Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2005]127CompCas389(SC); [2005(3)JCR1(SC)]; JT2005(11)SC478; (2005)4SCC634; [2005]64SCL59(SC)
ORDER1. These applications have been filed for clarification and/or recalling an order dated 3.11.2004 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1265-66 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the respective applicants were directed to deposit the money lying in the credit of the Appellants herein.2. The said applications have been filed in the following circumstances The Appellants floated various groups of companies including one known as 'M/s Century Consultants Ltd.' Two criminal cases were initiated against them arising out FIR No. R.C. No. 8(S)/200l to R.C. No. 12(S) of 2001/CBI, Lucknow dated 6.7.2001 and R.C. No. 15(S)/2001 to R.C. No. 18(S)/2001/CBI, Lucknow dated 6.7.2001; one relating to transactions in respect of M/s Country Inform Tech Pvt. Ltd. and another in relation to M/s Century Consultants Ltd. M/s Century Consultants Ltd. has since been directed to be wound up in a winding up proceeding by the learned Company Judge.3. In the aforementioned criminal proceedings, the Appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2356; 2005(2)AWC1691(SC); III(2006)CPJ8(SC); [2005(3)JCR127(SC)]; JT2005(5)SC151; (2005)5SCC284; 2005(3)SLJ156(SC)
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. Leave granted.2. What is the content of the statutory consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court postulated under Section 16(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is the core issue subjected to debate before us in these two appeals.3. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was brought into force on 24.12.1986. It is an Act 'to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumers' disputes and for matters connected therewith.' The Act established fora at district level state level and national level and laid down the procedure of appointing the members of the fore and their respective Chairmen. The dispute pertains to the statutory procedure contemplated for appointments of the Chairman of the State Commission the forum at the State level.4. Section 16(1) provides for the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2540; 2005(2)ESC291; [2005(106)FLR411]; JT2005(6)SC12; (2005)5SCC172; 2005(3)SLJ164(SC)
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. Leave granted.2. This group of appeals impugns the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in a group of appeals challenging the correctness of the decision of the learned Single Judge, who allowed a batch of writ petitions resulting in the quashing of certain Government Orders relating to selection for training of candidates for appointment as Assistant Teachers in the primary schools run by the U.P. Basic Education Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board').3. The material facts relevant for disposal of this group of appeals may be summarized thus:For several years, the State of U.P. had experienced a severe shortage of teachers as a result of which it was finding it difficult to fulfill its obligations as mandated by Article 45 of the Constitution of India to provide free and compulsory education for all children up to the age of 14 years. The State Government runs a training college in each district (about 70 in number) where the candida...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2362; JT2005(5)SC139; (2005)5SCC375; 2006(1)ShimLC86
R.C. Lahoti, C.J.1. An application seeking an order of eviction under Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, hereinafter, the Act for short, was allowed by the Rent Controller and the tenant was ordered to be evicted. The order was maintained in appeal by the Appellate Authority. The High Court has in exercise of revision jurisdiction set aside the order of eviction. The aggrieved landlords have come up in appeal by special leave.2. It will be necessary to set out the relevant material facts in order to appreciate the controversy arising for decision. The suit premises are part of a double-storeyed building, bearing house number 108, situated in the city of Shimla, where the Act is applicable. The ground floor consists of one shop, one godown, one store-room and one kitchen. The first floor consists of two rooms, a kitchen, latrine and one verandah. The property belonged to one Ramji Dass. The two appellants before us, namely, Kailash Chand and Nokha ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2643; 2005(2)ALD(Cri)399; 100(2005)CLT225(SC); 2005CriLJ3075; JT2005(11)SC206; (2005)5SCC132
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The appellant was arrested on 21st February, 2004 for involvement in an offence under Section 120-B read with Sections 364(A), 341, IPC and Section 3(4) of The Andhra Pradesh Control of Organized Crime Act, 2001 (for short 'The Act'). The charge-sheet has since been filed in the Court of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. She moved the Sessions Court for bail and on rejection, she moved the High Court. The High Court declined to grant bail on the ground that though not Section 3(4), Section 3(2) of the Act is prima facie attracted and therefore the provisions contained in Section 21(4) of the Act limiting the powers of the Court to grant bail would apply. The High Court observed that 'it is not reasonably possible to conclude at this stage there are no reasonable grounds for believing that she is not guilty of the offence and that she is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The request for bail cannot be accepted'.3. Aggrieved by this Order the S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 119(2005)DLT439(SC); 2005(2)JKJ10[SC]; JT2005(11)SC75; (2005)4SCC446; 2005(2)LC874(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. This writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') presents some unusual features. In mythology Sati Savitri's prayer ensured that her husband Satyaban escaped jaws of death. Petitioner Smt. Angrej Kaur is the wife of one B.S.F. Constable named Surjit Singh. Though he has been declared to have died in the Indo-Pak war in 1971, the petitioner on the basis of certain materials believes that he is alive and is languishing in Kot Lakhpat Rai Jail, Pakistan.2. The factual scenario in the present petition as projected by the petitioner runs in somewhat similar lines and even at first flush may appear fictional. It is in essence prayer for writ in the nature of habeas corpus. Though technically it may appear to be unacceptable as the concerned person is stated to be in custody in a Pakistan jail, yet the petitioner's human emotions refuse to accept this legal landline.3. First the factual background as projected by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2653; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)950; 2005(1)CTLJ259(SC); [2005(3)JCR143(SC)]; JT2005(5)SC121; (2005)4SCC435
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. Leave granted.2. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.3.2005 of a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court by which the appeals preferred against the interim order passed by a learned Single Judge on 15.3.2005 were allowed and the interim directions contained in the said order were set aside.3. The West Bengal State Electricity Board (for short 'Electricity Board') issued a notice oh 8.3.2005 inviting tenders (for short NIT) for sale of its surplus power to different State Electricity Boards or Power Utilities on short term basis through Power Trading Agencies. Paragraphs 1 and 5 of the notice, which are relevant for the decision of controversy in hand, are being reproduced below :'1. Sealed tenders are invited by the Chief Engineer, Central Commercial Department, West Bengal State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, 8th Floor, Block-A, Bidhannagar, Kolkata - 700 091 from experienced and interested Traders and Business Enterprises havi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(2)ESC260; [2005(106)FLR207]; 2005(2)JKJ1[SC]; JT2005(5)SC193; (2005)IILLJ1034SC; (2005)5SCC337; 2005(3)SLJ148(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. These two appeals arising out of a common judgment and order dated 10.2.2003 passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Interpretation of a bipartite settlement dated 8.9.1983 is in question in these appeals which arise out of the aforementioned judgment and order passed by a Division Bench of the said court dismissing an appeal preferred by the Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank), affirming a judgment and order dated 15.12.1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said court whereby and whereunder an award dated 4.10.1995 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, directing the workman to be reinstated in service with the benefit of past service without any back wages had not been interfered with. 3. The workman was working as a Cashier-cum-Clerk with the Bank. He was transferred to Kolkata on or abo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2645; JT2005(5)SC129; (2005)4SCC779; [2005]141STC12(SC)
S.N. Variava, J.1. These Appeals are against the Judgment of the Madras High Court dated 8th October, 2001.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The Appellants are the manufacturer of sugar. They purchase sugarcane from farmers. By virtue of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 made under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 the price for such purchase is statutorily fixed. Clause 3 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order lays down the minimum price of sugarcane payable by a producer of sugar. This is the price which is payable immediately at the time that the sugarcane is purchased. Over and above this, by virtue of Clause 5-A, an additional price is also payable. This additional price is to be fixed on the basis of a formula laid down in the first Schedule of the Sugarcane (Control) Order. The Formula given therein is as follows: R-L+2A+BX = ------------2CR is the amount in rupees of sugar produced during the sugar year excluding the excise duty paid or payable to the factory by the pur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2853; [2005(106)FLR214]; JT2005(11)SC1; (2005)10SCC15
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. Leave granted.2. The 1st respondent herein belonging to A.P. Police Service of the rank of Superintendent of Police, filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, in the year 2002 questioning the two notifications dated 21.1.2002 & 15.2.2002 issued by the Central Government selecting and appointing certain police officers of Andhra Pradesh State cadre to the Indian Police Service against the vacancies of 1998 and 1999. It has been the case of the 1st respondent that despite his outstanding service he has not been selected whereas officers having inferior merit were selected. The main contention before the Tribunal was that there was no proper assessment of merit by the Selection Committee and the awards and commendations which he got and the 'outstanding' grading given in the ACRs for as many as four years were not duly taken into account by the selecting body, He claimed to possess superior merit over the three respondents...
Tag this Judgment!