Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008ACJ9; 2008(1)ALD114(SC); 2008(1)ALLMR(SC)413; 2008(1)AWC106(SC); JT2007(12)SC648; (2008)2MLJ865(SC); (2008)149PLR313; 2007(12)SCALE762; 2007AIRSCW7166; 2008(1)CivilLJ832; 2008ACJ9
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Factual background of the case is that on 10th July, 2003, appellant was driving his mini truck No. MP 20 G-7705 towards Bargesalong with one Ramesh Prajapati. When the mini truck reached Chulha Gulhai, a truck dumper bearing No. MP 18-6392 came from the opposite side, which was being driven in rash and negligent manner and hit the mini truck of the appellant with the result that the appellant sustained grievous injuries on his leg. He suffered three fractures including one at tibia. He was examined by the Medical Board. After examining the injuries, Board came to the conclusion that the appellant had suffered 45% permanent disability. Appellant was 29 years of age at the time of accident and was working as a driver and earning Rs.4,000/- per month. 3. FIR was lodged. A claim was also filed against the owner of truck dumper as well as the insurance company before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') for compensation under Section 166 of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(1)ALLMR(SC)404; 2008(1)BomCR438; JT2007(12)SC500; 2007(13)SCALE26
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Interpretation of Section 27 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Housing Societies Act, 1960 (1960 Act) vis-a-vis Bye Laws of the Merry Niketan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 30th April, 2004 passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents herein declaring that each member of the society will have a separate vote was allowed.3. Respondent No. 17 is a Group Housing Cooperative Society. Contesting parties hereto are its members. Some of the members of the said Group Housing Cooperative Society are members of the same family. They were, however, admitted to the membership of the Society without any reservation whatsoever. 4. The dispute which arose amongst the members of the Society started with preparation of voter list. A provisional list of voters was published by the Managing Committee of the Society on 22nd January, 2004 s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(2008)BC170; 2007(2)CTLJ259(SC); [2008(1)JCR107(SC)]; JT2007(12)SC480; (2008)149PLR335; 2007(12)SCALE692; (2008)1SCC544
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. Leave granted.2. The dispute between the parties relates to invocation of the bank guarantee furnished by the appellant to the respondent. 3. The appellant M/s. Vinitec Electronics Private Limited entered into agreement dated 10th May, 2000 with the respondent HCL Infosystem Limited under which the respondent agreed to buy UPS systems from the appellant for a consideration value of Rs. 1,68,12,400/-. The method of payment and terms thereof are provided for in Clause 15(a) and (d) in the said agreement.Clause 15:The payment terms will be:(a) 30% Advance against a Bank guarantee from a Scheduled Bank of equivalent value. The BG shall be valid till the date of final delivery at the Company location(s).(b) ... (c) ...(d) 10% after one year from the date of receipt of material at the customer site(s).4. The case of the appellant was that it had supplied all the equipments to the respondent by 2nd August, 2000 but the respondent committed default in making the stipul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC959; (2008)IILLJ321SC; 2007(3)SCALE496
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.9.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in civil writ petitions filed by the respondents herein. 2. The short question involved in these appeals related to interpretation of Regulation 17 of the Indian Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'Pension Regulations'), vis-a-vis Regulation 37 of the Indian Bank Officers' Service Regulations, 1979, (hereinafter referred to as 'Service Regulations'). 3. Respondents have joined the service of the appellant-Bank on diverse dates. They, indisputably, have served the Bank for more than 10 years. They opted for the Pension Regulation as and when the same was framed and sought for voluntary retirement from services in 2001. The said offer of retirement has been accepted. 4. The representation of the respondents that their entire period of service, including the period of leave availed by them on loss of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(3)AWC2647(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 22nd of August, 2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi in CM No. 4194 of 2006 and in CRP No. 528 of 1993. So far as CM No. 4194 of 2006 is concerned, it appears that an application was filed by the appellant for deletion of the name of Respondent No. 1 from the Cause Title of the Civil Revision Petition being CR No. 528 of 1993. By the impugned order, the High Court had rejected the same on the ground that Respondent No. 1 had died on 25th February, 1994 and no steps were taken to bring on record the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Respondent No. 1 and that the earlier Revision Petition was also dismissed for non-prosecution on 29th September, 1999, but was subsequently restored. According to the High Court, the appellant was deliberately not bringing the heirs and legal representatives of Respondent No. 1 on record only to prolong the hearing of the Civil Revision Petition. Acco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1; 2008CriLJ442; 2007(4)KLT982(SC); 2007(12)SCALE795; 2007AIRSCW6982; (2007)4Crimes240(SC).
Markandey Katju, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed against the final judgment and order dated 20.7.2005 of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 818 of 1999.3. The prosecution case is that on 9.4.1998 at about 8.A.M., PW1 Radhakrishnan, PW3 Sakthivel and PW4 Arumugam went to a shop for taking tea. Next to the tea shop, a waste paper merchant shop was situated. Muthu, the accused (appellant herein) was working in that shop and after opening the shop he was arranging the articles kept inside the shop. At that time, the deceased Siva who used to collect waste papers from the roadside, collected the waste-papers and cardboard boxes and threw them inside the shop of the accused. On seeing this the accused got angry and shouted at Siva 'why do you do this everyday?' and pulled his hair. The deceased thereupon pushed the accused. Then the accused took a knife from the top of a table in the shop and stabbed Siva in the chest. Siva fell down due to this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC399; 2008(1)ALD18(SC); 2008(1)ALLMR(SC)475; 2007(6)ALT53(SC); JT2007(12)SC489; 2007(4)KLT1046(SC); (2008)1MLJ1038(SC); 2007(12)SCALE685; (2008)1SCC554
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 'Act') read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC').3. In the First Appeal challenge was to the award dated 18.2.1998 passed by the Presiding Officer, Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Lucknow in a reference under Section 18 of the Act in land case No. 746 of 1991 titled Krishna Gopal Lahoti v. State of U.P.4. The factual background in a nutshell is as follows:A large area of land measuring 194 bigha 19 biswa 14 biswansi and 14 kachwansi situated in village Purania and Mahibullapur was sought to be acquired by appellant- Lucknow Development Authority under the housing and development scheme known as 'Timber Nagar Avasiya Yojana'. Khasra plot No. 379 measuring 8 bigha, and Khasra plot No. 394 measuring 2 bigha, 8 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008CriLJ441; 2008(I)OLR(SC)196; 2007(12)SCALE799
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Though many points were urged in respect of the appeal, we find that the impugned order of the High Court cannot be maintained on one ground. Though it had issued notice to the appellant, the matter was disposed of without hearing the appellant. It appears that respondent No. 1 had filed the bail application, that is, Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2945/2004 on 10.12.2004. The court directed service on the appellant. There is no dispute that there was no service of notice on the appellant. According to the appellant, on learning about the proceedings, Criminal Misc. Application No. 4653/05 was filed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2945/04. The High Court was pleased to issue notice on 14.7.2005 on the said application and the High Court directed the accused to implead the appellant. Learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the bail application of the accused, respondent No. 1 on the ground that relief had already been obtained by her from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. On the facts of the case, we do not wish to interfere. The appeal is dismissed, leaving the question of law open....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. There is inordinate delay of 1027 days in filing of the review petitions and no satisfactory explanation has been offered. Even otherwise, we do not find any ground, whatsoever, to entertain the same. The review petition is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on the merits. Consequently, we are of the view that the source of the duty drawback is the business of the industrial undertaking which is to manufacture and export goods out of raw material that is imported and on which customs duty is paid. The entitlement for duty drawback arises from section 75(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the relevant notification issued by the Central Government in that regard.2. Learned counsel for the revenue also drew our attention to Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT : [2003]262ITR278(SC) . However, on a reading of the judgment we find that that also deals with section 80HH of the Act and does not lay down any principle different from Sterling Foods : 1999ECR481(SC) . In fact, in Pa...
Tag this Judgment!