Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1317; II(2006)BC136(SC); 2006(2)BomCR531; (2006)4CompLJ305(SC); [2006(3)JCR70(SC)]; JT2006(2)SC439; 2006(I)OLR(SC)640; 2006(2)SCALE399; (2006)2SCC615; [2006]66SCL1
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal, as can be seen from paragraph 1 of the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal, challenges the order of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench dated 18.7.2003 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court refused to review its judgment in Company Appeal No. 3 of 2002 dated 19.9.2002 dismissing the appeal. Company Appeal No. 3 of 2002 was filed by the appellant, the legal representative of an ex-Director of M/s Vidarbha Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, a company that went into liquidation and which was ordered to be wound up in Company Petition No. 7 of 1985 by order dated 9.11.1998. Though that appeal was against the order dated 16.8.2002 in Company Application No. 56 of 2001, the appellant attempted to challenge the earlier orders dated 7.9.2001 and 22.7.1999, passed during the winding up proceedings. By the order dated 7.9.2001, the Company Judge had dismissed the application No. 40 of 1999 filed by the appellant for setting aside ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1458; 2006(2)AWC1255(SC); 2006(2)BomCR520; (SCSuppl)2006(2)CHN136; 101(2006)CLT605(SC); 2006(3)CTC180; [2006(2)JCR223(SC)]; JT2006(2)SC442; 2006(1)KLT926(SC); 2006
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court holding that the auction sale held in an execution proceeding and confirmation thereof was illegal. The matter was remitted to the Executing Court with a direction to consider the objection in terms of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'Code') and to consider whether there was any need for sale of the property in view of the deposit made by the judgment debtor-respondent herein. The appellant who is the decree holder purchased the property in the Court auction sale. The proceedings relate to O.S. No. 385/1977 on the file of District Munsif, Kulithalai. 2. The background facts need to be noted in brief.The suit was filed by the appellant on the basis of a promissory note executed by the respondent in favour of the appellant. The suit was decreed. In the proceeding for execution of the decree in his favour (E.P. No. 725/1981 on the file ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1343; 2006(2)AWC1245(SC); 2006(2)BomCR524; I(2006)DMC343SC; [2006(2)JCR210(SC)]; JT2006(2)SC482; 2006(3)MhLj567; (2006)2MLJ294(SC); 2006MPLJ437(SC); 2006(2)SCALE38
Altamas Kabir, J.1. The appellant, who is a pediatrician by profession, was married to the respondent, who is a lawyer by profession, on 29th March, 1989, at Thrissur in Kerala under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. A girl child, Ritwika, was born of the said marriage on 20th June, 1993.2. As will appear from the materials on record, the appellant, for whatever reason, left her matrimonial home at Thrissur on 26th February, 2000, alongwith the child and went to Calicut without informing the respondent. Subsequently, on coming to learn that the appellant was staying at Calicut, the respondent moved an application in the High Court at Kerala for a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, which appears to have been disposed of on 24th March, 2000 upon an undertaking given by the appellant to bring the child to Thrissur. 3. On 24th March, 2000, the respondent, alleging that the minor child had been wrongfully removed from his custody by the appellant, filed an application before the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(2)ALD103(SC); JT2006(2)SC494; 2006(2)SCALE414; (2006)3SCC354; [2006]145STC1(SC)
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. Leave granted.2. The principal question which falls for adjudication in these appeals is regarding the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Warangal Division, Andhra Pradesh in initiating and completing penalty proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short A.P.G.S. Tax Act) after its repeal. 3. We are not adjudicating the merits of the controversy involved in these appeals but are confining our judgment to the limited question of the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner in initiating proceedings under the said A.P.G.S. Tax Act after its repeal. The brief facts which are imperative to dispose of these appeals are as under:The appellant, M/s Gammon India Ltd. is a construction company. The appellant after obtaining construction contract in the State of Andhra Pradesh applied to a registered dealer for the purposes of Section 5B of the A.P.G.S. Tax Act for concessional tax available to the registered dea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3569; 2006(3)ALD1(SC); 2006(2)AWC1591(SC); 2006(3)BomCR116; (SCSuppl)2006(2)CHN143; 2006(2)CTC427; [2006(3)JCR159(SC)]; JT2006(3)SC480; 2006(2)MhLj465; 2006MPLJ149
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal. Brief reference to the factual aspects would be necessary:The appellant filed Suit No. 6954/72 in the Bombay City Civil Court against the respondent inter alia with the following prayers: (a) for possession of suit premises of Plots Nos. 81, 82 with shed at Gandhinagar, Bharat Bazar, Worli, Bombay,(b) for recovery of an amount of Rs. 6,175/- on account of condensation, and(c) for mesne profits. 2. Certain interim reliefs were also claimed in this suit. The broad allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint were as follows:(a) on request of the Defendant, the Plaintiff allowed the Defendant to use the suit premises on the tents recorded in the Agreement dated 01.05.1991, which was an Agreement for leave and license for 11 months from that date;(b) the compensation agreed between the parties was Rs. 475/- per month;(c) the Defendant was to carry o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1172; 2006(2)BomCR533; [2006(108)FLR1158]; JT2006(2)SC426; (2006)ILLJ1096SC; 2006(3)MhLj551; 2006(2)SCALE352; (2006)3SCC56; 2006(2)SLJ440(SC)
Arijit pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal affirming judgment of a learned Single Judge. By the said judgment learned Single Judge had confirmed the order passed by the Industrial Court, Thane Maharashtra (in short 'Industrial Court'). 2. The controversy involved in the present appeal arises in the following background:By Circular dated 30th June, 1992 the appellant - a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 declared a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the 'VRS-I') for its employees which was accepted by the 337 employees. On 16th March, 1994 the appellant entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the employees' Union containing another Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the 'VRS-II'). The same was accepted by 179 employees. Respondents 1 to 6 who had earlier accepted VRS-I filed a complaint before...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1462; 2006CriLJ1619; JT2006(2)SC433; 2006(2)SCALE358; (2006)2SCC664; 2006(1)LC598(SC)
B.P. Singh, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Chennai in H.C.P. No. 34 of 2005 whereby the High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by the appellant and upheld his detention under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The detaining authority finding the appellant to be a 'goonda' under the provisions of the Act and there being a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him for indulging in such further activities in future which were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order passed the impugned order of detention on 15th December, 2004.2. The appeal came up for hearing before us on December 13, 2005. Since the order of detention was coming to an end on December 14...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(2)AWC1595(SC); [2006(109)FLR280]; JT2006(2)SC545; 2006(2)SCALE430; (2006)9SCC269
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. The State of Punjab and its functionaries are the appellants in this appeal, directed against the final order and judgment dated 05.07.2001 passed in a Regular Second Appeal by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The controversy lies within a very narrow compass.2. The respondent filed a Suit for a declaration that the order dated 05.07.1995 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, PAP, Jalandhar Cantt whereby his appeal was dismissed and the order dated 31.08.1994 passed by the Commandant, 13th Bn. PAP, Jalandhar Cantt dismissing him from service were not in order. The Commandant in departmental proceedings held that his absence from duty during the periods 08.02.1994 to 16.03.1994 and from 19.04.1994 to 24.04.1994 was to be treated as non duty and the period of suspension was to be held to have merged for all practical purposes. Respondent filed a Suit. His grievance was that the orders were in violation of the service rules, viola...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1325; 127(2006)DLT226; JT2006(2)SC448; 2006(2)SCALE364; (2006)3SCC399
Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J.1. In respect of large number of immoveable properties throughout Delhi, flagrant violations of various laws including Municipal Laws, Master Plan and other plans besides Environmental Laws have been engaging the attention of this Court for number of years. With a view to secure the implementation of laws and protect fundamental rights of the citizens, various orders were passed from time to time.2. This Court has a constitutional duty to protect the fundamental rights of Indian citizens. What happens when violators and/or abettors of the violations are those, who have been entrusted by law with a duty to protect these rights? The task becomes difficult and also requires urgent intervention by court so that the rule of law is preserved and people may not lose faith in it finding violations at the hands of supposed implementers. The problem is not of the absence of law, but of its implementation.3. Considering such large-scale flagrant violations, this Court had to p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(2)AWC1150(SC); [2006(108)FLR1166]; [2006(3)JCR235(SC)]; JT2006(2)SC397; (2006)IILLJ225SC; 2006(2)SCALE345; (2006)2SCC740; 2006(2)SLJ457(SC); 2006SCC(L&S)440
Arijit pasayat, J.1. These four appeals involve common points of law and, therefore, are disposed of by this judgment which shall govern each one of them. Appellant in each appeal has questioned correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed before the High Court praying issuance of a writ of mandamus to declare that Act 10 of 1998 seeking to amend provisions of Section 16 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short the 'Act') shall not apply to the writ petitioners and they would continue to have the 'infancy protection' for the period of 3 years starting from the date of establishment of the industry. The High Court by the impugned judgments dismissed the writ petitions holding that the amendment was intended to take away certain benefits by way of necessary amendments to Section 16 and the question as to whether any vested right are sought to be affected would arise on...
Tag this Judgment!