Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2204; 2005(3)ALD52(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)495; 2005(2)AWC1752(SC); JT2005(4)SC24; 2005(4)KarLJ216; 2005(2)KLT580(SC); (2005)3MLJ95(SC); (2005)4SCC264
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 18.2.2003 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore in Writ Appeal Nos. 1677, 2500 and 2501 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the writ appeals filed by the Respondents herein were allowed, reversing the judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge of the said court dismissing the writ petitions filed by the Respondents herein.3. Keeping in view the point involved in these appeals, it is not necessary to state the fact of the matter in great details. Suffice it to point out that for the purpose of submergence and construction of canal for the Upper Krishna Project, the Appellant State intended to acquire some lands including the lands belonging to the Respondents herein. The parties entered into negotiations as regard the price of the lands; pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof consent awards were passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The amou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2871; 2005(2)BLJR1168; 2005(99)ECC689; [2005(2)JCR235(SC)]; JT2005(3)SC582; (2005)4SCC272; [2005]140STC284(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) No. 15419 of 2004.2. Interpretation and application of the notifications bearing Nos. 65, 66 & 67 dated 12thJanuary, 2002 issued by the State of Jharkhand pursuant to the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001 falls for our consideration in these appeals which arise out of judgments and orders dated 12.8.2003 and 16.3.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the Appellants herein was disposed of with certain directions.BACKGROUND FACTS: 3. The fact of the matter is being noticed from Civil Appeal No. 1912 of 2004.4. The Appellant, an existing company within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956, is a producer of saleable steel and other alloy products having a production capacity of 17.4 lakh tons. It at all material times was and still is producing steel through its Hot Rolled Mill (HRM). It is registered as a dealer both under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the Bihar Financ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2005(105)FLR938]; JT2005(3)SC565; (2005)IILLJ1050SC; (2005)11SCC286; 2005(2)LC856(SC)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. Leave granted.2. The employer-appellant (for short 'the appellant') is aggrieved by the impugned order in judgment by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in Review Petitions No. 2255 and 2275 of 2002 dated 22.01.2004 arising in D.B. Civil Special Appeal Nos. 589 and 591 of 1997 (KEC International Ltd. v. Shankar Lal and Ors.) decided on 08.11.2001 to the limited extent set out hereafter.3. According to the appellant, the only issue in these proceedings was regarding the validity of termination of the service of the respondent-workman with, effect from 08.08.1981 and other incidental matters. However, while deciding the dispute the Single Judge has also approved the proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') with respect to the subsequent dismissal with effect from 08.04.1992 arising out of the domestic inquiry and finding of guilt regarding later misconduct of the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2257; 2005(1)ALD(Cri)683; 2005(2)BLJR1185; 2005CriLJ2190; 2005(3)CTC313; [2005(2)JCR254(SC)]; JT2005(11)SC48; (2005)4SCC512; 2005(1)LC710(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. All these appeals involve identical question of law and are, therefore, taken up together. In each of these cases, on the allegation that the appellant was guilty of various offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act'), information was lodged, investigation was undertaken and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. The appellant in each case filed petition before the Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai, contending that in the absence of requisite sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') it was beyond jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance of the alleged offences. The stand taken in the petitions was that the alleged acts were directly and reasonably connected with official duty and since there was a direct nexus and relationship between the disch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005ACJ1131; AIR2005SC2157; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)486; 2005(3)AWC2221(SC); 2005(2)BLJR1148; (2005)3GLR2343; [2005(3)JCR65(SC)]; JT2005(11)SC264; 2005(3)KLT227(SC); (2005)3MLJ118; (2005)10SCC720
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Insurer') calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court holding that the appellant was liable to pay compensation to the respondent No. 1 for the injuries sustained by him in an automobile accident. The accident took place on 14.12.1997 at about 3.10 A.M. It was claimed by the claimant that he sustained injuries because of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle (Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. KL-7Q/9101) driven by the respondent No. 2. The claimant's stand was that he was travelling as a pillion rider. Total compensation of Rs. 9,00,000 was claimed. After considering the evidence on record, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor (in short the 'MACT') awarded Rs. 4,68,825 with 9% interest from the date of application till payment. The figure was arrived at in the following manner:-1. Rs. 2,88,000/- for loss of earni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2161; 2005(3)ALD93(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)640; 2005(1)ARBLR623(SC); 2005(2)AWC1420(SC); (SCSuppl)2005(3)CHN123; [2005]124CompCas811(SC); (2005)4CompLJ549(SC); JT2005
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This appeal by special leave has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.5.2002 of Calcutta High Court by which the application moved by the first respondent under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and Section 151 CPC was allowed and Hindustan Chambers of Commerce, Mumbai (second respondent) was restrained from proceeding in Arbitration Case Nos. A/186 and A/187 subject to deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs by the first respondent with the Registrar General within two days of receipt of the certified copy of the order.2. The first respondent Chand Mal Baradia filed Title Suit No. 993 of 1999 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with the arbitration proceedings, which had been initiated by the appellant Shree Subhlaxmi Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. The case of the plaintiff (first respondent) in brief is that he was carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Chand Mal Prakash Chand and Co. at Calcutta; that Shree...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2110; 2005(1)ALD(Cri)710; 2005CriLJ2152; JT2005(3)SC600; 2005(II)OLR(SC)482; (2005)10SCC614; 2005(1)LC665(SC)
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. The four appellants herein who are brothers faced trial before the Additional Sessions Judge - I, Jind for murdering one Hemant Kumar at a central place in Safidon town, on the night of 3.4.1996 at about 8.45 p.m. They were convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the accused. Hence, these appeals by special leave.2. The following is a brief account of the prosecution case and other relevant facts :On the night of 3rd April, 1996, all the accused attacked Hemant Kumar at Channi Chowk and stabbed him with knives. As a result of stabbing, he received six injuries out of which two were in the chest region. The fatal assault by the four accused was seen by the younger brother of deceased-PW4, who was returning home from his watch repair shop. On being informed by a passer-by on a bicycle, PW4 rushed to the spot and having noticed from a distance of 30 ft. or so that the attack on the decease...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2262; 2005(2)ALD(Cri)53; 2005(2)BLJR906; 100(2005)CLT130(SC); 2005CriLJ2195; JT2005(4)SC1; 2005(2)KLT743(SC); (2005)3SCC685; 2005(1)LC662(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. The only point involved in this case is whether the respondent No. 2, who was admittedly more than 16 years of age on 17.11.1999 when he purportedly committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 201 read with Sections 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(in short the 'IPC') would be given the benefits of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the '2000 Act') and would not be governed by the Juvenile Justice Act 1986 (in short the '1986 Act').3. Factual position is undisputed and is essentially as follows:A first information report was lodged on 20.11.1999 alleging commission of the aforesaid offences on 17.11.1999. Charge sheet was filed and charges were framed. After filing of the charge sheet respondent No. 2-Accused Sandeep made an application to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani praying that he should be considered to be a juvenile under the 2000 Act. Since on the da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2795; 2005(3)ALD58(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)606; 2005(1)ARBLR495(SC); 2005(3)AWC2930(SC); 2005(2)BLJR982; [2005]125CompCas1(SC); JT2005(3)SC558; (2005)11SCC197; 2005(2
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. These appeals arise out of an award dated 29.9.1997 passed by the sole Arbitrator viz. S.S. Mathur, retired Additional Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, on a reference of dispute concerning civil construction work awarded to the Contractor by the State of Rajasthan. The arbitration proceedings were regulated by provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act'). The sole Arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 6,68,058.16 with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the award till date of decree or payment, whichever is earlier.2. The State of Rajasthan under Section 30(1) of the Act filed objections to the Award. The Contractor by application under Section 17 of the Act prayed for passing a decree in terms of the Award. The objections of the State were rejected by the Court of the District Judge who made the Award Rule of the Court by passing a decree in terms thereof on 5.10.1999. In the order making award Rule of the Court and passing a decree th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2178; (SCSuppl)2005(2)CHN199; JT2005(3)SC521; 2005(4)KarLJ213; (2005)4SCC64
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. This civil appeal by grant of special leave is filed by assessee against the judgment and order dated 23.2.2000 of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No. 7000 of 1999 upholding the constitutional validity of Karnataka Motor Vehicle Taxation (Amendment) Act 8 of 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said 1997 Act').2. The appellant was the owner of 'Opel Astra' which was taxed on 'value basis' under the impugned 1997 Act. The said 1997 Act was challenged on the ground that the levy of 'life time tax' on the value of the car exceeding 1500 CC was arbitrary, discriminatory and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution.3. By order dated 29.6.1999, the learned Single Judge held that the vehicle costing Rs. 6 lacs and above constituted a different class by itself and, therefore, levy cannot be said to be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.4. Aggrieved by the said judgment the appellant herein carried the matter in appeal to the Division Bench, ...
Tag this Judgment!