Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1267; 2006(1)ALD(Cri)598; 2006CriLJ1679; JT2006(3)SC66; 2006(1)KLT1006(SC); 2006(I)OLR(SC)634; 2006(2)SCALE734; (2006)3SCC771; 2006(1)LC340(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. An eight years old girl was sexually ravished by the appellant is what was alleged and for that the appellant faced trial. The victim suffered ignominy on 5.2.1998. The appellant has been found guilty of offence punishable under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short the 'Atrocities Act'). The appellant was directed to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and the State was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the victim.3. Background facts are essentially as follows:4. On 5.2.1998 the victim had gone to witness a marriage procession in the night. When she was coming back to her house in the night at about 12 O' clock the accused sexually assaulted her. She was threatened that if she disclosed about the incident to anybody, she would be killed. Suffering from the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1270; 2006(1)CTLJ145(SC); JT2006(3)SC1; 2006(2)SCALE712; (2006)4SCC109
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Leave granted.2. All these petitions involve common question of law, therefore, these are taken up together for disposal by the common judgment.3. In all these petitions, there are two class of petitions, one filed by the private parties/individuals against the Division Bench judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court whereby the Division Bench has not given any relief following its judgment passed in CWP No. 13695 of 2001 dated 18.2,2002 [D.L.G. Builders Private Limited v. The Advisor to the Administrator, Chandigarh Administration and Ors.]. The relevant portion of that judgment reads as under:In our considered view, the allottee is bound to pay the premium and other charges in accordance with the conditions of allotment. If the judgment of M/s. Shanti Kunj Investments Pvt. Ltd.(supra) is read as laying down a proposition that the allottee is not obliged to pay the balance of premium even after raising construction of the building and occupying it on the pretext th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1260; 2006(2)ALD98(SC); 2006(3)ALT61(SC); 2006(2)AWC1466(SC); (SCSuppl)2006(3)CHN66; 102(2006)CLT157(SC); 2006(3)CTC175; [2006(2)JCR233(SC)]; JT2006(3)SC60; 2006(2
Altamas Kabir, J.1. Leave granted in both the matters.2. One Madhukar Nowlakha, the respondent No. I in these appeals, entered into an agreement for sale in respect of premises No. 4A, Lansdowne Place, P.S. Lake, Kolkata-700029, together with the building and structures thereon, with one Shri Biswarup Banerjee and five others on 20th September, 1988. Inasmuch as, the said agreement was allegedly not acted upon for a long time, the same was purportedly cancelled by the owners on 15th June, 2002.3. On 24th September, 2003, Shri Madhukar Nowlakha filed Title Suit No. 32 of 2003 in the Court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division) 9th Court at Alipore, for specific performance of the agreement purported to have been cancelled and for temporary injunction to restrain the petitioners from alienating the suit premises. Thereafter, on 30th October, 2003, the said Respondent No. I applied to the Court for leave to withdraw the suit on the ground that since there were talks of settlement between the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1428; 2006(1)ARBLR374(SC); JT2006(3)SC31; 2006(2)SCALE680; (2006)3SCC643
Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J.1. Mullaperiyar reservoir is surrounded by high hills on all sides with forest and is a sheltered reservoir. The orientation of the dam is such that the direction of wind in the south west monsoon would be away from the dam. It is said that for past 100 years, Tamil Nadu Government Officers have been approaching the reservoir during the flood season only from Thekkady side in a boat and have not noticed any significant wave action.2. The main question to be determined in these matters is about the safety of the dam if the water level is raised beyond its present level of 136 ft. To determine the question, we may first narrate factual background.3. An agreement dated 29th October, 1886 was entered into between the Maharaja of Travancore and the Secretary of State for India in Council whereunder about 8000 acres of land was leased for execution and preservation of irrigation works called 'Mullaperiyar Project'. In pursuance of the said agreement, a water reservoir was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(2)SCALE698
ORDER1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties for considerable time and have also perused the letter dated 21st October, 2005 sent by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi to eight service providers seeking information about interception of telephone calls at the request of police (SIC) the order of the Designated Authority for which subsequent orders of the said authority have not been taken. Our attention has also been drawn to a Committee constituted by Delhi Government under order dated 6th February, 2006 comprising of the Chief Secretary and Secretary, Law and Justice. The term of reference of the Inquiry Committee including calling for information from M/s. Reliance Infocom to ascertain the particulars of interception being done without orders of the designated competent authority i.e. Principal Secretary, Home, Government of N.C.T., Delhi. The learned Additional Solicitor General for want of record was unable to answer many of the queries sought for by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(2)AWC1744(SC); 2006(3)BomCR142; I(2006)CPJ1(SC); 2006(3)CTC74; 128(2006)DLT143(SC); [2006(3)JCR92(SC)]; JT2006(3)SC174; (2006)3MLJ237(SC); (2006)143PLR143; 2006(2)SCAL
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellants supplied EPABX telephone system to the respondent in the month of March, 1990. The said system was installed in the office of the respondent on 18th March, 1990 at a cost of Rs. 1,87,599/-. In terms of the contract of sale entered into by and between the parties, a warranty for a period of 1 year was issued for the said equipments. The appellants during negotiations agreed that a service center at Vishakhapatnam would be opened for convenience of the said office and other customers. The said assurance was categorically given in the offer of the respondent dated 14.2.1990. At the relevant time furthermore approval of the Telecommunication Department for installation of the EPABX system in the respondent's office had not been given. The respondent was informed, on a query made in that behalf by the Chief General Manager of the Telecommunication Department, that the EPABX system supplied by the appellants was not in department's approved li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3555; 2006CriLJ1632; JT2006(3)SC366; 2006(2)SCALE476; (2006)3SCC752
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The appellants were charged for commission of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for intentionally causing death of one Moti Suklabaidya. 3.10.1995 was the 'NAVMI'. The deceased went to join 'Durga Puja' festival along with Sushendra Chandra-PW3 and Babul Chanda. They met with one Tapan Chanda near Chandranathpur Railway Station. The latter informed them that Tunu Chanda and Montu Chanda had assaulted him in front of a jewellery shop belonging to Makhan Chanda- PW2. Gauaranga s/o Makhan Chanda-PW2 in the meantime came and informed his father that the said Tunu Chanda and Montu Chanda had quarrelled and broke a glass pane of his showroom. Makhan Lal -PW2 immediately came to the Bazar. He found his younger brother Sushendra- PW3, Babul Chanda and deceased Moti Suklabaidya in front of his shop. Having asked the reason of quarrel and consequent breaking of the glass of the show room, he was informed that the dispute has been settled by Ambika Sahu-PW6. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1420; [2006(3)JCR211(SC)]; JT2006(3)SC102; (2006)IILLJ245SC; 2006(2)SCALE660; (2006)3SCC708; 2006(3)SLJ162(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. These two appeals involving common questions of fact and law were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The members of the appellant Union were employees of Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, the respondent herein (`the Company'). It is a sick company. It was referred to BIFR in terms of the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. As one of the measures for revival of the company it floated a scheme for voluntary retirement of its employees. One of such scheme was floated in the year 1987 which remained in force upto 1990. On and about 20.10.90 a revised Voluntary Retirement Scheme was floated. The said scheme was to remain effective for an initial period of one year but admittedly the same has been extended from time to time. Both unionised and non-unionized employees numbering in thousands opted thereunder. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said scheme the following benefits were to b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3566; [2006(109)FLR228]; [2006(4)JCR18(SC)]; JT2006(3)SC162; 2006(2)KLT107(SC); 2006(2)SCALE527; (2006)3SCC167; 2006(2)SLJ490(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Leave granted.2. The respondent was a Deputy Commandant in 42 Bn. of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). He, in the month of December, 1992, was acting as Officer-in-charge of DAGOs in Delhi in connection with 53rd CRPF anniversary parade which was to be held during the period December, 1992 and January, 1993. He was given a new Maruti `Gypsy' for performing official duties. He allegedly drove the said Maruti unauthorisedly and at a very high speed beyond his jurisdiction and met with a serious accident when the said vehicle collided with a stationary truck between Mansard and Delhi on National Highway No. 8. The driver of the said Gypsy Link Anand Singh suffered serious injuries on his person. The respondent, however, left the vehicle unattended. He also left the said driver in an unconscious state. He also did not inform headquarters about the said accident.3. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on the charges that he failed to maintain absolute dev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1263; JT2006(3)SC393; (2006)IILLJ241SC; 2006(2)SCALE614; (2006)2SCC794; 2006(3)SLJ87(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. The respondent was appointed on contractual basis as an Arrival Record Clerk. Such appointments were made during paddy seasons. The period of first appointment was from 17.10.1997 to 15.1.1998. Again in the next wheat season he worked under the appellant from 4.4.1998 to 1.7.1998. He was again appointed vide order dated 11.9.1998 and worked from 16.9.1998 till 13.12.1998. The terms and conditions of service as contained in the order dated 11.9.1998 in regard to the appellant are as under:1. That the appointment will be on consolidated wages at he rate of Rs. 1536/- P.M. No other allowances will be admissible.2. The period of engagement will be 89 days.3. Services can be terminated/dispensed at any time without assigning any notice and reason and this will not confer any right for his/her being considered for regular appointment.4. He/she will not entitle to any leave except one day casual leave for each complete month.5. The unavailed casual leave shal...
Tag this Judgment!