Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. This Contempt Petition has become infructuous in view of the fact that the Report as directed by us vide Order dt. 30.11.2007 has already been submitted and the possession of the premises in question has been handed over to the petitioners. In that view of the matter, this Contempt Petition has become infructuous and is disposed of as such.The contempt notice is discharged....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1690
ORDER1. There ins not need to clarify or modify the order dated 4.5.2007 passed by us in the matter. The application for clarification is accordingly dismissed. However, it would be open to the applicants/appellant to challenge the order rejecting the prayer for accepting the affidavit evidence in accordance with law in an appropriate forum....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(2)AWC1301(SC); [2008(118)FLR1188]; (2008)IILLJ826SC; 2008(3)SCALE305; (2008)3SCC304
ORDER1. Delay condoned.Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dt. 24.04.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandiagrh in C.W.P. No. 16957 of 2006 by which the High Court has affirmed the award passed by the Labour Court with 50% back wages to be paid to the respondent.3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the order regarding payment of 50% back wages be modified by 25% of back wages to be paid to the respondent. We order accordingly. With this modification, the order of the High Court is affirmed. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1640; 2008(3)ALD56; 2008(2)ALT100(SC); 2008(56)BLJR1550; [2008(3)JCR90(SC)]; 2008(3)SCALE45; (2008)4SCC720; 2008AIRSCW1826; 2008(3)LH(SC)2208; 2008(2)Supreme638
Markandey Katju, J.1. This appeal by special leave has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 8.5.2001 in Writ Petition No. 12649 of 2000.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.The writ petition was filed in the High Court praying for a declaration that Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act as amended by A.P. Act 8 of 1998 which requires a party to deposit 50% deficit stamp duty as a condition precedent for a reference to the Collector under Section 47A is unconstitutional. By the impugned judgment the High Court has declared it unconstitutional. Hence, this appeal. 3. Under Section 3 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 certain instruments are chargeable with the duty mentioned in the Schedule to the Act. Item 23 in the Schedule to the Act mentions a `conveyance' as one of the documents requiring payment of stamp duty. A `conveyance' is defined in Section 2(10) of the Act and includes a sale deed. Since in the present case we a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(3)ALLMR(SC)840; [2008(117)FLR199]; JT2008(3)SC469; (2008)IILLJ695SC; 2008(3)SCALE141; (2008)3SCC499; 2008AIRSCW2273; 2008-II-LLJ-695; 2008LabIC2595
ORDER1. Leave granted.These appeals are directed against an interim order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Letters Patent Appeal No. 177 of 2007 with Civil Application No. 303 of 2007 in Civil Application Nos. 1916 and 1554 of 2007 in Writ Petition No. 3079 of 2006. By the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court had modified an interim order passed by a learned single Judge, which was as follows:[i] As the Company has decided to reinstate the workmen instead of paying dues Under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the workmen shall be paid wages at par with unskilled permanent workmen or the statutory minimum wages whichever is higher, from the date of this order.[ii] If no work is provided to the workmen by the employer, they shall be paid wages @ Rs. 2,500/- per month.[iii] These wages shall be paid by the employer and accepted by the workmen without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the petition.[iv] The arrears ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(2)AWC1302(SC); 2008(126)ECC179; 2008(152)LC179(SC); JT2008(4)SC313; 2008(3)SCALE396; (2008)4SCC111; 2008AIRSCW1912
ORDERA.K. Mathur and Aftab Alam, JJ.1. All these special leave petitions involve a common question as to the interpretation of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the U.P. Number and Location of Excise Shop Rules, 1968 (hereinafter for short the 'U.P. Excise Rules'). Since these petitions involve a common question, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this order. However, for convenient disposal of these petitions, the facts of SLP(C) No. 7756/2006 are taken into consideration.SLP(C) No. 7756/20062. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.4.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench whereby the Division Bench has taken the view that the word 'close proximity' used in Sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the U.P. Excise Rules shall be meant to be 100 meters or 300 ft. (approx.). The brief facts leading to the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court are that a public interest petition was filed before the Lu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1585; 2008(2)CTC233; JT2008(3)SC242; 2008(3)SCALE163; 2008AIRSCW1753; AIR2008SC1585; 2008(2)ICC748; 2008(2)Supreme257; 2008(3)KCCRSN211
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 23rd of January, 2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi in CM [M] No. 126 of 2007 whereby the eviction of the appellants from a shop bearing No. III-1/9, Gopi Nath Bazar, Delhi Cantonment, Delhi (in short 'the suit shop') was affirmed on the ground of subletting under Section 14[1][b] of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act' ).3. The appellant No. 1 was inducted as a tenant in the year 1956 by the erstwhile owners of the suit shop, viz., Som Nath and Mohinder Nath. He was all along in continuous possession of the suit shop and was conducting the business from the same along with his brother Chunni Lal of Chunni Lal and Sons under the name and style of M/s Mitra Book Depot. The rent receipts issued by the landlord were in the name of M/s Mitra Book Depot as tenant at the rate of Rs. 65/-per month. Subsequently, a business was started in a portion of the suit shop in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(3)SC330; 2008(1)KLT985(SC); 2008(3)SCALE87; (2008)4SCC493; 2008(4)SCC493; (2008)2SCC(Cri)366; 2008(2)AICLR313; 2008(3)LH(SC)1930
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellants. By the revision petition challenge was to the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:The appellants were alleged to have been indulging in smuggling of liquor from Haryana to Delhi. The prosecution alleged that upon receipt of information, S.I. Lalit Mohan, alongwith certain police officials, constituted a raiding party, assembled near a traffic intersection and on 8.4.1994 at about 1.45 A.M. intercepted a Tata 407 vehicle in which the appellants were travelling. Despite being signalled to stop, the vehicle sped away. The police officials chased it, and stopped it and apprehended the appellants. Eighteen cartons containing 12 bottles of 'Bonnie Scot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008CriLJ1931; JT2008(3)SC143; 2008(3)SCALE108; 2008AIRSCW1678; AIR2008SC1537; 2008CriLJ1931; 2008(2)AICLR551
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. These two appeals are directed against the common judgment of the Uttranchal High Court.3. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment of a Division Bench of the Uttaranchal High Court which disposed of Criminal Reference No. 2 of 2004 and two Criminal Appeal Nos. 45 and 46 of 2002. The two criminal appeals were filed by Liyakat the present appellant and co-accused Smt. Zahira. The reference was necessitated as the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court Hardwar has awarded death sentence to the accused Liyakat awarded death sentence to accused Liyakat. He had also awarded sentences of imprisonment for life to Zahira and the accused No. 3. Both of them were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The trial court, however had acquitted Accused Nos. 2 and 4 namely Riyasat and Jeewani.4. Noor Alam was child of PW 1 Rashid and his wife PW 2 Nasreen. PW 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1510; 2008CriLJ1923; JT2008(3)SC309; 2008(3)SCALE74; 2008AIRSCW1609; 2008(4)CivilLJ779; 2008(2)AICLR561; 2008(2)Supreme731; 2008(4)LH(SC)2307
ORDERArijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court refusing to grant leave to appeal.2. Stand of the appellant is that the order of the Division Bench summarily dismissing the application cannot be sustained. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, supported the order stating that though the order is non-reasoned, yet this is not a fit case for exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (for short 'The Constitution').The application before the High Court for grant of leave was filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Cr.P.C).3. In the instant case proceeding was initiated on the basis of a complaint filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'The Act). The accused who is respondent N...
Tag this Judgment!