Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008AIRSCW930; 2008LABIC1687; AIR2008SC1099; 2008(1)AWC1023(SC); [2008(2)JCR44(SC)]; 2008(1)SCALE527; (2008)2SCC590
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has set aside the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and directed reinstatement of the respondent with 50% back wages. Aggrieved against this order the present appeal has been filed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad Range and another.3. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are the respondent herein was appointed as a Police Constable in 1979 and while he was working as such at Uppal Police-Station he was placed under suspension on 9.5.1985 on the ground that he visited the house of one Smt. Kamasani Susheela in a drunken state and demanded her to provide girls for satisfying his sexual lust and when she refused, the respondent scuffled with her. When she raised alarm another Police Constable, Jagan Mohan Reddy, who was on picket duty rushed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008ACJ776; AIR2008SC1073; (2008)3GLR3744(SC); (2008)3MLJ568(SC); (2008)149PLR241; RLW2008(2)SC1147; 2008(1)SCALE531; (2008)3SCC193; 2008AIRSCW682; AIR2008SC1073; 2008(3)SCC193; (2008)1SCC(Cri)694; 2008(1)LH(SC)612; 2008ACJ776; 2008(1)SCALE531
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Leave granted. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the insurer was not liable as the driver had a fake licence is the question to be decided in this appeal?2. BACKGROUND FACTS:One Ramdhan, who was husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 who were minor children, died in a motor vehicle accident while he was going on his bicycle and hit by a truck bearing Registration No. CPW 7344 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.2 herein, owned by respondent No. 1 herein and was insured by respondent No. 3 herein - National Insurance Company. According to the appellants/claimants at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 36 years and working as a carpenter and he was getting an income of Rs. 125/- to Rs. 150/- per day. The claimants filed claim case No. 154 of 1997 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore claiming a total compensation of Rs. 7 lacs under Sections 166A and 140 of the Motor Vehi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008ACJ2874; AIR2008SC1209; 2008(2)ALT1(SC); [2008]296ITR257(SC); [2008(2)JCR145(SC)]; JT2008(2)SC83; 2008(1)KLJ887; 2008(2)KLT236(SC); (2008)149PLR261; RLW2008(2)SC975; 20
ORDERK.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.1. Delay condoned. Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel.2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein - the husband and son of one Amarjit Kaur who died in a motor accident involving a Punjab roadways bus, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridkot. As against the compensation of Rs.5 lacs claimed, the Tribunal, on 1.12.1998 awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,44,000. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, respondents 1 and 2 filed FAO No.1549/1999 before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The said appeal was referred to Lok Adalat organised by the High Court, for settlement.3. The High Court Lok Adalat took up the case on 3.8.2001. The parties were not present. Their counsel were present. After hearing them the Lok Adalat passed the following order:FAO No.1549 of 1999After hearing counsel for the parties, we propose to increase in the amount of compensation, which is considered just and reasonable in this case.The accident took ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1375; 2008(1)ALD(Cri)922; 2008CriLJ1593; 2008(1)SCALE541; (2008)2SCC540; 2008AIRSCW815; 2008(1)Crimes283; 2008(2)AICLR22; 2008(2)LH(SC)969
ORDER1. Leave granted.1. Heard Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned Counsel for Ku. Pradnya Sudhakar Phadnavis, respondent No. 3 and Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned senior counsel for Dr. Prakashchandra, respondent No. 7. None of the other respondents are represented before us despite service.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated April 20, 2005 passed by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Criminal Revision Application No. 50 of 2004 and Criminal Application No. 87 of 2004 by which the High Court quashed the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 48 of 1994 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur on the ground that there was no sanction for prosecution of the accused (respondents before this Court) as required under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').3. It came to light that HIV contaminated blood was supplied to the Government Medical College and Hos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008(116)FLR731]; [2008(2)JCR107(SC)]; JT2008(1)SC587; (2008)ILLJ673SC; 2008(1)SCALE517; (2008)4SCC517; 2008AIRSCW927; 2008(4)SCC517; 2008LABIC1685; 2008-I-LLJ-673; 2008(1)SCALE517; 2008(1)LH(SC)728
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of the Madras High Court dismissing the writ appeal filed by the appellant. The writ appeal was filed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 589 of 1987.2. Two workmen-Stephen and Nallusami were issued with charge sheets on 15.12.1980 wherein it was alleged that the Manager had received information that they had stolen 100 litres of gramoxine weedicide chemical belonging to the estate from the store room during the period between 29.11.1980 and 2.12.1980. The two employees replied to that notice stating that they had not committed any misconduct as alleged in the notice. Thereafter, an enquiry was held in which they participated till the evidence of M. Ws. 1 and 2 was recorded. They also cross examined those two witnesses.3. After cross examination MW2, Stephen stated that he had no confidence in the enquiry and walked out of the enquiry. Thereafter the other workman, Nallusami mad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008LabIC1358; 2008AIRSCW1241; AIR2008SC1235; [2008(118)FLR834]; (2008)IILLJ854SC; 2008(1)SCALE615; (2008)2SCC41
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) on February 24, 2006 in Writ Petition No. 484 (S/B) of 2000. 3. Necessary facts giving rise to the appeal are that the respondent herein was serving with the appellant- U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. ('Corporation' for short) as Resident Engineer at the Head Office of the Corporation at Lucknow. On January 13, 2000, a show cause notice was issued to him stating therein that a work was allotted to M/s Gupta & Co., Dehradoon for construction of residential houses in Saharanpur. The Contractor had given two Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) towards the security for the work to be done. The details of FDRs were given in the notice. It was alleged that the Corporation suffered loss of Rupees one lakh due to lack of precaution, irregularity, gross negligence and carelessness by the respondent. The respondent was, therefore, called u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008(116)FLR736]; [2008(1)JCR223(SC)]; JT2008(1)SC593; (2008)ILLJ824SC; 2008(1)SCALE627; (2008)11SCC173
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant. Challenge in the Letters Patent Appeal was to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the said High Court. Before the High Court challenge was to the award of the Labour Court, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 41/85. The respondent had raised a dispute, inter alia, alleging illegal termination. According to him he was working in the appellant's factory continuously from 1.8.1983 to 12.8.1984 and he was removed from service on 21.9.1984 without any reason. Following dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication:Whether the termination of services of Shri Kripa Pandey, Driver by the management is proper and justified? If not, whether he is entitled to reinstatement and/or any other relief.2. The aforesaid reference was made by notification dated 1.11.1985. Stand of the appellant before the Labour Court was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1363; 2008(1)ARBR238(SC); 2008(3)MhLj33; (2008)8MLJ179(SC); 2008(1)SCALE597; (2008)2SCC444; 2008AIRSCW800; 2008(2)ICC584
R.V. Raveendran, J1. These appeals are filed against the common judgment dated 15.10.1999 passed by the High Court of Orissa in Misc. Appeal No. 296/1998 filed by the respondents and Misc. Appeal No. 198/1998 and Civil Revision No. 109/1998 filed by the appellant.2. The appellant is stated to be legal heir and successor in interest of N.C. Budhraja (hereinafter referred to as the contractor). M/s. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. (for short OMC or respondent) entered into an agreement dated 16.9.1967 (Agreement No. 30/F-2) for removal of over-burden at Kaliapani (Cuttack District) by excavation in all kinds of soil (including stoney earth and gravel mixed with boulders), and depositing/disposing of the same, as directed. The maximum lift was 6m including initial lift of one metre. The order to commence work was issued on 23.9.1967. Parties also entered into three supplementary agreements in regard to the said contract No. 30/F-2, on 2.8.1969, 7.3.1970 and 10.2.1972. [Note : OMC had also ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(2)ALLMR(SC)332; (2008)2CALLT1(SC); 2008(1)CTLJ309(SC); JT2008(1)SC531; 2008(2)KarLJ617; (2008)2MLJ944(SC); 2008(1)SCALE520; 2008AIRSCW819; 2008(3)CivilLJ398; 2008(2)KLJ617; AIR2008SC1378; 2008(2)Supreme139; 2008(1)SCALE520; 2008(3)LH(SC)2003
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Both the Civil Appeals arise against the order passed by the Karnataka High Court in RFA Nos.290 & 311 of 1993 dated 17.12.1999. Therefore, both the appeals are disposed of by a common order.2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of these appeals are that a suit was filed on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 24.4.1982 for a consideration of Rs. 1,20,000/- for property, namely, open space with some dilapidated room bearing CTS No.4094/1B/2 admeasuring 472 square yards, College Road, Belgaum. The agreement was executed by the first defendant as the 'Kartha' of Hindu joint family along with other defendant Nos.2 to 4. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid as advance and the agreement was to be concluded within six months. As the defendants did not execute the sale deed within the stipulated time, a suit was filed by the plaintiff after giving notice dated 10.5.1983 for enforcement of the agreement to sell. The defendant Nos.1 to 5 also filed a suit being ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(2008)CPJ42(SC); JT2008(1)SC590; (2008)3MLJ87(SC); (2008)149PLR248; 2008(1)SCALE484; 2008AIRSCW962; 2008(3)CivilLJ125; 2008(1)SCALE484; 2008(2)LH(SC)1056
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short the 'Commission'). The issue before the Commissioner which was considered in the Revision Petition of the appellant was as follows.When the possession of the plot originally allotted in a particular sector could not be given to the allottee for any reason for no fault of his and HUDA (Haryana Urban Development Authority) is required to allot an alternative plot in lieu thereof in any other sector, what price HUDA is to charge for the alternative plot allotted in the different sector.3. The Commission was considering various cases and the case of HUDA v. R.P. Chawla (Revision Petition Nos. 17-18 of 1997) was taken as an illustrative case. Ultimately, the Commission came to hold as follows:The issue before us is the allotment of alternative plot. It is also to be seen that if for no fault of the allottee, he is deprived of his p...
Tag this Judgment!