Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(13)SC551; 2009(2)KLJ67; 2009(1)SCALE627; (2009)3SCC375
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellants are before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 2.3.2006 passed by a learned Single of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 26498 of 2005 dismissing their applications for quashing the summons issued to them in Crime No. 32 of 2005 on a complaint filed by one of the partners of M/s. Aarbee Apparels Impex, Tiruppur under Sections 120B, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC').3. M/s. T.M.S. Fashion Private Limited, Chennai (for short, 'the Company') is a certifying agent. Appellant No. 1 is the Assistant General Manager of the company engaged in export of garments. Appellant No. 2 is the Accounts Manager, Appellant No. 3 is the Shipping Manager, Appellant No. 4 is one of its Directors and Appellant No. 5 is a Consultant for the Company. Appellant No. 6 is an employee of Bax Global Private Ltd. who has nothing to do with the appellant company.4. In the complaint petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(1)SCALE367; (2009)2SCC399
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. No ground is made out for granting leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The special leave petitions are therefore dismissed. We would however like to make a few observations in regard to the manner in which special leave petitions are drafted and filed, as this case is a typical example of lack of care and attention in drafting the petitions and list of dates.2. The case of the petitioners is that there was a public auction sale of certain surplus evacuee rural lands on 5.12.1963; that on account of collusion between the officers holding the auction and one Shamsher Singh, there was no proper proclamation and consequently, the members of public were not present at the time of auction; and that the said Shamsher Singh cornered several lands by bidding in the names of his several relatives (respondents herein or their predecessors)at low prices.3. But interestingly, we find that the synopsis/memo of dates filed by the petitioner along with the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1021; 2009CriLJ838; 2008(16)SCALE60; (2009)1SCC678
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Leave granted.2. The order granting bail to the accused Munna @ Munna Jaiswal passed by the High Court is in challenge here. The respondent - accused Munna is facing a prosecution for the offences under Sections 302, 504 & 506 I.P.C. in Crime Case No. 152 of 2006 of Police Station Chakia. It is alleged that on 15.12.2006 at about 4.45 p.m., a report came to be lodged regarding the incident that took place at 2.00 p.m. on the same day wherein it was alleged by complainant Brij Nandan Jaiswal that his son alongwith Bechan and Balmukund went to cut woods in the forest and while they were coming back from the forest on bicycles, Brij Nandan and Bal Mukund were leading while complainant's son Jai Shankar was following them. When they all reached Jabelia Mode, Jai Shankar shouted very loudly. At that time, the complainant and his companions saw that Jai Shankar was being inflicted blows with lathis, danda and iron rods by Lalji and his son Kallu @ Vinod, Munnu @ Mun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(2)BomCR138; JT2009(1)SC665; 2009(4)MhLJ742(SC); 2009(1)SCALE260; (2009)2SCC729
S.B. Sinha, J.Leave granted.1. In the Metropolitan Town of Mumbai there exist a large number of Slums. 55 % population of Greater Bombay does not have authorized shelter. Nearly 2525 hectares of lands in the City are under slums. Lands occupied by slums are allocated for different users, and are designated, reserved or allotted for various existing or proposed public purposes in the draft or final revised Development Plan of Greater Bombay.2. For rehabilitation of the slum dwellers living in distress the Legislature of Maharashtra enacted the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as `the 1966 Act') in terms whereof respondent Nos. 2 and 4 are treated to be planning authorities as would appear from Section 2(19) thereof.3. Section 2(27) defines 'regulation' to mean a regulation made under Section 159 of this Act and includes zoning, special development control regulations and other regulations made as a part of a Regional Plan, Development plan, or to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1797; 2009(1)SCALE529; (2009)3SCC458; 2009(2)LC665(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. This contempt proceeding has been initiated against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for alleged wilful disobedience of this Court's order dated 31.10.2006, the operative portion whereof reads as under:.We, therefore, intend to give another opportunity to MAHAGENCO. It shall consider the offer of Appellant upon consideration of the matter afresh, as to whether it even now fulfils the essential tender conditions. If it satisfies the terms of the tender conditions, the contract may be awarded in its favour for a period of one year; but such contract shall take effect after one month from the date of the said agreement so as to enable the private Respondents herein to wind up their business. This order is being passed in the interest of MAHAGENCO as also the private Respondents herein. 2. The Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. (for short 'MAHAGENCO') issued a notice inviting tender, inter alia, for coal liaisoning, quality and quantity supervision of its thermal power st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009ACJ663; 2009(1)AWC806(SC); 2009(9)KarLJ51; 2009(4)MhLJ739(SC); 2009(1)SCALE396; (2009)2SCC755:2009AIRSCW13252009(1)LHSC459:2009(3)AIRKarR41:2009(3)KCCR1729:.2009ACJ663
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. The claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal' ) is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 12.7.2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore whereby and where under it allowed an appeal preferred by Respondent No. 2, Insurance Company, in part, reducing the amount of compensation towards loss of future earning from Rs. 4,53,600/- to Rs. 67,500/-.3. Appellant was aged 15 years when he met with an accident on 14.9.1998 as a result whereof he sustained serious injuries and suffered permanent disability to the extent of 70% of his left lower limb which had to be amputated.Before the Tribunal, several witnesses, namely, PW1 to PW5 were examined to prove that at the material time, appellant had been running a poultry farm independently. A large number of documents being Exhibit P.1 to Exhibit P.16 were also brought on record.The learned Judge of the Tribunal, relying on or on the b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1783; 2009(3)AWC2471(SC); 2009LC(SC)745; 2009(1)SCALE137; (2009)3SCC754; 2009(1)LC403(SC); 2009(3)LHSC2005
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Validity of an action of withdrawal of a circular letter dated 8.09.2000 issued by the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. (Respondent No. 2 herein) was the subject matter of ten writ applications filed before the High Court. The said writ petitions were dismissed.3. The writ petitioners preferred appeals before us upon obtaining special leave. This Court in LML Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. : AIR2008SC1032 allowed the appeals against the Corporation. The appellant before us is against the said common judgment of the High Court. In LML Ltd. (supra), this Court, inter alia, held:50. The proximity of issuance of the circular vis-`a-vis notification must also be noticed. The tariff was framed on 7-8-2000 which came into force from 9-8-2000 whereas the Circular was issued on 8-9-2000. The consumers exercised their option on 31-10-2000. The judgment in LML1 was delivered on 25-4-2001. The Circular dated 31-8-2001 undoubtedly was issued in view of the said...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(1)SCALE452
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Jeeja, the deceased was married on 12.09.1998 with the first appellant herein, Dr. Premkumar at Attingal. They had been residing at Chenkkottah, in the district of Tenkasi in the State of Tamil Nadu. She committed suicide at her matrimonial house which is in the State of Tamil Nadu on 14.02.2003. Appellant No. 2 herein, father-in-law of the deceased, informed the Courtallam Police about the said unnatural death pursuant whereto a case being Crime No. 64/2003 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) was registered. The body of the deceased was subjected to inquest by the Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenkasi and an enquiry was conducted by the said officer and a report was submitted before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi wherein, inter alia, it was stated :On the basis of the inquest conducted, and on the basis of the enquiries made with the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, br...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2009)IILLJ21SC; 2009(1)SCALE284; (2009)2SCC570; 2009(3)SLJ14(SC); 2008(1)LC183(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant was working as a peon in the respondent - Bank.On or about 24.11.1993, a complaint was lodged by the Manager of the Bank alleging that some drafts which were presented for encashment by M/s Anil Trader and some other persons and purported to have been issued from the Mall Road Branch of the Bank had in fact not been issued therefrom.A First Information Report (for short, 'FIR') under Section 380/120B of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The investigation of the said case was assigned to one Shri Janardhan Singh, Senior Inspector. He submitted a report on 11.12.1993, inter alia, opining that the integrity of the appellant who had been transferred to Rampur, Shimla was doubtful. It was concluded:In view of the facts stated above we are of the view that both the joint custodian i.e. Shri H.C. Grover - Manager, presently posted at BO Chandni Chowk, Delhi and Shri P.C. Gupta - AM are responsible for the loss of the drawing book since either of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(1)CTC399; (2009)2SCC758; 2009(1)LHSC443; 2009(1)SCC(Cri)865.
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 29.2.2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta allowing the appeal in part preferred by the appellant herein from a judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.3.1993 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (E.C. Act), Hooghly, West Bengal in Special Court Case No. 12 of 1991 convicting him under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act,1955 (hereinafter called and referred to, for the sake of brevity, as 'the Act') reducing the sentence imposed on him from rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for another one month to suffer R.I. for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer R.I. for 15 days.3. Appellant was a dealer in kerosene oil having been granted licence in terms of the provisions of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 (for short, 'the 1968 Order') ...
Tag this Judgment!