Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(2)AWC1064(SC); (SCSuppl)2007(2)CHN75; [2007(2)JCR305(SC)]; JT2007(3)SC187; (2007)3MLJ721(SC); 2007(2)SCALE442
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Appellant herein and one M. Manoharan (1st Defendant) entered into an agreement for sale in respect of a property in suit. 1st Defendant and respondent No. 1 herein entered into another agreement for sale on 11.4.1983. In the former agreement the transaction by way of execution of the deed of sale was to be completed within a period of three months, whereas in the later case, no time limit was fixed. The 1st Defendant executed a registered deed of sale in favour of the appellant herein on 4.0.1985.2. The 1st Defendant contended that he had asked the 2nd Defendant to execute a deed of sale in his favour and he had gone to the registration office, but 2nd Defendant did not turn up. As Respondent was working in Saudi Arabia, his affairs were being looked after by his father-in-law, Shri CM. Raman Chettiar, and his wife, Smt. Vijaya. According to the 1st Defendant, he had paid Rs. 7,700/- by way of part payment of the entire amount of consideration which was fixed at Rs. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1151; 2007(2)AWC1188(SC); JT2007(3)SC181; 2007(2)SCALE519; (2007)9SCC304; 2007AIRSCW1164; 2007(3)CivilLJ454(SC); 2007LawHerald(SC)642; ILR2007(2)Kar1810; 2007(2)KLJ541
A.K. Mathur, J.1. These appeals are directed against the order passed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 2294 of 1999 dated 17.1.2000 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has set aside the order dated 11.11.1998 in Writ Petition No. 30622 of 1998 passed by learned Single Judge for the reasons mentioned in Writ Appeal No. 2188 of 1998 disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court on 17.1.2000 and the order dated 22.3.2002 passed by the Division Bench in the Review Petition No. 156 of 2000 in W.A.No. 2294 of 1999.2. This case has a chequered history, therefore, in order to deal with it, it will be necessary to refer to certain facts. A notification was issued on 22.12.1984 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') for acquiring 176 acres and 5 guntas of land in Nagavara village of Bangalore North Taluk. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 21.2.1986 and the aw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(3)ALLMR(SC)316; 2007(1)AWC903(SC); (2007)148PLR1; 2007(2)SCALE514; 2007(1)LC0108(SC); 2007AIRSCW1068; AIR2007SC1114; 2007(3)CivilLJ699; JT2007(3)SC171; 2007(3)KCCRSN133(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. In the said appeal the order passed by 11th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Varanasi, rejecting the application filed by the appellant for restoration of the appeal in terms of Order XLI Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') was rejected.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Respondent No. 1-Munna Lal instituted a suit for specific performance of the contract dated 6th March, 1992. The agreement was allegedly executed by Smt. Krishna Devi, mother of the appellant and respondent No. 2 who were the appellants before the High Court. The said Smt. Krishna Devi expired during the pendency of the suit before the Trial Court. According to the plaintiff, out of the total sale consideration of Rupees one lakh, Rs. 25,000/- was given on 2nd March, 1992 and another s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1247; 2007(1)AWC772; 2007(5)BomCR220; (2007)3CALLT45(SC); 2007(3)CTC101; JT2007(3)SC69; 2007(1)KLT910(SC); (2007)2MLJ1177(SC); 2007(2)SCALE496; (2007)2SCC551; 2007AIRSCW1120; 2007LawHerald(SC)1263
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.Leave granted.1. The appellants are the plaintiffs in C.S. No. 29 of 2003 filed on the original side of the Calcutta High Court. They are mother and daughter. They together sued the respondent, the defendant, for recovery of sums allegedly due to them from him. Appellant No. 1 sought recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,93,863/- with interest thereon and appellant No. 2 sought recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,90,849/- with interest. Their claims were based on transactions they allegedly had with the respondent herein, through Mahendra Kumar Nahata, the husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant No. 2. In essence, the claim of appellant No. 1 was that a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs had been lent by her to the respondent and the same had not been repaid and the same was liable to be repaid with interest and damages. The case of appellant No. 2 was also that she had lent a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs to the respondent and the same along with interest and damages was due to her. It was thei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 138(2007)DLT203(SC); JT2007(3)SC98; 2007(2)SCALE447; (2007)9SCC425; 2007(3)SLJ14(SC); 2007(1)LC0295(SC)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. By filing writ petition in the Delhi High Court, petitioner (appellant herein), a retired Lieutenant Colonel (Time Scale), sought weightage of 8 years to be added to the actual qualifying service as also enhancement of percentage of disability, in short, he asked for refixation of the pension.2. The facts giving rise to the writ petition are as follows.In 1962 appellant was commissioned as an officer in Indian Army. This was during National Emergency created by Chinese invasion. He was an officer in the Sikh Light Infantry. In 1965 while fighting in Jammu and Kashmir sector against Pakistani troops appellant got a shell injury in his left shoulder. After war, he was retained in service, granted permanent commission and allowed to work till 30.11.89 when he was released on superannuation on completion of 51 years of age after putting in qualifying service of 26 years. Before his retirement appellant was subjected to examination by the Medical Board which assessed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(112)FLR1032]; (2007)ILLJ1044SC; 2007(2)SCALE495; (2007)2SCC758; 2007(3)SLJ120(SC); 2007AIRSCW1176
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Leave granted.2. Beard both sides. The appellant Tej Pal Singh is also present in Court. In this matter, a penalty of removal from service was imposed on the appellant. Against the removal order, the appellant filed an appeal, which was dismissed. Later he challenged the said order before the Tribunal and a further review was also filed. The Tribunal and the Reviewing Authority have also dismissed the respective petitions. Thereupon, he moved a writ petition invoking jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court also, for the reasons set out at page 4 & 5 of its order, dismissed the writ petition. We have perused the order passed by the High Court and other connected records.3. When the matter came up for hearing on 18.10.2006, this Court passed the following order:Prima facie, we are of the view that the petitioner had not been afforded proper opportunity to defend himself inasmuch as the Inquiry Officer had refused to summon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(115)FLR143]
K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J. and V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Leave granted. The appellant is challenging the decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the appellant against some of its workmen and in the preliminary enquiry, the workmen were found guilty and punishment was imposed on them. Aggrieved by the decision, the workmen moved the 8th Industrial Tribunal by way of Reference and before the Industrial Tribunal the workmen contended that the enquiry was not conducted properly and there was serious violation of principles of natural justice. This argument, was based on the fact that the workmen during the course of the enquiry, sought the assistance of a lawyer to help them in the enquiry proceedings and this plea was rejected by the Enquiry Officer and thereafter the workmen did not participate in the enquiry and later the Enquiry Officer decided against the workmen.Before the Industrial Tribunal, the workmen had urged that the Presen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(2)SCALE422; 2007AIRSCW926
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this, appeal is to the order dated 23.5.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench.3. A brief reference to the factual aspect would suffice.The appellant filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 16.9.2004 and notice dated 16.9.2004 issued by the Additional Collector (Stamps) Jaipur. The demand raised by the State of Rajasthan was in respect of alleged revenue loss caused by the appellant to the State Government by its purchasing stamps from other State i.e. Maharashtra. The writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. Appellant filed the Special Appeal questioning correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Along with Special Appeal an application for stay was also filed. The Special Appeal was disposed of with the direction to the respondent- State to constitute a High Power Committee to resolve the dispute. The High ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(2)AWC1062(SC); (SCSuppl)2007(2)CHN7; 2007(2)SCALE424
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. In these appeals challenge is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants.3. Background facts as projected by the appellants are as follows:Various stone crushing units were being operated by the appellants in Trisoolam Village, Kanjipuram District, Tamil Nadu. According to the appellants they had obtained 'no objection certificate' from the Tehsildar, Divisional Fire Officer and the Panchayat Union for the purpose of running the units. After Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (in short the Water Act')] and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (in short the 'Air Act') came into force appellants applied for consent from the concerned authorities under these Acts. Considering the applications the District Environmental Engineer called for some particulars and appellants were required to remit a sum of Rs. 1750/- each towards consent fee un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(2007)ACC381; 2007ACJ881; 2007(3)ALLMR(SC)833; JT2007(3)SC214; (2007)5MLJ434(SC); (2007)147PLR14; 2007(2)SCALE428; (2007)3SCC691
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. By the impugned order the High Court dismissed the appeal, so far as related to the respondent No. 1-Mam Chand and issued notice only to the driver cum owner i.e. respondent No. 2.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'claimant') filed a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act') claiming compensation for alleged injuries caused to him by the offending vehicle on 31.10.2001. The allegation was that the respondent No. 2- Mohinder Pal i.e. the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, a motor cycle No. HR01C-1531 was driving the same in rash and negligent manner. The same dashed against the scooter, which the claimant was riding causing multiple injuries. Adjudicating the claim petition the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ja...
Tag this Judgment!