Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(4)SC297; 2007(3)SCALE420; 2007[6]STR164; 2007AIRSCW2987
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur. By the impugned order the High Court dismissed the revision petition, filed by the appellant, and imposed cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid personally by the Commercial Tax Officer, Anti Evasion, Bharatpur who passed the assessment order dated 14.9.2001.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Penalty under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was imposed on the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee') on the ground that at the time of checking of vehicle on 7.9.2001, the documents produced showed that bill No. 155 dated 29.9.2000 of M/s. Georg Fischer Disa Limited, Satyamangala Industrial Area, Tumkur, Karnataka raised on the respondent-assessee M/s. Amtek India Ltd., Biwadi along with delivery challan No. 5259 dated 3.9.2001 form No. ST-18A in which invoice No. 155...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(113)FLR652]; [2008(1)JCR74(SC)]; JT2007(3)SC622; 2007(3)SCALE431; (2007)9SCC179; 2007(3)SLJ413(SC); 2007AIRSCW1950
A.K. Mathur, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in W.A.No.413 of 2001 dated 11.1.2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 herein was allowed by the Division Bench and the judgment of learned Single Judge of the High Court was set aside. 2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the respondent No. 1 V. Ananthakumari ( hereinafter referred to as respondent ) was working as a Peon in Viswabharathi Model High School. She was appointed as a Peon on 19.6.1984 and the appointment was approved. She possessed all necessary qualification for being considered for appointment as High School Assistant (Hindi). On account of retirement, a vacancy in High School Assistant (Hindi) arose in the School on 1.4.2000. Since other incumbents in the School were not eligible and respondent alone was eligible for being considered for appointment to the said post, therefore, she made a request to management ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007CriLJ1786; JT2007(3)SC508; 2007(I)OLR(SC)795; 2007(3)SCALE405; (2007)3SCC62
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissing the transfer petition filed under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') for transferring of Sessions Trial no.329/2005 (State through CBI v. Amit Jogi and 30 Ors.), pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Raipur, Chhattisgarh to some other Court. The transfer was sought for primarily on the ground that the Sessions Judge before whom the trial was pending is the elder brother of a sitting MLA who is very close to the father of respondent no.3, one of the main accused persons. It was alleged that the father of respondent No. 3 was the previous Chief Minister of the state and that he and the brother of the Learned Sessions Judge belong to the same political party. It was further stated that the said MLA was very close to the father of respondent no.3 who was earlier the Chief Minister of the State. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(113)FLR447]; JT2007(4)SC124; (2007)IILLJ709SC; 2007(3)SCALE415; (2007)9SCC310; 2007AIRSCW1542; JT2007(4)SC558
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. Special leave granted.2. The appellant-State of Gujarat, challenging the order dated 25.11.2004 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in LPA No. 2477 of 2004 in Special Civil Application No. 2479 of 2001, has filed this appeal, whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has affirmed the judgment and order dated 20th March, 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge modifying the delinquent order of penalty imposed on the respondent by the Disciplinary Committee.3. The relevant facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal are as under:Anand Acharya alias Bharat Kumar Sadhu, respondent herein, joined the services of the appellant-State and has been serving as a Deputy Collector since 30.03.1993. On 16.12.1995, the respondent was served with a charge sheet on various grounds, which are mentioned below:a) That, while discharging duties as a Cartographer in School Text Book Board, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, which is under the State Government and during the subsi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1261; 2007(3)ALLMR(SC)350; 2007(2)AWC1898(SC); [2007(3)JCR12(SC)]; JT2007(4)SC289; RLW2007(2)SC1097; 2007(3)SCALE287
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing the First Appeal No. 681/2003 and upholding the order passed by learned Additional District Judge in Suit No. 54 of 2001. 3. Detailed reference to the factual aspects would be unnecessary except noting the vital aspects. Suit No. 54/2001 was filed in the Court of District Judge, Delhi. The same was for possession, recovery of damages and mesne profit and rent @ Rs. 70,664/- p.m. i.e. On 26.2.2002 the learned Additional District Judge framed issues and the case was adjourned to 13.5.2002 for the evidence of the plaintiff. On 13.5.2002 the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 29.5.2002 for the plaintiff's evidence. On 29.5.2002 none appeared for the defendant and the matter was adjourned to be taken up on 31.5.2002 for final arguments and the matter was directed to be placed for orders after lunch. Finally, the suit wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1426; 2007(3)ALD87(SC); 2007(3)ALLMR(SC)388; 2007(5)ALT21(SC); 2007(2)AWC1833(SC); (2007)2CALLT24(SC); [2007]2CompCas24(SC); I(2007)DMC325SC; (2008)1GLR197(SC); [2
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the 'Act'). 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Respondent filed an application for divorce on the ground of cruelty alleging that because of the acts of cruelty on several occasions perpetuated by the appellant, the respondent- husband was under apprehension that it would not be desirable and safe to stay with the appellant and to continue their marital relationships. It was, inter-alia, stated in the divorce petition as follows:Parties got married according to the Hindu rites on 17.4.1993. The appellant's father was an employee in the Railway department and the appellant used to make demands for money frequently and used to quarrel when money was not paid. She did not even provide food to her husband or the childre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1253; JT2007(5)SC125; 2007(3)SCALE241; (2007)3SCC633
Altamas Kabir, J.1. Four writ petitions, in which the petitioners had challenged their prosecution under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MCOCA') and seeking quashing of the First information Report and the grant of approval under Section 23(1)(a) and sanction under Section 23(2) of MCOCA were disposed of by a common order passed by the Bombay High Court on 10th November, 2006. The writ petitioners had contended that no case had been made out against them regarding their complicity in the organized criminal activity or organized crimes alleged to have been committed by the organized crime syndicate known as Chhota Rajan gang under the leadership of Rajan Sadashiv Nikalje alias Chhota Rajan alias Nana alias Sheth. All the said writ petitions were dismissed by the said order but only Vinod G. Asrani is before us in this special leave petition. While the other writ petitioners as part of the organized crime syndicate led by Chhota Rajan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(2007)DMC402SC; [2007(3)JCR170(SC)]; JT2007(3)SC602; (2007)9SCC151; (2007)3SCC(Cri)94; (2007)2Crimes177(SC); 2007LawHerald(SC)871; 2007(2)KCCRSN78(SC).
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 upholding the conviction of the appellants for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentence of imprisonment for life as was awarded by the trial Judge i.e. learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul.3. According to the prosecution version as unfolded during the trial, Renu (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was set on fire by the appellants who were torturing and harassing her for dowry demand. A boil had developed under her armpit. After making arrangements for her comforts, her husband went out of station. Her mother in law- appellant No. 3 told her that she was telling a lie about the boil under her armpit and she really had no problem. Her father in law (appellant No. 1) wanted her to show the place where the boil was, but the deceased did not show it to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1441; 2007(2)AWC1892(SC); [2008(1)JCR102(SC)]; (2007)3MLJ467(SC); 2007(3)SCALE386; (2007)3SCC163; 2007AIRSCW1846:AIR2007SC1441:2007(3)SCC163; 2008(1)CivilLJ102; 2007(1)LawHerald(SC)894; 2007(3)Scale386; 2007(3)Supreme467
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal challenges the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission3. The appellant is a construction company. The respondent sought to purchase an office room in the third floor of a building being constructed by the appellant. The parties agreed to sell and purchase. According to the company the purchase price was fixed at Rs. 7,75,000/-. Documentation, registration and other expenses were to be borne by the respondent Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid by cheque. The balance due, was Rs. 3,41,190/-. The respondent had not paid the said sum. The sale transaction was, therefore, not complete. The room was not put in the possession of the respondent. The terms of the transaction were reduced to writing by an agreement dated 27.7.1997.4. The respondent approached the District Consumer Redressal Forum with a complaint. His case as per his amended complaint was as follows:On 4.7.1997 the company agreed to sell a room having an area o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(113)FLR222]; 2007(3)SCALE458; (2007)9SCC189; 2007AIRSCW4352
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Leave granted.2. Appellant herein was appointed as a Surveyor on 31.08.1979. His educational qualification then was Diploma in Mining. He did his AMIE in Mining in the year 1986. He claimed promotion to the post of Assistant Mining Engineer directly on the premise that he had acquired a degree in Engineering. He at the relevant time was working as Mines Foreman Grade-II. In terms of the rules, promotion to the post of Assistant Mining Engineer was to be granted from the feeder posts of Mines Foreman Grade-I, Head Draftsman or Senior Surveyor. His representation to appoint him to the post of Assistant Mining Engineer, therefore, was not acceded to. He filed a writ petition before the High Court which by reason of the impugned judgment has been dismissed.3. Mr. Naresh Kaushik, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that keeping in view the rules then operating in the field, the incumbents to the post of Mines Foreman Grade-II should have ...
Tag this Judgment!