Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(2)ALD66(SC); 2007(1)AWC664(SC); 2007(3)CTC219; 136(2007)DLT1(SC); I(2007)DMC1SC; (2007)146PLR425; RLW2007(2)SC1546; 2006(13)SCALE652; (2007)3SCC169; 2007(1)LC0007(SC); 2007AIRSCW1088; AIR2007SC1118; (2007)2SCC(Cri)56; 2007(2)CivilLJ215(SC); 2007LawHerald(SC)92
Markandey Katju, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 17.1.2005 in C.M.M. No. 1367 of 2004 and C.M.M. No. 1420 of 2004.3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.4. The facts of the case are that respondent Smt. Taruna Batra was married to Amit Batra, son of the appellants, on 14.4.2000.After the marriage respondent Taruna Batra started living with her husband Amit Batra in the house of the appellant No. 2 in the second floor. It is not disputed that the said house which is at B-135, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi belongs to the appellant No. 2 and not to her son Amit Batra.5. Amit Batra filed a divorce petition against his wife Taruna Batra, and it is alleged that as a counter blast to the divorce petition Smt. Taruna Batra filed an F.I.R. under Sections 406/498A/506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and got her father-in-law, mother-in-law, her husband and married sister-in-law arrested by the pol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Leave granted in the special leave petition.2. In Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 1998, by order dated 27th March, 2006, after noticing that order had been made by this Court on 5th May, 1998, for expeditious disposal of the suit which had not been disposed of despite lapse of eight years and even plaintiffs evidence had not commenced, it was directed that the suit shall be finally disposed of on or before 30th September, 2006, and, if necessary, evidence and arguments shall commence on day-to-day basis. LA. No. 5 has been filed by the appellants, who are plaintiffs in the suit seeking extension of time that was fixed for final disposal of the suit. This application was filed about a week before the time was to expire and further two months time was sought for final disposal of the suit. The prayer has been strenuously opposed by the respondents. It appears that the plaintiffs have not been diligent in prosecuting the suit inasmuch as even the application for appointment of Commission...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(2)SC270; 2006(14)SCALE87; (2006)10SCC491
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. These I.As. are in essence oft shoot of a judgment of this Court in IA 670 of 2001 in Writ Petition (C) 202 of 1995 in K.M. Chinnappa (applicant in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors. : (2002)10SCC606 . It related to the question whether functioning of Kudremukh Iron and Ore Company Ltd. (in short 'KIOCL') was having adverse effect on the environment and ecosystem. In paras 51 and 52 of the judgment it was inter alia directed as follows:51. Taking note of the factual background and the legal position highlighted above, we think it proper to accept the time period fixed by the Forest Advisory Committee constituted under Section 3 of the Conservation Act. That means mining should be allowed till the end of 2005 by which time the weathered secondary ore available in the already broken area should be exhausted. This is, however, subject to fulfilment of the recommendations made by the Committee on ecological and other aspects.52. The modalities as to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1501; 2007(3)ALD39(SC); 2007(2)AWC1145(SC); 2007(1)KLT243(SC); (2007)147PLR247; 2006(14)SCALE7; 2007AIRSCW2027; 2007(3)CivilLJ685; 2007(3)AIRKarR350(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Auction purchaser is the appellant before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 10.10.1988 passed by the High Court of Kerala dismissing an appeal preferred by the appellant herein.2. Three brothers, Madhavan, Bahuleyan and Karunakaran, were owners of the property. Madhavan and Bahuleyan started a partnership under the name and style of 'The Trustful Daily Banking Company'. Madhavan died on 26.10.1960, leaving behind Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 as his legal heirs and representatives. The partnership firm stood dissolved with his death. The legal heirs and representatives of Madhavan by reason of a registered deed of sale dated 28.05.1963 transferred the property in question in favour of Krishnan (since deceased) being predecessors in interest of the respondents herein. A money suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.312.20 was filed against the said partnership firm by a third party. The said suit was marked as O.S. No. 523 of 1964. It was decreed. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(207)ELT324(SC); 2006(14)SCALE40; (2007)2SCC503; 2007[5]STR177; [2007]7STT152
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant is a manufacturer of 'Adhesive' falling under Tariff Item No. 68 of the erstwhile schedule to the Central Excise and Salts Act, 1944. It was classified as such. It deposited the excise duty under protest. A dispute arose as it was held to be classifiable under Tariff Entry No. 68 by an order dated 11.11.1985. Indisputably, the said order attained finality. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether the appellant was entitled to refund of the excess amount of the excise duty paid by it. An application therefore was filed on 19.03.1985. The said application was rejected. An appeal was preferred there against before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). By an order dated 07.09.1989, the said appeal was allowed stating :.The refund arising due to this order cannot be rejected on the plea that the department has preferred an appeal against the order of CEGAT in the case of Nevichem Synthetic Industries on the basis of which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC561; 2007(2)ALLMR(SC)942
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Appeals admitted.2. All the above three appeals raise an interesting and important question of law as to interpretation of Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. In all these appeals, facts are more or less similar. The Election Commission of India issued a notification on March 16, 2004 for holding general election to the Legislative Assembly for the State of Sikkim. Total constituencies were 32. A programme was published which provided various stages of election. April 23, 2004 was the last date for filing nomination papers, April 24, 2004 was fixed for scrutiny of nomination papers, April 26, 2004 was the last date for withdrawal of candidatures, May 10, 2004 was the date of poll, if necessary, and date of counting and declaration of results was fixed as May 17, 2004. The appellants filled in their nomination papers from 12-Wak Assembly Constituency, 14-Melli Assembly Constituency and 13- Damthang Assembl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC568; 2005(2)ALD(Cri)910; 2007CriLJ763; RLW2007(2)SC1226; 2006(14)SCALE118; (2007)2SCC772
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Application of the provision of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') falls for consideration in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 17.10.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Petition No. 3917 of 2005.3. Appellant was a bank employee. He worked as a Manager in Syndicate Bank at its Branch at Abid Road, Hyderabad. His job was to advance loans. Allegedly, in one case he sanctioned a loan to a customer for Black & White Television, while the scheme was for something else. In another case he sanctioned a loan for obtaining plots from the Housing Society. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had also filed chargesheets against the appellant in both the cases. Two cases were, thus, came to be registered against him; one being Criminal Case No. 9 of 1992 and another being Criminal Case No. 5 of 1993. The judgment in the first case was pronounced...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC663; 2007(2)AWC1148(SC); 2007(1)CTC186; [2007(2)JCR202(SC)]; 2007MPLJ25(SC); RLW2007(2)SC1636; 2006(13)SCALE645
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Application of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') is involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 19.09.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Special Appeal No. 22 of 1992.3. The father of Appellant indisputably was the owner of the property. He died on 03.07.1973 leaving behind his widow Smt. Anandi Devi and the parties hereto. He allegedly gifted a portion of the house known as 'Anand Vihar' in favour of the appellant. On 22.02.1977, Smt. Anandi Devi died. She is said to have executed a Will on 28.01.1977 in favour of Respondent No. 1 herein. An application for grant of probate in respect of the said Will came to be filed by her in favour of Respondent No.1 herein. Appellant entered into caveat in the said proceeding. The application for grant of probate was registered as Probate Case No. 31 of 1978 which was converted into a suit. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC614; 2007(2)CTC172; 2006(14)SCALE186; 2007AIRSCW203; JT2007(1)SC466; 2007LawHerald(SC)291; (2006)13SCC433
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Appellant is the son of Late Umeshchandra Madhav Joshi (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). He owned considerable properties. A Charitable Trust by the name of 'Umesh Yoga Charitable Trust' was created by the deceased in his native village at Manor. For the said purpose, he donated 7 acres of land of his own. 4 acres of land was said to have been donated by the appellant herein. Deceased purchased a residential house at Dadar named 'Umesh Dham' in 1949. The first floor of the said house was used for residence, which he also used for holding Yoga classes and also for manufacture of Hair Oil. Deceased started yoga classes. He also started manufacture of hair oil, namely, (Ramtirth Brahmi Hair Oil). Sometime thereafter, he along with his children shifted his residence to the ground floor of the said house. He had 7 sons and 3 daughters. Appellant herein is his second son. Respondent No. 2 allegedly eloped and married a Muslim boy. Respondent No. 1, however, had an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(1)KLT249(SC); 2006(13)SCALE600; 2007AIRSCW2140; (2007)1Crimes54(SC); 2007LawHerald(SC)21
S.B. Sinha, J.1. A ghastly murder in Mokeri East U.P. School, Paramel, Kannur Distt., Kerala took place on 1.12.1999 at about 10.40 a.m. K.P. Jayakrishnan Master (deceased) was a teacher in the said school. He was the class teacher of class VI B. The school did not have a proper building. It was a semi- permanent shed. Whereas two sides of it had pucca walls with a height of about seven feet, the western and eastern walls were having kutcha ones. It had three classrooms, viz., for students of classes VA, VI B and VII B. In the northern room, class VIIB was to be held whereas class VIB was situate in the middle room and to its south was the class room of VA. On its eastern side, there was only 70 cm. wall having about 2 feet height. Another building was separated by 2.5 metres wide pathway. Classes VIB and VA were separated only by a screen.2. The deceased was the State Vice President of Bhartiya Yuva Morcha. Appellants were members of the Communist Party of India (Marxist Group). Polit...
Tag this Judgment!