Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC4217; [2005(107)FLR407]; JT2005(8)SC425; RLW2005(4)SC2326; (2005)7SCC764; 2006(1)SLJ267(SC)
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Civil Appeal No. 4544 of 2005 is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta on February 6, 2004 in FMA No. 3093 of 2002 confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge on July 9, 2002 in Writ Petition No. 10667 (W) of 1999.Writ Petition No. 703 of 2004 is instituted by the petitioner in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of Clause (vi) of Standing Order 20 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.-respondent herein being arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice.2. To appreciate the controversy raised in the matters, relevant facts may be stated in brief.3. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4544 of 2005 (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 703 of 2004) joined the service of Indian Oil Corporation ('Corporation' for short) at Haldia Refinery in 1973. He was a senior officer of the Corporation. He asserted that all throu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3530; 2005CriLJ4132; JT2005(8)SC387; 2005(4)KLT836(SC); (2005)7SCC326
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is by the informant questioning grant of bail to respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') by the impugned judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench.3. Factual position, as highlighted by the appellant is as follows:On 26.4.2002, the respondent No. 1 and others in pursuance of their common object, surrounded Jamaluddin, husband of the appellant, (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') while he was coming by scooter along with the appellant and their daughter. Because of some previous litigations, respondent No. 1-accused had animosity with the deceased and with the intention of causing his death the respondent No.1-accused who was armed with a double barrel gun shot at the deceased. Others also participated in the attack. The informant and her daughter started crying for help hearing which co-villagers came to the spot. The respondent No. 1 and others fled away but they we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDERBy impugned order, the petitioners were directed to deposit by way of exemplary damages a sum of Rs. Twenty Lakhs each with the state Government in a separate fund to be named '30th July 2003 Bandh Loss Compensation Fund'. The said amount shall be deposited by the petitioners within a period of one week. In case the deposit is not made, the petitions shall stand dismissed without further reference to the court. In case the deposit is made and copies of receipts have been filed, the petitions shall then be listed for hearing....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3440; 2005CriLJ4124; 123(2003)DLT388(SC); 2005(85)DRJ257; (2006)1GLR114; 2005(3)JKJ35[SC]; JT2005(8)SC348; 2005(4)KLT256(SC); (2005)7SCC417
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution had been found guilty of the offence of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC by the Sessions Court and had been undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life. His conviction and sentence was affirmed by the High Court and later confirmed by this Court. The petitioner alleges that he has already undergone more than 21 years imprisonment at the time of filing of the writ petition and contended that his further detention is illegal and that he is liable to be set at liberty forthwith, for which he seeks a writ of habeas corpus and prays for payment of compensation for his alleged illegal detention beyond the period of fourteen years.2. According to the petitioner, the length of the duration of the imprisonment for life is equivalent to 20 years imprisonment and that too subject to further remission admissible under law. He contends that on completion of this term he was liable to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3536; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)996; 2005(6)BomCR6; JT2005(8)SC341; (2005)12SCC115; 2005(2)LC1339(SC)
C.K. Thakker, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad on October 31, 2002 in Writ Petition No. 4952 of 1999.2. To appreciate the controversy raised in the appeal, few relevant facts may be stated;The appellant (Mahatma Gandhi Mission) is a charitable trust and is registered under the Bombay Public Trusts, Act, 1950. It is established with the aim and object of providing higher educational facilities in rural and backward areas of the State of Maharashtra. The appellant trust is running Medical and Engineering Colleges at New Mumbai, Aurangabad and Nanded in Maharashtra and at Noida in Uttar Pradesh. The trust is also running other educational courses, such as, Master of Business Administration, Bachelor of Journalism, Nursing, etc. It is one of the reputed educational institutions in the State of Maharashtra. According to the appellant - trust, Respondent No. 1 City & Industrial Development...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC779; 2005(5)CTC52; JT2005(8)SC361; RLW2006(2)SC969; (2005)7SCC653
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 19.1.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the Appellant herein from a judgment and order dated 3.6.2002 passed by the II Senior Civil Judge. City Civil Court Hyderabad in O.S. No. 307 of 1988 was dismissed.2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The Appellant herein was a tenant of the predecessors' in interest of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 Allegedly, an oral agreement of sale was entered into by and between the Appellant and the Respondents for a total consideration of Rs. 80,000/-Allegedty, for execution of the deed of sale approval of the Ceiling Authorities was necessary wherefore the draft deed of sale was filed before the Ceiling Authorities. The said approval is said to have been granted in the year 1977. According to Appellant, the factum of grant of approval of the said deed of sale was not conveyed and only in the ye...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties on the prayer for interim relief, we direct the appellants to maintain complete accounts of production and sales during the pendency of appeal. In the meantime, the appellants are permitted to use the wrappers on 'Choco-Eclair' as they have been using except that, wherever purple colour was being used that shall be substituted by colour blue of the same shade as the appellants are using on their other products such as 'Licks'.2. This is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the appeal.3. Liberty to the parties to apply for an early date of hearing....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3536(SC); JT2005(8)SC423; (2005)7SCC565
ORDER1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Civil Review No. 9 of 1998. By the impugned order, the earlier order passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 1844 of 1995 was recalled and it was held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. This view was taken primarily on the ground that the respondent was a Cooperative Society and was, therefore, not covered within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'the Constitution'). Reliance for this purpose was placed on two Division Bench judgments of the High Court holding that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. As noted above, the review was allowed and the writ petition was dismissed as being not maintainable. No view was expressed on the merits of the case.2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted with reference to a seven Judges Bench judgment of this Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3454; 2005(6)ALD110(SC); 2006(1)BomCR689; 101(2006)CLT362(SC); 2005(5)CTC292; 2005(2)CTLJ147(SC); [2005(4)JCR249(SC)]; JT2005(8)SC334; (2005)8SCC242; 2005(2)LC1318
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The scope and ambit of judicial review vis-a-vis availability of alternative remedy is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 29.04.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 830 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the Appellant herein was dismissed in limine.2. The Appellant herein and one Smt. Bimladevi T. Obhan, who were partners in 'M/s Tilak Automobiles' and the Respondent herein entered into a dealership agreement. Admittedly the said agreement was terminated by the Respondent herein by a notice dated 19.03.2004 in terms of Clause 55 of the said agreement which reads thus :'55. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein contained, the Corporation shall be at liberty to terminate this Agreement forthwith upon or at any time after the happening of any of the following, namely:-(A) If the Dealer shall commit a breach of any of the covenants and stipulations contained ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3446; 2005(5)CTC629; [2005(107)FLR737]; JT2005(8)SC315; (2005)IIILLJ854SC; (2005)7SCC584
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this Appeal is to judgment of a Division Bench of Madras High Court holding that customary bonus was not payable by the State Bank of India (in short the 'Bank') after Banking Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Central Act No. 64 of 1984) (in short the 'Amendment Act') was enacted. Appellant has questioned constitutional validity of the said amendment before the Madras High Court by filing a writ petition which was dismissed.2. Factual position which is almost undisputed is as follows:-By the Amendment Act, State Bank of India Act, 1955 (in short the 'State Bank Act') and State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 (in short the 'Subsidiary Act') and Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Acts, 1970 and the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 (in short 'the Undertakings Acts') were amended. By that amending Act, a new Section 43-A comprising of three Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) and marginal headi...
Tag this Judgment!