Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(112)FLR781]; 2006AIRSCW6459
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The above Special leave Petition was filed against the judgment and order dt. 01-10.2003 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No. 7454/2001 wherein the High Court dismissed the petition preferred by the Union of India and Others through the Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting; the Director General, All India Radio, New Delhi and the Chief Engineer (North Zone), Akashvani & Doordarshan, Jamnagar House, New Delhi.2. The Delhi High Court has relied upon the order passed by the Calcutta High Court in WPCT No. 505/99 dt. 08.07.2002 which was challenged by another SLP No. ....CC 11231/2003. The said SLP was filed by the Chief Engineer (East Zone) against P. Bhakta and Ors. The said SLP was dismissed by this Court on 08.01.2004 on the ground of delay. Subsequently, a Review Petition was filed by the Chief Engineer (East Zone), All India Radio & Television and the said Review Petition was also dismissed by this Court on 12.08.2004. Thereaf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(13)SCALE380; 2006(3)ShimLC393
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Appellant with one Badri has preferred this appeal aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10.8.1999 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 787/1994 whereby and whereunder the judgment of learned Sessions Judge dated 22.11.1994 passed in Sessions Trial No. 385/93 convicting the accused-appellants under Sections 302 and 449 of the I.P.C. and sentencing them to imprisonment for life for the said offence was upheld subject to the modification that the appellants herein were convicted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. instead of Section 302 I.P.C.2. The occurrence took place on 6th July, 1993 at about 4 p.m. The deceased was a lacy named Keshrabai. She and her daughter -Annubai (P.W.1) aged about 15 years at the relevant time were in their house. The appellant herein and three others entered into their house armed with axe, phaliya, Jathles bow & arrows etc. Eight other perso...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : IV(2006)ACC792; 2007(1)ALT41(SC); 2007(1)AWC405(SC); 2006(13)SCALE233; 2006(3)ShimLC396
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in these appeals is to the orders passed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 473 of 1997 which was disposed of on 14.7.2004 and MCC No. 597 of 2004 filed for reviewing the said order which was rejected by order dated 2.2.2005. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:One Nisar Khan (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') met with an accident on 17.8.1992. The offending vehicle (No. MP-09-D-3815) was the subject matter of insurance with National Insurance Company Ltd. Policy of insurance issued by it covered the period from 5.10.1991 to 4.10.1992. Appellant issued insurance cover in respect of the vehicle covering the period from 7.11.1992 to 6.11.1993. A petition claiming compensation was filed before the IVth Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dewas (in short the 'MACT'). The claim was lodged by the widow, three minor children and the mother of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(14)SCALE46
ORDER1. The plaintiffs are before us questioning the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order dated 21.8.198 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Assam, whereby and whereunder the second appeal preferred by the appellant against a judgment and order dated 23.5.1988 passed by the Assistant District Judge, Barpeta, in Title Appeal No. 46/1986, was dismissed. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.2. The lands in suit and other lands belong to one Durga Malakar. He is the paternal uncle of the plaintiffs' father Nareswar Malakar. The exact date of death of Durga Malakar is not known. He left behind his widow, namely, Gandhari. The dispute between the parties revolves on the execution of a Will by Durga Malakar in favour of the plaintiffs on 8.10.1958 and execution of a purported Deed of Gift dated 5.5.1958 which was in the name of his wife Gandhari.3. Before we advert to the questions raised before us we may notice that Gandhari by reason of a Sale Deed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(14)SCALE156
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The first defendant in the suit is in appeal before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 17th June, 1998, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in Second Appeal No. 8/1991.2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. One Kunhahammed was the owner of the property in question. He died in 1960 leaving behind the second defendant as his widow and defendants 3 to 8 as also the plaintiff of the suit are his children. The land in question was purported to have been sold by defendant Nos. 2 to 8, not only on their own behalf but also on behalf of the plaintiffs, by a registered sale deed dated 30.8.1963, in favour of the father of the first defendant Moosa Haji. It is not in dispute that Moosa Baji was father of defendant No. 2 i.e. maternal grandfather of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 3 to 8. In the said deed of sale, plaintiff was represented by his father - defendant No. 4.3. Moosa Haji sold half share in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(112)FLR685]; 2006(13)SCALE287
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Leave granted.2. Heard Mr. Roy Abraham, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondents. We have perused order impugned in this appeal. The learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation Bank submitted before the High Court that the Management had decided to revert the appellant to the lowest post of clerk by revising impugned order of dismissal. For the said proposal, the counsel for the respondent-employee had also submitted before the High Court that the employee was agreeable to accept the punishment of reversal to the lower post. In view of the submission made as above, the High Court has not gone into the merits of the case and disposed of the same on the said submissions. On the basis of the above order passed by the High Court, the appellant herein was reinstated as a clerk on 6.2.1997. The grievance of the appellant is that he was not given any benefit to the post in question namely the clerk from the date of suspe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(4)ARBLR275(SC); [2007(2)JCR9(SC)]; JT2006(10)SC615; 2006(12)SCALE654
Altamas Kabir, J.1. The appellant entered into an agreement with the State of Kerala on 10th October, 1985 whereunder he was entrusted with the construction work of the Chavara Distributory from Ch.7440M to 9440M and 10475M to 14767M. Disputes having arisen between the parties, the matter was referred to arbitration. The Superintending Engineer, Siruvani Project, Palghat, .the designated Arbitrator in terms of the contract, was appointed as the sole Arbitrator. By his award, which was published on 2nd September, 1989, the Arbitrator awarded a total sum of Rs. 42,21,000/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of the award. Upon the passing of the award the appellant herein filed O.P. (Arb.) 40/89 in the court below under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act for passing a decree in terms of the award. The State of Kerala filed a petition under Section 30 of the Act challenging the award and for setting aside the same. The application filed by the State was dismissed and aggrieved thereb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(1)AWC668(SC); [2007(3)JCR182(SC)]; 2006(13)SCALE408
ORDER1. One Ishwar Dutta was the owner of the property. He died leaving behind three sons- Mahadeo, Hira and Mahabir. Mahabir died issueless. His interest in the property, therefore, vested in Mahadeo and Mewa (son of Hira) who (sic) him. Mewa died in 1921-22 leaving behind a son Damoder. Koleshra Devi was the widow of Damodar whose exact date of death is not known but he is said to have expired sometime after 1932.2. The plaintiffs herein are heirs of Ram Layak one of the sons of Mahadeo whereas the respondents herein are heirs of Raja, another son of Mahadeo. The properties in question bearing plot Nos. 901, 902 and 907 were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The properties were mutated in the name of Damoder. The amount of compensation was paid to respondent -Mona Devi.3. The appellants herein filed an application under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Collector whereupon a reference was made. One of the issues which fell for consideration be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(12)SCALE629; (2007)1Crimes315(SC); 2007(1)KCCR337(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. By the impugned judgment learned Single Judge while upholding the conviction of the respondent for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') reduced the sentence to the period already undergone which was about 1 year and three months. The trial court had found the respondent guilty and had imposed sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:The respondent allegedly assaulted the complainant- Parvat Singh by an axe causing several grievous injuries. Complainant Parvat Singh (PW 10) lodged a report at the police station to the effect that while he was doing night duty at Dr. Ajay Lal Christian Hospital, the accused hit him on his head by the sharp edge of an axe and other parts of the body. Other persons were present the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(207)ELT161(SC); 2006(14)SCALE69
ORDER1. The facts of the case are that the respondent assessee is engaged in a manufacture of various products including a product called 'Domex Power Cleaner/Domex All Around Home Cleaner'. The assessee had been classifying this product under heading 38.08 of the Central Excise Tariff Act as a disinfectant. The claim of the Revenue, however, is that the aforesaid product is liable to be classified under the Central Excise Tariff heading 34.02. The question, therefore, involves in this case is whether the product 'Domex Power Cleaner/Domex All Around Home Cleaner' is liable to be classified under heading 34.02 as claimed by the Revenue or heading 38.02 as claimed by the assesses.2. Heading 34,02 reads as follows:34.02. Organic surface-active agents (other than soap); surface-active preparations, washing preparation (including auxiliary washing preparations) and cleaning preparations whether or not containing soap.Heading 38.08 reads as follows:38.08. Insecticides, rodenticides, fungici...
Tag this Judgment!