Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1172; JT2008(2)SC127; RLW2008(2)SC1062; 2008(2)SCALE67; (2008)3SCC55; 2008(1)LC232(SC)
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 04.02.2002 in Criminal Appeal No. 826 of 2001 passed by the High Court of judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur.2. Brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:2.1 The land measuring 21 bighas is located in village Bhinan, Tehsil Taranagar and the ownership of the same was recorded in the name of Smt. Chhoti Devi w/o Budh Singh Rajput and after her demise, the land was transferred in the name of Balu Singh.2.2 The accused, Nanuram submitted an application before the Tehsildar, Taranagar and disclosed that he had bought the said land on the basis of agreement to sell from Smt. Chhoti Devi at a consideration of Rs. 1200/- and he is in possession of the land and is cultivating the same. It was alleged that the transfer in the name of Balu Singh had been wrongly recorded in the revenue records. The Tehsildar, after some enquiry cancelled the entry of transfer recorded in the nam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2008)2CALLT13(SC); 2008CriLJ1808; JT2008(2)SC123; 2008(2)SCALE62; (2008)4SCC511; 2008AIRSCW1034; 2008(4)SCC511; (2008)2SCC(Cri)449; 2008CriLJ1808; 2008(1)Crimes305; 2008(2)LH(SC)922.
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant who was found guilty of offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 3. Prosecution case in a nutshell is as follows:On 28.9.1993, between 6.45 p.m. and 7.00 p.m. Sisir Kr. Das @ Ajoy (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was shot by the present appellant in front of his house at College Para and immediately thereafter Ajoy was shifted to hospital where after ten days he succumbed to his injuries. One Satya Ranjan Das (PW 1), cousin brother of Ajoy, getting information from one local boy about the occurrence, came to learn from injured Ajoy at hospital that he was shot at by his step uncle Bijoy Das. The appellant immediately thereafter lodged the written complaint at Raijung P.S. On the basis of the writt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. When the matter was called out, learned Addl. Solicitor General placed before us a copy of the order passed by a Bench of this Court in CIT v. Sirmour Truck Operators Union, Civil Appeal No. 5845 of 2007 (reported at (2008) 4 DTR (SC) 170-Ed.) stating as under:Delay condoned. Leave granted.M/s Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. entered into a contract with Sirmour Truck Operators Union, the respondent herein. Respondent assessee is a society. Its members consist of truck operators. The question which arose before the High Court in the income-tax appeals under Section 260A was whether assessee was liable or not liable to deduct TDS under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act.In our view, the aforestated question is a substantial question of law. The High Court ought to have decided the said question. It ought not to have dismissed the appeals summarily.For the aforestated reasons, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matters to the High Court for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR1022; 2008(124)ECC163; 2008(150)LC163(SC); 2008(222)ELT481(SC); JT2008(2)SC1; 2008(1)SCALE688; (2008)4SCC175; 2008AIRSCW1038; 2008(4)SCC175; 2008(1)SCALE688.
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Leave granted. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 17.10.06 in Writ Petition (C) No. 12912 of 2006 passed by the Delhi High Court whereby the writ petition filed by Union of India against the Order dated 25.5.06 of the Chief Commissioner of Customs (DZ) in a Compounding Case stood dismissed. By the impugned judgment, High Court has upheld Order No. 2/CCC(DZ)/SCM/2006 passed by Chief Commissioner of Customs (Compounding Authority) compounding the offences under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. On the basis of specific information Anil Chanana-respondent No. 1, who alighted from British Airways' flight from London and walked through Green Channel, was intercepted by DRI Officers at the exit gate of the arrival hall of IGI Airport on 11.8.04. On personal search, two sets of diamond earrings were recovered from his coat pocket along with US$1900. Further, an invoice dated 10.8.04 evidencing sale of such earrings to respondent No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(222)ELT321(SC); 2008(2)SCALE6; (2008)3SCC451; 2008[9]STR449; 2008AIRSCW1129; 2008(2)KCCR731
ORDERArijit Pasayat, J.1. During the hearing of these appeals reliance was placed by the respondents in C.A. No. 5481/2002 on a decision of this Court in District Mining Officer and Ors. v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. and Anr. : (2001)7SCC358 . Appellant in the said appeal placed reliance on Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr. : [2001]251ITR20(SC) .High Court in the order impugned relied on District Mining Officer's case (supra) to hold that though levy upto 4.4.1991 was permissible, no collection of cess could be made.2. In District Mining Officer's case (supra) it was, inter-alia, observed as follows:.We do find considerable force in the aforesaid submission, as in our view, the interpretation we have already given to the Validation Act was the real intention of Parliament and it never intended to confer a right of collection of cess. In agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Patna High Court, we hold the Validation Act to be valid, but such validate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(1)ALD(Cri)496; 2008(3)ALT(Cri)444; 2008(56)BLJR1029; (2008)2CALLT8(SC); 2008CriLJ1596; JT2008(2)SC103; 2008(2)SCALE2; (2008)3SCC390; 2008AIRSCW885; (2008)2SCC(Cri)45; 2008(1)Crimes342; 2008(2)LH(SC)902
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court which confirmed conviction of the appellants while directing acquittal of twelve co-accused persons. Originally, 20 persons including the present appellants faced trial for offence punishable under Sections 148, 323, 324 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). After recording evidence the Trial Court acquitted six persons under Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') and the rest 14 were convicted. 2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:First information report was lodged by one Hrishikesh Jana on 17.1.1992, stating that on 17.1.1992 in the morning when said Hrishikesh Jana was busy in the field for cultivation of his land, the appellants under the leadership of appellant Sachin Jana forming an unlawful assembly and being armed with different weapons like bombs, sticks, knives, iro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008ACJ830; AIR2008SC1221; 2008(2)ALT77(SC); [2008(2)JCR154(SC)]; (2008)3MLJ276(SC); 2008(2)MPHT348(SC); (2008)149PLR266; 2008(2)SCALE10; (2008)3SCC379; 2008AIRSCW1213; AIR2008SC1221; 2008(3)SCC379; (2008)2SCC(Cri)42; 2008ACJ930; 2008(1)Supreme566; 2008(1)LH(SC)673; 2008(2)KCCRSN96
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The appellant-Corporation had filed an appeal before the High Court questioning correctness of the award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-1st Addl. District Judge, R.R. District at Saroornagar, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal').3. Background facts are as follows:A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by the respondents claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of the death of M. Nageshwar Rao (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') in an accident on 18.5.1998. The deceased was working as a driver of the appellant-Corporation. In the claim petition it was stated that the because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus No. A.P.10 Z 998 belonging to the Corporation which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, the deceased lost his life. It was cla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(1)ALD(Cri)642; 2008(2)ALT(Cri)417; I(2008)DMC324SC; JT2008(2)SC19; 2008(2)KLJ304; 2008(3)MPHT2(SC); 2008(2)SCALE13; (2008)2SCC705
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted. The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated October 30, 2003 in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 1442 of 1999 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur. By the said order, the High Court allowed the application filed by the respondents-accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and quashed criminal proceedings initiated by the appellant.2. To appreciate the controversy raised in the present appeal, few relevant facts may be noted.3. The appellant herein is the wife of Pawan Kumar Jain-respondent No. 1. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Poolchand Jain and Smt. Sarojbai Jain are parents of respondent No. 1 and father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that she married to respondent No. 1 on July 8, 1989. After the marriage, she remained with her husband for few days at Jabalpur and during that period, her husband...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(2)SC120; 2008(I)OLR(SC)515; 2008(2)SCALE59; (2008)7SCC95; 2008AIRSCW5358; 2008(7)SCC96; 2008(1)AICLR730; 2008(2)LH(SC)1026
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. On November 30, 2007 when the matter was placed for admission-hearing, this Court passed the following order:Delay condoned.Issue notice on the special leave petition as on the application for bail. Notice will state as to why the special leave petition should not be disposed of at this, stage.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that on May 3rd, 2007, Criminal Appeal No. 592-SB of 199 7 was placed on Daily Board of the High Court showing them to be 'Motion petitions'. It was, therefore, submitted that the case was not placed for regular final hearing. It was, however, taken up for final hearing. One Mrs. Harpreet Kaur Dhillon, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae for the accused who was heard and the matter was disposed of. The order which was passed by the High Court reads as under:Present: Mrs. Ritu Punj, DAG, Haryana.Mrs. Harpreet Kaur Dhillon, Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae.Heard.Dismissed, reasons to follow.(emphasis supplied)4. F...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1431; 2008(4)ALD10(SC); 2008(3)ALLMR(SC)429; 2008(2)ALT65(SC); 2008(2)AWC1515(SC); (SCSuppl)2008(2)CHN41; JT2008(1)SC677; 2008(1)KLT574(SC); (2008)2MLJ1023(SC); 2008AIRSCW1448; 2008(1)Supreme694; 2008(2)LH(SC)1079
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. By the impugned order the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under order XLI Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'CPC') directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in trial court within a particular time. Appellants question the correctness of the order on the ground that the High Court could not have referred to Order XLI Rule 1(3) in the absence of any application for stay.Learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the order of the High Court.2. Undisputedly, in the present case there was no application for stay filed. A few decisions of this Court being relevant need to be noted.3. In Kayamuddin Shamsuddin Khan v. State Bank of India : (1998)8SCC676 the dispute related to Order XLI Rule 1(3) it was held that if the amount is not deposited, the appeal could be directed to be dismissed. Obviously reference...
Tag this Judgment!