Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1350; 2006(2)ALT67(SC); (2006)4CompLJ513(SC); 2006(2)CTC71; JT2006(2)SC568; (2006)3MLJ201(SC); 2006(2)SCALE494; (2006)3SCC549
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present matter raises two kinds of questions. Firstly, at a jurisprudential level, it falls on this Court to lay down the law regarding the use of public lands or natural resources, which have a direct link to the environment of a particular area, by the Government. Secondly, this Court should decide, on the facts of the present case, the order to be passed with respect to two tanks in the Tirupathi area - Peruru, and Avilala.3. The above two appeals were filed by a registered society called, the Intellectuals Forum, against the respondents herein. The contesting parties are the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Chief Secretary, Tirupathi Urban Development Authority represented by its Vice-Chairman and the A.P. Housing Board represented by its Vice- Chairman and Housing Commissioner.4. The present case relates to the preservation of and restoration of status quo ante of two tanks, historical in nature being in existence since the time ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2006(109)FLR277]; [2006(4)JCR21(SC)]; JT2006(2)SC565; 2006(2)SCALE465; (2006)3SCC97; 2006(2)SLJ405(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. These appeals are interlinked and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Appellant challenges the judgments of a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court at Shimla holding that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of promotion from the date his juniors were granted promotion. The appellant's case was that he was deprived of the opportunity of acquiring the requisite qualification for promotion as he was initially placed under suspension and subsequently removed from service. After reinstatement he qualified at the requisite tests and on the basis of such qualification he shall be deemed to have acquired the right to be considered along with his juniors when the consideration was made. 3. The factual background is as follows:Appellant joined the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force as a Constable on 7.1.1967. In 1969 he was promoted as Head Constable. On 11.9.1973 he was suspended from service as a criminal case was registered against him. He was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3553; 2006(2)AWC1573(SC); (SCSuppl)2006(2)CHN100; 102(2006)CLT168(SC); JT2006(3)SC468; 2006(2)MPHT258; 2006(2)SCALE461; (2006)3SCC686; 2006(1)LC571(SC)
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No. 382 of 1999 whereby learned Single Judge allowed the appeal of the defendants and set aside the decree of eviction granted by the first appellate court. Hence this appeal.3. The original owner of the property which is situated in Khargaon Nagar was one Madhav Rao. He let out the suit premises to one Balakrishna on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- on 1.12.1950. Later on a rent note was executed inter se parties on 24.11.1955. On 3.3.1964 Madhav Rao felt the need of money and therefore, he took a sum of Rs. 15,000/- from Balakrishna and executed a mortgage deed on 3.3.1964 in favour of Balakrishna's two sons namely Vijaykrishna and Shyam Sunder mortgaging the suit premises. Madhav Rao then effected a partition of his properties including the present suit house which fell in the share of his son, Mahesh Parsai. Mahesh became the own...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1724; 2006(2)AWC1700(SC); (SCSuppl)2006(3)CHN125; [2006(3)JCR155(SC)]; RLW2006(3)SC1966; 2006(3)SCALE189a; (2006)3SCC615
B.P. Singh, J.1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in L.P.A.Nos. 304 and 310 of 2002 dated 22.1.2003 whereby the High Court dismissed the L.P.A. preferred by the appellant herein on the ground that in view of the provisions of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure inserted by an amendment in the year 2002, no LPA lay.2. It was urged before us by the appellant that the High Court was clearly in error in not entertaining the LPA because it had been filed before the amendment came into force, and in his submission LPAs pending as on the date of the amendment were not affected by the amendment incorporating Section 100A in the C.P.C.3. However, rather than going into the question of the maintainability of LPA, we have treated the special leave petitions as against the judgment and order of the High Court in Misc. Appeal Nos. 462 and 463 of 1997. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length both on questio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1448; 2006(1)ALD(Cri)633; 2006CriLJ1625; 2006(1)JKJ73[SC]; JT2006(2)SC555; 2006(2)SCALE449; (2006)9SCC240; 2006(1)LC576(SC)
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. The accused-appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 302 of IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for a period of three months. He was further found guilty of charge under Section 449 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for a period of three months. The sentence imposed on the appellant was confirmed by the High Court. Aggrieved by the said order of conviction, the present appeal is preferred by the accused-appellant. 2. The relevant facts from the evidence of the prosecution are that Pushpa (deceased), her brother Selvaraj (PW-3) and Radha (PW-2 wife of PW-3), were residing at Bagalpur in a rented house. On 15th January, 1998 at about 5.00 P.M., when PW-2 was returning from Sandai (market), she heard hue and cry from her house and when she rushed towards the house, she saw the accused Ravi kumar alias Kutti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1452; 2006(2)AWC1253(SC); 2006(1)CTLJ185(SC); [2006(3)JCR67(SC)]; JT2006(2)SC552; 2006(2)SCALE468; (2006)2SCC699
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Appellant-Corporation calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the First Appeal questioning correctness of the order dated 13.11.1987 of learned Additional District Judge, Delhi who had granted a decree of Rs. 81,442.53 with interest in favour of the respondent who was the plaintiff before the Trial Court. 2. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows:The appellant invited tenders from persons intending to purchase damaged foodgrains, by advertisement dated 9.6.1983. Tender submitted by the respondent was accepted on 22.7.1983. It is to be noted that the respondent was one of the successful bidders. Certain terms of the agreement which shall be indicated in detail stipulated payment of the price and the consequence of failure to do so i.e. levy of storage charges for the stock not lifted and interest. The tendered quantity was 2246 M.T. of damaged foodgrains. Respondent deposited certain amoun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2006)201CTR(SC)183; [2006]281ITR305(SC); JT2006(2)SC536; 2006(2)SCALE441; (2006)3SCC286
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the Writ Petitions filed by the appellants. 2. The factual background in a nutshell is as follows:The fourth Respondent and appellants entered into an agreement of sale dated 16.7.1987 in respect of premises bearing No. 377 R.M.V. Extension, Bangalore measuring 50' x 90'. The total consideration was fixed at Rs. 18,00,000/-. Appellants paid a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- by two cheques dated 16.7.1987 to the fourth respondent and the balance consideration was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed. The parties to the agreement were required under Chapter XX-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') read with Rule 48(L) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short the 'Rules') to file a Statement in Form No. 37-I before the appropriate authority specified under Chapter XX-C. Accordingly, appellants and fourth respondent filed Form No. 37...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1322; 2006CriLJ1622; 2006(1)CTC666; 127(2006)DLT636(SC); JT2006(2)SC548; 2006(2)KLT404(SC); 2006(2)MPHT308; 2006(2)SCALE457; (2006)2SCC677
H.K. Sema, J.1. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 24.1.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The controversy in this appeal is confined to the non-registration of the case by the police pursuant to a complaint dated 9.9.1997 and 13.9.1997 filed by the appellant. It is stated that the appellant was in possession of the land. The stay order was granted by the High Court protecting the possession of the appellant on 14.8.1997 and it was extended by another order dated 10.9.1997, in the presence of the other side. However, the respondent Nos.4 to 9 broke open the lock and removed various articles on 9.9.1997 and 10.9.1997. We make it clear that we are not entering into the merits of the case.2. The grievance of the appellant is that an information of a cognizable offence has been filed by the appellant before the Station House Officer (SHO), Kapashera on 9.9.1997 and 13.9.1997. However, no case was registered by the concerned SHO. Thereafter, the matte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1283; JT2006(2)SC527; 2006(2)MPHT272; 2006(2)SCALE433; (2006)3SCC305
H.K. Sema, J.1. Leave granted2. The facts of this case revolves as to how the appellants clandestinely and by suppressing the facts tried to grasp the public land measuring 59.17 acres in Khasra Nos. 943, 960, 961, 962 of Jahangirabad ( Jail Bag ) area of Bhopal city under the guise of order dated 2.3.1954 passed by the Jagir Commissioner in respect of land in Khasra Nos. 72/1, 73, 74, 75, 76 in village Dharampuri.3. The facts of this case are cumbersome and may be recited briefly and strictly for the purpose of disposal of this appeal. The present disputed land measuring 59.17 acres in Khasra Nos. 943, 960, 961 and 962 was recorded in the name of jail department and situated in the area of Bhopal city near the Arera Hills in front of old jail premises since 1935. It appears that the area was developed as a garden having trees of Mangoes, Jamun, Lemon etc. and the same was used to let out to different contractors and the property was managed from the income received from the fruits gro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1445; 2006(2)BomCR517; [2007(1)JCR234(SC)]; JT2006(2)SC516; 2006(1)KLT931(SC); 2006(2)SCALE409; (2006)3SCC74
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The controversy lies within a very narrow compass and, therefore, the factual position needs to be noted in brief. The appellant No. 1-corporation is the successor company of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (in short the 'Board').2. The business premises of the respondent were inspected by the officials of the appellant No. 1-Corporation. The respondent was a low tension category consumer. On 10.9.1993 a provisional assessment was made alleging pilferage of energy and a sum of Rs. 27,610/- was demanded. It was indicated to the respondent that if it wanted to avoid disconnection it should deposit 50% of the amount fixed on provisional assessment. The same was deposited. On 15.12.1993 a show cause notice was issued proposing to charge Rs. 1,41,270/- on final assessment. The respondent filed its objection. On 29.9.1998 the fin...
Tag this Judgment!