Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2519; [2006(110)FLR77]; (2006)IILLJ1125SC; RLW2006(4)SC2744; 2006(6)SCALE84; (2006)11SCC169; 2007(1)SLJ56(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The State of Punjab is before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 2.2.2004 passed in C.W.P. No. 14907/2002 as also the order dated 23.7.2004 passed in R.A. No. 119/2004 in C.W.P. No. 14907/2002, whereby and whereunder it refused to review the said orders.2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The respondent herein was an employee of the State of Punjab. A disciplinary proceedings is said to have been initiated against him. During the pendency of the said proceedings he expressed his intention to retire voluntarily from the services on account of his health problems. Accepting the said offer, the said disciplinary proceeding was dropped. The respondent, however, was not paid his retiral benefits. He filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which was marked as C.W.P. No. 14907/2002. The High Court on 24.7.2003, passed the following order:Mr. Karan Singh, Director, Public Relations, Government of Punja...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2454; 2006(6)BomCR203; 102(2006)CLT516(SC); 2006(6)SCALE111; (2006)5SCC691
B.P. Singh, J.1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the common judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Civil Appeal Nos. 277 of 1994 and 368 of 1994. By its impugned judgment and order a Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the orders of the learned trial judge on the original side of the High Court dated November 11, 1993 dismissing Notice of Motion Nos. 2141 and 2383 of 1988 and 2392 of 1989. The learned Judge, however, allowed Chamber Summons No. 294 of 1989 filed by the plaintiff in Suit No. 618 of 1967.2. In Civil Appeal No. 4730 of 1996 Milind Moreshwar Kowley is the appellant. He is the plaintiff in Suit No. 2493 of 1988 and the applicant in Notice of Motion No. 2392 of 1989. His appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court was registered as Civil Appeal No. 277 of 1994. The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 4731 of 1996 were defendants 1 and 2 in Suit No. 618 of 1967, who had filed Notice of Motion Nos. 2141 and 2383 of 1988 befo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(198)ELT326(SC); JT2006(5)SC614; 2006(5)SCALE620; (2006)9SCC559
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. M/s. Quinn India Limited - the appellant-assessee has filed the present Statutory appeal under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act') against the Final Order No. 1860/2000 dated 22.12.2000 recorded by the Customs, Excise, Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zone Bench, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Civil Appeal Nos. E/1299/9 4-C and E/CO/366/94-C. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Revenue') and set aside the order - Appeal No. 2/94(H)(D) CE dated 28.2.1994 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). 2. The assessee was engaged in the manufacture of Penetrator -4893 falling under tariff item No. 68 of the old tariff since 1980 to 1986. The assessee was paying the excise duty on the product till the new tariff was introduced. After the new tariff, the product was being cleared under sub- hea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2218; 2006(3)AWC3053(SC); II(2006)BC334(SC); [2006]131CompCas675(SC); JT2006(5)SC587; 2006(3)KLT6(SC); (2006)4MLJ167(SC); 2006(5)SCALE606; (2006)5SCC302; [2006]68S
B.P. Singh, J. 1. This appeal by special leave has been preferred against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated September 18, 2003 in Writ Petition No. 2199 of 2003. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant holding that the issues raised by the appellant in the writ petition were not justiciable in writ jurisdiction.2. The appellant has appeared before us in person and argued his appeal. He claims to be a shareholder of the Development Credit Bank Ltd. Respondent No. 6 herein. In sum and substance, the grievance of the appellant in the writ petition was that the Reserve Bank of India being the statutory and regulatory authority, illegally approved the proposal of the Respondent No. 6 Development Credit Bank Ltd. for writing off of debts, amounting to Rs. 120 crores, of the Bank without following the proper procedures prescribed under the provisions of Sections 13 and 14 of the Securitisatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2138; [2006(110)FLR20]; 2006(2)KLT817(SC); (2006)3MLJ329(SC); 2006(6)SCALE92; (2006)5SCC386; 2007(1)SLJ38(SC); 2006AIRSCW2700
R.V. Raveendran, J. 1. These appeals by special leave against the judgments dated 14.8.2002 of the High Court of Kerala in W.A. No. 1178/1997, WA No. 1170/1997 and WA No. 1135/1997 involve common questions of fact and law. 2. The appellants and the private respondents were recruited as Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) in the Registration Department, in different districts of the State of Kerala. In the cadre hierarchy, the promotion post for LDCs is that of Upper Division Clerk ('UDC' for short). The post of LDC is a district-wise post and the post of UDC is a State-wise post. In other words, the unit for recruitment of LDCs is the district, and the unit for recruitment of UDCs is the entire State. A State- wise seniority list of LDCs. is maintained for promotion to the post of UDCs. 3. The Appellants were recruited as LDCs in district X. The contesting private respondents were recruited as LDCs in other districts (say, district Y or district Z) and were transferred, on their own request t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2035; 102(2006)CLT385(SC); 2006CriLJ2782; 2006(5)SCALE638; (2006)6SCC669
ORDERLokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. Special leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 13.1.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Misc. No. 11930 of 2004 dismissing the petition filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. seeking quashing of the order dated 8.8.2003 of the Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, in Complaint Case No. 298/2003 - T.R. No. 808/2003.3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Complainant Umesh Kumar Singh - respondent No. 1 herein, filed a complaint against the appellants before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, inter alia alleging that Smt. Ram Biraji Devi - appellant No. 1 herein, was allotted MIG Plot No. M-27 situated in Housing Board Colony, Gaya. In July 2002, both the appellants represented to the complainant that they were badly in need of money and wanted to transfer the allotted plot to some person interested to purchase the said plot. The complainant expressed his willingness to purchase t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2511; [2006(110)FLR233]; 2006(5)SCALE627; (2006)9SCC69; 2006(3)SLJ301(SC)
B.N. Srikrishna, J. 1. These two appeals impugned the same judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court and are in the nature of cross appeals. Hence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These appeals arise out of an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Lucknow, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), which was moved by Satya Narain Shukla, appellant in Civil Appeal No. 2082/2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant'). The Tribunal declined any relief to the appellant and dismissed his original application. The appellant carried a writ petition to the High Court and the Division Bench granted him partial relief. There is an appeal by the appellant in respect of the relief denied to him and there is an appeal by the Union of India in respect of that part of the relief granted to the appellant by the High Court. 3. The FactsThe appellant was selected as an officer of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and was allotted UP cadre in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2214; 2006(1)ALD(Cri)933; 2006CriLJ2913; JT2006(5)SC460; RLW2006(3)SC2555; 2006(5)SCALE614; (2006)9SCC787
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted. 2. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench upholding the appellant's conviction for offence punishable under Section 376(2)(e) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') as recorded by learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi and the sentence of 10 years imprisonment as awarded.3. We do not propose to mention name of the victim. Section 228A IPC makes disclosure of identity of victim of certain offences punishable. Printing or publishing name of any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence under Sections 376, 376A, 376B, 376C or 376D is alleged or found to have been committed can be punished. True it is, the restriction does not relate to printing or publication of judgment by High Court or Supreme Court. But keeping in view the social object of preventing social victimisation or ostracism of the victim of a se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2007; 2006(6)BomCR877; 102(2006)CLT791(SC); 2006CriLJ2773; [2006(4)JCR57(SC)]; JT2006(5)SC492; (2006)3MLJ170(SC); 2006(5)SCALE361; (2006)5SCC1
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. The 'King is under no man, but under God and the law'- was the reply of the Chief Justice of England, Sir Edward Coke when James-I once declared 'Then I am to be under the law. It is treason to affirm it'-so wrote Henry Bracton who was a Judge of the King's Bench. The words of Bracton in his treatise in Latin 'quod Rex non debat esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et Lege' (That the King should not be under man, but under God and the law) were quoted time and time again when the Stuart Kings claimed to rule by divine right. We would like to quote and requote those words of Sir Edward Coke even at the threshold. In our democratic polity under the Constitution based on the concept of 'Rule of law' which we have adopted and given to ourselves and which serves as an aorta in the anatomy of our democratic system. THE LAW IS SUPREME. Everyone whether individually or collectively is unquestionably under the supremacy of law. Whoever he may be, however high he is, he is under the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2250; 2006(4)ALD120(SC); III(2006)BC188(SC); 2006(5)BomCR657; [2006]131CompCas399(SC); 2006(3)CTC600; 2006(5)MhLj434; (2006)3MLJ114(SC); 2006MPLJ13(SC); 2006(5)SCA
Altamas Kabir, J.1. The Petitioner-Bank, namely, United Bank of Switzerland, Lausanne, Switzerland (hereinafter referred to as 'USB AG') filed three separate Summary Suits, being Nos. 8907 of 2000, 1515 of 2000 and 6089 of 1999, against the State Bank of Patiala, Federal Bank Limited and United Western Bank, respectively. The Petitioner-Bank took out Summons for Judgment No. 783 of 2003 in Summary Suit No. 897 of 2000 against the State Bank of Patiala. Two similar Summons for Judgment Nos. 784 of 2003 and 786 of 2003 were also taken out by the Petitioner-Bank in connection with Summary Suit Nos. 1515 of 2000 and 6089 of 1999.2. Inasmuch as, the said three suits were filed in respect of various Letters of Credit, where the terms and conditions were identical and the defence taken were also identical, the said three Summons for Judgment were taken up for hearing and disposal analogously and were dismissed by a common order dated 28th October, 2005. The Learned Single Judge of the High Co...
Tag this Judgment!