Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (SCSuppl)2006(1)CHN115; 2005(2)ESC266; [2005(105)FLR835]; JT2005(4)SC594; (2005)13SCC630
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This appeal by special leave impugns the judgment of the Special Bench of five Judges of the High Court of Calcutta, which allowed two Letters Patent Appeals Nos. APO 601/87 and APO 604/87 and dismissed Appeal No. 187/88 and Writ Petition No. 5497/87. Appeals, APO 601/87 and APO 604/87 arose out of the judgment of a learned Single Judge (Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.) in Writ Petition No. 1033/84. Appeal No. 187/88 and Writ Petition No. 5497/87 that raised similar issues were also referred to the Full Bench. The Full Bench by a common judgment decided all the matters assigned to it.2. In all the Chartered High Courts, which exercise Original Jurisdiction, there has been traditional rivalry between the officers working on the Appellate Side and those working on the Original Side. The case on hand is yet another example of this rivalry resulting in expenditure of judicial time and talent which could have been utilised for better purposes.Facts:3. The appellants before us ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2436; III(2005)BC1(SC); [2005]125CompCas188(SC); (2005)4CompLJ493(SC); 2005CriLJ2566; 2005(3)CTC380; (2005)3GLR2052; JT2005(6)SC145; 2005(3)MhLj754; 2005(4)MPHT163
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. In all these appeals the appellants have questioned correctness of the judgment rendered by a Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court refusing to accept the prayer by the appellants to quash the proceedings initiated on the basis of a complaint filed by the respondents alleging commission of offence in terms of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short the 'Act') and other connected offences.3. The facts as projected by the respondents in the complaint were to the effect that the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') supplied goods on credit to M/s Garware Nylons Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company') (accused No. 14). Cheques issued by the company were not honoured by the drawee bank on the ground of insufficient funds. Payments were not made even after legal notices. There were 14 accused persons including the company named in the complaint. Some of the accused persons were Directors and while...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2813; 2005(3)ALD83(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)721; 2005(4)ALT19(SC); 2005(2)BLJR1114; 2005(5)BomCR801; (SCSuppl)2005(3)CHN180; 2005(2)CTC676; [2005(3)JCR182(SC)]; JT2005
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. Leave granted.The only question that needs to be decided in this case is whether in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of a property instituted by a purchaser against the vendor, a stranger or a third party to the contract, claiming to have an independent title and possession over the contracted property, is entitled to be added as a party/defendant in the said suit.2. Before we take up this question for decision in detail, the material facts leading to the filing of this case may be narrated at a short compass. The appellant herein has filed the suit against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for specific performance of a contract entered into between the second respondent acting as a Power of Attorney of the third respondent on one hand and the appellant on the other for sale of the contracted property. In this suit for specific performance of the contract for sale, the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 11, who were admittedly not parties to the contract an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC4043; 2005(100)ECC73; 2005(183)ELT241(SC); JT2005(5)SC95; (2005)4SCC337
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the commissioner dated 28.4.1998 with respect to (a) the excisability of the Kim am and classification thereof under subheading 2404.49 prior to 23.7.1996 and under sub-heading 2404.40 w.e.f. 23.7.1996; (b) rationale for invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1); and (c) eligibility for the benefit of Performa /motivate credit in respect of the chewing tobacco Kim am, is the question which arises for determination in these civil appeals filed by the appellant - assessee under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as 'the 1944 Act').2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that M/s Dharampal Satyapal (assessee), having its head office at 7/22, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi and factories at 96, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi / E-1, Maharani Bagh, New Del...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2486; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)633; 2005(3)AWC2133(SC); 2005(2)BLJR1153; 2005(4)BomCR587; II(2005)CPJ6(SC); [2005(3)JCR76(SC)]; JT2005(4)SC538; RLW2005(3)SC380; (2005)4SCC3
R.C. Lahoti, C.J.1. This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgment dated 10.3.1995 of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court, by which the Letters Patent Appeal filed by first respondent, Laffans (India) Pvt. Ltd. was allowed, the judgment dated 17.3.1993 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition was set aside and the notice of disconnection of electricity supply issued by the appellant was quashed.2. The appellant, Bombay Electricity Supply and Transport Undertaking is an undertaking of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (second respondent) and is a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The appellant was supplying electricity to the first respondent, Laffans (India) Pvt. Ltd. who had a showroom at Veer Nariman Road, Bombay, for carrying on business of retail trade in textiles. The appellant had installed two meters at the premises of the first respondent, for measuring the quantity of electr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2005(3)JCR147(SC)]; JT2005(11)SC43; (2005)11SCC293
ORDERG.S.R. 345 (E) - In exercise of the powers conferred by the Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 of the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 (26 of 1973), the Central Government hereby directs that the right, title and interest of the owners in relation to all the coal mines referred to in Section 3 of the said Act, except the coal mines specified against serial numbers 45 to 219 (both inclusive) 227, 235, 237, 260, 265, 275, 441, 483 and 583 of the Schedule to the said Act, shall with effect from the 9th July, 1973, vest in the Coal Mines Authority Limited, Calcutta, a Government Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), and having its registered office at Calcutta, in the State of West Bengal.'5. A perusal of this order makes it clear that all the companies mentioned in the schedule to the Act of 1973 were taken over by the Central Govt. and all their right, title and interest of all the private company stood vested in Central Government and Central Govt. vested ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(2)ALD(Cri)39; JT2005(5)SC564; (2005)4SCC165
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This appeal arises out of a judgment of the High Court of Karnataka upholding the conviction of the appellant on the charge of Section 302 and confirming the death penalty imposed on the accused-appellant.2. The appellant- Sabena was convicted for the murder of his wife- Nagamma, aged about 22 years, and his daughter Vijayalakshmi. , aged about 1 1/2 years. The appellant had earlier committed murder of his first wife- Malakawa for which he was convicted in Sessions Case No. 32/88. While the appellant was an under trial prisoner, he came into contact with PW 1- Dattu, who was also an under trial prisoner. PW 1-Dattu is the father of the deceased, Smt. Nagamma. The appellant persuaded PW 1 to give his daughter- Nagamma in marriage to him. PW 1 also gave an assurance to the appellant that he would try and get the appellant acquitted in the case against him. Later on, PW 1-Dattu was discharged by the court. During the period of the trial, the appellant was on bail for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2473; (2006)2CALLT1(SC); 100(2005)CLT407(SC); 2005CriLJ2585; JT2005(4)SC548; (2005)140PLR829; RLW2005(2)SC244; (2005)6SCC109
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1.In the murder trial of Shankar Guha Niyogi, a trade union leader, the accused were found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for life except one who was awarded death sentence. On appeal, the High Court reversed the trial court judgment and acquitted the accused. A news report was published in newspaper 'Hitavada' on 4th July, 1998 under the caption 'Sail terms High Court decision in Niyogi murder case as rubbish'. That report was based on the speech delivered by appellant Rajendra Sail in a rally organized to commemorate the death of Shankar Guha Niyogi and interview given by him soon after the speech to appellant Ravi Pandey, the correspondent of the newspaper.2. The news report termed the decision as rubbish and commented that a Judge who was on verge of retirement should not have been entrusted with the responsibility of dealing with such a crucial case. It was also alleged that the Judges who decided the matter have belittled the respect for judiciary by prono...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2491; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)822; 2005(3)AWC2212(SC); 2005(3)ESC323; [2005(105)FLR969]; JT2005(4)SC516; (2005)11SCC465; 2005(3)SLJ176(SC); (2005)2UPLBEC1413
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 10.03.2003 passed by the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Second Appeal No. 334 of 1999 whereby the High Court allowed the second appeal filed by the respondent-herein. 3. Respondent was working as S.D.I. in the Education Department. As per his service book, his date of birth was 30.07.1941. The Governor using the powers under conditional part of Article 309 of the Constitution of India framed the following Notification. The notification dated 28.05.1974 reads thus:-'State of U.P.Niyukti Vibhag Anubhag-4Notification28thMay, 1974No. 41/269 Niyukti-4 Governor using the powers under conditional part of Article 309 of the Constitution of India, frames following Niyamawali:-1. Short title an commencement /1/ This Niyamawali will be called date of birth determination Niyamawali, 1974 for the purpose of appointment in service in U.P. 2. It shall be enforced at once./2/. Exa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(3)ALD125(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)687; 2005(2)BLJR1235; 2005(4)BomCR395; 99(2005)CLT760(SC); 2005(3)CTC352; JT2005(4)SC528; (2005)3MLJ63(SC); (2005)4SCC1; 2005(1)LC690(SC)
R.C. Lahoti, C.J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant is a statutory body constituted under and governed by the provisions of the Gujarat Municipality Act, 1963. It discharges several public utility functions. In the years 1993- 94, the respondent was given a contract for collection of octroi on behalf of the appellant on the terms and conditions set out in the contract. The contract was terminated by the appellant. The respondent filed a civil suit alleging wrongful termination/breach of contract by the appellant and seeking inter alia a decree for recovery of damages. The suit ended in a money decree being passed in favour of the respondent and against the appellant.3. The appellant preferred a First Appeal which is pending in the High Court of Gujarat. Therein, the appellant moved an application under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking stay on the execution of the decree. On 19.9.2003, the High Court admitted the appeal for hearing both the parties on merits and gr...
Tag this Judgment!