Court : Supreme Court of India
SLP(C) No. ....CC 12862/20071. Permission to file Special Leave Petition granted.Issue notice.The High Court, in the impugned order, has noted that Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi has more or less accepted all the Ganguly Committee recommendations in the matter of admission of children to pre- primary class in the primary schools and prepared the guidelines for admission to pre-primary classes. In the light of what was agreed before the High Court, the Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi had made the 'The Recognised Schools (Admission Procedure for pre-primary class) Order 2007' in terms of the guidelines in exercise of power conferred under Section 3(1) of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Rules thereunder (hereinafter referred as `Admission Order'). The counsel for the petitioners has raised several contentions as regards the guidelines for procedure for admission (now `Admission Order') and contended that they are violative of the fundamental right under Article 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(1)CTC707; 2008(124)ECC1; 2008(150)LC1(SC); 2008(221)ELT163(SC); 2007(14)SCALE610; (2008)3SCC70; (2008)12VST542(SC); 2008AIRSCW1461
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. Before the High Court appellant had challenged the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Service Tax, Ranchi dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the 'Act'). The said order was challenged before the High Court by filing a Writ Petition. The Commissioner had dismissed the appeal only on the ground that it was filed after 21 months of the date of service of the original order and the appellate authority did not have power to condone the delay beyond the period of 30 days from the date of expiry of period of 60 days prescribed for filing the statutory appeal.3. The Division Bench noted that since the Commissioner had no power of condonation beyond the statutorily prescribed period, therefore, the writ petition was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(1)AWC877(SC); (SCSuppl)2008(2)CHN189; 2008(1)KLT54; 2008(1)KLT54(SC); (2008)1MLJ193(SC); 2008(1)OLR(SC)166; RLW2007(4)SC208; 2007(14)SCALE627; 2008(1)LH(SC)87; 2008(1)ICC828
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Leave granted.2. Whether an averment made in the deed of gift in regard to handing over of possession is sufficient proof of acceptance thereof by the donee is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 9.07.2002 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in S.A. No. 606 of 1993.3. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of the appellant herein. A deed of gift was executed by Defendant No. 2 - Respondent No. 1 (mother of the appellant) herein in favour of the appellant on or about 4.01.1984. He was said to have been put in possession of the properties covered by the deed of gift. It was a registered document. Defendant No. 1 (father of the appellant) (since deceased) also executed a registered deed of gift dated 17.03.1984 in his favour which was marked as Exhibit A-2 before the learned Trial Judge; relevant averments wherein were:. The said 28 cents was divided into two equal portions. On the southern extreme side of the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(1)AWC834(SC); I(2008)BC594(SC); 2008BusLR121(SC); [2008]141CompCas361(SC); 2007(2)CTLJ451(SC); JT2008(1)SC140; 2007(14)SCALE445; 2008(1)SCC643; 2008(2)CivilLJ77; 2008(1)LH(SC)538; (2008)1SCC643
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Application of Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 ('the 1951 Act') vis--vis the Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 ('the 1972 Act') is in question in these appeals which arise out of a common judgment and order dated 29th September, 1999 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 41848 and 34059 of 1999.2. Before embarking on the questions raised at the bar, we may notice the basic fact of the matter.3. M/s. Everest Wools Pvt. Ltd. of which Pradeep Kumar Agrawal is a Managing Director took loan from the U.P. State Financial Corporation (Corporation). The company applied for re-scheduling of the loan and the same was granted. Appellant company intended to expand their unit. It applied for grant of loan to the respondent No. 3, the Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment of U.P. Ltd. (PICUP). Rs. 47 lacs was sanctioned by it. A sum of Rs. 41.60 lakhs was disbursed to i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(1)ALLMR(SC)768; 2008(3)BomCR233; 2007(14)SCALE572; (2009)3SCC186; 2008AIRSCW163
J.M. Panchal, J.1. Leave granted.2. The instant appeal is directed against judgment dated August 13, 2007 rendered by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1627/2007 by which the prayers made by the appellants, (1) to declare that application submitted by them on December 26, 2005 to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to give permission to develop land bearing CTS No. 2193 (P) of Bhuleshwar Division at Dr. Babasaheb Jaykar Marg stands granted in view of Section 45(5) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, (2) in the alternative to direct the respondents to grant forthwith their application for permission to develop land referred to above with additional FSI of 3.73 times the FSI permissible under Rule 10(2) of DC Rules, 1967, and, (3) to direct the respondents to allow them to proceed with the development of their plot mentioned above for construction of luxury hotel by utilization of additional FSI of 3.73 times the FS...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC780; 2008(56)BLJR771; 2008CriLJ1367; 2008(2)KLT620(SC); 2007(14)SCALE386; 2008AIRSCW1; 2008(1)Crimes66; 2007(8)Crimes502; 2008(1)LH(SC)24; 2008(3)KCCRSN230
D.K. Jain, J.1. This appeal under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 has been preferred against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Government Appeal No. 415 of 2000. By the impugned judgment, the appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh has been allowed and the appellant Vineet Kumar Chauhan has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, ('IPC' for short) for causing the murder of Smt. Premwati. He has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. 2. The genesis of the prosecution case, in brief, was that on 13.10.1993 at about 11.50 a.m., one Sri Krishna Sharma (P.W.1), husband of the deceased, lodged an F.I.R. with the police station Majhola, District Moradabad to the effect that on that day, at about 9.45 a.m., when he alongwith his wife and children was watching television, the appellant who was living opposite their house and was a cable operator along with his servant Dharamvee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(5)ALLMR(SC)436; 2008(1)AWC845(SC); (2008)1MLJ489(SC); 2007(14)SCALE500; (2008)2SCC290; 2008(1)LH(SC)220.
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted. 2. These two appeals are inter-connected in the sense that they have their matrix in connected matters. In the appeal relating to SLP No. 12279/2006 challenge is to the order in writ petition 482 of 2003 while in the appeal relating to SLP (Crl.) No. 5498/2006 challenge is to the order in Crl. Writ petition No. 1048 of 2006. As noted above, the writ petitions are linked in the sense that a writ petition was filed by two practicing advocates alleging on the basis of some newspaper report that there was large scale malpractice in the examination conducted by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (in short the 'Commission'). ACB C.R. No. 33/2002 was registered and one S.B. Pujari was initially investigating into the allegations. The writ petitioners alleged that said investigating officer had collected material and process of arresting one Smt. Sayalee Joshi and others and to pre-empt such acts he was transferred on 31.1.2003. From time to time 22 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC887; 2008(1)AWC838(SC); (SCSuppl)2008(2)CHN107; [2008(2)JCR114(SC)]; JT2008(1)SC256; 2007(14)SCALE597; 2008AIRSCW277; 2008(3)CivilLJ65; 2008(1)LH(SC)123
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellants in both the appeals are before us, aggrieved by and dis- satisfied with the judgment and order dated 6th April, 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat in Second Appeal No. 37 of 1998. 3. For the purpose of determining the question involved in these appeals, Soni Dineshbhai Manilal and others are being referred to as the appellants, while Jagjivan Mulchand Chokshi is being referred to as the respondent.4. Appellants- father and the respondent were partners of a partnership firm known as 'Bhagyoday Engineering Company'. A decision was taken to dissolve the said firm. A deed of dissolution was entered into on the 9th day of September, 1965. A suit for dissolution of the partnership firm and accounts was filed by the respondent herein, inter alia on the premise of the existing dispute in regard to shares of the parties in the said partnership firm. 5. The suit was dismissed on 29th July, 1975. However, the appeal pref...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(1)AWC883(SC); 2008(2)KarLJ177; 2007(14)SCALE613; 2008AIRSCW182; 2008(1)LH(SC)483; 2008(2)KLJ177; 2008(3)AIRKarR163
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondents.3. Plaintiffs, who are the respondents in the present appeal filed a Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,47,965.20 on the ground that being owners of the Trees which were transported to the Government godown on the basis of the permission granted by the present appellants, the value of the Trees has to be paid by the government. 4. The case of the plaintiff, as culled out from the averments in the plaint is that they are the owners of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs and their predecessor had drown silver wood, jungle wood and other varieties of trees in the schedule land by spending lot of money and had cultivated the said land with coffee crop. In order to regulate the shade in the schedule property and also for cutting and felling of silver wood, jungle wood and other tree...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008(116)FLR404]; [2008(2)JCR79(SC)]; 2007(14)SCALE585; (2008)2SCC74; 2009(1)SLJ171(SC); 2007(8)Supreme713; 2008AIRSCW1943; 2008(1)LH(SC)284
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant herein was working as a writer constable in the Bihar Military Police at Bokaro Steel City. A Departmental proceeding was initiated against him on the following imputation of charges:(1) While he was posted in March 1985 in 'C' Company made an entry in general diary with regard to arrival of S.I. (S), R.B. Sahu, Company Commander on 28.3.1985. Before opening the diary, column in which details of Ohededar and officers are being filled, he shown presence of S.I. (S) Sahu at the company head quarter, but on the same day, as per the entry No. 700 his arrival is shown at 8.45 O-clock. This entry No. 700 was recorded two times, on first time it was 8.45 and on second time it was at 9.30. Entry No. 700 recorded at 8.45 is certainly inserted later on.(2) According to his statement when he was posted at Dhanbad with his 'C' Company, he was out from the company headquarter from 14.12.84 to 16.12.84 and from 9.1.85 to 12.1.85 as per the order of Company...
Tag this Judgment!