Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC674; 102(2006)CLT114(SC); [2006(1)JCR143(SC)]; JT2005(10)SC40; 2005(9)SCALE403; (2006)1SCC54
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court dismissing their challenge to the decision of the State of Orissa in the Department of Steel and Mines, granting lease over an area of 6.90 acres in the villages Bada Dalma and Jangia in Mayurbhanj District in favour of respondent No. 4 and consequentially rejecting appellant's No. 1 application dated 7th October, 2002.2. Factual position in a nutshell is as follows:Appellant No. 1 applied for quarry lease to the Secretary, Government of Orissa Steel and Mines Department, in Form A of the Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1990 (in short the 'Rules') for 'decorative stone' for a period of 10 years. On 25.10.2002, the Managing Director of the appellant No. 1-Company entered into an agreement with one R. Narayan Swami for purchase of land measuring 1.134 acres in village Ambagan in the District of Ganjam to set up a cutting and polishing unit for decorative ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC396; 2006(1)ALT1(SC); 2006(1)AWC529(SC); 2006(1)BomCR57; (SCSuppl)2006(1)CHN70; 101(2006)CLT464(SC); [2006(1)JCR112(SC)]; JT2005(10)SC1; 2006(1)MhLj178; (2006)1MLJ
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Both the appeals involve identical issues except that appellant Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab was respondent No. 15 in the suit and appellant Kanti Lal was defendant No. 1.Challenge in these appeals is to judgment rendered by a learned Single judge of the Bombay High Court in WP Nos. 2500 and 2501 of 2004. The writ Petitions filed by the present appellants were dismissed by learned single judge holding that the trial court was right in its view that there was no scope for granting extension of time beyond the period of 90 days to file the written statement, in view of the amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'CPC') by Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 (in short the 1999 'Amendment Act'). Factual background needs to be noted in brief.3. In a suit for partition, separate possession and perpetual injunction the appellants were arrayed as defendant Nos. 15 & 1. The suit filed by respondent No. 1 was Special Civil Su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC376; (SCSuppl)2006(1)CHN61; JT2005(10)SC10; 2006(2)KarLJ341; (2006)142PLR661; RLW2006(2)SC1254; (2006)1SCC658
B.P. Singh, J.1. These two appeals by special leave are directed against the common judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated July 15, 2003 in H.R.R.P. Nos. 209 and 210 of 2000. By its aforesaid judgment and order, the High Court dismissed the revision petitions preferred by the appellants/tenants and upheld the order of the 15th Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore dated January 27, 2000 in H.R.C. Nos. 10700-10701 of 1991 thereby affirming the order of eviction on the ground of bona fide need of the respondent/landlord.2. It is necessary to recapitulate the facts of the case. According to the appellants, the property in question, of which the rented premises form part, was owned by the Bangalore Mahanagar Palike, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') which had leased out the building to one Mr. Dhanpal for a period of ten years. In O.S. No. 436 of 1964 on the file of the Munsif's Court, Civil Station, Bangalore, a decree had been passed in favour of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2005(10)SC483; (2006)142PLR726; 2005(9)SCALE450; (2005)13SCC221; [2006]144STC1(SC)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, J.1. The only question raised for consideration in this appeal is whether purchase tax can be charged on the element of market fee on the basis that the same does not form part of the turnover. Writ Petition filed by the respondent was allowed by the High Court and this appeal has been filed by special leave.2. Under the Punjab General Sales fax Act, 1948 (in short the 'Act') 'turnover' is defined in Section 2(i) to include:'the aggregate of the amounts of sales and purchases and parts of sales and purchases actually made by any dealer during the given period, less any sum allowed as cash discount and trade discount according to ordinary trade practice, but including any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods at the time of, or before, delivery thereof.'Interpreting this provision with reference to the Marketing Regulations, under Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (in short 'Markets Act') the High Court noticed that the inci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC263; 2006(1)AWC334(SC); (SCSuppl)2006(2)CHN1; [2005(107)FLR1191]; [2006(1)JCR308(SC)]; JT2005(10)SC8; (2006)ILLJ450SC; 2005(9)SCALE383; (2005)13SCC437; 2006(2)SLJ3
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court holding that the respondent were entitled to the benefit under the scheme called Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1993 of Government of India. Judgment and order dated 7th September, 2001 passed by the Calcutta Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (in short the 'Tribunal') in OA No. 992 of 1998 filed by the respondent under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (in short the 'Act') was held to be in order. Factual background in a nutshell is as follows:3. Respondents filed an original application before the Tribunal claiming that they had rendered service from 1988 to 1997 as casual workers. According to them they have completed the requisite period of service as described hereinbelow:'It was claimed that the department had circulated by O.M. No. 51016/2/90-Estt.(C) dated 10.9.1993 a s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC428; (2005)199CTR(SC)320; [2005]279ITR310(SC); JT2005(5)SC639; (2005)12SCC717
Ruma Pal, J.1. The appellant has filed these appeals as the agent of its employees who are the assessees in the present case. The appellant itself is a company which was incorporated in Panama. It entered into a wet lease with the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) under which the appellant agreed to supply oil rigs and the employees to man the rigs to enable ONGC to carry on offshore drilling within the territorial waters of this country. The appellant also entered into agreements (which were executed in the United Kingdom) with each of its employees who are residents of the United Kingdom. The schedule of work as specified in the agreements envisaged 35 days or 28 days work in a foreign location (in this case India) followed by 35 days or 28 days 'field break' in the United Kingdom (UK). 'Field break' was defined in the agreements to include, but was not limited to, undergoing training by attending classes at such places as may be specified, on the spot demonstration to update the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC387; [2005(107)FLR1200]; JT2005(10)SC199; (2006)ILLJ289SC; 2006(2)MhLj385; 2006MPLJ482(SC); RLW2006(2)SC1326; 2005(9)SCALE385; (2006)1SCC121
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. The Punjab State Electricity Board (in short the 'Board') questions legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the respondent had rendered service in excess of 240 days in twelve calendar months preceding his retrenchment and, therefore, provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') were required to be followed. The High Court upheld the judgment of the Labour Court, Amritsar which had directed respondent's reinstatement with 25% back wages from the date of demand raised by the respondent. 2. The factual position in a nutshell is as under:On 4.2.1988 the Board appointed respondent as Peon on daily wage basis from 8.1.1988 to 29.2.1988. It was indicated that if the work of the daily wager was not found satisfactory or if a regular employee joins, his services would be deemed to be terminated without any notice. It was also indicated therein that the daily wager was ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC381; 2005CriLJ139; 2005(9)SCALE371; (2005)13SCC766
H.K. Sema, J.1. There can never be more graver and heinous crime than the father being charged of raping his own daughter. He not only delicts the law but it is a betrayal of trust. The father is the fortress and refuge of his daughter in whom the daughter trusts. Charged of raping his own daughter under his refuge and fortress is worst than the gamekeeper becoming a poacher and treasury guard becoming a robber.2. The facts of this case as unfolded by the prosecution shocked the judicial conscience. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:- The respondent-accused Asha Ram married to one Smt.Kalawati - PW3. Out of the wedlock they have three daughters and two sons. Accused and PW-3 were having strained relations and living separately. PW-3 was living in some servant quarters in Brock-Hurst with one of the daughters and two sons. Accused was living in the accommodation allotted to him in the servant quarters attached to Raj Bhawan with the other two daughters namely Kumari Uma and Kumari...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC745; 2006CriLJ545; [2006(1)JCR35(SC)]; JT2005(10)SC302; 2005(9)SCALE444; (2005)13SCC360
H.K. Sema, J.1. Sole respondent was convicted by the trial court under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to R.I. for life for the double murder of his brother and sister-in-law with a Kulhari. The evidence on record sufficiently established that the respondent went to the house of the deceased armed with a Kulhari in his hand and hacked both of them to death one after another. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court on the re-appreciation of the evidence maintained the conviction of the respondent. The High Court, however, converted the conviction under Section 302 IPC into one under Section 304 Part I IPC for the first murder and sentenced him R.I. for 10 years and converted the conviction under Section 302 IPC into one under Section 304 Part II IPC with regard to the second murder and sentenced him to R.I. for seven years. Aggrieved thereby, the State preferred this appeal by special leave.We have heard the counsel at length.2. In this ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3613; [2006(108)FLR143]; [2006(1)JCR30(SC)]; JT2005(10)SC46; (2006)ILLJ685SC; 2005(9)SCALE379; (2006)1SCC253; 2006(2)SLJ50(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court setting aside the award of Labour Court, Bhubaneswar dated 29.10.1997 passed in I.D. Case No.90 of 1994 which directed the appellant-Corporation to reinstate the present appellant with full back wages.2. Factual background in a nutshell is as under:-The case of the appellant was that he was appointed as Junior Typist on N.M.R. basis by the respondent with effect from 12.7.1982. He continued in the said post for more than one year. All of a sudden another order was issued appointing him for 44 days with effect from 1.10.1983. On its expiry on 15.11.1983 another appointment order was issued on 5.12.1983 for a fixed period giving effect from 16.11.1983. Thereafter, he was allowed to continue for about 8 months. Later he was appointed on ad hoc basis in the usual scale of pay of Rs.255-5-285-EB-7-306-12-390/- with effect from 23.7.1985. Thereafter without any rhym...
Tag this Judgment!