. Part 'D', beginning with Section 28, deals with profits and gains of business or profession. Sections 30 to 36 relate to certain deductions which are allowed inter alia, on account of rent, rates, taxes, repairs and insurance in respect ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC4238; 2005CriLJ4509; [2006(1)JCR70(SC)]; JT2005(12)SC379; 2005(8)SCALE165; (2005)12SCC537
A.K. Mathur, J.1. These Contempt Petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Sections 2 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India.2. The grievance of the petitioners was that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the judgment and orders passed by this Court on 20.3.2001 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8467-8468 of 1995. Therefore, contempt proceedings should be initiated against the respondents.3. In order to decide these contempt petitions it would be necessary to recapitulate some facts. Civil Appeal Nos. 8467-8468 of 1995 along with Civil Appeal No. 2167 of 2001 @ S.L.P.(c) No. 15849 of 1993, Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1994, Civil Appeal No. 6075 of 1997 were disposed of by this Court by a common order dated 20.3.2001. By that order this Court affirmed the order passed by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court that Kurk Amins appointed on commission basis for recovery of outstanding dues of the cooperative societies hold civil post a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC755; IV(2005)BC551(SC); 2006(1)BomCR531; [2005]128CompCas387(SC); (2005)6CompLJ129(SC); JT2005(12)SC156; (2005)4MLJ184(SC); (2006)142PLR404; 2005(8)SCALE255; (2005)8SCC190
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. Appellant No. 1, The Rajasthan Financial Corporation, is a corporation constituted under Section 3 of The State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SFC Act'). Appellant No. 2, the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, is a deemed financial institution by virtue of exercise of power by the Central Government under Section 46 of the SFC Act. The appellants are the secured creditors of M/s Vikas Woolen Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as, 'the company-in- liquidation'). By an order dated 14.6.1994, the company judge of the High Court of Bombay ordered the company-in-liquidation to be wound up. The Official Liquidator was directed to take charge of the assets of the company-in-liquidation. On 18.4.1995, the Official Liquidator applied for directions to the company court. He sought permission to get the property valued by a valuer from the panel of valuers of the Official Liquidator, and to sell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : IV(2005)ACC350; 2006ACJ423; AIR2005SC4425; 2006(1)ALT11(SC); 2006(1)AWC19(SC); [2006(1)JCR45(SC)]; JT2005(10)SC501; (2006)142PLR224; (2005)8SCC473
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this Appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court affirming the Award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara (in short the 'Tribunal'), disposing of an application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act').3. Background acts according to the respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'Claimants') are as follows:On 5th July, 2002 at about 7.30 P.M. one Satheesh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') lost his life in an automobile accident. The deceased was riding a Hero Honda Motor Cycle. The bus belonging to the appellant-Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') dashed against the deceased as a result of which he sustained serious injuries on the left side of his body, thereafter, he was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Tiruanantpuram where he expired. A claim petition was filed by the respondents who are the widow, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC59; JT2005(12)SC442; 2006MPLJ1(SC); 2005(8)SCALE338; (2005)12SCC778
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions. 2. In all the above appeals, a common question of law arises for determination and therefore they are heard together and are decided by the common Judgment. 3. All these appeals have been preferred by the tenants against whom a decree for eviction from their tenanted premises were passed by the Controller and confirmed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In three appeals, namely, S.L.P. (C) No. 17622/2003 - Mohinder Singh v. Git Singh, SLP (C) 19540/2003 - Laxmi Kant v. Surjit Singh Channa and SLP (C) 4566/2004 Shangara Singh v. Malkiat Singh leave to contest were granted by the Controllers and after trial, decrees for ejectment were passed against the tenants. In other appeals, leave to contest the landlords' applications' for ejectment were rejected at the initial stage by the Controllers. 4. Certain provisions of The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'The Act of 1949'...
Tag this Judgment!