Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010ACJ496; AIR2009SC1000; 2009(1)AWC6(SC); 2008(57)BLJR236; 2008BusLR01(SC); IV(2008)CPJ39(SC); (2009)153PLR538; RLW2009(2)SC1252; 2008(6)LHSC4393
C.K. Thakker, J.1. All these appeals have been filed against a common judgment and order dated June 01, 2001 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (`National Commission' for short) in Original Petition No. 194 of 1994 and companion matters. These appeals are filed under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act').2. To appreciate the controversy raised in the present appeals, few relevant facts may be stated.3. M/s Krishna Flour and Oil Mills (`Mill' for short) is a partnership firm while M/s Krishna Food and Baking Industry Pvt. Ltd. (`Company' for short) is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 as applicable to the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Both the units were located in Nawab Bazar, Srinagar, in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Both were sister concerns. Rajendra Kumar Sawhney was Chairman of the Company as also main partner of the Mill. The Company was dealing in manufacturing bread, biscuits, cakes and ot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC638; 2009(57)BLJR467; (2009)ILLJ679SC; 2008(14)SCALE604; (2009)1SCC20
D.K. Jain, J.1. Leave granted.2. Since a common issue is involved in both the appeals, these are being disposed of by this judgment.3. The appeals are directed against two separate judgments rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, upholding the Awards of: Labour Court (4) Kanpur in I.D. No. 70 of 1997 and Industrial Tribunal (3) Kanpur in I.D. No. 46 of 1997, collectively referred to as 'the adjudicatory authority', whereby the appellant had been directed to reinstate the respective respondents - namely, Shamim Mirza and Manoj Srivastava, the two workmen, with full back wages and continuity in service.4. The appellant-company was constituted by the U.P. State Government under Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and was charged with several duties, as enumerated under Section 18 of the said Act, in relation to generation, transmission and distribution of electricity within the State. The appellant opened various cash centres in different divisions and sub-divi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(57)BLJR271; JT2008(12)SC476; 2008(14)SCALE591; (2009)1SCC216; 2009(3)SLJ71(SC):2008AIRSCW7809
D.K. Jain, J.1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 6037 of 2007.2. This appeal raises a short question whether the holding of an 'Invalidating Board' is a condition precedent for discharge of a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) on account of low medical category?3. For the determination of the issue aforesaid, it is unnecessary to delve deeply into the facts of the case and only a few material facts would suffice. These are:The respondent, a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) was enrolled in the Army on 9th March, 1980. While serving 20 JAT Regiment, on 31st July, 2000, he fell ill; was admitted to the military hospital and was discharged after treatment on 7th November, 2000, but was placed in low medical category S1H1A1P2E1 with effect from 6th November, 2000 for six months. On account of disability, namely, Ischaemic heart disease, again in May, 2001, he was continued in low medical category for another six months. Later, he was brought for review and was then placed in low medical categor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(57)BLJR501; (2009)1SCC101; 2008AIRSCW7367; 2008(6)LHSC4268
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Applicability of the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of a complaint petition filed by the respondent herein against the appellant under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 8.09.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal O.P. No. 10819 of 2006.3. Appellant herein is a retired teacher. He is said to be the owner of a land admeasuring 0.83 acres in new survey No. 246/1B at Naluvedapathi Village. About 180 numbers of coconut tress are said to have been planted on the said land.4. On 3.06.2003, when the appellant allegedly visited his land, he found that 9 coconut trees were dead. Upon enquiry, he allegedly came to know that one Namasivayam son of Rajagopal and Kaliappan son of Ramu of Naluvedapathi Village had damaged the said coconut trees by pouring acid mixed with kerosene thereon allegedly on the advice of the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1513; JT2008(13)SC494
Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15th September, 2005 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in writ petition No. 3646 of 2003. In the said writ petition, the order passed by the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 at Hyderabad in Land Grabbing Code No. 141 of 1989 dated 10.6.2002 was challenged.2. The main grievance of the State of Andhra Pradesh in this appeal is that the case of the appellant was not decided on merit either by the Special Court or by the High Court. The Special Court decided the case entirely relying on a short order of this court in State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. v. Merit Enterprises and Ors. : (1998)8SCC749 . According to the appellant, the Special Court committed a serious error in invoking the concept of res judicata in the facts of this case.3. In the impugned judgment, the High Court recorded the submissions of the appellant. The learned Counsel for the appellant rel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(2)CTLJ494(SC); (2009)1SCC297
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Respondent No. 1 is a company in corporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Its function, inter alia, is allotment of grant of LPG distributorship.3. An advertisement was issued by the first respondent inviting applications for grant of LPG distributorship for different areas including the one for Ballabhgarh district, in terms whereof a person convicted for commission of any offence involving moral turpitude/economic offence and those against whom charges had been framed by the court were ineligible there for. In the said advertisement dated 18.7.1998 published in a daily newspaper `The Tribune' and `Dainik Tribune' it was stated:2. Eligibility : The applicant should be: XXX XXX XXX 5. Candidates convicted for any criminal offence involving moral turpitude/economic offences and those against whom charge has been framed by the Court (other than Freedom Struggle) are not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(1)AWC275
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. These four appeals are directed against the judgment and decree passed in four First Appeals, being Appeal No. 173/1995 (Shasi Mohan Agarwal v. Smt. Fatima Ahmed alias Begum Rashiduddin Siddiqui and 2 Ors.); Appeal No. 174/1995 (Rajmohan Agarwal v. Smt. Amna); Appeal No. 204/1995 (Rajmohan Agarwal v. Smt Amna Abubakar and Anr.) and Appeal No. 206/1995 (Shashi Mohan Agarwal v. Smt. Fatima Ahmed alias Begum Rashiduddin Siddiqui and 2 Ors.), passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court in a suit for specific performance of a contract, by which the suit and the appeals were dismissed.2. These appeals were heard for a considerable length of time, it was suggested by the Court that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties may explore the possibility of an amicable settlement. Accordingly, the parties have taken some time to look into the question whether an amicable sett...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008AIRSCW7826; AIR2009SC647; 2009LC(SC)756; 2009(1)KLT253(SC); 2009(2)MhLJ611(SC); (2009)2MLJ755(SC); 2009(2)MPHT385(SC); (2009)1SCC210; 2008(6)LHSC4379.
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. Leave granted. Heard learned Counsel.2. Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., the appellant herein holding an electricity distribution licence, is one of the successors-in- interest of Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (`Board' for short). The third respondent was a consumer receiving electricity supply from the Board to its industrial unit at Ghaziabad. In April, 1994, the Board raised supplementary bills for Rs. 105.78 lakhs against the third respondent towards difference in tariff (on the basis of an audit objection that supply ought to have been charged under HV2 category instead of HV1 category). The third respondent filed civil suits disputing the said claim and obtained an order of injunction restraining the Board from recovering the said supplementary bills amount. The Board challenged the order of the civil court by filing appeals before the Allahabad High Court. In those appeals, which are stated to be pending, on 13.12.1996 the High Court stayed t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(232)ELT769(SC); [2009]308ITR161(SC); JT2008(13)SC643; (2009)1SCC196
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in these appeals in each case is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court answering the reference made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench (in short the `ITAT') under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the `Act') in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. For answering the references in favour of the assessee the High Court relied upon its judgment for two previous assessment years i.e. 1972-73 and 1973-74 in the assessee's case which is reported in Commissioner of Income Tax v. J.K. Charitable Trust : [1992]196ITR31(All) . The present dispute relates to several assessment years, i.e. 1972-73 (in respect of an assessment re done under Section 147(1) of the Act) and assessment years 1975-76 to 1982-83.2. Learned Counsel for the revenue appellant submitted that each assessment year is a separate assessment unit and the factual scenario has to be seen. Dispute relates to the question whet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(57)BLJR266:2009AIRSCW668.
C.K. Thakker, J.1. The present appeal is filed against judgment and order dated June 22, 1999 passed by a single Judge of the High Court of Patna (Ranchi Bench) in Appeal from Original Decree Nos. 228 and 229 of 1989 and confirmed by the Division Bench on March 01, 2000 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 362 of 1999.2. Shortly stated the facts of the case are that on February 16, 1978, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') was issued for acquisition of land bearing Khata Nos. 277 and 107 situated in the town of Lohardaga of Ranchi for construction of agricultural market-yard. According to the appellant, the Collector divided the land into two categories; (i) category `ka' and (ii) category `kha'. The land situated up to 150 feet from the road was categorized as `ka' whereas land situated beyond 150 feet from the road was categorized as `kha'. The Collector assessed the value of the land of category `ka' at the rate of Rs. 48,5...
Tag this Judgment!