Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008CriLJ364; JT2007(12)SC102; (2008)1SCC601
Harjit Singh Bedi, J.1. This appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been filed against the judgment of the Designated Court dated 2nd December 2000 whereby all the accused have been acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 3(3) & 4(1) of the Act though Ajit Singh alone has been convicted under Rule 3/6 of the Pass Port Rules 1950 and awarded a sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment. The facts leading to the appeal are as under:2. At about 10 a.m. on 12th August 1991 PW7 Hira Lal along with PW9 Sada Nand, Narender Soni, Inspector Customs and several other officers of the department were on patrol duty on the Indo Pakistan Border in Jaisalmer district of Rajasthan. As they reached village Avaya, a Jonga bearing No. RSS 3479 which was coming from the opposite direction was stopped by them as some suspicions had been raised. On enquiry it transpired that the vehicle driver was Shri Ram Vi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : RLW2008(1)SC381; 2007AIRSCW6624
Harjit Singh Bedi, J.1. This appeal by way of special leave arises out of the following facts:2. Munshi, the respondent herein was charged, convicted and sentenced for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karoli and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to a fine of Rs. 1000/- on the allegation that he had on 18th September 1994, caught hold of PWS Raj Kumari when she had gone to the well outside the village at 3 p.m. to bring water and had thereafter raped her. Raj Kumari on reaching home narrated the incident to her mother PW3 Sharda and father PW2 Ramesh on which a report was lodged with the Police by the latter at 6.30 p.m. on the same day. PW13 S.I. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma then visited the place of occurrence and observed that the Bajra crop had been trampled upon at the site where the rape had been committed and also retrieved some pieces of Rajkumari's torn underwear. A medical examination conducted b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2008)ILLJ975SC; 2007AIRSCW6740
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19th of January, 2006, of a learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court in WP No. 7150 (S/S) of 2000 and WP No. 7 (S/S) of 2001.4. In the writ petitions, the writ petitioner had challenged an order dated 11th of December, 2000, by which he was dismissed from the service. By the impugned order, the High Court had allowed the writ petitions in the following manner:In view of the above facts, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly an order/direction in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 11.12.2000 passed by the opposite party No. 3 as contained in 'Annexure No. 8 of this writ petition.Since writ petition No. 7 (S/S) of 2001 has already been allowed so no relief in writ Petition No. 7150 of 2000 is being granted. The petitioner would be reinstated on his services in accordance with the order dated 25.8.2000 passed by the op...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC261; 2008(1)ALD84(SC); 2008(1)AWC168(SC); 2007(2)BLJR3069; (2008)1CALLT31(SC); [2008(3)JCR43(SC)]; JT2007(12)SC256; (2008)1MLJ887(SC); 2007(2)LC1223(SC); 2007AIRSCW6692; (2008)1SCC728
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions.2. Appellants herein are owners of various tracts of agricultural lands situate in Village Chak Gujran, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur in the State of Punjab. Respondent No. 5, M/s International Tractors Limited, is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It intended to set up a project named 'Ganesha Project'. It requested the State to acquire lands in question in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'). A notification was issued by the State purported to be under Section 4 of the Act on 15.02.2002, stating:Whereas it appears to the Governor of Punjab that Land is likely to be required to be taken by the Government at the public expense, for a public purpose namely for setting up of Ganesha Project, M/s. International Tractors Ltd. at Village Chak Gujran, Tehsil & Distt. Hoshiarpur, it is hereby notified that the land in locality described below is likely to be req...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(217)ELT481(SC); JT2007(12)SC62; (2007)8SCC658; (2007)10VST204(SC)
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. ('Revenue' for short) against common judgment and order dated August 31, 2005 in several Revisions. By the impugned order, the High Court allowed Tax Revision Cases (TRC) filed by manufacturers, dealers and traders ('assessee' for short) and held that 'Capacitors' is one of the items of 'electronic goods' or components, taxable at a concessional rate of tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Act') as also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act').3. To appreciate the issue raised by the Revenue, few relevant facts may be stated.4. The respondents in this appeal are manufacturers, dealers or traders of electronic goods, components and materials. They are duly registered under the State Act as well as Central Act. Their claim was that Capacitors, manufactured by them, was exigible to tax at a c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008CriLJ372; 2007(12)SCALE272; 2007AIRSCW6475; (2007)4Crimes140(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Shivaji Patil, brother of the complainant Sarjerao Patil (PW-13) and one Baburao Patil were residents of Phulewadi situate in the District Kolhapur, State of Maharashtra.There were two groups in the village; one belonging to Sarjerao Patil and the other known as Mahipati Shankarrao Bondre (Accused No. 4) group. Brother of the Accused No. 4 was an M.L.A. He was also a former Minister. In a municipal election which took place between the first informant and one Nagoji Patil, Sarjerao Patil was elected. Bitterness between the two groups came to such a pass that the brother of one Bindu More (Accused No. 9) was murdered. Accused No. 4 Mahipati Shankarrao Bondre was the first informant in that case. There was bad blood between the two groups. In the murder case of the brother of Accused No. 9, the deceased Shivaji was granted bail. The accused allegedly intended to take revenge thereof.2. On the fateful day, viz., at about 10 O'lock on 21.10.1993, PW-11 Subhash Pandurang Ka...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC346; 2008(1)AWC111(SC); 2008(1)CTC329; [2008(1)JCR32(SC)]; JT2007(12)SC383
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Plaintiffs-Respondents are owners of the property in question. They purchased the same from Corporation of Madras by a registered deed of sale dated 19.4.1944. The owners of the property, namely Krishnadoss Lala and his brother, however, partitioned their suit properties on or about 5.5.1968 whereupon the suit properties were allotted to the share of Krishnadoss Lala. After his demise, the same vested in his heirs and legal representatives. They, along with one Mohamed Idris and one K. Peer Mohideen entered into an agreement whereby and whereunder, it was agreed that the property should be released from the notification of the year 1973 issued by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board. 3. Plaintiffs-Respondent herein purchased the suit properties not only from the heirs and legal representatives of the said Krishnadoss Lala but also from the said Mohamed Idris and K. Peer Mohideen for valuable consideration by a registered deed of sale dated 30.9.1986.4. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC225; 2008(1)AWC1069(SC); (2008)1CALLT10(SC); 2008(1)CTC161; JT2007(12)SC367; (2008)1MLJ1268(SC); 2007AIRSCW6632
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for declaration and possession as also for damages in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Baruipur, 24- Parganas (South) in the State of West Bengal. An ex-parte decree was passed against the appellant herein who was arrayed as defendant No. 6 in the suit. In the plaint, the suit property was described as under:That within the township area 2.09 acres comprising of R.S. Dag Nos. 340, 341, 342, 343 and 344 of Mouza Tegharia more fully described in the Schedule 'A' hereunder written and hereinafter referred to as the suit property, is situated.3. Plaintiff claimed title over the suit property on the basis of purchases made under two registered deeds of conveyances dated 27.1.1968 comprising of 12 shares of Plot No. 340, 341, 342 and 343 of Mouza Tegharia admeasuring 1.39 acres from defendant No. 1 and his three sisters. However, in the Schedule of Property, described in the schedule to the plaint, it was stated:All...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC241; 2008(1)AWC1078(SC); JT2007(12)SC352; 2008(1)KarLJ353; (2008)2MLJ504(SC); 2008(1)LHSC547; 2007AIRSCW6654
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. There is a temple in the village Terdal under the Jharkhandi Taluk in the State of Karnataka, commonly known as 'Sri Prabhudeva Temple'. Parties hereto are the hereditary poojaris of the said temple. They are entitled to bless the devotees, receive alms and other offerings made by the devotees throughout the year. The turn of worship has been amicably divided and settled, inter alia, amongst the plaintiffs and the defendants. 3. There were three branches with which we are concerned; one is the branch of the plaintiff, second is the branch of the defendants and the third is the branch represented by Parayya Allayya Hittalamani. The said Allayya and his wife Neelawwa died without any issue. The plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 inherited their right to worship. 4. Disputes and differences having arisen between the parties in regard to right of inheritance of offering poojas in the said temple, the father of the plaintiff filed a suit which was marked as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(1)AWC252(SC); [2008(116)FLR987]; 2008(3)JKJ101[SC]; JT2007(12)SC477; (2008)ILLJ295SC; 2007AIRSCW6807
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Uttaranchal High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants.3. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows:On the basis of a dispute raised, reference was made to the Labour Court, Haldwani, Uttar Pradesh, referring the following question for adjudication:Whether the non-regularization of 14 members mentioned in the Schedule by the employers is improper or unjustified? If yes, to what relief/benefit the concerned workmen are entitled, from which date and with what other details? The employer took the stand that the concerned workmen were being engaged from time to time on temporary basis and wages and other benefits as admissible were being paid. The question of any regularization does not arise. The Labour Court found that the employees were not regularized because of non-creation of posts by the Government. Stand of the workmen was that several p...
Tag this Judgment!