Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(1)Supreme17; AIR2008SC663; 146(2008)DLT347(SC); (2008)3SCC1; 2008(3)KCCRSN174; ILR2008(1)Kar697; 2008(1)LH(SC)70; 2007AIRSCW7772; AIR2008SC663; 2008(3)SCC1; 2008(1)Supreme17; 2008(1)LH(SC)70; ILR2008(1)Kar697; 2008(3)KCCRSN174
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.Introduction2. Constitutional validity of Section 30 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (for short 'the Act') prohibiting employment of 'any man under the age of 25 years' or 'any woman' in any part of such premises in which liquor or intoxicating drug is consumed by the public is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 12.01.2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi in CWP No. 4692 of 1999.Background Facts3. First Respondent is the Hotel Association of India. Its members carry on business in hotels. Liquor is served in the hotels not only in the bar but also in the restaurant. Liquor is also served in rooms as part of room service. First Respondent with four others filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court questioning the validity of the said provision. By reason of the impugned judgment, Section 30 of the Act has been declared to be ultra vires Articles 19(1)(g), 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR227; (SCSuppl)2008(1)CHN102; 146(2008)DLT1(SC); 2008(1)JKJ17[SC]; JT2008(3)SC221; (2008)1MLJ155(SC); 2008(2)MPHT1(SC); (2008)149PLR485; 2007(14)SCALE1; 2008AIRSCW406; 2008(1)LH(SC)432; 2008(2)KCCRSN134
ORDERA.K. Mathur and Markandey Katju, JJ.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Leave granted.3. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 17th February, 2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in R.S.A. No.666/2006 whereby the learned Single Judge has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court.4. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that the plaintiffs (respondents in this appeal) were appointed as Mali (gardener) in the service of the defendant-appellant, which is a golf club run by the Haryana Tourism Corporation in the year 1989 and 1988 respectively on daily wages. Subsequently in the year 1989 they were told to perform the duties of Tractor Drivers, though there was no post of tractor driver in the employer's establishment. However for a number of years they continued to be paid wages for the post of Mali.5. Thereafter on a recommendat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(1)SC88; (2008)1MLJ125(SC); 2008AIRSCW352; 2008(4)KCCRSN282
B.N. Agarwal, J.1. Leave granted.2. The private respondents in these appeals were appointed in the banks against the vacancies of Scheduled Tribe as they claimed themselves to be members of Konda Reddy Community which is a Scheduled Tribe. Most of them were appointed by the Indian Bank but some of them by the State Bank of India. Subsequently it transpired that they did not belong to Konda Reddy Community, as such an enquiry was directed which was conducted by a District Level Committee which found that they did not belong to Konda Reddy Community and accordingly certificates granted in their favour were cancelled. In all the cases, except in Civil Appeal No. 54/2005, the private respondents challenged the aforesaid decision of the District Level Committee before the State Level Committee which confirmed the same in most of the cases whereas in other cases matters remained pending before the State Level Committee. In the meantime, in accordance with the decisions of District Level Comm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC607; 2008CriLJ800
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant.3. Background facts according to the prosecution in a nutshell are as follows:On the night of 11.4.88 at about 6.30 P.M. the accused Abdul Gafur, Hokoi Mian, Najir All, Sayed Ali, Latif Ali, Aklas Mian, Ashu Mian and Tabai Mian being armed with deadly weapons namely, dao, lathis, dagger etc. surrounded the house of Satyendra Nath Gupta at village Brahrnanshashan, assaulted him, his wife Smt. Hemamalini Gupta, his son Subhendu Gupta, his eldest daughter Anjali Gupta and his relatives Sushil Chanda causing grievous injuries to them, tied them up and then looted gold ornaments, namely, chains, bangles, ear rings etc. valued at Rs.42,950.00 from the possession of the female inmates of the house, namely, Hemamalini Gupta, Anjali Gupta, Mitra Gupta, Rubi Gupta and Nell Gupta. That apart two of the accused person...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC913; 2008(1)CTC711; (2008)1MLJ1075(SC); 2007(14)SCALE10; 2008(4)KCCRSN280.
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court disposing the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 styled as a 'Public Interest Litigation'. The order gave certain directions and nullifying certain allotments of land made in favour of respondent No. 5. In the writ petition action of the State Government of Bihar in granting appellant through its Director Prakash Jha land pieces in the Industrial areas in Patna, Hajipur, Muzaffarpur, Sitamarhi and Buxar. The writ petitioner alleged that the said Prakash Jha, Director of present appellant who was respondent No. 5 in the writ petition was given land in return of services rendered by him to help the present Chief Minister to win last assembly elections. It was alleged that the action of the Government amounted to doling out valuable State property as largess at throw away prices for political considerations.3. The writ petition was filed, and was claim...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(1)SC94; 2007AIRSCW7861; 2008(4)KCCRSN264
P. Sathasivam, J.1. M/s Trig Guards Force Ltd., New Bombay, aggrieved by the order dated 1.8.2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 3997 of 2002, Order dated 22.1.2003 passed in Review Petition No. 98 of 2002 in W.P. No. 3997 of 2002 and Order dated 17.2.2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 864 of 2003 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, has filed the above appeals by way of special leave petitions.2. Brief facts are as follows:According to the appellant, they constructed commercial structures consisting of nearly 50-60 shops in a slum area known as Turbhe Slum, Turbhe Village facing Thane-Belapur Highway Road. One of their shops bearing No. 6104 was a single storey building/structure built in and was in existence long before 1.1.1995 i.e., the notified date fixed for protected structures under the Maharashtra Slums Clearance & Improvement Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Slum Act') and as per the Government Resolution and Notification issued from time to time. The said building...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2008)ILLJ676SC; 2008(2)MhLj161; (2008)1SCC115; 2007AIRSCW7649; 2008-I-LLJ-676; 2008(2)KCCRSN135
Ashok Bhan, J.1. Leave granted2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 3.8.2005 passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 603 (M/S) of 2002. By the impugned order, the High Court upheld the findings recorded by the Labour Court to the effect that the punishment of removal imposed upon the respondent was excessive in comparison to the charges leveled against him. The High Court while maintaining the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the punishment of removal was excessive in comparison to the charges leveled against the workman, reduced the back wages to 50%. 3. Respondent-workman was appointed as a Conductor in the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (the appellant herein) on 26.9.1991. Respondent was conducting the bus on Kalsi Chhani route, which was checked and, on inspection it was found that out of 45 passengers, 28 passengers from Kalsi to Chhani were without ticket. The Inspecting Team found that the Conducto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC719; 2008(1)AWC700(SC); 2007(5)CTC0881; JT2008(1)SC102; (2008)1MLJ165(SC); 2008(1)ICC670; JT2008(1)SC102; 2008(4)KCCRSN278
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Challenging the order dated 20.7.2001 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Review Application Nos. 8 & 9 of 1997 filed by the respondent herein whereby a learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the same, the appellant has filed these appeals. 2. The respondent herein was the owner of the suit vacant land in question. In 1959, the suit land was leased out for five years by the respondent to the appellant herein. On 3.3.1965, the tenancy was renewed for another period of three years. After the expiry of three years, the respondent wanted the appellant to vacate the premises. As the appellant did not vacate, the respondent issued a notice on 28.8.1968 demanding possession for which he sent a reply with false and frivolous allegations. In the year 1969, the respondent filed O.S. No. 218 of 1969 for recovery of land. The appellant also filed O.S. No. 75 of 1970 as a counter blast for getting a fresh lease document from the respondent. On 14.12.1970,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2008)214CTR(SC)81; [2007]295ITR561(SC); 2007(14)SCALE21; 2007AIRSCW7912; 2008(3)KCCRSN199
ORDER1. Leave granted.Gujarat Maritime Board is a statutory Authority constituted under Section 3(2) of Gujarat Maritime Board Act, 1981.2. Before 13.11.2002, the Board was registered as 'Local Authority' as defined under Section 3(31) or the General Clause Act, 1897 which was a very wide definition. Prior to 2002, the Board was availing exemption as local Authority under Section 10(20) of the 1961 Act. Accordingly, prior to 2002 the income of the Board was not eligible to income-tax under Section 10(20) or the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. By finance Act, 2002, an Explanation was added in Section 10(20) by which 'Local Authority' was defined. It gave a restricted meaning to the word 'Local Authority'. By reason of the said Explanation, the expression. 'Local Authority' was confined to panchayats, municipality, municipal committee, district board and cantonment board. Thus, Maritime Board did not come within the definition of the expression 'Local Authority'.4. Under the circumstances, Gujar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2008)2SCC370; 2007AIRSCW7864; 2008(2)SCC370; (2008)1SCC(Cri)415; 2008(1)Crimes119; 2008(2)KCCR1141
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Interpretation of the provisions of Sections 42 and 43 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) calls for our consideration in this appeal which has been filed by the Directorate of Revenue against the respondent herein aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 19 and 20 December, 2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No.462 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by a Special Judge at Mumbai in NDPS Special Case No.221 of 1997 was reversed.2. An information was received in the office of the appellant on 23.1.1997 that one person staying in Room No.305 or 306 at Hotel Kalpana Palace, Grant Road, Mumbai was in possession of a fax copy of consignment note under which Mandrex tablets were being transported from Delhi to Mumbai. The said information was passed on to PW-1, Parmar. He reduced the same in writing. He in turn pass...
Tag this Judgment!