Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(1)AWC291(SC); IV(2006)BC543(SC); 2006(10)SCALE158; (2006)11SCC481
H.K. Seema, J.1. Heard the parties.2. Writ Petition (C) No. 585 of 1994 was disposed of by this Court on 11.10.1996 inter alia with the following directions:Now, to take care of this illegality, we have to take two steps. First, cancel the allotments. To decide as to who should get the shops/stalls, the Government would first consider whether its policy of 1994, and categorization made by it need alteration in any way. While undertaking this work, the Government would first consider whether its policy of 1994 and categorization made by it need alteration in any way. While undertaking this work, the Government would make such provisions in the policy which are just and fair. After the policy has been framed the shops/stalls would be allotted as per the policy by following a procedure having the sanction of law. In case it would be that any of the present allottee would not be the person so selected, he/she shall be asked to vacate the shop/stall by giving three moths time. We should req...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2006(9)SC18; (2007)2MLJ278(SC); 2006(10)SCALE233; (2006)10SCC388
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions. 2. These two appeals are directed against a common judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent Dwarka Prasad who is the appellant in the appeal relating to SLP(C) No. 15725 of 2006. The writ petition was partially allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court holding that the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on respondent- Dwarka Prasad was too harsh and was required to be substituted by an appropriate lesser punishment. Accordingly the order of dismissal was set aside and reinstatement with continuity of service without any back wages was directed and it was further directed that from the date of judgment the respondent-Dwarka Prasad shall be entitled for full salary.3. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Respondent-Dwarka Prasad was posted as a constable with Central Reserve Police Force (in short the 'CRPF') in F/74 Batt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3385; JT2006(9)SC72; (2006)4MLJ1555(SC); 2006(10)SCALE98; (2006)8SCC161
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') is to the order passed by Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary whereby Gowru Venkata Reddy-respondent No. 2 was granted remission of unexpired period of about seven years imprisonment. GOMs. No. 170 dated 11.8.2005 in this regard is challenged. 2. Factual scenario as per petitioners is as follows:Petitioner No. 1 is the son of late Sh. Epuru Chinna Ramasubhai who was murdered along with another person on 19.10.1995. Petitioner No. 2 claims to be the son of one late Sh. Tirupati Reddy who was allegedly murdered by respondent No. 2 while he was on bail in the murder case of father of petitioner No. 1. In the case relating to the murder of late Sh. Epuru Chinna Ramasubhai and one Ambi Reddy, respondent No. 2 faced trial and ultimately the matter came before this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 519-521 of 2003 which was dispos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(10)SCALE93
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred by nine accused against the judgment and order dated 21.2.2005 of High Court of Madhya Pradesh by which the appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 11.3.1995 of Special Judge, Sehore in Special Case No. 156 of 1994 was dismissed. The learned Special Judge (Sessions Judge) had convicted the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with Section 149 and Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and had sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment. They were awarded life sentence and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo RI for one year under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Dinesh Singh is Thakur by caste and is resident of village Hasnabad. Sardar, who lost his life in the incident in question, was working as servant of Dinesh Singh and used to look after his c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2006(111)FLR1052]; 2006(10)SCALE507; (2006)11SCC153; 2007(3)SLJ271(SC)
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Leave granted.2. Civil Appeal No. 4447/2006 arising out of SLP(C) No. 13987/2005 was filed by the State of Haryana against the judgment and final order dt.11.04.2005 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 15043/2004. Likewise, the State of Haryana has also filed Civil Appeal No. 4456/2006 arising out of SLP(C) No. 14004/2005 against the judgment and order dt.11.04.2005 passed by the said High Court in CWP No. 20279/2004.3. We have heard learned senior counsel for the State of Haryana and the learned Counsel appearing for the respective respondents in both the Civil Appeals. We have also perused the order impugned in these appeals and the advertisement issued by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission. The advertisement reads as under:Haryana Staff Selection CommissionS.C.O. No. 114-115, Sector - 8/C, ChandigarhAdvertisement No. 7/2003Last Date of Submission of the Applications 7.11.2003 Category No. 14-20 Posts of Unani Dispenser(General-9, SC-A 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007CriLJ20; II(2006)DMC757SC; [2007(1)JCR293(SC)]; JT2006(9)SC50; 2006(10)SCALE190; (2006)10SCC681; [2006]148STC638(SC)
G.P. Mathur, J.1. Trimukh Maroti Kirkan has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.7.2005 of Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court by which the appeal filed by State of Maharashtra was allowed and the order dated 21.4.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded was set aside and the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo six months RI. By the same judgment and order, the appeal filed by the appellant challenging his conviction under Section 498A IPC and the sentence of two years RI and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo RI for three months was dismissed.2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased Revata @ Tai daughter of Dattarao resident of village Umatwadi was married to the appellant Trimukh Maroti Kirkan (for short 'Trimukh') nearly seven years before the incident which took place on 4.11.1996 in village Kikki. Marot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3379; 2007(4)BomCR436; JT2006(9)SC27; 2006(6)KarLJ712; 2006(10)SCALE163; (2006)8SCC336
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. The issue involved in these appeals, by special leave, is identical and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience facts of Civil Appeal 8307 of 2002, which has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.6.2001 passed by Karnataka High Court in R.F.A. No. 406 of 2001, shall be stated.2. The respondent K.S. Narayan filed Original Suit No. 5371 of 1989 in the court of City Civil Judge, Bangalore, praying that a decree for permanent injunction be passed against the defendant Bangalore Development Authority, their agents and servants restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the plaint scheduled property and from demolishing any structure situate thereon. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows. The plaintiff purchased the property in dispute bearing No. 46, situated in Banasawadi village, K.R. Pura Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk from S. Narayana Gowda by means of a re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(6)ALD138(SC); 2007(1)AWC340(SC); [2006]134CompCas24(SC); [2007(1)JCR52(SC)]; 2007MPLJ18(SC); RLW2007(1)SC764; 2006(10)SCALE150; (2007)1SCC97; [2006]72SCL59(SC); 2007(2)CivilLJ740(SC)
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is filed by the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'bank') challenging the order of the High Court of Patna affirming an order of Subordinate Judge- I, Patna in Suit No. 168 of 2001 refusing to transfer the suit for being tried jointly with O.A. No. 18 of 2002 filed by the bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna. The bank sought the transfer on the basis that the suit was in the nature of a counter claim to its claim and arose out of the same cause of action as the one put in suit by the bank before the Tribunal. The bank originally granted a term loan to M/s. Ranjan Chemicals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'company') of Rs. 30 lakhs. The bank further extended a cash credit facility to the company. The company failed to meet its obligations under the account. Thereupon the bank issued a notice calling upon the company to repay the amounts due under the loan transactions and to close its accounts. On re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2006(9)SC35; 2007(1)MhLj885; 2006(10)SCALE224; (2006)8SCC294
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Leave granted.2. A case was registered by P.S. Sirhind against seven persons, including the appellant under Sections 469/467, 468/218-120B of IPC and also under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and the final report was filed by the police. It appears that the appellant moved an application for bail, but the same was rejected. The appellant moved another bail application on 24.4.2003 before the Sessions Judge, Fatehpur Sahib, which was fixed for hearing on 5.5.2003. Meanwhile, on 29.4.2003 the Administrative Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana came for annual inspection to the District & Sessions Court, Fatehpur Sahib, and the Deputy Commissioner, S.S.P. and other police officers were present. The Hon'ble Judge visited the Jail at Nabha as part of the inspection programme. The appellant moved an application for bail during the course of inspection and the learned Judge noticed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC38; JT2006(9)SC156; 2006(10)SCALE122; (2006)8SCC590
AR. Lakshmanan, J. 1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 23.02.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2841 of 2005 whereby the High Court while allowing the writ petition directed the Municipal Corporation to demolish the entire illegal and unauthorized construction carried on by respondent Nos. 3-17 on entire CTS No. 206, 206(1 to 9), Kurla Part-IV, New Mill Road, Kurla (W), Mumbai. 3. The short facts leading to the filing of the above appeal as stated in the S.L.P. are as under:Shri Fernandes and others (hereinafter referred to as Original owners) owned a plot of land bearing C.T.S. No. 206 and 206/1 to 9 and CTS No. 212 and 212/1 to 4, N.A. Survey No. 764 & 768, of Village/Taluka, Kurla, Mumbai, Suburban District, consisting of two bungalows and one chawl of 8 tenements. It is to be noted that there is only one entrance to the property from A.H. Wadia Marg (New Mill Road) through a strip of land abo...
Tag this Judgment!