Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(2)ALLMR(SC)911; JT2007(2)SC347; 2007(2)SCALE214; 2007(1)LC0181(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 19.08.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 4158 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the respondent herein was allowed.3. Respondent was appointed in the services of the Government of Maharashtra on 29.06.1995. Respondent claimed to be belonging to Halba community, a scheduled tribe. The caste certificate procured by the respondent from the competent officer having been doubted, the matter was referred to the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur on 27.08.1999 for verification. The respondent was found to be belonging to 'Koshti' caste which comes within the category of 'special backward class' and not within the scheduled tribe category.4. The question as to whether 'Koshti - Halbas' are members of the Scheduled Tribe or not came up for consideration before this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind and Ors...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC912; II(2007)BC218; 104(2007)CLT237(SC); [2007]137CompCas837(SC); (2007)1CompLJ302(SC); 2007CriLJ1419; 2007(1)CTC529; JT2007(2)SC233; 2007(4)MhLj141; 2007MPLJ9(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant herein was a Director of a public limited company, incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, known as VHEL Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'). The Company issued three cheques bearing Nos. 138015, 138016 and 138017 for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-, Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 3,03,952.60, respectively in favour of Elkay International Private Limited, Respondent No. 2 herein.3. The complainant - Respondent No. 2 is manufacturer and supplier of chemical compounds of different kinds. It supplied its product to the Company. Allegedly, a sum of Rs. 13,36,923/- was due and payable to the complainant by the Company. The Company issued three cheques, as noticed hereinbefore, in favour of the complainant. The said cheques were deposited in a bank but were dishonoured. A complaint petition came to be filed by the complainant in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi against the appellant as also the said Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC909; 2007(3)ALLMR(SC)385; 2007(2)AWC1672(SC); (2007)3CALLT18(SC); 2007(3)CTC604; [2007(2)JCR275(SC)]; JT2007(2)SC239; 2007(3)MhLj72; (2007)5MLJ782(SC); 2007MPLJ302
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 30.01.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi whereby and whereunder an application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the respondents herein against a judgment and order dated 27.05.2005 passed by a learned Civil Judge, Karkardooma, Delhi was allowed.3. Appellant herein filed a suit which was marked as Suit No. 303 of 2004 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,93,987/- with interest on account of dishonoured cheques. The said suit was filed in terms of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code). The respondents filed an application purported to be under Order XXXVII, Rule 3(5) of the Code praying for grant of leave to defend the said suit. The learned Civil Judge refused to do so by an order dated 27.05.2005 opining:I am convinced with the plaintiff's contention that the defence as disclosed by defendant in their application is sham and illu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC971; 2007CriLJ1425; JT2007(3)SC237; RLW2007(3)SC2260; 2007(2)SCALE32; 2007AIRSCW733; (2007)1Crimes420(SC); 2007LawHerald(SC)278; JT2007(3)SC237
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 27.01.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1991 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the appellant herein against a judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16.01.1991 was dismissed. 2. Appellant herein is a resident of Ambedkarnagar, Nanded. He was a mechanic of two-wheelers. One Shivrani Dhondiba Kshirsagar, aged about 6 years at that time, was also residing at House No. 14, Ambedkarnagar, Nanded. He allured the said child to ride with him on his Luna. She was taken towards Aerodrome. A search was made for her, but she could not be traced. She came back to her house weeping and crying. It has been noticed by the High Court:.When her mother made query, she told that the person who used to repair Luna had taken her towards aerodrome on Luna and thee, after removing her nicker, he urinated on his private part. She also told...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC848; 2007CriLJ1145; 2008(2)GLT1; JT2007(2)SC428; RLW2007(3)SC1861; 2007(2)SCALE42; 2007AIRSCW569; (2007)1Crimes147(SC); 2007(1)LawHerald(SC)530; (2007)11SCC467
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Appellants were charged with and convicted for commission of offences under Sections 376(2)(g), 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for rape and murder of one Barnali Deb @ Poppy (the deceased), a 7-8 year old girl. She was travelling with her parents Bishnu Deb (father-P.W.23), Anima Deb (mother- P.W.22) and younger brother in a private transport service known as Net Work Travels from Dharmanagar (Tripura). They were on their way to Dimapur in the State of Nagaland. They reached Net Work Travels' Complex at Paltan Bazar, Guwahati at around 10.30 p.m. on 12.7.2002. There was no connecting bus to Dimapur at that time. They were advised to stay over for the night at Guwahati. Appellant No.1 was a night chawkidar of the waiting room of the said Net Work Travels. He represented that they could stay there for the night and therefore should not have any apprehension in regard to their safety. Their luggage was carried by the appellant No.1 to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(2)SCALE103; (2007)9SCC211; 2007AIRSCW854; 2007CriLJ1435; (2007)3SCC(Cri)120; (2007)1Crimes370(SC); JT2007(2)SC452; 2007(1)LawHerald(SC)377;
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowing the appeal filed by the appellant in part by setting aside his conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and instead convicting him for offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for ten years. Appellant and another accused, namely, Jai Narain faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. During pendency of the appeal before the High Court aforesaid Jai Narain died and, therefore, the appeal stood abated so far as he is concerned. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:The informant Sheo Karan (PW-1)'s niece Smt. Pushpa (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was married to the appellant Virendra Kumar, son of Jai Narain in village Chirli, Police Station Ghatampur. Immediately after the marriage V...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1161; 2007(3)CTC211; JT2007(2)SC620; (2007)4MLJ884(SC); RLW2007(4)SC2790; 2007(2)SCALE131; 2007LawHerald(SC)433
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. The present order will dispose of one of the issues relating to decision of the Uttar Pradesh Government not to take disciplinary action against Smt. Neera Yadav-respondent No.7.2. A brief reference to certain earlier events and orders passed by this Court would be necessary. On consideration of complaints received during the period 1994-96 the State Government decided to enquire into the allegations. These allegations related to irregularities in allotments and conversions of land in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (in short 'NOIDA'). Explanation was asked by Principal Secretary (Heavy Industries) of the Government of U.P. from Smt. Neera Yadav. On 2.2.1995 the then Chief Minister of U.P. observed that there was no need for any action in the matter. In November, 1995, a Memorandum was submitted by NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association- the petitioner in the present writ petition, requesting for enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short the 'CBI...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2624; 2007(4)ALLMR(SC)313; 2007(1)ARBLR154(SC); 2007(2)AWC1935(SC); 2007(3)MhLj54; 2007MPLJ293(SC); 2007(2)SCALE222; (2007)2SCC322
AR. Lakshmanan, J. 1. Leave granted.2. Heard Mr. T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr.R.Sathish, learned Counsel for the respondents. 3. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court dt.13.12.2005 in C.R.P.No. 1177 of 2005. Before the High Court, it was submitted by the appellant herein (D.Gopinathan Pillai) that the delay in filing an application for setting aside the award was only 30 days and there was absolutely no explanation for the inordinate delay of 3320 days in filing the appeal. The High Court without going into the merits of the delay petition has, however, observed that the application to set aside the award is ultimately dismissed then the appellant cannot be said to be aggrieved and that if the said petition is ultimately allowed and the arbitral award passed in favour of the appellant is set aside then his remedy is to file an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and that the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(2)AWC1193a(SC); [2007(2)JCR111(SC)]; JT2007(2)SC532; 2007(2)SCALE129; (2007)2SCC466
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. By this application, the applicant who was the respondent in the appeal has prayed for clarification of the order dated 2.8.2005 in the concerned Civil Appeal No. 7797 of 2003.It is stated that the applicant (respondent in the civil appeal) is living in penury, has no means to pay back the amount which is sought to the recovered. The pension amount has already being attached and the balance is now being sought to be recovered.Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation on the other hand submitted that in the guise of application for clarification, review of the judgment is being sought for.2. By order dated 2nd August, 2005 it was held that the learned Single judge and the Division Bench had erroneously granted the benefits of increment notionally to the applicant during the period when he was out of service.3. The petition is in essence and substance seeking for a review under the guise of making an application for clarification apparently being fully aware of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(3)SC200; 2007(1)SCALE129; (2007)2SCC536
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Interim applications have been filed by the applicants who are aggrieved by the Report made by a Committee appointed by this Court while dealing with and deciding transferred cases in Onkar Lal Bajaj and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. : [2002]SUPP5SCR605 .2. It may be stated that a news item appeared in Indian Express dated August 2, 2002 alleging political linkage/patronize in allotment of retail outlets of petroleum products, LPG distributorship and SKO-LDO dealership. Between August 2 and August 5, 2002, certain names were published by the said newspaper and it was stated that without following guidelines, dealers/ distributors were appointed on the basis of political linkage/patronize/linkage. A question was also raised in Parliament. Consequent upon criticism by the Press and Parliament, cases were reviewed on August 5, 2002 by the then Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Petroleum & Natural Gas and Minister of Parliamentary Affairs also part...
Tag this Judgment!