Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2841; 2005(2)AWC1804(SC); 120(2005)DLT147(SC); [2005(3)JCR133(SC)]; JT2005(5)SC323; 2005(II)OLR(SC)405; (2005)5SCC330
R.C. Lahoti, C.J.1. On 24th January 1950, the Constituent Assembly of India finally met to sign the Constitution. The question of having a National Anthem for India as a free country and a nation was under consideration. The Constituent Assembly had appointed a Committee to make recommendations about the final selection of a National Anthem.2. After deliberations it was considered desirable to leave it with the President to make a declaration in the Assembly on the question of adopting a National Anthem for India. In the Constitution Hall, on 24th January 1950, where the Constituent Assembly of India finally met to sign the Constitution, President Dr. Rajendra Prasad declared his decision on the matter relating to National Anthem in his opening statement in the following words:'There is one matter which has been pending for discussion, namely the question of the National Anthem. At one time it was thought that the matter might be brought up before the House and a decision taken by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2571; JT2005(5)SC491; (2005)5SCC510
R.C. Lahoti, C.J.1. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 93 of 2003 was filed by Sanjiv Kumar, an IAS officer of the year 1985 complaining of large scale corruption and tampering of records in filling up of about 4000 vacancies of JBT teachers in the State of Haryana. Disposing of the writ petition, vide its order dated 25th November, 2003, this Court directed the complaint to be investigated by the CBI.2. During the course of hearing of the writ petition, it was urged on behalf of the petitioner, Sanjiv Kumar that in order to build pressure on him, certain offences were registered and departmental proceedings initiated against him wherein he did not expect a fair investigation or inquiry so long as the matter was dealt with by the local officials. He reposed faith in CBI and submitted that whatever proceedings/investigation of criminal nature are pending against him could also be transferred to CBI. Accordingly, this Court directed not only the investigation into the offence, the commission w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(2)ALD(Cri)503; 2005CriLJ3085; JT2005(5)SC481; (2005)10SCC737
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. Accused Nos. 1 & 2 in the Sessions case No. 91 of 1998 (on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari) are the appellants in this appeal. They were prosecuted along with two others for the murder of one Rajeswaran by setting him on fire on the night of 21st July, 1994 at Palavilai village. The victim was admitted into the Government hospital, Nagercoil with 90% burn injuries and he died in the hospital on 24.7.1994. The appellants and two others were also charged for attempting to murder PW1--the brother of the deceased by stabbing him. The learned Sessions Judge convicted A1 (1st appellant herein) for the offences punishable under Section 302 and Section 324 read with 34 IPC. A2 (2nd appellant) was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302. In addition, he was also convicted under Section 324 IPC for causing injury to PW-1. Both of them were therefore sentenced to life imprisonment. A3 and A4 were found guilty under Sections 302 re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2846; 2005CriLJ3117; JT2005(11)SC257; 2005(4)MPHT1; 2005(II)OLR(SC)414; (2005)5SCC413
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Since the only question involved in this Appeal is whether learned Single Judge was right. In reducing the sentence as imposed by the trial court on respondent, detailed reference to the factual aspects is unnecessary.3. The respondent faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') The respondent- accused Babbu was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation. The conviction was recorded by learned Third Sessions Judge, Betul who imposed the aforesaid sentences. The respondent-accused preferred an appeal (Crl. Appeal No. 320/2003) in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. By the impugned judgment, the High Court directed the sentence to be reduced to the period already undergone. It noted that the learned counsel for the accused person who was the appellant before the High Court did not challenge ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(4)ALD112(SC); 2005(2)BLJR1313; JT2005(6)SC71; (2005)10SCC11; 2005(2)LC1049(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. When litigants come before courts raising disputes as to who shall function as Head of a religious or financial institutions, and they travel through the corridors of various courts and come before this Court, one wonders when do these persons get time to think of purity sublime essences of religion and their duties as religious leaders. It has a sad reflection on the credibility of the religious institutions. Materialistic pursuits increasingly replace divine pursuits. The present case at hand is no exception.3. The dispute centers round the question as to whether the removal of Ajendraprasadji Narendraprasadji Pandey from the post of Acharya on the basis of a purported resolution dated 11.5.2002 passed by a body calling itself Satsangha Maha Sabha was valid. Intimately linked with this core issue is the legality of the action taken to install Rakesh Prasadji Mahendra Prasadji. The dispute relates to Shri Swaminarayan Sampradaya, Vadtal Gaddi. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2564; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)770; 2005(2)AWC1793(SC); (SCSuppl)2005(4)CHN72; 120(2005)DLT83(SC); JT2005(5)SC329; 2005(2)KLT1018(SC); RLW2005(2)SC313; (2005)10SCC746; 2005
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') prescribes a period of twelve years for the execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction) or order of any civil court. It provides that the period would commence when the decree or order becomes enforceable. 2. The question that arises for determination in this matter is when would the period of limitation for execution of a decree passed in a suit for partition commence. In other words, question is when such a decree becomes enforceable - from the date when the decree is made or when the decree is engrossed on the stamp paper. Which, out of these two, would be the starting point of limitation?3. The facts are brief and undisputed. In a suit for partition filed against the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, final decree was passed on 7th August, 1981 in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. The stamp papers required for engrossing the decree wer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2576; 2005(2)ALD(Cri)482; 2005CriLJ3073; JT2005(5)SC579; (2005)11SCC146
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. The two appellants herein were convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 and Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each.2. On appeal to the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, the High Court upheld the conviction under the aforementioned Sections but reduced the sentence of the second appellant Balbir from ten years to seven years. The High Court further directed the appellant Jagdish to pay Rs.1 lac and the other appellant Balbir to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to Sukhbir (PW- 8).3. They were charged for attempt to murder Sukhbir (who was examined as PW-8) on 9.8.1990 at about 11.15 AM in the village Sihol. The prosecution case is that there were some ill-feelings between the accused and the members of the prosecution party on account of a land dispute. On 9.8.1990, PW-8 along with his brother Om Prakash (PW-9) we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(2)AWC1800(SC); (SCSuppl)2005(4)CHN39; JT2005(5)SC467; (2005)10SCC621
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the decision by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court holding that the auction sale on 18.8.1989 and confirmation thereof was illegal. Kedar Nath Dubey, the predecessor of the appellant was the successful bidder. Objection filed by Sheo Narain Dubey, the predecessor of non-official respondents was rejected by order dated 18.8.1989.3. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.4. The writ petitioner, Sheo Narain Dubey, the predecessor of non-official respondents had taken a loan for purchasing pumping set from U.P. State Sahkari Agricultural Avam Gram Vikas Bank Limited, Salenpur, Deoria. As the said loan was not repaid within the stipulated time, proceedings were initiated for recovery of amount as arrears of land revenue under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short 'the Act'). Land belonging to the Writ Petitioner was auctioned on 18.8.1989. Bid of Kedar Na...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2005(5)SC472; 2005(4)KarLJ1; RLW2005(3)SC321; (2005)10SCC757
B.P. Singh, J.1. This appeal by Special Leave is preferred by the petitioners impugning the judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore of April 10, 2000 in HRRP No. 668 of 1999. The aforesaid Revision Petition was preferred by the petitioners against the order of eviction passed by the XVI Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore city dated 16th March, 1999 in HRC No. 2800 of 1992 on the grounds specified in Clauses (f) and (h) under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, namely on the grounds of subletting of premises and bona fide personal need of the landlord.2. The Revision Petition was presented on June 25, 1999 and was taken back to remove certain defects, whereafter it was presented on July 9, 1999. Only a day earlier, on July 8, 1999, the petitioners sent to the landlord a sum of Rs.2400/- by money order representing the arrears of rent due and payable to the landlord on the day of presentation of the Revision Pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2503; 2005CriLJ2618; JT2005(5)SC555; (2005)11SCC142
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. Three accused persons viz., Seeman, Neelagiri and Leelavathi, were tried for committing murder of one Murugan, under Section 302 IPC. Accused - appellant no.1 was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the Sessions Court. The other two accused persons were acquitted. The said conviction and sentence, having been confirmed by the High Court, the appellant challenged the same before this Court by filing this appeal. The prosecution case, in short is that the deceased Murugan was the resident of Village Chithakkur. Three years prior to the occurrence, deceased Murugan and a girl named Kani fell in love and eloped from the Village. They were brought back by the villagers. After some time, Kani was married to some other person and deceased Murugan also got married to some other girl of a nearby village. On account of this incident, the accused persons had grudge to grind against the deceased, having brought bad name to the family and were awaiting an opp...
Tag this Judgment!