Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2804; 2005(2)ALD(Cri)25; (SCSuppl)2006(1)CHN98; 2005CriLJ2569; 119(2005)DLT340(SC); JT2005(4)SC503; (2005)5SCC258
C.K. Thakker, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order of conviction and sentence passed by the Designated Court New Delhi on February 4, 2003 and February 5, 2003 in Sessions Case No. 49 of 2001. The said case was registered against the appellant under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'TADA') as also under the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'Arms Act'). For the offence under the Arms Act, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one year more. For the offence under TADA, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one year more. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. He was given benefit under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the period already undergone by him as set off.2. The case of the prosecution ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2468; 2005(4)ALD75(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)833; (SCSuppl)2005(4)CHN10; JT2005(4)SC618; 2005(2)KLT1007(SC); (2005)141PLR196; (2005)11SCC234
A.K. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras in Second Appeal No. 1866 of 1986 on November 19,1998 whereby learned Single Judge affirmed the judgment and order of the First Appellate Court and dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant herein.2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows. The plaintiff- respondent instituted Original Suit No. 8182 of 1980 before the XVIth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai praying for seven reliefs. The main reliefs prayed for in the suit read as under :' (i) Declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to the properties in plaint A & B Schedule absolutely after the life time of the lst defendant; (ii) For a declaration that the deeds of revocation dated 27.3.1979 registered as document Nos. 431 and 432 of 1979 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Madras in respect of properties described in Schedule A and B hereunder are void in law and not valid and binding...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3049; 2005(100)ECC16; 2005(183)ELT113(SC); JT2005(4)SC464; (2005)4SCC584
S.N. Variava, J.1. These Appeals are filed against an Order dated 18th November, 1999 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT).2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows.On 26th of July 1988 one Vijay Oil Mill having its address at Majevadi Gate, Junagadh, addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Central Excise, Junagadh, wherein it was mentioned that they had entered into a lease agreement with the Appellants. It was mentioned that Vijay Oil Mill was supplying oil cakes to the factory of the Appellants and that the Appellants, who are holding a valid Central Excise Licence, would be undertaking manufacturing activities for and on their behalf, i.e., on behalf of Vijay Oil Mill. The letter mentioned that the Vijay Oil Mill was accordingly filing a declaration under Notification No. 305/77 dated 5th November 1977. By the letter Vijay Oil Mill applied for exemption from licencing control and for permitting the Appellants to discharge all the excise liabilit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2992; 2005(2)ALD(Cri)361; 2005CriLJ2604; JT2005(5)SC550; (2005)11SCC212
B.P. Singh, J.1. These appeals have been preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.1761 of 1980 dated 19.3.1999. By its impugned judgment and order, the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents and acquitted them of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Earlier, the respondents were tried by the IV Addl.Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Session Trial No.172/80, who by judgment and order dated 12th August, 1980 convicted them of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.2.1980, Rudrapal Pandey (deceased) requested his nephew Ram Bahadur (PW-1) to take his wife Smt.Shyampati to village Haswa from where they were to board a bus to Fatehpur. They proposed to go to Fatehpur to consult a doctor since the said Smt. Shyampati was suffering from headache etc. The case of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2053; 2005(3)CTC428; [2006(2)JCR76(SC)]; JT2005(4)SC436; 2005(2)KLT779(SC); (2005)11SCC45
S.B. Sinha, J.BACKGROUND FACT:1. Sri Krishna Temple situated at Guruvayoor is one of the most famous temples in the world. The history and legends of the temple are intimately linked with great saints like Villwamangalam Swamiyar, Melpathur, the author of Narayaneeyam, Poonthanam and Kururamma. The temple attracts millions of devotees from all over the world. Zamorin Raja and the Karanavan of the Mallissery Illom were the hereditary trustees of the temple. Disputes and differences arose between the Zamorin Raja and the Karanavan of the Illom mainly about Orrayma rights which were ultimately determined by a judgment of the Madras High Court in A.S. No. 35/1887 on 1-11-1880.2. After the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1926 came into force, a scheme for administration of the Temple and its properties was framed in terms whereof the Zamorin Raja was entrusted with the management of the Temple under the supervision of the officers of the Board. The Karanavan of the Mal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2439; 2005CriLJ2579; JT2005(5)SC553; (2005)11SCC271
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 4th April, 1996 in Criminal Appeal No.381 of 1991. The High Court, by its impugned judgment and order, allowed the appeal of the appellants herein and acquitted them of the charge under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for which they were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No.41 of 1980 by his judgment and order of 6th February, 1981.2. We have heard counsel for the parties.3. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 5.10.1979 at about 4.00 P.M. in village Vikrampur, P.S. Kishni. The case of the prosecution is that PW1 Hori Lal, the deceased Netra Pal Singh, and his wife Renuka Devi, PW2 were working in the fields. The deceased sent his brother PW1 to bring a basket. His wife felt thirsty and they were going to drink water nearby when all the three accused arrived there armed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3039; 2005(5)BomCR251; [2005(106)FLR63]; JT2005(4)SC489; (2005)IILLJ1040SC; 2005(2)MhLj985; (2005)5SCC245; 2005(2)SLJ486(SC); 2005(2)LC1023(SC)
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated February 15, 2003 in Writ Petition No. 3947 of 1994 and also against an order dated January 14, 2004 passed in Civil Application No. 63 of 2003.3. To understand the controversy raised in the appeals, relevant facts in brief may be stated.4. The respondent herein - petitioner before the High Court - was in service of Oil and Natural Gas Commission, ('Commission' for short) appellant herein. He was holding the post of Additional Director (Finance & Accounts) prior to his retirement. As an employee of the Commission, he was allotted quarter on December 10, 1982. He retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation with effect from February 28, 1990. It is the case of the appellant that after the retirement, an employee has to vacate the residential accommodation given to him by the Commission. The respondent, therefore, was inf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005ACJ1441; AIR2005SC2985; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)575; 2005(4)ALT14(SC); 2005(2)BLJR1322; 2006(2)BomCR376; 2005(3)CTC373; [2005(3)JCR138(SC)]; JT2005(4)SC531; 2005(2)KLT848(SC);
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the Corporation. By the impugned order the Division Bench confirmed the compensation awarded to the respondents by the Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation Claim Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Thanjur (in short the 'Tribunal').3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:On 30.8.2001 one Sathyamurthy (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') lost his life in an automobile accident. His widow (respondent no. 1) and minor son (respondent no. 2) filed petition claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act'). Deceased's mother was impleaded as respondent no. 2 in the claim petition, while the Corporation was impleaded as respondent no. 1. It was stated in the claim petition that the accident occurr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2440; 2005CriLJ2578; JT2005(5)SC578; RLW2005(3)SC388; (2005)10SCC591
B.P. Singh, J.1. We have heard counsel for the parties.2. The respondent Jora Ram along with Mohan Ram and Durga Ram was put up for trial charged of the offences under Sections 302, 324 and 323 read with 34 I.P.C. The trial court by its judgment and order of 2nd December, 1997 found the respondent as well as the other accused guilty of the offences under Sections 302, 324 and 323 read with 34 I.P.C. They were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C., one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 324/34 I.P.C. and 6 months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/34 I.P.C., apart from fines imposed.3. On appeal preferred by the accused, the High Court by its impugned judgment of 11th November, 1998 partly allowed the appeal inasmuch as Mohan Ram and Durga Ram were acquitted of the charges leveled against them. The respondent herein was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. and since he had already served out the sente...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC4108; 2005(2)ALD(Cri)374; 2005CriLJ2606; JT2005(5)SC107; (2005)10SCC611
B.P. Singh, J.1. These appeals have been preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the judgment and Order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 17th December, 1997 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 185, 214 and 474 of 1997 along with Criminal Appeal No.(Capital Case)No. 198/97. The High Court also disposed of Reference No. 17/97. The respondents 13 in number were put up for trial before the Ist Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Etah in Sessions Trial No. 321/89. By judgment and order of 25th January, 1997 the trial court found respondents 1 to 5 guilty of the offences under Section 302/149 IPC, 436, 353 and 147 IPC. It sentenced them to death under Section 302/149 IPC, to life imprisonment under Section 436 IPC and 2 years rigorous imprisonment each under Sections 353 and 147 IPC. The respondents 6 to 13 were sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/109 as well' as under Section 436/109 IPC, and to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 353 IPC. They were, howeve...
Tag this Judgment!