Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC300; 2008(1)AWC126(SC); JT2007(12)SC248; 2007(4)KLT811(SC); 2007AIRSCW6787; (2007)11SCC621
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. The question involved in this appeal is the validity of a Will dated 07.08.1971 executed by one Sankaran Nair. 3. For the sake of convenience, the genealogical table may be noticed at the outset:Krishnan Nair [brother] Kochukutty[Died unmarried in 1971] @ Kuttipenamma [sister][Dead]||__________________|____________________| || |Sankaran Nair Nanikutty Amma[Died in 1978] [Dead]| | | |Madhavan Nair |_________|__________| |D-1 D-2|D-3 to D-84. The properties in suit were purchased by Krishanan Nair and Kochukutty @ Kuttipennamma, mother of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and grandmother of Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 herein. Krishnan Nair was a bachelor. Kochukutty had two children, Sankaran Nair and Nanikutty Amma. They were governed by Marumakkattayam School of Law. Appellants herein are wife, son and daughters of Madhavan Nair son of Sankaran Nair (Plaintiff). Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein (Original Defendant Nos. 1 and 2) and Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 herein (Origin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC295; 2007(6)ALT47(SC); 2008(1)AWC182(SC); 2008(3)BomCR786; 2008(1)CTC698; JT2007(12)SC273; (2008)1MLJ1263(SC); (2008)1SCC267; 2007AIRSCW6781
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. A short but interesting question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether an application under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act for revocation of grant of probate would be maintainable, inter alia, on the premise that the appellant's name was not cited in the said application for grant of probate. 3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. 4. A Will was executed by one Lakhpati Devi widow of late Mahadeo Jaiswal in favour of the respondent herein who was one of the grand sons of late Bhagwatidina, one of the brothers of late Mahadeo Prasad. Appellant herein claimed that the said Lakhpati Devi had executed another will on or about 12.3.1996. The said Lakhpati Devi admittedly expired on 13.03.1996. Whereas the appellant did not file any application for grant of probate in relation to the aforementioned will dated 12.03.1996, the respondent did so on 6.9.1996. In the said application, it was contended that the propert...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC368; 105(2008)CLT289(SC); JT2007(12)SC413; 2007AIRSCW7044; 2008(1)AICLR194;
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Correctness of a judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh is in question in this appeal whereby and whereunder an appeal from a judgment of conviction dated 13.12.1996 by Special Judge, FO CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam in C.C. No. 11 of 1994 has been allowed. 2. Respondents herein were Manager and Field Officer of Chaitanya Grameena Bank, Penumaka Branch, Guntur District. Allegations against them were that they conspired with each other in the matter of sanctioning and disbursing loans of Rs.5,000/- each under Crop Loan A/c. No. 85/23, 86/221, 87/10, 85/95, 86/224 and 87/12 as contained in Exhibits P-1 to P-6 in the names of fictitious persons by forging signatures and thumb impressions of the proposed borrowers in the documents resulting in misappropriation of the proceeds of Rs.30,000/-. The offences in question allegedly took place during the period 7.12.1984 to 14.8.1986. Respondent No. 2 herein joined his services on 7.12.1984 as a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008CriLJ358; JT2007(12)SC37; 2007(12)SCALE159
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Both these appeals are filed by the State of Delhi against judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal Nos. 111 and 47 of 1999. By the said order, the High Court confirmed an order of conviction recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 98 of 1996 dated October 14/October 21, 1998, but restricted the sentence to the period already undergone by the convict.2. Short facts of the case are that Didar Singh, Circle Inspector along with Constable Ram Karan was on patrolling duty on September 07, 1996. At about 8.15 p.m., they reached near car parking at old Lajpat Rai Market. There they received secret information that two persons aged about 35-40 years were likely to come from the side of Bagichi Angoori Bagh and they were possessing jute bags containing poppy straw powder. They would catch a bus going to Punjab. On receipt of such information, SI Didar Singh organized a raid party along with police officials and 4/5...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC233; II(2007)DMC719SC; JT2007(12)SC91; 2007(12)SCALE148; 2007AIRSCW6642
C.K. Thakker, J.1. The present appeal is filed by the two appellants against an order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur on April 30, 2002 in Sessions Case No. 128 of 1999 and confirmed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh on May 4, 2005 in Criminal Appeal No.950-SB of 2002. By the said order, the Courts below convicted the appellants herein for offences punishable under Sections 304B and 315, Indian Penal Code (IPC). For an offence punishable under Section 304B, IPC the appellants were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, whereas for an offence punishable under Section 315, IPC, they were ordered to undergo imprisonment for three years.2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that Reeta Kumari, daughter of Tilak Singh and Sudershana Rani-PW2, got married to Manmohan Singh (original accu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC276; 2008(1)AWC165(SC); (SCSuppl)2008(1)CHN82; 2008(1)CTC173; (2008)1MLJ1214(SC); (2008)149PLR645; (2008)1SCC358
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant is before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 14.2.2005 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Revision Petition No. 5999 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the Revision Application filed by the first respondent herein was allowed.3. Appellant filed a civil suit on or about 6.4.1985. Summons of the suit were served upon the first respondent. He did not appear. An ex parte decree was passed against him on 19.2.1986. An application for mutation on the basis thereof was filed which was allowed on 07.03.1996. Allegedly, the first respondent having come to know about passing of the said ex parte decree on 03.02.1997, filed an application on 07.02.1997 for setting aside the same, in terms of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Trial Judge, by reason of an order dated 28.07.2000, dismissed the said application, inter alia, holding that summons had been duly served upon the firs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC320; 2007AIRSCW6843
Harjit Singh Bedi, J.1. This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal Nos. 752-755 of 2005 pertaining to the acquittal of four of the accused whereas Criminal Appeal Nos. 834 of 2005, 835 of 2005 and 910-912 of 2005 have been filed by the accused who stand convicted both by the trial Court as well as by the High Court.2. The facts have been taken from the record of Criminal Appeal No. 835 of 2005. They are as under:3. On 4.4.1999 Rakesh Kumar Pandey along with his brother-in-law Surya Narain @ Vakil Shukla along with three others, Devi Shankar Dubey, Prem Shanker Dubey and the car driver Shesh Mani were returning from Aurai to Gopiganj in the latter's car No. WB 26A 7554. As the car reached near the Trimuhani on the middle of the road in Gopiganj, accused Udai Bhan Singh, Akbal Bahadur @ Atkoti Singh, Prem Singh, Dhunni Singh, Munni Singh, Daroga Singh, Rajeshwar Upadhyay, Pintoo Singh and two other persons all armed with modern weapons starting firing at the car. The firing led to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(122)ECC301; 2007(148)LC301(SC); 2007(217)ELT330(SC); JT2007(12)SC358; 2007(12)SCALE195; (2008)12VST255(SC); 2007AIRSCW7226.
Ashok Bhan, J.1. Assessee has tiled these appeals under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the 'Act') against the final order No. 1419-1420/Cal/2000 dated 31st August 2000 in appeal No. E/R-156-157/99 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Bench, Calcutta (hereinafter called the Tribunal) whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein.FACTS:2. Acting on the basis of intelligence, a team of officers from CPO of Calcutta I Central Excise Commissionerate, Headquarters visited the factory-cum-office of the appellant on 5th September, 1997 and conducted a search operation. Search resulted in seizure of 3 files, 9700 pieces of Philips Ultra cleaner, 500 pieces of degreasing & cleansing fluid, 700 pieces of Switch cleaning oil all bearing brand name of Philips. These were detained and later seized on 9th February, 1998. Also, some 13 tiles belonging to M/s. T. Paul & Sons were tendered by the part...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2007)212CTR(SC)425; [2008]296ITR31(SC); RLW2008(1)SC375; 2007(12)SCALE107
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Interpretation of Sub-section (3) of Section 226 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) is involved in these appeals which arises out of a judgment and order dated 27.8.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 2305 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by B.M. Malani (hereafter referred to as the respondent) was allowed in part.3. Respondent is an assessee of income tax. He was admittedly a defaulter in payment of income-tax. He had invested an amount of 65 lacs in the Monthly Income Plan (III) offered by the Unit Trust of India under Capital Gains Scheme, the predecessor in interest of the petitioner in the year 1998 with an object to seek exemption under Section 84-E of the Act. The 'Highlights' projected for such an offer were as under:. A five year close ended income plan. The plan offers three options 1) Monthly Income Option, 2) Annual Income Option and 3) Cumulative Option. The f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(6)BomCR470; 2008CriLJ377; 2008(2)MhLj787; 2008(1)OLR(SC)144; 2007(12)SCALE123
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Respondent filed a complaint petition in the 33rd Court of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate at Ballard Pier, Mumbai against the appellant herein alleging, inter alia, that as nine cheques delivered by him having bounced, they have committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It was alleged that a notice was served asking the appellants to pay the amount in question within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt thereof.3. Cheques were admittedly issued on 16.3.2000. The memo in regard to non-payment of the said cheques was received by the respondent on 16.3.2000. Legal notices were allegedly issued on 30.3.2000 by the respondent's Advocate intimating the appellants as regards the dishonour of the said cheques and calling upon them to make payment of the amount of cheque, stating;4. Our clients presented all the aforesaid cheques for payment on 16th March, 2000 through their bankers...
Tag this Judgment!