Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC4459; 2005(4)AWC3645(SC); 2005(5)CTC571; 2005(2)CTLJ115(SC); (2005)7SCC484
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Civil Appeal Nos. 8739/2003 and 8740/2003 relate to civil writ petition No. 24966/2001 disposed of by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, while, Civil Appeal Nos. 8742/2003, 8741/2003, 8737/2003 relate to civil writ petition No. 18104/2002, which was disposed of following the view expressed in the other writ petition. The dispute relates to eligibility of appellants to be selected for dealership in petroleum products.2. Factual controversy lies in a narrow compass and is as follows:In both writ petitions challenge was to the selection of the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 8737/2003 and 8739/2003 for retail dealership of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (in short 'IOC') at different places. The appellants and writ-petitioners in the writ petitions before the High Court were applicants for dealership and distributionship of various petroleum products. Challenge to the selection was on the ground that the selected persons were not eligible for selection on severa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3297; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)1012; 2005(6)ALT28(SC); 2005(4)AWC3649(SC); 2006(1)BomCR386; 2005(4)CTC287; II(2005)DMC453SC; (2006)1GLR24; [2005(4)JCR42(SC)]; JT2005(7)SC59
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.12.2003 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2001 whereby the High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondent-herein/wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 05.03.1991. After the marriage, the parties led their conjugal life in the village to which the appellant belongs and the respondent-wife persuaded the appellant to stay at Bhubaneswar, the place of her service as well as her parental place. The husband did not approve such proposal as a result of which dispute arose between the parties. It was alleged that the respondent-wife behaved with her husband and her in-laws in a cruel manner. She deserted the appellant by staying in the house of her father since 22.10.1991. The appellant and his parents tried their best to bring the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3341; 122(2005)DLT562(SC); 2005(85)DRJ449; [2005(107)FLR37]; [2005(4)JCR49(SC)]; JT2005(8)SC11; RLW2005(4)SC2550; (2005)7SCC227
G.P. Mathur, J.1. 1. Leave granted.2. This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against judgment and order dated 5.5.2005 of Delhi High Court by which Writ Petition (C) No. 7387 of 2005, filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 7.4.2005 by which he had been transferred to Defence Research and Development Establishment (for short 'DRDE'), Gwalior, was dismissed.3. The plea taken by the appellant in the writ petition filed by him before the High Court was that he belonged to Army Medical Corps and was being shifted to a non-medical organization, which had only one officer of Army Medical Corps and that too of the rank of Major or Lt. Colonel. The transfer order was malafide as it had been passed on account of his success in an earlier writ petition filed by him being W.P. (C) No. 6131 of 2003, whereunder he had sought quashing of certain proceedings initiated against him and on account of the decision in the writ petition the respondents ultimately promoted him to the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC4284; 2006(1)ALD(Cri)48; 100(2005)CLT638(SC); [2005]127CompCas311(SC); 2005CriLJ4524; 2005(4)CTC684; JT2005(8)SC87; 2006(1)KarLJ118; 2005(4)MhLj1186; 2005MPLJ456(S
1. Special Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt.21st September, 2004 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Petition No. 4469/2002. The appellant is the complainant, and he is aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court whereby the High Court remitted the matter to the Magistrate on a finding that the Magistrate had issued process against the respondents without taking cognizance of the offence, and since taking of cognizance was a condition precedent, the issuance of process was bad. The correctness of this order is challenged before us. 3. It is not in dispute that four cheques were issued by respondent No. 2, the Managing Director of the respondent No. 1 Company for the total amount of rupees five crores. The payments were made by respondent No. 2 on behalf of the respondent No. 1 company of which he was a Director. The cheques were dishonoured since the respondent No. 2 stopped payment of those cheques. The appellant filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDERHeard parties.1. Leave granted.Mr. Pavan Kumar, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No. 1, namely, M/s. Jolen International Ltd. in all the Special Leave Petitions.2.There will an interim order of stay restraining the Respondents from using the word 'Jolen' in any manner on any of their cartons and advertisement....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3330; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)988; 2005(4)AWC3460(SC); 2006(1)BomCR770; (2005)7SCC605; 2005(2)LC1431(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. Leave granted.2. When one talks of freedom fighters' the normal image that comes to one's mind is a person who had suffered physically and mentally for unshackling chains of foreign rule in our country. The normal reaction when one sees such person is one of reverence, regard and respect. The brave courageous deeds of these persons is a distinctive part of India's fight for freedom. Many persons lost their lives, many were injured and large number of such persons had languished in jails for various periods. The common thread which must have passed through the minds of these people is their sole objective to see that their motherland has a government of its own, free from foreign rule. But these images get shattered when one hears that with a view to gain financially, vague documents have been produced, false claims of participation in the freedom movement have been made. It is a sad reflection on the moral values of the citizens of our country that a large number ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3467(SC); 2005(4)CTC269; [2005(107)FLR105]; [2006(2)JCR63(SC)]; JT2005(7)SC512; 2005(4)KLT91(SC); (2005)IIILLJ786SC; RLW2005(4)SC2512; (2005)7SCC447; 2005(3)SLJ45
ORDER OF TERMINATION IN THE PRESENT MATTER WHERE THE RESPONDENT WAS ON PROBATION CAN BE HELD TO BE INVALID? 28. The order of termination in the present case is termination simpliciter order and does not amount to any stigma. In this respect following cases are important:(i) This Court in the case of Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. The Union of India reported in : (1964)ILLJ752SC has held and observed:-'...The mere fact that some kind of preliminary enquiry is held against a temporary servant and following that enquiry the services are dispensed with in accordance with the contract or the specific service rules (e.g. Rule 5 in this case) would not mean that the termination of service amounted to infliction of punishment of dismissal or removal within the meaning of Article 311(2)....'(ii) This Court in the case of Shamsher Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab reported in : (1974)IILLJ465SC (7 Judges Bench) has held and observed as under:-'The fact of holding an enquiry is not always conclusiv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC4282; 2005(4)AWC3662(SC); 2005(3)BLJR1840; (SCSuppl)2006(1)CHN33; III(2005)CPJ43(SC); [2005(4)JCR68(SC)]; JT2005(12)SC21; (2005)7SCC106
H.K. Sema, J.1. Leave granted.2. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 26.4.2002 passed by the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission (in short 'the Commission') in Revision Petition No. 1460 of 2000.3. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:The respondent authority, namely the Ghaziabad Development Authority, floated a Scheme called Karpoori Puram Scheme for allotment of housing plots under the Self Financing Scheme. Pursuant thereto, the appellant applied for a plot of land measuring an area of 90 sq. mtrs. This was sometime in the month of July, 1991. On 30th July, 1994, the appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 96,948 as total and final payment (i.e. Rs. 81,020/- as actual cost and Rs. 15,948 as interest on delayed payment). The allotment of the plot was due sometime in 1997. However, the land in question could not be allotted to the appellant on the ground that the Karpoori Puram Scheme had been cancelled and a new scheme had been floated by the name of Swarn J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(6)ALT5(SC); [2005(4)JCR123(SC)]; JT2005(7)SC422; RLW2005(3)SC448
ORDER1. Heard parties at great length.2. These Special Leave Petitions are against the Judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 21st December, 2001 dismissing the Appeal filed by the Petitioners and the Judgment dated 4th October, 2002 dismissing the Review Petition.3. We see no substance in the contention that there has been non-appreciation or misinterpretation of evidence. In our view, the Courts below have correctly analyzed the evidence on record and correctly concluded, on the basis of material on record, that the Petitioner had entered into the Agreement to Sell not just on his own behalf but also on behalf of the other parties. The Courts below also have correctly recorded that the possession had been taken oh behalf of all.4. The case sought to be made out that after notice dated 11th September, 1976, calling upon the Respondents 1 to 8 to pay their shares, the Petitioner had cut off the other Respondents as they had not paid their share is not even pleaded. In any cas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2005(7)SC403; (2005)6SCC796; [2006]144STC81(SC)
Ruma Pal, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been preferred from an order passed by the High Court of Allahabad dismissing the appellant's writ petition. The appellant had asked for a direction on the respondents to hand over possession of 400 bags of gambler which had been detained on 20th August 1999 and subsequently seized.3. The appellant carries on business in Mumbai. It sent the to one M/s Kamakhya Like (sic) Industries, Varanasi. A declaration form (Form 31) issued under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (referred to as the Act) had been sent by the purchaser to the appellant in connection with the sale of the gambler. The gambler was despatched by truck from Bombay. At the Uttar Pradesh check-post the goods were detained on 19.8.1989. Certain documents were produced. The documents were found to be discrepant. A show cause notice was issued by the then Trade Tax Officer-II (hereinafter referred to as TTO-II), Sahayta Kendra Trade Tax, Jhansi to the truck driver on 20th August, 198...
Tag this Judgment!