Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(2)AWC1907(SC); 2007(4)MhLj404; 2007MPLJ41(SC); 2007(4)SCALE348; (2007)3SCC519; 2007(1)LC390(SC)
1. Rule. Issue notice to the Attorney General for India.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties on interim relief. Interim relief prayed by the petitioners in the present petition reads as under:a) to pass an ad-interim ex-parte order staying the effect and operation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 2002; orb) to pass an ad-interim ex-parte order permitting the petitioners and other members of their communities to contest the forthcoming U.P. State Assembly Elections on seats reserved for Scheduled Castes; c)to pass such other and or further orders as may be deemed fit and necessary in the facts of the case.3. The case of the petitioners is that they belong to ten communities of the State of Uttar Pradesh, which have been transferred from the list of Scheduled Castes to the list of Scheduled Tribes under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act X of 2003) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is the ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2625; 2007(3)ALLMR(SC)326; 2007(6)BomCR879; 2007(3)CTC209; 2007(4)KLT773(SC); (2007)3MLJ383(SC); 2007(4)SCALE335
Markandey Katju, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) dated 12.4.2005 in Writ Petition No. 455 of 2004.3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.The petitioner has prayed for quashing the award dated 4.2.2003 published by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in respect of Renapur Medium Project at village Talegaon (Ghat). The High Court had dismissed the writ petition and hence this appeal. The short point before us is whether the award was illegal in view of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The date of last publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act was 18.2.1999 (in Gazette). The last publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was 28.2.2000 whereas the award was published on 4.2.2003. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant the award ought to have been published on or before 28.2.2000 which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(4)SC497; 2007(5)KarLJ359; 2007(4)SCALE355; (2007)9SCC561; 2007(1)LC386(SC); 2007AIRSCW4422; 2007(2)KCCR1393; 2007(5)AIRKarR129
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the writ appeal filed by the appellants.2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:The appellants claim to be Chalgeni tenants and claim grant of occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'). According to them late Sesu Poojary, the father of the appellants filed an application in Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal, Karkala (for short the 'Tribunal'). The claim was in respect of Survey No. 162/1 measuring 2 acres 11 cents and Survey No. 176/2 measuring 8 cents in Gandhinagar, Marpady village Moodabedri, Karkala Taluk of Dakshina Kannada District. Respondent Harideesh Kumar claimed to be the owner of the land on the basis of a gift-deed from his grandfather. Originally, the Tribunal granted occupancy rights to the appellants' father by an order dated 25.4.1981. The said order was challenged in Writ Petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(4)SCALE334; (2007)9SCC166; 2007AIRSCW6578
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Leave granted.2. Heard. Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel for the respondents.3. We have perused the order impugned in this appeal.The High Court while allowing the Writ Petition filed by the respondent herein directed the appellant-authorities to consider the claim of the respondent for benefit of Agricultural Research Service in scientist 'S' Grade with effect from the dare he became entitled. The High Court has also further observed that while considering aforesaid, the Authority concerned will also consider the cases of the employees junior to the respondent herein as mentioned in paragraph 37 of the Writ Petition. For the said purpose, the respondent herein was granted liberty to make a representation before appropriate Authority along with a copy of the order of the High Court and in such cases, the said Authority will decide the matter within two months from submission of the representation. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007CriLJ1819; 2007(4)SCALE337; 2007AIRSCW1835; JT2007(4)SC618; 2007LawHerald(SC)1132
C.K. Thakker, J.1. The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) on March 29, 2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 262 of 2001 by which the High Court dismissed the appeal against an order of conviction recorded by the Sessions Judge, Buldana on July 23, 2001 in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2001 convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).2. Short facts leading to the present appeal are that the deceased Ninaji Rupaji Ghonge was a resident of Deodhaba, Taluk Malkapur, District Buldana. He was residing with his son Sopan (PW6). His other sons were staying separately. Deceased Ninaji possessed she goats, sheep and she buffalos. The appellant-accused Namdeo was also residing in a nearby house. Relations between the deceased Ninaji and the accused Namdeo were strained. The reason was the belief entertained by the accused. Namdeo harboured a suspicion that she goats and sheep b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(2)AWC2091(SC); (SCSuppl)2007(2)CHN222; JT2007(4)SC362; 2007(4)SCALE265; (2007)5SCC189; [2007]75SCL193(SC); 2007AIRSCW1865; 2007(4)CivilLJ390; 2007(3)KCCR1666(SC).
S.B. SINHA, J : Leave granted. INTRODUCTION : Interpretation of Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (for short, 'the Act') is involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 06.02.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in APOT No. 584 of 2005, affirming a judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the said Court. BACKGROUND FACTS : M/s Dunlop India Ltd. (for short, 'the Company') is an existing company within the meaning of Section 3(1)(ii) of the Companies Act, 1956. The Company floated a Fund known as 'Dunlop Executive Staff Pension Fund' for providing pension and annuities to the members of the executive management staff of the Company. Clause (3) of the said deed reads as under : "These presents shall constitute a trust upon and subject to the Rules and to the law for the time being in force in India relating to Pension Funds which trust irrevocable and no moneys belonging to the Fund in hand of the trustees shall be recoverable...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(114)FLR621]
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(5)SC134; 2007AIRSCW2204; JT2007(5)SC134; 2007LawHerald(SC)1995
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. Leave Granted2. This batch of appeal has been filed against the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh whereby the common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (in short 'the Tribunal') was clarified to the extent that such of the observations made by the Tribunal which went contrary to the decision of this Court in V. Kameshwari v. Union of India : (1993)IILLJ992SC , had to be ignored and the authorities shall only take, into consideration the principles laid down by this Court and prepare the seniority list as directed.3. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of these appeals are:On 19th January 1971, some of the casual labourers were selected as Khalasis by the Selection Committee constituted by the Railways. Their names were placed in the panel for absorption as Khalasis as and when vacancies would arise. Those who were working as casual labourers in 1970-71 were given temporary status after comple...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1355; (2007)2CALLT86(SC); 2007CriLJ1792; JT2007(4)SC380; 2007(4)SCALE314; (2007)9SCC315; 2007AIRSCW1681; (2007)3SCC(Cri)135; (2007)3Crimes38(SC); 2007LawHerald(SC)968; 2007(3)AIRKarR117(SC).
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant questioning correctness of the conviction recorded by the Fast Track Court. The said Court found the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of the India Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 8,000/- with default stipulation.'3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:One Chengappa (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'), his wife Smt. Baby Chengappa (PW-1), the accused and most of the witnesses are the residents of Garvale village. There is no much dispute that the accused and the deceased were related. According to the prosecution the Geejaganda family to which the accused and the deceased belong owned nearly 348 acres of land. Out of the same, donation of about 48 acres, was made and the remaining are...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(1)ARBLR476(SC); [2008(2)JCR123(SC)]; JT2007(8)SC258; 2007(4)SCALE325; (2007)9SCC503
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. Leave granted.2. This is an appeal from a judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissing an appeal which was filed against the judgment of a learned Judge refusing to accept the objection filed by the appellant under Section 30 read with Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').3. The brief facts of this appeal are as follow:BOC Ltd. being the appellant herein and one Nippon Sansa K.K. (NSKK) entered into an agreement in order to facilitate the respondent to import components for setting up a 25 tons per day Oxygen plant at Ghatsila, Bihar (now in the State of Jharkhand). In the month of April/May 1990 the appellant and the respondent entered into a contract for erection, installation and commission of the aforesaid plant at Ghatsila, Jharkhand. On 5th June 1990 a tripartite meeting between the representatives of the appellant and the respondent and NSKK were held where the letter of intent was signed and ...
Tag this Judgment!