Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2751; 2006(3)AWC2128(SC); 2006(4)BomCR694; 2006(2)CTLJ111(SC); 2006(5)SCALE44; (2006)10SCC510
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Union of India is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 3rd October, 2005 in Petition No. 49(C) of 2005, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the Respondent herein was allowed. 2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. A Notice inviting tender was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting in the month of October, 1999 from the companies registered in India for grant of licence to operate FM broadcasting service at Mumbai. The Respondent herein was one of the successful bidders along with four others. It is not in dispute that in terms of the agreement, it was stipulated that holders of 10 licences, which were planned for the city of Mumbai, would co-locate the transmission infrastructure on a common transmitter tower, as required in Clause 14 of the Licence Agreement, as also Article 7.1(i) of the Schedule (C) of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(3)AWC2184(SC); (2006)5CompLJ60(SC); II(2006)CPJ14(SC); [2006(3)JCR190(SC)]; JT2006(5)SC198; 2006(4)MhLj482; 2006MPLJ211(SC); RLW2006(3)SC2320; 2006(4)SCALE652; (2006)4
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Leave granted.2. Is the consumer beneficial jurisdiction extendable to assessment and quantification of duty (including penalty) under the Electricity Act, 2003, is the question which arose before the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.With the industrial revolution and development in the international trade and commerce, there has been a substantial increase of business and trade, which resulted in a variety of consumer goods appearing in the market to cater to the needs of the consumers. With globalization and with free market economy the possibility of deficiency in the services rendered warranted enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended from time to time. This law has been enacted for the welfare of consumers and to protect them from their exploitation for which the said 1986 Act has made provisions for the establishment of Commissions for settlement of consumer disputes and matters connected therewith. In the case of Skypa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2018; 2006(4)BomCR705; (2007)1GLR502; JT2006(6)SC24; (2006)4MLJ1851(SC); 2006(5)SCALE84
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Interlocutory Application No. 126 of 2003 is filed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1022 of 1989 by the Judges of the Small Causes Court, Bombay for declaration that the action of the Shetty Commission of referring the case of the petitioners to the High Court of Bombay is illegal and improper; to call for records and proceedings of the Full Court of the High Court of Bombay and to set aside the decision taken by the Full Court by directing the High Court to place the petitioners in the same cadre in which Additional Chief Judges of the Court of Small Causes have been proposed to be placed by the Shetty Commission in Category 1. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they belong to a cadre of Judges of Small Causes Court, Bombay which is an independent, separate and distinct cadre filled up by promotion from Civil Judges (Senior Division) and also by direct recruitment. Their cases were considered by the Administrate Side of the High Court of Bombay and a decision was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1920; (2007)1CALLT30(SC); 2006CriLJ2461; JT2006(5)SC213; 2006(4)SCALE647; (2006)9SCC531
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted2. The appellant is before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 15.9.2005 passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal in Criminal Appeal No.148/2002, whereby and whereunder an appeal preferred by him from a judgment dated 17.6.2002 of the Fast Track Court, Kashipur (Udham Singh Nagar), convicting him for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC', for short) was dismissed. 3. Having regard to the fact that a limited notice was issued in the matter, namely, as to whether the judgment of conviction under Section 302 IPC should be altered to one under Section 304 IPC, we need only notice the facts relevant to that aspect:The parties belong to Mohali Jungle of P.S. Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. They have their own agricultural lands in the said village. The appellant has his own cattle. The cattle belonging to the Appellant used to enter into the agricultural lands of the deceased, Ram Singh, which were adj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(2006)ACC539; 2006ACJ1699; AIR2006SC1926; [2006]131CompCas250(SC); 2006(3)CTC166; [2006(109)FLR1074]; (2006)3GLR2246; [2006(3)JCR110(SC)]; JT2006(5)SC228; 2006(2)KLT667(S
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Whether interest is payable by an insurer while indemnifying the insured the amount of compensation awarded against him under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 10.05.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Gujarat, Ahmedabad in First Appeal No. 1061 of 2005.3. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the parties herein, we may notice the contract of insurance. By reason of the said contract, the insurer has made itself liable to reimburse the insured if during the period of insurance any employee in his immediate service sustained personal injury by accident or disease arising out of and in the course of employment by the insured in the business where for he would be liable to pay compensation either under:(i) the law set out in the Schedule or(ii) at common lawHowever, therein a proviso has been added which reads as under:Provide...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2088; 2006(3)AWC2114(SC); II(2007)BC51(SC); [2006]131CompCas451(SC); (2006)5CompLJ470(SC); 2006(2)CTC847; JT2006(6)SC274; (2006)3MLJ276(SC); 2006(5)SCALE27; (2006)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Interpretation of Sections 529 and 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 is involved in this appeal, which arises out of a judgment and order dated 4.8.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 698 of 2002 affirming the judgment and order dated 24.5.2002 passed by a learned Singh Judge of the said Court. 3. The appellant herein is a Banking Company. It, along with Industrial Finance Corporation of India (IFCI) and Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI), advanced the following amounts by way of loan to Respondent No. 1 with a view to give financial assistance to it in setting up a plant for manufacture of leather boards:a) IDBI Rupee Term Loans of Rs. 193.2 lacs and Foreign Currency loan of Italian Lira 1380900,000.b) IFCI Rupee Term Loans of Rs. 196.74 lacs, Central Investment subsidy of Rs. 25 lacs and Foreign Currency loan of DM 2127,565.c) ICICI Rupee Term Loans of Rs. 96.61 lacs and Foreign Currency loan of Itali...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2006)9SCC612
Ashok Bhan; Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. The point involved in the present case is as to whether an illegitimate child can acquire/claim as of right a share in the joint Hindu family property.3. The High Court relying upon the judgment of a Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in G. Nirmalamma v. G. Seethapathi1 has held that under Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”), the illegitimate child would be entitled to succeed/claim a share in the joint Hindu family property as well. This view of the High Court is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Jinia Keotin v. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi2. In the said case this Court, interpreting the same provisions of the Act, has come to the conclusion that an illegitimate child cannot succeed/claim a share in the joint Hindu family property. Such illegitimate child would only be entitled to a share in the self-acquired property of the parents. It has been observed: (SCC pp. 733-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1993; 2007(1)AWC360(SC); 2006(6)BomCR342; (SCSuppl)2006(3)CHN135; 103(2007)CLT25(SC); (2006)3MLJ47(SC); 2007MPLJ223(SC); 2006(5)SCALE197; (2006)8SCC91
B.N. Srikrishna, J. 1. This appeal impugns a judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dated 28.6.2000. That an appeal was itself carried against an order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.2.2000 in Testamentary Jurisdiction allowing an application for discharge of the Joint Executors in respect of the estate of one Reba Mitra and appointing an Administrator pendents lite.Facts2. Phanindra Nath Mitra had two sons, Prabhat Kumar Mitra and Kamal Kumar Mitra, and a daughter, Suhasini Bose. The genealogical tree of the family is as under: Phanindra Nath Mitra | | |Prabhat Kr. Mitra (Son) Kamal Kr. Mitra (Son) Suhasini Bose (Daughter)(Latika Deb Sabita Bose) (Reba Mitra - Wife) Daughters (Issucless)__________________________________________________________________ | | | Niecess Latika Deb Sabita Bose (Deceased) R 5 | | | (Soumi Mazumdar & Shantanu Bose) R 1 R 23. Kamal Kumar Mitra entered into an agreement dated 22.5.1988 with T.K. Ramasubramanyan (lather of Sharad S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2064; [2006(110)FLR1]; JT2006(5)SC235; (2006)IILLJ877SC; 2006(5)SCALE54; (2006)8SCC776
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The Appellant herein was working as a Junior Manager, Grade-I in a Branch office of the 1st Respondent-Bank, herein. On or about 29.9.1984 he is said to have misbehaved with the Regional Manager of the Bank. He was placed under suspension. Disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against him on 26.11.1984. He was found guilty of the misconduct alleged against him. On earlier occasion also, he was found guilty for misbehavior wherefor, he had been censured. He was thereafter allowed to join his duties. The Appellant, however, despite imposition of the said penalties on him, started misbehaving with the senior officers again as also with the customers by using abusive language and passing derogatory remarks during the period 8.9.1986 to 27.9.1986. During the said period, it may be mentioned, he was posted in different branches. A disciplinary proceeding was started against him. The charges leveled against him were as under:Katni Market Branch1. You created an unpleas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(1)AWC294(SC); [2006(3)JCR283(SC)]; 2006(5)SCALE21
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant is a mill represented by its authorized representative. For the purpose of its working, it at all material times was and still is a consumer of electrical energy. It had for the said purpose taken electrical connection from the respondent-Board. The connected load is 6664 KW. In terms of the tariff framed by the Board, the Appellant herein (Company) comes under the category of 'general industry'. The Board on or about 21.01.1991 issued a circular whereby it proposed to levy surcharge @ 17 1/2% on the actual consumption of electricity in respect of those industrial consumers who had been sanctioned load exceeding 5000 KW or sanctioned contract demand exceeding 5000 KVA and had supply from a 11 KV line. The said circular stipulated that surcharge would continue to be levied till conversion of supply to 33 KV or higher voltage by the consumers. It is, however, not in dispute that a letter was issued to the company intimating that for install...
Tag this Judgment!