Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3593; (SCSuppl)2006(1)CHN37; JT2005(12)SC1; (2005)141PLR676; 2005(8)SCALE11
G.P. Mathur, J.Civil Appeal No. 2894 of 20011. This appeal, by special leave, has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.12.2000 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh by which the revision preferred by the appellant against the order of eviction passed against him by the Rent Controller as affirmed by the Appellate Authority was dismissed.2. Before examining the legal issues raised by the learned counsel for the parties it Will be Convenient to notice the facts of me case in brief. The respondent Dr. Raminder Pal Singh Sethi is a Dental Surgeon and he is co-owner along with his wife of a premises described as Shop-cum-Flat (for short 'SCF') in Sector 37-A, Chandigarh, in which father of the appellant late O.P. Vij was a tenant. The respondent filed a petition for eviction of O.P. Vij on the grounds, inter alia, that he was having his clinic in House No. 5, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh, but the owner of the said premises, namely, Shri Wasan Singh had filed an evic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(1)BomCR287; [2006(108)FLR754]; JT2005(12)SC57; 2005(8)SCALE1; (2005)8SCC51; 2006(2)SLJ32(SC); 2005(2)LC1409(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. All these appeals have a common matrix in a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the appeals filed by the present appellants which were filed against judgments of learned Single Judge.2. Factual background needs to be noted in brief:Around 1980 the All-India Transport Employees Association (in short 'Association') raised dispute relating to certain general demands including pay-scales, dearness allowance etc. in 'relation to employees employed with various transporters' having establishment all over India. The dispute was referred by the appropriate Government on 12th August, 1981 under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') for adjudication. Initially the reference was in respect of 259 employers. Subsequently, by a corrigendum issued on 25.2.1982 116 more employers were included in the reference. A common award was made by the Industrial Tribunal on 12th November, 1986. Award was challenged ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC4243; 2005(102)ECC513; 2005(188)ELT251(SC); JT2005(12)SC119; 2005(8)SCALE26; (2005)8SCC157
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in holding that the 'additive mixture' processed by the three appellants herein was excisable and classifiable under chapter sub-heading 2404.49 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and that the department was right in invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that M/s Hari Chand Shri Gopal, M/s Gopal Industries and M/s Gopal Zarda Udyog were the three assessees engaged in the manufacture of Chewing Tobacco (Final Product) falling under sub-heading 2404.40 of Tariff Act, 1985. In the manufacture of the final product, they were using an inter-mediate product known as 'additive mixture'. An intelligence was collected by the officers of the preventive wing of the Commissionerate to the effect that the appellants were manufacturing the said 'additive mix...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC4352; 2006(1)ALD(Cri)234; 2005(3)BLJR2097; 2005CriLJ4499; [2006(1)JCR1(SC)]; JT2005(12)SC310; 2005(7)SCALE700; (2005)12SCC545
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. All the three appellants were found guilty by the Sessions Court for various offences. Appellant Arnit Das was found guilty of the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act as also for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC and sentenced to death. Appellant Sidharth was convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 120B IPC and appellant Rohan Prakash was convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC. The two appellants who were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, filed separate appeals before the High Court of Patna and their conviction on all counts was confirmed. In the appeal preferred by Arnit Das, his conviction was confirmed but the sentence of death imposed on him was commuted to life imprisonment.2. All these appellants were tried by the Sessions Court alleging that they entered into a conspiracy on 4.9.1998 to do away with one Abhishek. Deceased Abhishek, along with appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC4233; 2005(4)AWC3786(SC); JT2005(12)SC49; 2005(7)SCALE669; (2005)12SCC121
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. In the elections to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly held on 21.02.2002, the appellant herein was declared elected from 166, Kauriram Assembly Constituency (General). The election of the appellant was challenged by the respondent, the defeated candidate, by Election Petition No. 5 of 2002 filed in the High Court of Allahabad under Section 80 read with Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The challenge to the election was rested on Section 100 (1) (c) of the Act. The plea was that the Returning Officer, while scrutinizing the nominations, had wrongly rejected the nomination of an independent candidate Sita Ram examined as P.W. 2. The appellant resisted the election petition by questioning the right of the election petitioner to file the election petition based on the rejection of the nomination of another candidate, who had not come forward to challenge that rejection. The High Court, based on the decision of this Court in Somnath Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(2)ALD(Cri)949; JT2005(12)SC253; 2005(8)SCALE7; (2005)12SCC468
H.K. Sema, J.1. Heard the parties.2. Six accused all police personnel, A1 Sanganagouda Ayyanagouda Veeranagouda, Sub-Inspector of Police and A2 Chandrappa Basappa Komara, A3 Basavaraj Kadiyappa Aramani, A4 Kalakappa Gulappa Hosamani, A5 Eswarappa Rainappa Gowari, A6 Virupakshappa Shidramappa Narthi, Constables were put to trial before the trial court for the offence under Sections 330/348/201 IPC. The trial court after concluding the trial acquitted all the accused. On appeal being preferred by the . State, the High Court acquitted one of the accused and convicted the five appellants before us under Section 330 and sentenced them to six months RI. The High Court also found all of them guilty under Section 348 IPC and sentenced them three months RI. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal has been preferred by special leave.3. The prosecution case in brief is that in connection with FIR case Crime No. 168 of 1988 for an offence under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3606; 2005CriLJ4379; JT2005(12)SC204; 2005(7)SCALE659; (2005)8SCC130; 2005(2)LC1405(SC)
H.K. Sema, J.1. The challenge in this appeal, filed by the State of Goa, by special leave is to the order of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, Panaji dated 19.9.2002 in Crl. Misc. application No. 99 of 2002. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:The respondent, herein, was employed as Joint Manager in Goa Shipyard Limited, a Govt. of India Undertaking under the Ministry of Defence in 1994. At the relevant time, he was officiating as Manager (Personnel & Administration). He was arrested by CID, Anti Corruption Bureau of Goa Police on the charge that he demanded and accepted illegal gratification from one Mr. M. Channaiah - the complainant, an Attorney of M/s. Tirumala Services in order to show favour for settlement of wages, bills/arrears, certification of pending bills and to show favour in the day-to-day affairs concerning the said contractor. It was further alleged that the respondent, on various occasions, demanded and accepted from the complainant a sum of Rs. 3,68,000/- as illeg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC4362; 2005(6)ALD35(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)1105; 2005(6)ALT50(SC); 2005(4)AWC3548(SC); 2005(5)CTC207; II(2005)DMC669SC; [2006(1)JCR283(SC)]; JT2005(12)SC258; 2005(7)S
1. Leave granted.2. The above two appeals were filed against the judgment and order dated 20.06.2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Appeal No. 720 of 1997 and Cross Objections, A.No.990 of 1997 and Cross Objections and Tr. A.S. Nos. 2450 and 2451 of 1999 whereby the High Court dismissed all the appeals filed by the appellants herein and allowed the Cross Objections in part to the extent indicated in the judgment. 3. The appellants before the High Court are the defendants in O.S. Nos. 7 and 287 of 1984 filed by Krishna Bhagavan and Seetharatnam. The appellants herein also filed O.S. No. 239 of 1985 seeking a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents herein and some other third parties from interfering with the plaint schedule properties. Likewise, O.S. No. 82 of 1987 was filed by the appellants seeking a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the plaint schedule properties. Against the d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3570; 2006(1)ALD(Cri)212; 2005CriLJ4375; JT2005(12)SC150; 2005(4)KLT426(SC); 2005(4)MPHT240; 2005(7)SCALE663; (2005)8SCC122
H.K. Sema, J.1. The respondent-accused Dayal Sahu was put to trial under Section 376 IPC. He was convicted by the Trial Court and sentenced to seven years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default three months' rigorous imprisonment. The High Court, on appeal preferred by the accused, set-aside the conviction recorded by the Trial Court and acquitted the accused (respondent herein) solely on the ground for non-examination of PW-9 Dr. V.M. Pursule, as according to the High Court, non-examination of PW-9 prejudiced the case of the accused for non-providing of an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the doctor. Being aggrieved, this appeal is preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh by special leave.2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-In the night of 1.4.1991 the accused-respondent Dayal Sahu who was a relative of complainant came to the village Mandvi with another man Jagdish as guests. The prosecutrix-Santribai, wife of PW-2 Ramdas was sleep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : IV(2005)BC406(SC); [2005]127CompCas822(SC); (2005)6CompLJ203(SC); JT2005(12)SC29; (2005)4MLJ168(SC); (2005)8SCC219; [2005]64SCL1(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. These appeals are directed against a common judgment and order dated 5.1.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in O.S.A. Nos.67, 68 and 70 of 2003 whereby and whereunder a judgment and order dated 8.10.2003 passed by a learned Company Judge in C.A. No. 771 of 2003 was affirmed.Background fact:2. NGEF Ltd., (for short, 'the Company') herein, was a joint venture of the Government of Karnataka, holding 90.18% shares and EHG Electro- holding GMBH holding 9.72% shares therein. The Company became sick, whereupon a reference was made to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short, 'BIFR') in terms of the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short, 'SICA'). It is not in dispute that virtually all its assets had been placed either under mortgage and/or offered as collateral security to various financial institutions amongst which the State Bank of Mysore was the lead bank. 3. It is furthermore...
Tag this Judgment!