Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(2007)DMC395SC; 2007(9)SCALE161; 2007(2)LC0903(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant calls in question legality of the order passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing petition filed for quashing the First Information Report (in short the 'FIR') dated 30th April, 2005 registered as Crime No. 124 of 2005 for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, (in short the IPC') in Police Station in Sector 39, Noida, District Gautam Budha Nagar.3. On the basis of complaint filed, proceedings were initiated. The legality of proceedings was questioned before the High Court, by a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C.'). The main stand before the High Court was that even on a bare reading of the FIR, it is clear that alleged commission of offence was not made out so far as the appellant is concerned.4. The High Court found that the application was to be rejected as no ground was made out for quashing the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2716; 2007(3)ARBLR78(SC); I(2008)BC133; 2007BusLR45(SC); [2007(4)JCR17(SC)]; JT2007(9)SC212; 2007(5)KarLJ517; (2007)5MLJ1280(SC); 2007(9)SCALE177; (2007)6SCC470
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant herein is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. It has established a sugar factory at Hunji, Balki Taluk, Bidar District, Karnataka with a capacity of 2500 TCD per day with a provision to expand the same upto 4000 TCD per day. The appellant had undertaken expansion of its sugar factory from 2500 TCD to 4000 TCD crushing capacity per day and accordingly invited tenders. The offer of the first respondent which is also a Co-operative Society registered under the Multi-State Co- operative Societies Act which is involved in supply, erection and commissioning of Sugar Plants was accepted in the meeting of the State Level Advisory Committee held on 10th August, 2000. The first respondent undertook to design, procure manufacture, supply transport and deliver at the site and to do the supervision of erection and commissioning of the Sugar Plant and Machinery in conformity ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2631; 2007(5)ALLMR(SC)446; JT2007(9)SC201; 2007(9)SCALE80; (2007)6SCC506
Altamas Kabir, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the National Council for Civil Liberties through its President, Shri V.K. Saxena, against the Union of India, State of Gujarat, State of Madhya Pradesh, Smt. Medha Patkar, Narmada Bachao Andolan, Shri Rahul Banerjee and the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation, inter alia, for enforcement of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution perpetually on account of arbitrary inaction of the respondents and for protection of a better right to live of the inhabitants of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. On the basis of the allegations made in the writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:(a) Issue appropriate writ order of direction directing the respondent Nos. 1,2,3 and 7 to investigate into the routing of foreign funds into the activities of the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of its subordinate and supportive organizations that have been referred to in thi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007ACJ2188; AIR2007SC2649; 2007(5)ALLMR(SC)423; 2007(4)AWC3369(SC); (2007)6MLJ707(SC); (2008)149PLR784; 2007(9)SCALE216; (2007)10SCC1
Arijit Pasayat, J.Civil Appeal Nos. 2926-2927 of 2007 (Arising out of SLP (C.) Nos.20101-02 of 2005)1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeals is to the legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of Uttaranchal High Court dismissing the appeal filed before it under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act'). The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Addl. District Judge, F.T.C. Nainital (hereinafter referred to as the 'tribunal') awarded a sum of Rs. 4,10,000/- in favor of the respondents 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the 'claimants').3. The background facts which are almost undisputed essentially are as follows:4. On 11.11.2002 Hem Pathak (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') who was at the relevant point of time 25 years of age lost his life in a vehicular accident. He was traveling in Jeep No.UP 03/0805. The said jeep had a collision with truck bearing No.UP 20A-8491. Since the truck was the subject matter of insurance, the parents of the de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2650; [2007(114)FLR727]; (2007)10SCC462; 2008(2)SLJ21(SC); 2007AIRSCW4786; 2007IIILLJ348(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by A learned Single Judge of the Uttaranchal High Court in Writ Petition No.939 (SB) of 2002 dated 16.4.2003 and the order on the review petition dated 28.8. 2004.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:4. Respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming that they should be considered for regularization and should be paid minimum of pay scale. The respondents were engaged as casual labourers in the office of the Controller of the Defence Accounts during the period 1989-95. The nature of the engagement was casual/seasonal depending upon the availability of the work. 5. A scheme called 'Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India, 1993 (in short the 'Scheme') was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pension, Department of Personnel and Training. The Scheme came into force with effect from 1.9.1993.6. O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2563; 2007(3)ARBLR65(SC); (2007)3CompLJ316(SC); 2007(4)CTC340; JT2007(9)SC147; 2007(6)MhLj502; (2007)6MLJ80(SC); 2007MPLJ436(SC); 2007(9)SCALE126; (2007)7SCC125; 2
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. These Cross Appeals by Special Leave challenge the order passed by the High Court of Orissa in an appeal under Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The said appeal was one filed by the respondent in C.A. No. 6569 of 2005 which is the appellant in C.A. No. 6570 of 2005 challenging an order of the District Court at Sundargarh in a petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by the appellant in C.A. No. 6569 of 2005 and the respondent in C.A. No. 6570 of 2005. For convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as 'Adhunik Steels' and 'O.M.M. Private Limited'. Adhunik Steels it was, that filed the application under Section 9 of the Act.2. O.M.M. Private Limited obtained a mining lease from the Government of Orissa for mining manganese ore from certain extents of land situate in Sundargarh district in the State of Orissa. For reasons of its own, O.M.M. Private Limited entered into an agreement dated 14.5.2003 with Adhunik Steels fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2511; 2007(5)ALD37(SC); 2008(1)BomCR836; [2007]139CompCas111(SC); (2007)3CompLJ185(SC); [2007(4)JCR111(SC)]; JT2007(9)SC244; (2007)6MLJ313(SC); 2007(II)OLR(SC)544; 2007AIRSCW4466; 2007(6)SCC167; 2007LawHerald(SC)2210
Tarun Chatterjee, J.Civil Appeal No. 2946 of 2007 (Arising out of SLP [C] No. 10844 of 2007)1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13th April, 2007 passed by the Special Court {Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities} at Bombay in Chamber Summons No.1 of 2007 in Suit No.3 of 1998 for recovery of Rs. 15,66,66,591/- with other incidental reliefs by which the application for amendment of the written statement filed at the instance of the appellant was rejected. 3. Initially the suit was filed in the High Court of Delhi and was later transferred to the Special Court at Bombay constituted under the Special Court {Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities} Act 1992 where the suit is now pending decision. It has been alleged in the plaint by the respondent ABN Amro Bank that on 3rd March, 1992, the New Delhi Branch of the bank had ordered transfer of one lac numbers of 17% NPC Bonds of Rs. 100/- from respondent No. 2 at a price of R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(9)SC194; 2007(9)SCALE72; (2007)9SCC1; 2007AIRSCW4576; (2007)3Crimes206; (2007)3SCC(Cri)323(SC); 2007LawHerald(SC)2257; 2008(3)KCCRSN207(SC)
B.N. Agarwal, J.1. Seventeen accused persons were charged and tried for offences under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 302 read with Section 34, 307/149, 326/149 and 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code [`IPC' for short] and by judgment rendered by the Trial Court they were acquitted of all the charges. Against the order of acquittal an appeal was preferred by the State of Maharashtra before the High Court during the pendency of which Abbas Yunus Sonde [A-8] and Ibrahim alias Abdul Rahman Mohammad Kasim Patel [A-9] died, as such, appeal against them abated. The order of acquittal has been confirmed by the High Court in relation to seven accused persons viz., Qasim Hasanmiya Bedekar [A-7], Iqbal Abbas Sonde [A-12], Sharfuddin Abdul Rahiman Patel [A-13], Usman Hasanmiya Bedekar [A-14], Hasanmiya Dhondumiya Bedekar [A-15], Hajirabai w/o Daud Patel [A-16] and Julekhabi w/o Liyakat Sonde [A-17]. So far as, Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahiman Patel [A-5], Siraj Abbas Sonde [A-6] and Idrus Yunus Patel [A-11] ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2571; 2007(5)ALT25(SC); 2007(4)AWC3430(SC); 2008(3)BomCR386; 2007(4)CTC326; [2007(4)JCR7(SC)]; JT2007(9)SC165; 2007(6)KarLJ161; (2007)6MLJ59(SC); 2007(II)OLR(SC)49
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. The controversy lies within a very narrow compass. The appellants-defendants were issued summons by the trial Court. They did not file the written statement within 90 days from the date of service of summons and there was a delay of two days. The trial Court accepted the written statement which was filed beyond 90 days despite the objection raised by the plaintiff-respondent. The order of the trial Court was challenged before the Karnataka High Court in a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') on the ground that the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'CPC) was mandatory and the trial Judge could not have accepted the written statement filed beyond 90 days from the date of service. The writ petition was allowed by order dated 30.8.2004. A Writ Appeal was filed which was held to be not maintainable.3. A review petition was filed taking the stand t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. To be listed after the decision of the Constitution Bench in Brij Lal v. CIT : [2005]279ITR432(SC) ....
Tag this Judgment!