Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(3)SCALE574
ORDER1. In our Judgment dated 2.5.2006, we had expressed a hope that henceforth all members of Sanghom will work in unity, with understanding and tolerance, to propagate the ideals and philosophy of Sree Narayana Guru. In terms of our Judgment, elections have been held under the supervision of the Authority appointed by us and the newly elected Trust Board has taken charge. 2. In our order dated 10.11.2006, we had referred to the suggestion of the said Authority, (Mr. Justice Paripoornan, a retired Judge of this Court) for appointment of a Monitoring Committee for the proper, efficient and fair functioning of the Sanghom, at least for a period of 5 to 10 years, if not more. He had suggested that such a Monitoring Committee should have as its members eminent and committed followers of Sree Narayana Guru from all walks of life to ensure that the elected members at the helm of affairs of the Sanghom, which has vast resources and assets, do not leave the righteous path of conduct expected ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(113)FLR199]; 2007(3)SCALE501; (2007)10SCC544; 2008(1)SLJ1(SC)2007AIRSCW4456
Markandey Katju, J.1. These appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the Guwahati High Court, Imphal Bench dated 9.6.1999 in Writ Appeal Nos. 97 of 1995 and 14 to 17 of 1996.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.It appears that the respondents had filed several writ petitions in the Guwahati High Court inter alia praying that their services be regularized in the Home Guards and that they be given regular pay scales.3. The learned Single Judge by his judgment directed the State Government to regularize the services of the writ petitioners and to grant them all service benefits, including pensionary benefits, as are payable to government employees holding civil posts. The learned Single Judge also directed that the services of the employees who have put in 10 years' of service in the Home Guards should be regularized. The learned Single Judge further directed amendment of the Rules and the Act. Against the said judgment of the learned Single Judg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(3)SC630; 2007(3)SCALE598; (2007)2SCC777
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The above writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the order of detention dated 12.01.2005 under COFEPOSA Act, 1974 issued against the petitioner by respondent No. 2 -Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security), Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.2. The petitioner was detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA Act') in pursuance of the impugned order of detention. The petitioner by way of this writ petition is challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order of detention passed by respondent No. 2 at pre-execution stage in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. It is stated that two similar orders of detention dated 12.01.2005 and 31.01.2005 were issued under the COFEPOSA Act by respondent No. 2 against the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1349; 2007(3)ALD79(SC); II(2007)BC226; (SCSuppl)2007(2)CHN63; (2007)1CompLJ561(SC); 2007(2)CTC334; 138(2007)DLT248(SC); [2007(3)JCR175(SC)]; 2007(1)JKJ23[SC]; JT20; 2007AIRSCW1667; AIR2007SC1349; 2007(2)SCC711; 2007(3)Scale507; 2007(2)Supreme422; 2007(1)LawHerald(SC)987; 2007(3)AIRKarR128
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. I had the privilege of perusing the judgment proposed by my learned Brother - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir. While respectfully concurring with the conclusion arrived by the learned Judge, I would like to add the following few paragraphs: -1.1 Regarding the role of Recovery Agents - use of abusive language - due process of law RBI guidelines.FACTORS:. The issue of Banks employing alternate means of recovery other than by due process of law i.e., either through Courts, Tribunals, Adalats or Commissions is an issue that has to be viewed from two angles (1) from the angle of the common man and (2) from the angle of the bank.1.2 REASONS:. First of all, the entrance of the multi national banks into the country has spread the culture of Credit Cards, Loans on an unimaginable level where rather than the rich, it is the middle class, the lower middle class and the lower class who are at the receiving end of the bonanzas promised by the Banks.. Inadequate information on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2482; 2007(3)SCALE498; (2007)10SCC785; 2007AIRSCW4420
Markandey Katju, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court dated 3.3.2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 1997. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The prosecution case is that P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. The deceased is the elder brother of accused Nos. 1 to 3. Accused No. 4 is the father of the deceased and accused Nos. 1 to 3. PW.1 is the daughter-in-law of accused No. 4. The deceased and the prosecution witnesses are the residents of Sodiankadu village. PW.1 married the deceased about 9 years prior to the date of occurrence. PW.1 and the appellants herein lived as a joint family. It is alleged that the deceased was leading a wayward life. PW. 1 was having a five and half years old daughter and a son, who was two years old at the time of occurrence. PW.1's father was looking after his daughter and children. On 14.7.1994 at about 9.30 p.m. the deceased came in a bicycle to his house. PW. 1 offered him food, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(2)AWC1920(SC); [2007(113)FLR194]; 2007(1)JKJ19[SC]; 2007(3)SCALE503; (2007)9SCC743; 2008(1)SLJ4(SC); 2007AIRSCW1502
Markandey Katju, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court dated 26.5.1999 in LPA (SW) No. 222/99.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.The facts of the case are that a Select List dated 28.3.1991 was prepared for induction of State Forest Service officials of Jammu & Kashmir into the Indian Forest Service (hereinafter refereed to as 'IFS'). The appellant's name figured in the Select List at serial number 26. The total number of vacancies were 35, and hence ordinarily the appellant should have been selected and appointed. However, the Select List was challenged in a batch of writ petitions which were disposed of by a Division Bench of the High Court dated 12.3.1993. The operative portion of that order states:This order will dispose of writ petitions Nos. 400/90, 80, 249, 618, 933, 619, 1395 of 1991, 264, 208, 287 and 266 of 1992, because they raise a common question of law and fact. Learned Counsel for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(3)ALLMR(SC)848; 2007(6)BomCR865; [2007(113)FLR841]; JT2007(4)SC135; (2007)4MLJ1055(SC); 2007(3)SCALE559; (2007)4SCC247; (2007)2SCC(Cri)266; 2007AIRSCW2251
K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.1. The appellant is a judicial officer in the State of Uttar Pradesh. He joined the Provincial Civil Service (Judicial) in the year 1976 and in May 1994 he was promoted to the Higher Judicial Service and posted as Addl. District & Sessions Judge at Jhansi. A crime No. 180 of 1995 registered by the Police Station at Nawabad was committed to the Sessions Court at Jhansi and allotted to the appellant's court for trial and disposal. There were three accused in that case, namely, Ram Pal, Raghunath and Rajendra. The crime related to an incident which happened on 22.5.1995. The allegation in the First Information Report was that accused Ram Pal and Raghunath used fire-arms and shot dead Pratap Yadubir Singh and Devendra Pipraiya within the compound of District Panchayat Bhawan at Jhansi. The Police registered the case for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused Rajendra was granted bail on 19.8.1995. The second accused, Raghuna...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (SCSuppl)2007(2)CHN204; 2007(1)CTLJ491(SC); 139(2007)DLT91; JT2007(5)SC514; (2007)3MLJ809(SC); 2007(3)SCALE569; (2007)10SCC595
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the First Appeal filed by the appellants who were defendants in the suit filed by the respondents. The regular first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 (in short the Code') was directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, in Civil Suit No. 129/80. The trial court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement to sale directing the defendant-appellant to execute necessary sale-deed within a particular period. Defendants were asked to take necessary steps for completing necessary formalities towards execution of the sale-deed.2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:On 12.12.1979 plaintiff filed the suit claiming decree for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 24thMarch, inter alia, alleging that Delhi Development Authority had granted a lea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(2)MPHT1(SC); 2007(3)SCALE618; 2007AIRSCW2123; 2007CriLJ2291; (2007)2Crimes344(SC); 2007LawHerald(SC)1351
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellants call into question the legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court while partially altering the conviction of Nujum (Appellant No. 2) who is, hereinafter referred to for the sake of convenience as A2 and maintaining the conviction of Shajahan (appellant No. 1 for short A1), Manzoor (A3) and Musthafa (Appellant No. 4 for short A-4) under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. A-2 was convicted in terms of Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) instead of Section the conviction under Section 302 IPC by the trial Court, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. The conviction of A2 and the sentence for offence, punishable under Section 324 Part I IPC, was not interfered with.3. The prosecution version as unfolded during trial was as follows:The accused who are closely related to each other were harbouring extreme enmity towards Ashraf (PW-5) and his yo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2414; 2007(5)ALLMR(SC)425; 2007(3)AWC2820(SC); (2007)3GLR2610; JT2007(4)SC87; 2007(3)SCALE640; (2007)5SCC211
C.K. Thakker, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Pune Municipal Corporation ('Corporation' for short) against the judgment and order dated July 8, 2004 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 643 of 1996. By the said order, the High Court confirmed the order passed by the State of Maharashtra on June 21, 1995 in purported exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') holding that no sufficient opportunity had been given to the land-owners before declaring their land to be excess and vacant land under the Act.2. The case has a checkered history and to appreciate rival contentions raised by the parties in their proper perspective, it would be appropriate to bear in mind the facts.Pranlal Zaverchand Doshi (since deceased) who has been represented through his heirs and legal representatives and Chandravadan Pranlal Doshi were owners of certain lands...
Tag this Judgment!