Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(2007)ACC356; 2007ACJ825; AIR2007SC1243; 2007(2)ALD122(SC); 2007(1)CTC523; [2007(2)JCR41(SC)]; JT2007(2)SC353; 2007(4)MhLj411; (2007)2MLJ1173(SC); 2007(2)SCALE227; (2007)3
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Uttaranchal High Court holding that the respondents were entitled to compensation of Rs. 8,16,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. Before the High Court the claimants had questioned the judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Addl. District Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital (in short 'MACT'). 3. Factual scenario in a nutshell is as follows:On 7.6.1999 at about 9.50 p.m. Vijay Singh Dogra (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was coming from Nandpur to Haldwani on his vehicle No. UP 01-3962. He was driving the said vehicle. When the vehicle reached near the Block Office, Haldwani, it dashed with a Truck No. URN 9417 which was parked on the road in violation of the traffic rules. In the accident the deceased sustained grievous injuries and he was taken to the Base Hospital, Haldwani fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2486; 2007(2)SCALE246; 2007AIRSCW4427; 2007LawHerald(SC)549
G.P. Mathur, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal, by special leave, has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated July 18, 2005 of High Court of Punjab and Haryana, by which the writ petition filed by the respondent Saroj Bala was allowed and it was directed that her services shall be regularized w.e.f. October 1, 2003 with all consequential benefits. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the issue of regularization of service has been recently examined by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors. : (2006)IILLJ722SC and the judgment rendered by the High Court is not in accordance with law laid down in the aforesaid case. Learned counsel has further submitted that the award of the Labour Court dated June 2, 2003 passed in favour of the respondent was challenged by the appellants by filing C.W.P. No. 13335 of 2005 and the High Court has stayed operation of the award by the order dated August 25, 2005. 4. L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1499; 2007(2)AWC1774(SC); [2007(3)JCR21(SC)]; (2007)3MLJ951(SC); 2007(2)SCALE539
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The defendant in the suit is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 18.8.1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Second Appeal No. 29 of 1993 affirming the judgment and decree dated 20.1.1993 passed in Title Appeal No. 20/1985 whereby the appeal from judgment and decree dated 14.3.1985 passed by the Munsif Court, Samastipur, in Title Suit No. 71/1978, was dismissed.2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.The appellant herein was a tenant under the respondents. He was, however, said to be a landless person. A Parcha was purported to have been granted on or about 29.9.1969 by the Collector of Samastipur District, in terms of the provisions of Section 6 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 ('the Act', for short), the father of the respondents (Nos. l to 5) filed a suit for eviction against the appellant herein, purported to be one under Bihar Buildings (Lease, Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1040; 2007(3)ALLMR(SC)394; [2007(2)JCR126(SC)]; JT2007(2)SC418; (2007)ILLJ1006SC; 2007(3)MhLj63; RLW2007(2)SC877; 2007(2)SCALE340; (2007)2SCC265; 2007(2)SLJ482(SC); 2007AIRSCW834; 2007LawHerald(SC)609; 2007(2)AIRKarR474(SC)
G.P. Mathur, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.3.2005 of a Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the award dated 9.11.2004 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, was summarily dismissed.3. The respondent Dharam Pal issued a notice dated 20.1.1998 under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') alleging that he was employed as an unskilled workman by the appellant Guru Jambheshwar University, Hisar, on 2.10.1995, but his services were illegally terminated on 15.1.1998. As the conciliation proceedings could not fructify, the Government of Haryana referred the dispute under Section 10(1) of the Act for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Labour Court') regarding the validity of the termination of services of the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(3)ALLMR(SC)872; 2007(2)AWC1944(SC); 2007(2)CTC332; (2007)148PLR16; 2007(2)SCALE232; (2007)10SCC719; 2007(1)LC0042(SC); 2007DGLS(soft)53:A.I.R.2007S.C.W.954
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 6.1.2005 passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in C.R.P. (P.D.) No. 357 of 2004. We have heard Mr. V. Prabhakar, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. R. Nedumaran, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents.3. The High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellants herein against the order dismissing the application filed by them to implead themselves in the suit filed by the first respondent (P. Mohan) for partition of his share of the property in O.S. No. 82 of 2004. According to the appellants, they have purchased the properties from the second, third, fourth and sixth respondents by two registered sale deeds dated 18.6.1999 and 21.6.1999 and they are the bonafide purchasers for the value and entitled for alienors' share in equity and, therefore, they are the necessary parties for effective adjudication of the dispute in O.S. No. 82 of 2004...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(3)ALD4(SC); 2007(3)ALT33(SC); 2007(2)AWC1948(SC); (SCSuppl)2007(2)CHN13; I(2007)DMC194SC; 2007(2)SCALE250; (2007)9SCC217
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment/order dt.02.12.2003 passed in FMA No. 1401 of 2000 by the High Court of Calcutta.3. The appellant before us is the husband of the respondent herein. The appellant filed an application under Section 27(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta being Matrimonial Suit No. 268 of 1991 seeking divorce from the respondent alleging cruelty. Later, the suit was transferred to the Family Court, Calcutta and re-numbered as Matrimonial Suit No. 103/1995. The suit filed by the appellant was decreed by the trial court. Aggrieved against the order of the trial court, the respondent filed F.M.A. No. 1401 of 2000 in the High Court and the High Court by the impugned order, allowed the F.M.A. No. 1401 of 2000. Hence, the present appeal has been filed in this Court. During the pendency of the appeal, we passed the following Order on 26.09.2006:After hearing both parties,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1048; 2007(2)AWC2001(SC); JT2007(2)SC509; (2007)4MLJ1064(SC); RLW2007(2)SC1008; 2007(2)SCALE235; (2007)2SCC413
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. Leave granted. 2. In a public interest litigation instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur, by the impugned judgment, has directed that the milk dairies located in the city of Jodhpur be shifted from their present location to alternative sites. These appeals by grant of special leave are preferred against the said judgment and order dated 12th July, 2004 of the High Court passed in D.B. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.4409 of 1994. Both these appeals are inter-connected and are arising out of a common judgment, therefore, we would refer to the facts as mentioned in Civil Appeal No. 246 of 2007 arising out of SLP (C) No.16751 of 2004. 3. The appellant-Milkmen Colony Vikas Samiti is an association of milkmen engaged in the business of selling milk and milk products in the city of Jodhpur (Rajasthan) for the last 44 years. The Government of Rajasthan vide Notification No.F.1 LSG/56 dated 5.11.1956 introduced a scheme, nam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(3)ALLMR(SC)869; 2007(2)ALT111; 2007(1)ARBLR240(SC); 2007(2)AWC1945(SC); [2007(2)JCR99(SC)]; (2007)4MLJ840(SC); 2007(2)SCALE224; (2007)3SCC99
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Leave granted.2. The case on hand arise under the Arbitration Act, 1940. This appeal is directed against the final judgment dt.30.09.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in C.R.No. 2035 of 2001. 3. The short facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as under:The appellant made an agreement No. 58 F-2 of 1980-81 with respondent No. 2 acted on behalf of respondent No. 1 for the construction of `C' type six blocks quarters at Sherpur Colony Gandak Project Muzaffarpur for the total consideration of an amount of Rs. 19,02,428.21. Since there is dispute between the parties, the appellant had to resort to the court of Subordinate Judge, Muzaffarpur to invoke the arbitration clause of the aforesaid agreement. The 1st Subordinate Judge vide its order dt. 02.04.1988 in Misc. Case No. 5/86 appointed the respondent No. 4 as an arbitrator to arbitrate and adjudicate the dispute and to pass the award. The appellant laid the total claim of Rs. 15,77,073/- bef...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(4)SC514; (2008)1MLJ1095(SC); 2007(4)SCALE603
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Interpretation of the provisions of the Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920 falls for our consideration in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and decree dated 2.5.1997 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in RSA No. 1951/79 reversing the judgment and decree dated 26.3.1979 whereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge (Second Class), Gurgaon dated 4.11.1978 decreeing the suit of the appellants herein in possession of 1102/1615 share of the agricultural land as specified in para No. 1 of the plaint, was affirmed.2. The fact of the matter is not in dispute. Appellants are sons of one Sher Singh. Sher Singh alienated the suit property to one Bansi by a registered deed of sale dated 24.7.1953. The legality or validity of the said deed of sale came to be questioned, inter alia, on the premise that the same had been executed without any consideration and legal necessity by the appellants herein, who are th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(2007)ACC420; 2007ACJ818; AIR2007SC1054; 2007(3)ALT57(SC); [2007(2)JCR219(SC)]JT2007(2)SC64(2007)2MLJ660(SC); 2007(2)SCALE255; (2007)9SCC263
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 28.10.2003 passed by the Gauhati High Court in C.R.P No. 69 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the appellant herein was dismissed. The deceased was the owner of an insured vehicle bearing Registration No. TR 03-2304, a maruti van. While he was driving the said vehicle, allegedly, in order to save a goat which was running across the road, the steering of the vehicle failed and it dashed with a tree on the road side. He suffered injuries. He later on succumbed thereto. On the aforementioned premise a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed.3. The insurer resisted the claim, petition when served with a notice, inter aha, contending as under:That as per Motor Vehicle Acts and Rules the owner is not entitled to get any compensation if he drives the vehicle and falls in an accident- As the Insurance Policy is a third party in nature -The contract b...
Tag this Judgment!