Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. It is stated by Mr. B. Datta, learned ASG that these matters are squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. CIT .3. These appeals are disposed of in terms of the said judgment....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. This is an application filed at the instance of the wife 'Damyanti Devi' for transfer of divorce proceedings being Divorce Petition No. 417 of 2005, now pending before the Family Court, Azamgarh, U.P. to the District Court within Delhi jurisdiction.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we are not inclined to transfer the aforesaid divorce proceedings to the District Court within Delhi jurisdiction as we do not find from the transfer petition any allegation made against the husband by the wife nor of his relations harassing the petitioner while attending the court at Azamgarh, U.P. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the husband- respondent shall pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards traveling and boarding expenses to the petitioner-wife with a companion for each attendance at Azamgarh Court. Such payment shall be made by the husband to the petitioner at least seven ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(4)AWC4111(SC); [2008(116)FLR237]; JT2007(12)SC141; (2008)ILLJ289SC; 2007(11)SCALE577; 2007AIRSCW6293
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant questioning the correctness of the decision rendered by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hissar. 3. The reference made to the Labour Court by the State Government of Haryana in terms of Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') was answered in favour of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') holding that the claim was highly belated and therefore dis-entitled the appellant from any relief. 4. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. The appellant was appointed as DPL in August 1993 and worked upto October 1994. According to the appellant his services were terminated without any charge sheet or holding any enquiry though he had worked for more than 240 days. In that context it was contended that provisio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(11)SC411; 2007(11)SCALE568; (2007)8SCC629; (2007)10VST1(SC); 2007AIRSCW6152
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. These two appeals assail correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants. The two writ petitions i.e. OJC 16928 of 1998 and 1500 of 2000 were filed questioning correctness of the views expressed by the Sales Tax Authorities that the appellants had contravened the declaration given in Form IV to avail concessional rate as provided in the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') and the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 (in short the 'Rules'). In the first writ petition challenge was to the appellate order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax confirming the assessment made by the assessing officer for the assessment year 1997-98, whereas in the second writ petition challenge was to the assessment order passed by the Sales Tax Officer for the assessment year 1998-99. 2. Background facts sans unnecessary details are as follows ClauseThe ICI India Ltd. (hereinafter re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(11)SCALE588
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th April, 2005 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in MJC No. 121 of 2002 by which the High Court had refused the prayer of the appellant for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the Act'). This Court on 5th of January, 2007 made the following directions:Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not averse to an arbitrator being appointed who may adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Counsel for the respondents also is not against the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties, but he submits that the petitioner may move the State of Orissa which shall refer the matter to arbitration by the Arbitration Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar in accordance with Clause 3.39(f) of the General Conditions of Contract. Mr.M.L.Verma, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC111; JT2007(12)SC128; 2007(11)SCALE508; (2007)10SCC582; 2007AIRSCW6245; (2007)4Crimes88(SC)
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is filed against the judgment and final order passed by the High Court of Kerala on October 12, 2006 in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1997. By the said appeal, the High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant recorded by the Court of the Special Judge (CBI), Ernakulam on December 27, 1996 but reduced the sentence.3. The facts in nutshell are that the appellant was employed as a Clerk in Syndicate Bank at Fort Branch, Trivendrum. It was the case of the prosecution that a false bank account got opened with Account No. 15799 in the said Branch and an amount of Rs. 42,000/- was fraudulently withdrawn by the accused. After investigation, charge was framed against the accused- appellant in the Court of the Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Ernakulam for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corrupt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC106; 2008CriLJ345; 2008(1)OLR(SC)38; 2007(11)SCALE516; (2007)8SCC246
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act'). The appellant had faced trial along with another accused and for the sake of convenience he is described as A-2 hereinafter. Both the accused persons were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation. They were, however, acquitted of the other charges. 3. Sans unnecessary details, the prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:A-1 worked as an Excise Sub Inspector, at Mydukur, Cuddapah District and A-2 worked as a Home Guard. PW.1 is the de facto complainant. His father by name Subba Reddy was running a wine shop at Mydukur known as 'Eswara Wines' since ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (SCSuppl)2008(1)CHN85; JT2007(12)SC86
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.1.2006 of the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 101 of 2004 whereby and whereunder it was directed:Having heard the parties, we are of the view that this Court having become functus officio, after disposal of the appeal, is not required to decide any question in the present appeal, but only with a view to enable the competent authority to pass order under Section 41 of the Co-operative Societies Act and the other related provisions of the said Act and to find out whether nullification of some of the allotments is to be made or any appropriate steps in that behalf will have to be taken, the case is remitted to the competent authority i.e. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, who will not rely on the earlier report, submitted by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having been superseded by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC3098; (2008)1CALLT1(SC); (SCSuppl)2008(1)CHN17; 105(2008)CLT200(SC); JT2007(12)SC130; 2008(1)MhLj537; (2008)1MLJ866(SC); 2008MPLJ229(SC); (2007)8SCC242
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. The challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court directing re- examination of answer script of respondent No. 1 in English Paper 1.3. The brief facts in nut shell are as follows:Respondent No. 1 passed the Madhyamik (Secondary) Examination conducted by the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education in 2004. Respondent No. 2 is the father of respondent No. 1. As a matter of Post-Publication Scrutiny of results of Higher Secondary Examination 2004 the marks of respondent No. 1 in Physics (Theory) Paper-II were increased by two marks. A Writ Petition was filed by respondent No. 1 for a direction to the Council-Appellant to produce the answer scripts of respondent No. 1 in several papers. The said such answer scripts were produced before the court pursuant to the direction given on 21.12.2004, on respondent No. 1 depositing a sum of Rs. 5,000/- with the Council. The matter was adjourned to 27.1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(11)SC417; 2007(11)SCALE519; 2007AIRSCW5983; (2007)4Crimes170(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:On 13th March, 2000 Bhagwan Bahadure came to Bhendala and stayed with Kachrabai (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'), who was residing with her mother Tuljabai (PW-7). In the morning, of the day of incident, the appellant started quarrelling with the deceased on a flimsy ground. The appellant asked her to accompany him to his house. It is alleged that the appellant, who had a stick in his hand, assaulted the deceased by means of the stick. The deceased fell down on the ground. The appellant gave a blow with the stick on her head, whereby deceased suffered serious injuries a...
Tag this Judgment!