Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(5)ALD84(SC); 2006(2)ARBLR498(SC); (2007)1CALLT36(SC); (2007)3CompLJ213(SC); (2006)4MLJ456(SC); 2006(6)SCALE220; (2006)11SCC181; 2005(10)SCC353
S.B. Sinha, J.INTRODUCTION1. Oil was discovered in the Bombay High Region in 1974 whereupon a plan of rapid development of off-shore oil and gas production was embarked by the Government of India through Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC). With a view to achieve exploration of production programme, ONGC appointed contractors to fulfill substantial portions of its off-shore construction requirements. Burn Standard Company Limited (for short 'BSCL') was interested in the second stage of platform construction of ONGC, i.e., structural and progress fabrication and material procurement. Four contracts were thereafter awarded in favour of BSCL for fabrication, transportation and installation of six platforms bearing No. ED, EE, WI-8, WI-9, WI-10 and N3 and associated pipelines. They were to be installed in ONGC's Bombay High Sea. CONTRACT2. The said contracts covered:(i) Material procurement and fabrication of the ED and EE jackets, piles and decks. (ii) Transportation and installation of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2208; [2006(110)FLR492]; 2006(2)KLT834(SC); (2006)IILLJ772SC; RLW2006(3)SC2540; 2006(6)SCALE44; (2006)5SCC201; 2007(1)SLJ1(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court setting aside the judgment of a learned Single Judge. By the impugned judgment it was held that the punishment of reversion passed by the disciplinary authority was proper. The concerned workman was in the employment of Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) the respondent No.1 in this appeal.2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:The appellant-Union raised an industrial dispute on behalf of one of its member questioning correctness of the order passed by respondent No.1 reverting the concerned workman Sh. S. Sivasankara Pillai, Manager, Grade II. He was designated as Manager, Grade II in the respondent No.1's establishment. He was charge-sheeted for misconduct of (1) causing willful loss to the Corporation: (2) habitual breach of Rules; (3) making false allegations against superior officers; ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2281; 2006(4)ALD18(SC); [2006]131CompCas577(SC); 2006(1)CTLJ403(SC); [2007(1)JCR226(SC)]; 2006(5)MhLj209; (2006)3MLJ81(SC); 2006MPLJ468(SC); 2006(6)SCALE34; (2006)5SCC340
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 29th January, 1998 passed by the Calcutta High Court in Second Appeal No. 887 of 1991 affirming the judgment and order dated 29th June, 1990 passed by the learned Asstt. District Judge, Ghatal, District Midnapore, West Bengal in Title Appeal No. 74 of 1989 whereby and whereunder an appeal against the judgment dated 31st August, 1989 passed by the learned Munsif, Ghatal, District Midnapore, West Bengal in Title Suit No. 133 of 1985 was dismissed.2. The basic fact of the matter is not much in dispute. Respondent No. 2 herein (the company) is a company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The said company held and possessed the suit property situated in the District of Midnapur in the State of West Bengal. It intended to sell the said property. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 having came to know of the said intention on the part of the company entered into an agreement for sale thereof, where for a s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2157; 2006CriLJ2791; 130(2006)DLT602(SC); JT2006(5)SC468; 2006(5)SCALE682; (2006)5SCC584
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Whether a school leaving certificate purported to have been issued by the authorities of a primary school would attract the provision of Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 23.09.1997 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 3368 of whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the appellant from an order dated 29.11.1979 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in Sessions Trial No. 293 of 1979 was dismissed.2. The appellant herein was said to have been born on 01.06.1963. He was involved in a criminal case relating to the murder of one Chhattrapal which took place on 15.05.1979. The allegation against the appellant was that he along with his father Surendra, Satish Chandra, Narendra and Ramji Lal attacked him with a country-made pistol and knife. The appellant is said to have been armed with a country-made pistol. The said deceased while traveling on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3559; (2006)3GLR2445; JT2006(6)SC509; 2006(5)SCALE691; (2006)5SCC789; 2006(3)SLJ324(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The Appellants herein are assistants working in the High Court of Gujarat. Their promotion to the post of Section Officer was due. There were 25 vacancies in the post of Section Officer. A written examination was held for the said purpose. All the assistants eligible therefore appeared at an written examination. 29 employees did not obtain the requisite marks for appearing at the viva-voce examination. They filed a writ petition before the Gujarat High Court which was numbered as SCA No. 351 of 1998. 19 of them although cleared the written test but did not do well in viva-voce. They filed a writ petition before the High Court which was numbered as SCA No. 1298 of 1999. 2. The post of Section Officer is a selection post. The terms and conditions of service are governed by Gujarat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1964 (for short 'the 1964 Rules'). Rule 38 of the 1964 Rules relates to promotion which is set out hereunder:38(1) Promotions shall be ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2164; [2006(110)FLR80]; [2006(3)JCR193(SC)]; 2007(3)KarLJ157; (2006)IILLJ865SC; RLW2006(3)SC2495; 2006(6)SCALE89; (2006)5SCC137; 2007(1)SLJ52(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 2.03.2005 passed by the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No. 3976 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the writ appeal filed by the Appellant herein from a judgment and order dated 11.06.2002 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said High Court in W.P. No. 25259 of 1999 was dismissed.3. The Respondent was working as a conductor. He remained unauthorisedly absent from 27.11.1990 to 02.12.1990. He did not report for duty with effect from 16.05.1992. His leave records were seen and it was found that he had repeatedly remained unauthorisedly absent. On the aforementioned charges, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. He was found guilty of commission of the said misconduct and was directed to be dismissed from service by an order dated 6.08.1994. He raised an industrial dispute in relation to the said order of dismissal from service culminating in a reference being made by the Govern...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2461; 2006CriLJ3276; 2006(6)MhLj566; 2007MPLJ28(SC); 2006(5)SCALE649; (2006)5SCC740
P.P. Naolekar. J.1. Accused-appellant Gabbu was tried for committing offences under Section 366 read with Section 34 and under Section 506B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with Sheru who was charged under Sections 366, 376 and 506-B, IPC and Sardar charged under Sections 368 and 506-B, IPC. The Session Court convicted the accused-appellant under Sections 366 and 506-B, IPC and respectively sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- and one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of the payment of fine simple imprisonment for two months was awarded. Accused somewhere else. The report was lodged on 26.7.1992 at the Police Station, Dhar, but the same was not registered properly.2. As per the prosecution version, when the prosecutrix went to attend the call of nature she was threatened by the accused-appellant by showing a knife and the other accused put a hand on her mouth and they abducted her. The accused-appellant acco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2403; 2006(3)AWC2652(SC); 2006(6)BomCR214; 102(2006)CLT301(SC); [2006(3)JCR101(SC)]; (2006)3MLJ105(SC); 2006(5)SCALE642; (2006)5SCC532; 2006(1)LC769(SC)
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. One Shri Vuggina Suryanarayana was the owner of the following lands in vommali village of Madugula Mandalam of Vishakhapatnam district of Andhra Pradesh:0.64 Acres in S. No. 77/11.46 Acres in S. No. 116/12.31 Acres in S. No. 117/13.06 Acres in S. No. 117/22.25 Acres in S. No. 117/51.13 Acres in S. No. 117/61.16 Acres in S. No. 117/91.19 Acres in S. No. 117/9(hereinafter referred to as 'the properties in question').He died on 8th January 1972 leaving behind two widows, namely Chilakamma and Pydamma. Admittedly, the second marriage between Vuggina Suryanarayana and Pydamma had taken place during the subsistence of the first marriage of Vuggina Suryanarayana and Chilakamma. Out of the second marriage, two daughters, namely, Nukaratnam and Mahalakshmi were born. On 28th July 1973 the first wife of Vuggina Suryanarayana, Chilakamma, died issueless. According to Pydamma, on the death of Suryanarayana and Chilakamma the properties in question devolved on her and her two...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2152; 2006(1)ALD(Cri)925; 2006CriLJ2798; JT2006(7)SC258; 2006(5)SCALE658; (2006)10SCC136
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The appellant before us in Criminal Appeal No. 1387/99 is the first informant of First Information Report (FIR) No. 386 lodged on 17.9.1992 at Narnaul Police Station in Tehsil Narnaul in relation to an occurrence which took place at about 6/6.30 A.M. on that day wherein the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in Criminal Appeal No. 1387/99, respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 1388/99, along with one Ram Dayal, were arrayed as accused for alleged commission of an offence punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149, 325/149 and 506/149 of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.', for short). In the said FIR, it was alleged by the appellant herein, Umrao, that at the said hour, i.e., 6/6.30 A.M. he went to the tubewell owned by his brother Rewti, along with his son Rajinder and his brother. They found that the accused persons were removing the electric motor therefrom. On their asking the accused persons not to do so, Yad Ram hurled a blow by the reverse side of 'kassi', which he was carryi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2500; 2006CriLJ2886; 2006(5)SCALE666; (2006)9SCC731
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The Appellants have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 1.9.1999 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 2079/93, whereby and whereunder the judgment and order dated 13.8.1993 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge. Moradabad in S.T. No. 604/2002 acquitting the Appellants herein for commission of offences under Sections 148, 302 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC', for short) and under Section 27 of the Arms Act 1959 was reversed convicting them under Sections 148, 307/149 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code for intentionally causing death of one Ram Gopal (deceased) and his wife Chatarvati, as also for attempt to commit murder of their son Rajveer Singh (the first informant). 2. Appellant No. 1-Budh Singh, Appellant No. 2-Prem Singh and Appellant No. 3-Jagan Singh are real brothers. The Appellant No. 4-Mahesh Singh is son of Budh Singh, whereas Appellant No. 6-Rajendra Singh is...
Tag this Judgment!