Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2331; 2005CriLJ2555; JT2005(4)SC307; (2005)11SCC261
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. Four persons including the two appellants herein faced the charges under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and Section 326 IPC and also under Section 25(1)(b) and Section 30 of the Arms Act for the fatal assault with deadly weapons on the two deceased persons namely Bajirao and Krishna (also referred to as 'Kishan' by some witnesses) on the forenoon of 18.8.1984 in the village of Walkewadi. On trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur convicted accused Nos. 1 to 4 under Section 302 read with Section 34. Accused Nos. 1 & 2 were alternatively convicted under Section 302 IPC individually. Accused Nos. 1 & 2 were also convicted for the offence under Section 25(1)(b) and Section 30 of the Arms Act respectively. A4 was also convicted under Section 324 IPC. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were, however, acquitted of the offence under Section 307 IPC. All the accused were sentenced to life imprisonment.2. On appeal, the High Court acquitted the accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offences un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC4018; 2005(100)ECC25; 2005(183)ELT120(SC); JT2005(11)SC188; (2005)4SCC182
ORDER1. This appeal is against the judgment of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 6th October, 1998.2. The question which arises for determination is : whether receipt of advance and the income accruing thereon has gone towards depreciation of the sale price.3. A conspectus of decisions show that inclusion of notional interest in the assessable value or wholesale price will depend on the facts of each case. In the present case, according to the adjudicating authority, the evidence indicated that the main object behind receiving advance from the customers was not security but collection of capital. In this connection, reliance was placed on financial accounts, MIS reports, pricing and costing. The said material was put to the officers of the company. The adjudicating authority found on evidence that the advances were invested and income therefrom by way of interest, dividends etc. constituted additional flow back (consideration) from the customer to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2227; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)535; 2005(2)AWC1355a(SC); 100(2005)CLT439(SC); 2005(3)CTC143; [2005(2)JCR248(SC)]; JT2005(11)SC379; (2005)3SCC734
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.10.1999 passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 15089 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by Swami Bodhananda had been allowed. The said writ petition was filed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents therein to give all assistance to the Appellant in taking over management of the institutions specified therein. The said writ petition was filed having regard to the judgment of the Civil Court.2. A decree passed by the Civil Court must be executed in terms of the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. The writ petition is not the appropriate remedy therefore. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. The Appeal is allowed. It, however, goes without saying that the First Respondent herein shall be entitled to execute the decree in accordance w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2326; 100(2005)CLT136(SC); 2005CriLJ2564; JT2005(5)SC571; (2005)3SCC763
B.P. Singh, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 6th April, 1999 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh whereby the Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. By dismissal of the Revision Petition, the judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Nuh and the appellate order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurgaon were affirmed.2. The appellant has been convicted under Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act and sentenced to undergo one year's simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-.3. Before us, counsel for the appellant submitted that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the sentence is harsh and this Court may reduce his sentence to the period already undergone.4. Having considered the facts and circumstances of this case and also taking note of the fact that the offence under Section 8 is punishable with a maximum of 5 years imprisonment, we do not feel persuad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3010; 2005CriLJ2565; JT2005(5)SC256; (2005)11SCC270
1. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Kerala against the order of acquittal dated 18th February, 1999 recorded by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No. 407 of 1998. The sole accused was the respondent herein who was charged of the offence of murder for having caused the death of Lakshmi Amma in order to commit theft of a pair of ear-studs and a gold chain on the evening of September 3, 1992. The case of the prosecution is that he beat her with a spade and thereafter buried her dead body in his land. The case rests purely on circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence to prove that the respondent had either assaulted the deceased or had buried her dead body. In order to prove its case, the prosecution relied upon three main circumstances. The first circumstance is that PW-3 was shown two ear tops by the accused at the bus stop. Secondly, the respondent had mentioned about the ear tops and chain to PW-2 though he had not shown them to him. In h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2214; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)449; 2005(3)ALT39(SC); 2005(2)AWC1355(SC); 2005(5)BomCR331; 2005(4)CTC71; (2005)3GLR2074; JT2005(4)SC282; (2005)4SCC789; 2005(1)LC716(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The Government of Gujarat issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act) for acquisition of lands situated in the town Santrampur which would have come under submergence of water released from Kadana Jalagar Yojna due to water logging at Kadana Dam. A declaration in terms of Section 6 was made on 13th October, 1980. In response to the notification issued to the claimants under Section 9 of the Act, compensation at the rate of Rs. 40/- per square feet for the acquired lands was claimed. Compensation ranging from Rs. 35/- to Rs. 60/- per square meter was offered by the Land Acquisition Officer in terms of an award dated 16th March, 1982 under Section 11 of the Act. An application for reference was filed by the claimants under Section 18 of the Act requiring the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter relating to determination of the market value of the acquired lands to the Civil Court. Before the Reference Court, the claimants initia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2674; 2005CriLJ3082; I(2005)DMC850SC; [2005(3)JCR89(SC)]; JT2005(5)SC252; 2005(4)KarLJ444; (2005)11SCC214
1. This appeal by special leave has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated 16th April, 1999 whereby the appellant has been found guilty of the offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He has been sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment on each count and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under the Dowry Prohibition Act. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. The brief facts of the case may be noticed :-The appellant along with his wife and son was put up for trial before the Sessions Judge, Chikamagalur. They were charged under Sections 302/34, 201, 203, 498A and 304B, I.P.C. as also under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The son of the appellant was accused No.1 (hereinafter referred to as A-1) while his wife was accused No.3 (hereinafter referred to as A-3).3. The case of the prosecution is that A-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2209; 2005(4)ALD98(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)458; 2005(2)AWC1348(SC); 2005(2)BLJR1273; 2005(5)BomCR690; (SCSuppl)2005(3)CHN83; 2005(4)CTC47; JT2005(5)SC20; 2005(2)KLT80; (2005)11SCC403
AR. Lakshmanan, J. 1. Leave granted.2. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 15.06.2004 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in C.A.N. No. 2642 of 2004 in S.A.No. 631 of 1993 and in C.A.N. No. 2643 of 2004 in S.A.No. 632 of 1993 whereby the High Court dismissed the applications filed by the appellants for substitution of their names, namely, Amit Kumar Shaw and Anand Kumar Shaw as contesting respondents in place and stead of Birendra Nath Dey and Smt. Kalyani Dey, both since deceased and represented by their legal heirs in their place. According to the appellants, the respondents above named had sold the suit property to the appellants, who are the only persons interested in the said suit property.3. The service of notice is complete in both the matters but no one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents.4. The short facts are as follows:The property in question originally belonged to Khetra Mohan Das and subsequently by way of lease and transfe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(3)AWC2948(SC); (SCSuppl)2005(4)CHN24; 2005(4)CTC55; JT2005(4)SC292; 2005(4)MhLj306; (2005)4MLJ24(SC); (2005)141PLR341; (2005)6SCC243
1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 3.9.2004 passed by the Bombay High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 102 of 1990 whereby and whereunder the Appeal preferred against a judgment and order dated 30.1.1990 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court in First Appeal No. 120 of 1984 affirming the judgment and decree dated 5.9.1983 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Kolhapur in Special Suit No. 1 of 1979; was allowed.3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The suit premises measure about 346 sq. yds. of land. Structures consisting of ground and first floor were built thereupon. The Appellant No. 2 was a tenant in the ground floor of the said building.4. A decree at the instance of his creditor was said to have been passed against the plaintiff-Respondents herein. The First Respondent with a view to repay the said loan entered into an agreement of sale with the Appellants on or about 30.12.1970. In terms of the said agreem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2327; 2005CriLJ2561; JT2005(5)SC475; (2005)10SCC714; 2005(1)LC734(SC)
B.P. Singh, J.1. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal by special leave which is directed against the judgment of acquittal recorded by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S.B.Criminal Appeal No.86 of 1996 and S.B.Criminal Jail Appeal No.51 of 1996. By its impugned judgment and order dated March 31, 1999, the High Court while affirming the conviction of the respondent under Section 450 IPC, acquitted him of the charge under Section 376 IPC. The sentence under Section 450 IPC was reduced to the period already undergone. Earlier the trial court had found the respondent guilty of the offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Under Section 450 IPC, the respondent had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years apart from payment of fine of Rs.1,000/-.2. The case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix Smt. Geeta Bai (P.W.1) is a widow aged...
Tag this Judgment!