Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1796; 2006(1)ALD(Cri)673; 102(2006)CLT215(SC); 2006CriLJ2142; 2006(3)CTC48; JT2006(4)SC350; 2006(2)KLT370(SC); 2006(4)SCALE113; (2006)5SCC167; 2006(1)LC515(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The State of Haryana is in appeal before us from a judgment and order dated 19.08.1998 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 715 of 1996 allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent herein from a judgment of conviction and sentence dated 05.08.1996 passed by the learned Additional and Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 37 and Sessions Trial No. 118 of 1994 under Sections 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short, 'the Act').2. The prosecution case against the respondent was as under:3. On 15.11.1993 when a police party, comprising of Sub-Inspector Dunger Singh, Constable Randhir Singh, Head Constable Omkar, Constable Umed Singh and Head Constable Om Prakash, were proceeding from Bamla to CIA staff Bhiwani and reached the point on Rohtak-Bhiwani Road near Sanjeev M. College, the respondent was seen coming from the opposite direction, i.e., from the side of Bhiwani on foot, holding a plastic bag of white colour. Havi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2475; 102(2006)CLT95(SC); 2006CriLJ3290; I(2006)DMC698SC; [2007(1)JCR364(SC)]; JT2006(4)SC300; RLW2006(4)SC2809; 2006(4)SCALE103; (2006)9SCC467
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Davamani (the deceased) was the wife of the appellant herein. She admittedly committed suicide on 14.03.1994. They were married on 04.09.1992. The deceased gave birth to a female child at Pondicherry in July 1993. The appellant for one reason or the other did not bring her back from her maternal home for a period of about eight months. She was brought back in February 1994. According to the appellant, the deceased proposed to go back to her mother's house to see her mother which he refused stating that she had come back only a month back.2. It is not in dispute that at the time when the deceased committed suicide neither the appellant nor his mother was present in the house. Somehow or the other the people of the neighbourhood came to know about it. They broke open the door and found the dead body. The deceased committed suicide at about 1 p.m.. The mother of the appellant came back at 3.30 p.m. 3. It also stands admitted that the family members of the deceased, namely...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1800; 128(2006)DLT801; JT2006(4)SC328; RLW2006(3)SC2042; 2006(4)SCALE161; (2006)4SCC265; 2006(3)SLJ54(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The respondent was enrolled as a Constable in the Delhi Police on or about 01.08.1994. A First Information Report was lodged against him on 30.10.1995 for commission of an offence under Section 308/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He was arrested in connection therewith on 30.10.1995. He remained in judicial custody for a period of 15 days. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him in relation to the same incident. 2. He filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') for stay of the said proceeding till disposal of the criminal case. By an order dated 23.07.1996, the said original application was disposed of by the Tribunal upon issuing some directions. 3. In the meantime, two revolvers and one pistol were found from the Vijay Ghat Armoury. Two persons who were accused therein, inter alia, made confessions stating that the respondent had committed theft of the said two revolvers and pistol. The respondent on t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1791; 2006(2)AWC2080(SC); JT2006(4)SC384; (2006)143PLR781; 2006(4)SCALE122; (2006)4SCC542; 2006(1)LC523(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Gram Panchayat Ralla is situated in the District of Mansa in the State of Punjab. Election to the post of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat was held on 29.6.2003. The Appellant and the First Respondent herein were the only two contestants, polling where for was held in four booths being Nos. 41, 42, 43 and 44. The Appellant was declared elected having polled 2004 votes as against 1900 by the First Respondent. 147 votes were rejected. The First Respondent herein allegedly made all attempts to disturb the counting process. He, however, did not lodge any complaint with the Returning Officer. The wife of the First Respondent incidentally was elected as Sarpanch in the earlier term. 3. An election petition was filed by the First Respondent on 28.7.2003 inter alia praying for the following relief:.Therefore, the petition is presented it is prayed that the petition may kindly be accepted with costs and the recounting of the votes for the election of Sarpanc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1736; 2006CriLJ2120; JT2006(4)SC288; 2006(4)SCALE92; (2006)9SCC57
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Maiyoor is a small village situate in the district of Chenglepet Appellant No. 1 had a brick-kiln therein, which was being run in a land belonging to a village temple known as one Gangaiamman temple. The villagers were opposed to it. They complained thereabout to one Rajendran, who was president of the Panchayat Board. He, in turn, lodged a complaint with the Block Development Officer who imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000/- on the said appellant. The amount of fine was not paid. The President, Panchayat Board filed a suit therefor, which was decreed. Furthermore, allegedly a sum of Rs. 12,000/- collected by the villagers for temple festival and entrusted to the 1st appellant had not been accounted for by him. Rajendran convened a meeting of the Gram Panchayat for taking further action against the 1st appellant. The appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are sons of the 1st appellant.2. They, allegedly, having felt insulted and aggrieved over the convening of the meeting, formed themselves...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2488; 2006(2)ARBLR1(SC); 2006(3)BomCR10; 2006(2)CTC597; JT2006(4)SC251; (2006)3MLJ243(SC); 2006(4)SCALE74; (2006)4SCC658; 2006(1)LC423(SC)
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. This appeal was directed against the final judgment and order dated 8/9th June, 2004 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No. 440 of 1996 in Arbitration Suit No. 1904 of 1992 whereby the High Court dismissed the appellants' appeal and upheld the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the appellants' application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 as being barred by the law of limitation. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- A partnership firm was formed by three brothers of the Singhania family. The family owned considerable amount of immovable property, which was brought into the firm's business. In 1987, the partnership firm was dissolved by way of dissolution deed as a family settlement. Under the dissolution deed, Clause 13 which enabled the parties or any party to go for arbitration in case there was a dispute between them reads as follows:13. That if at any time any dispute, doubt or quest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(2)AWC2024(SC); 2006(4)SCALE52; (2006)9SCC390; 2006(1)LC477(SC)
Altamas Kabir, J.1. These two appeals filed by the Rajasthan Housing Board (for short 'the Board') through its Chairman, are directed against the common judgment dated 31st January, 2005, passed by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur, dismissing the two Special Appeals preferred by the Board against the order dated 21st April, 1994 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of the two writ petitions filed by the Board.2. On 27th September, 1973, the respondent herein got himself registered with the Board for allotment of a house in the Middle Income Group Category (for short 'the MIG') in the city of Jaipur. In 1979, the respondent requested the Board to alter his category from the Middle Income Group Category to the Higher Income Group Category (for short 'the HIG') and such change was duly allowed by the board. The respondent was informed accordingly by letter dated 25th May, 1979. The respondent was also requested to submit his option for the type of plot whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(2006)ACC1; 2006ACJ1441; AIR2006SC1576; 2006(2)ALD2015(SC); 2006(4)ALT23(SC); [2006]131CompCas163(SC); 2006(2)CTC661; (2006)3GLR2379; [2006(3)JCR9(SC)]; JT2006(4)SC280; 2
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. The core issue involved in this appeal is Whether a statutory insurance policy under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, intended to cover the risk to life or damage to properties of third parties, would cover the risk of death or injury to a gratuitous passenger earned in a private vehicle.2. Respondent No. 5 Bal Krishan had insured his scooter with the appellant-insurance company for the period 7.3. 1989 to 6.3.1990. For covering liability to pillion passengers endorsement of I.M.T. 70 pertaining to accident to unnamed hirer/driver/pillion passenger, is required on the insurance policy, which may he obtained by payment of additional premium. The insurance policy-covering the scooter of respondent No. 5 did not contain an endorsement of IMT 70.3. On 23th March 1989 the scooter was admittedly sold by respondent No. 5 to respondent No. 1, Tilak Raj. It is also an admitted position that the registration certificate of the scooter was transferred in the name of Tilak Raj b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(2006)BC538(SC); [2006]131CompCas119(SC); (2006)4CompLJ433(SC); 2006(3)CTC520; JT2006(4)SC241; (2006)3MLJ224(SC); (2006)143PLR638; 2006(4)SCALE43; (2006)4SCC457; [2006]67
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. This appeal directed against the order dated 1.9.1997 of the Patna High Court in LPA No. 259/1996, relates to the applicability of Article 137 of Limitation Act, 1963 to a petition under Section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking leave of the Company Court to proceed with a pending suit.2. Nalanda Ceramic & Industries Ltd. (second respondent herein, referred to as 'the Company') was a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). Appellant Nos. 1 to 3 were its Directors. The Company had obtained certain credit facilities from the State Bank of India (first respondent herein and referred to as 'the Rank'). The loans were secured by mortgage of the assets of the Company. The repayment of the amounts advanced to the Company was guaranteed by the appellants. On 28.11.1988, the Bank filed a suit (Title Mortgage Suit No. 150/1988 on the file of the Special Subordinate Judge, Ranchi) against the Company (defendant No. 1), the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(2006)BC559(SC); [2006]131CompCas113(SC); (2006)5CompLJ185(SC); [2006(109)FLR644]; JT2006(4)SC337; (2006)IILLJ797SC; (2006)143PLR308; 2006(4)SCALE39; (2006)4SCC367; [2006
Arun Kumar, J.1. M/s. Punjab National Fertiliser and Chemical Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'PNFC') is a Company limited by shares and is registered as a company under the Companies Act, 1956. This company was promoted by the Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'PSIDC') and the PSIDC held 46.13% shares in it. On recommendation of the BIFR (Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction) under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the winding up order was passed qua the PNFC on 27th July, 2001.2. In view of its financial difficulties the PNFC stopped paying the wages to its workers from September, 1999. The workers were therefore agitating for payment of their wages. It appears that they approached the Chief Minister of the State of Punjab in this behalf. On a proposal put forth by the concerned department, the Chief Minister on 25th August, 2001 made the following note:It is not a question of legality or sta...
Tag this Judgment!