Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2992; 2006CriLJ3894; [2007(1)JCR73(SC)]; JT2006(7)SC457; 2006(II)OLR(SC)636; RLW2007(1)SC285; 2006(8)SCALE68; (2006)10SCC608
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. Accused Lalit Gupta, Ashok Kumar alias Babbu, Pardeep Kumar and Karam Chand were tried under Sections 366, 376, whereas accused-Inderjit Singh was tried under Section 376 read with Section 109 and Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'). All the five accused were held guilty under Section 376, IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of two months. The accused preferred appeals before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. Ashok Kumar and Karam Chand died during pendency of proceedings; Inderjit Singh was acquitted of the charge under Section 376, IPC, while the conviction of Lalit Gupta and Pardeep Kumar under Section 376, IPC was upheld by the High Court. Against the impugned judgment, accused- Pardeep Kumar has preferred this appeal by special leave.2. The p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3028; 102(2006)CLT696(SC); JT2006(8)SC215; 2006(3)KLT941(SC); (2007)2MLJ304(SC); 2006(8)SCALE75; (2006)7SCC416
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. Leave granted.2. In the year 1968, the appellant herein claims to have purchased an extent of 22.25 hectares of land blocked in Survey No. 2157 in Palakkayam Village, Mannarghat Taluk. The deed was accompanied by a sketch showing the property conveyed. It is seen that the appellant disposed of almost the entire property by way of assignments mostly in the years 1971 and 1972 and by way of a gift of 5 acres to his brother. Thus, he was left with no property allegedly acquired under the sale deed No. 2685 of 1968 of the Mannarghat sub Registry.3. On 10.5.1971, The Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') came into force. In the year 1979, the appellant filed an application, O.A. No. 247 of 1979, before the Forest Tribunal, Manjeri, under Section 8 of the Act seeking a declaration that the application scheduled property was not a private forest liable to be vested in the Government. He scheduled 8.10 hectares equivalent to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3022; JT2006(8)SC519; 2006(8)SCALE124
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree dated 5th January, 1995 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing Regular Second Appeal Nos. 724/1985, 1740/1990, 725/1985 and 307/1991 filed by the appellants- defendants against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge (II), Faridabad. The Additional District Judge has dismissed the Civil Appeal No. 101 of 1983 preferred by original defendant-appellant Tundal against the judgment dated 7th June, 1983 of Sub-Judge First Class, Palwal, decreeing the Civil Suit No. 232 of 1980 instituted by the plaintiffs-respondents for possession of the land by way of redemption. We have taken up and heard these appeals together as they involve same and identical issues and they shall stand disposed of by this common judgment.2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals are that one Smt. Mohori, widow of Dan Sahai, was the owner in possess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(6)BomCR588; JT2006(7)SC435; 2006(8)SCALE114; (2006)7SCC200
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. This appeal by special leave is against the order dated 9.7.1999 passed by the Bombay High Court rejecting W.P. No. 2599 of 1999 filed by the appellant. It is stated that 'Sudam Ganpat Kutwal' shown as appellant is the P.A. Holder of Shankar Sitaram Bhosle, that he had filed W.P. No. 2599/1999 as the Attorney holder of Shankar Sitaram Bhosle, that he filed the SLP also as Attorney holder of Shankar Sitaram Bhosle, but that has not been stated in the cause title due to oversight, though he has specifically mentioned this fact in his rejoinder affidavit filed on 26.4.2000. In view of it, the appellant is permitted and directed to amend the cause title so as to describe him as P.A. Holder of Shankar Sitaram Bhosle. In view of it, the term appellant in this order would refer to Shankar Sitaram Bhosle.2. The appellant's case in brief is as follows:2.1) The appellant was inducted as the tenant of agricultural land bearing Gat No. 332 in village Jogwadi, Taluk Baramati, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(5)BomCR519; [2006(4)JCR82(SC)]; 2006(5)KarLJ449; (2006)4MLJ1840(SC); 2006(8)SCALE98; (2006)6SCC663
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowing the Second Appeal filed by the respondent.2. By the impugned judgment, the High Court held that the respondent was competent to file the suit and that the Courts below were not justified in holding that Exhibit P-I was not proved though execution of the same was admitted by the defendant.3. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows:The plaintiff is the respondent herein. The suit is for specific performance of contract of sale of a house property situated in Gabbut Oni, Hubli, bearing CTS No. 3119/B in Ward No. III. According to plaintiff, the above property was agreed to be sold to the brother of the plaintiff under an agreement of sale dated 26.11.1974. The brother of the plaintiff Keshavarao Mahadevappa died on 10.1.1976 leaving behind him three sisters including the plaintiff-respondent and his second wife Shantabai @ Ansuyabai as his legal heirs. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3010; 2006CriLJ3899; RLW2007(1)SC419; 2006(8)SCALE133; (2006)11SCC444
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment dated 28.8.2003 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No.1211 of 2001 reversing the judgment of acquittal dated 7.2.2000 passed by the First Addl. Sessions Judge, Chittoor in S.C. No.361 of 1999.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under:2.1) P. Narasimha Reddy (PW-2) and P. Govinda Reddy (Accused No.1) are brothers. P. Dilli Babu Reddy (PW-1) and Purushotham Reddy (deceased) are the sons of Narasimha Reddy. Ranamma (Accused No.2) is the wife of Govinda Reddy. Nagaraja Reddy (Accused No.3), Balakrishna Reddy @ 'Balu' and Chandrababu Reddy @ 'Babu' are the sons of Govinda Reddy and Ranamma. (Balu and Babu were juveniles at the relevant time). Both families were residents of Bangareddipalli Diguva Indlu, a hamlet falling under the Gangadhara Nellore Panchayat in Chittoor District. The house of Narasimha Reddy and house of Govinda Reddy were separated by the land of Chinnakka.2.2) Narasimha Reddy,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3018; [2006(111)FLR7]; JT2006(8)SC151; (2006)IIILLJ778SC; RLW2007(1)SC280; 2006(8)SCALE109; (2006)7SCC180
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is filed against an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on August 12, 2004 in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 49182 of 2000 by which the High Court dismissed the petition filed by Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation ('Corporation' for short) confirming the order passed by the Labour Court, U.P., Varanasi on September 21, 1999 in Adjudication Case No. 157 of 1997.3. Few relevant facts of the case are that the sole respondent herein was working as Driver with the appellant Corporation. It was the case of the appellant that the respondent had committed misconduct at several times and was punished. It was alleged that on April 25, 1994 while the respondent was driving Bus No. U.P. 65/223 on Varanasi-Kota route, the checking squad, at about 4.00 p.m., near Dibulganj, gave signal to stop the bus for checking. The respondent, however, did not stop the bus and no checking could be made by the squad. Again, o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3068; [2006]133CompCas236(SC); (2006)5CompLJ409(SC); 2006(8)SCALE101; (2006)7SCC382
Altamas Kabir, J.1. Dankha Devi Agarwal (since deceased) is the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1015/2000. She was the mother of Bhagirath Agarwal (respondent No. 2 in the appeal) and Smt. Leela Agarwal (respondent No. 3) is the wife of the respondent No. 2. Tara Properties Private Limited and three others are the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 6535/2004. It may be mentioned that the appellant in this appeal is the respondent No. 1 in the earlier appeal and respondent No. 1 in this appeal is also the respondent No. 2. in the earlier appeal and the other parties are common. Since the two appeals arise out of the same set of facts between the same parties, they have been taken up together for hearing and disposal and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Tara Properties Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') was incorporated on 28th December, 1962, as a family company with Tara Chand Agarwal (since deceased), Dankha Devi Agarwal, his wife (since deceased), th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2006(111)FLR17]; JT2006(7)SC509; (2006)IIILLJ802SC; 2006(8)SCALE49; (2006)6SCC794
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur holding that the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the respondent was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Therefore, the Appellate Authority was directed to consider the matter afresh with regard to the quantum of punishment.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Respondent was a Store Attendant in the Bank Note Press, District Dewas (M.P). A charge-sheet was issued against him on the foundation that though he had got married with one Parvathibai in the year 1973, while filling up the attestation form on 16.3.1974, he did not show her name as his wife. It was further alleged that he got married for the second time in October, 1974 with one Ushabai. On the basis of this non-disclosure, which, authorities considered to be a misconduct, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated. It is to be noted that the n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2006(7)SC445; 2007(1)MhLj875; 2006(8)SCALE53; (2006)8SCC520
Altamas Kabir, J.1. Having regard to the existence of different rent control laws in the State of Maharashtra, The Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1999 Act') was enacted to unify, consolidate and amend the law relating to the control of rents and repairs of certain premises and of eviction and for encouraging the construction of new houses by assuring a fair return on the investment by landlords and to provide for matters connected with the said purposes. The said Act came into force on 31st March, 2000, and repealed the existing Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, the Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946, including the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949; and the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954. With a view to achieving the objects for which the Act was enacted, certain premises, as indicated in Section 3 thereof, ...
Tag this Judgment!