Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1720; 2008CriLJ2250; JT2008(4)SC523; 2008(2)KLT36(SC); RLW2008(4)SC3549; 2008(4)SCALE592; (2008)5SCC161; 2008AIRSCW2365; AIR2008SC1720; 2008(5)SCC161; (2008)2SCC(Cri)558; 2008CriLJ2250; 2008(2)AICLR793
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.8.2004 of the Kerala High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 2004 whereby the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act') was confirmed.2. The relevant facts of the case are that on 5.3.2001, the Intelligence Officer was informed by an informant that two persons with certain drugs would be arriving by a Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Bus at Thiruvananthapuram Bus Stand. The Officer along with other persons and the informant went to the bus stand and waited for the bus. At about 9.00 a.m., the two accused alighted from the Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation bus. They were identified by the informant. They were intercepted by the officials. The officials disclosed their identity and the accused were searched. When asked about possession of narcotic drugs, it wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1908; 2008(2)AWC1250(SC); (SCSuppl)2008(3)CHN81; [2008]146CompCas363(SC); JT2008(3)SC570; 2008(4)MhLj703; 2008(3)SCALE626; (2008)5SCC55; 2008(3)KCCRSN201; 2008AIRSCW2147
Harjit Singh Bedi, J.1. Leave granted.2. The Ganga Nagar Central Cooperative Bank Limited (hereinafter called the 'Bank') is an apex body under which respondent No. 2, the Cooperative Mini Bank, Sujavalpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Mini Bank') carries on its banking activities. The private respondents herein opened their savings/fixed deposit accounts with the Mini Bank and after having used the services of the bank for some time moved for the withdrawal of the money deposited by them. Their request was, however, turned down on the ground that there was no balance standing in their accounts. The respondents also visited the office of the Bank and requested for its intercession in the matter but this request too was refused. The depositors accordingly moved a petition before the District Forum, Sri Ganganagar praying for the release of the amounts deposited by them and for compensation and interest. Several pleas were taken by the respondents. The Mini Bank took the stand that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2686; JT2008(4)SC273; 2008(3)SCALE561; (2008)11SCC129; 2008AIRSCW4490; 2008(2)Supreme3252008(5)KLJ257
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of the Division Bench of the of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the writ appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act. Challenge in the writ appeal was to the order passed by a learned Single Judge. The dispute relates to applicability of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') in the background of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954 (in short 'Inam Act') as amended by the Karnataka Inams Abolition Laws (Amendment) Act, 1979 (in short 'Amendment Act'). 3. The factual controversy lies in a very narrow compass. Appellant had filed the writ petition No. 32930 of 1996 which was disposed of by orders dated August 4, 2000 and August 24, 2000. By the latter order the following directions were given:Even with regard to the question as to whether the lands in question are Inam lands or not, it is impossible for me to form a correct impression because eac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008ACJ2384; 2008(3)ALT35(SC); 2008(2)AWC2044(SC); JT2008(4)SC63; 2008(3)SCALE610; 2008AIRSCW3647; 2008(3)CivilLJ431; 2008ACJ2384; 2008(2)Supreme431; JT2008(4)SC63; 2008(2)LH(SC)881
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court directing the appellant to deposit the entire amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge, Mathura in MACC No. 431 of 2005. It was directed that the amount was to be invested and paid to the claimant-respondent No. 1 in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that a detailed, frivolous and false claim was lodged. It was submitted that a bare look at the factual scenario would go to show that the claim has no foundation. The accident purportedly took place on 24.12.2000, the FIR was lodged on 31.5.2001 and in December, 2005 a Claim Petition claiming compensation under provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act') was filed.4. Overlooking these facts, Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 8,11,351/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008(117)FLR779]; [2008(2)JCR68(SC)]; JT2008(3)SC456; (2008)IILLJ1064SC; 2008(3)SCALE601; (2008)3SCC462; 2008AIRSCW1941; 2008(2)Supreme251; 2008(4)KCCRSN259
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissing the Civil Special Appeals filed by the appellant. The appeals were directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 25.10.1999.2. The respondents had filed the writ petitions seeking directions to the present appellants for giving employment to members of the families of persons whose lands were acquired at the instance of appellant M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. According to them, there was an agreement with the company whereby the company had agreed to give compensation for the land acquired and also to give employment to one member of the family of the land owners.3. The learned Single Judge taking note of the submissions of the company that there was no such agreement for giving employment but in view of the policy some preference was to be given, disposed of the writ petitions. It was the stand of the company that the only direction that is to be give...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 106(2008)CLT390(SC); (2008)4MLJ465(SC); 2008(3)SCALE611; (2008)5SCC550; 2008(2)Supreme533; 2008(2)LH(SC)990; 2008(2)KCCRSN113; 2008AIRSCW2296
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The controversy related to creation of a new district i.e. Baghpat in the State of Uttar Pradesh.2. By the impugned order the High Court disposed of the writ petition as follows:In view of the order passed in W.P. No. 5004 of 1999 Mohd. Tariq v. State of U.P. no further order is required in this petition. Petition is disposed of.3. Since the order is practically unreasoned, it is necessary to take note of the factual background. On 15.9.1997 a Notification was issued under Section 11 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short the 'Act') read with Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 (in short the 'General Clauses Act'). The Governor directed creation of a new District by the name of Baghpat with effect from the date of publication of the Notification. A Writ Petition No. 9085 of 1999 was filed challenging the aforesaid Notification. There were ess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1906; 2008(3)ALT43(SC); 2008(2)ARBLR121(SC); 2008(2)AWC1204(SC); [2008]142CompCas855(SC); (2008)2CompLJ352(SC); 2008(4)CTC644; JT2008(4)SC288; 2008(6)MhLj186
H.K. Sema, J.1. This is an application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the Act') for appointment of an Arbitrator. I have heard Dr.A.M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the applicant and Mr. Kailash Vasdev, learned senior counsel for the respondents at length. 2. The sole question that arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether an application under Section 11(6) of the Act is maintainable?3. In view of the order that I propose to pass, it may not be necessary to recite the entire facts, leading to the filing of the present application. Suffice it to say that contract Nos.2001-SI/25, 2001-SI/26 both dated 12th January 2001 and Contract No. 2001-SII/41 dated 28th February 2001 were amended/modified by way of a common addendum No. 1 on 2.3.2001. By an addendum dated 2nd March, 2001 Clause (ii) was introduced. It reads:(ii) Settlement of disputes through Indian Arbitration Council, Delhi.4. The dispute having arisen and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2416; II(2008)BC691(SC); [2008]142CompCas946(SC); 2008(2)CTLJ118(SC); 2008(3)KLT518(SC); (2008)4MLJ457(SC); 2008(3)MPHT211(SC); 2008(4)SCALE181; (2008)5SCC711; 2008AIRSCW3648; 2008(3)LH(SC)1986; 2008(2)KCCRSN109
Tarun chatteriee. J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal arises out of the final judgment and decree dated 11th of May, 2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RFA No. 71 of 1985 whereby the High Court had set aside the judgment and decree dated 12th of November, 1984 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge dismissing the suit filed against the appellant who was a guarantor in respect of loans advanced by the Punjab National Bank [in short 'the Bank'] - respondent No. 1 to M/s Rangaa Trades and Exports Pvt. Ltd. - respondent No. 2 in this appeal. By the impugned judgment, the High Court affirmed the decision of the Additional District and Sessions Judge and held that the suit filed by the Bank be decreed against the original defendant Nos. 1 to 4 for a sum of Rs. 42,874/- including interest at the rate of 19.5 per cent per annum with quarterly rests from the date of filing of the suit till realization. At this stage, we may note that the said decree against the d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(3)ALT1(SC); 2008(2)AWC1235(SC); (SCSuppl)2008(2)CHN153; JT2008(13)SC583; 2008(4)SCALE89; (2008)11SCC613; 2008(2)Supreme468; 2008(2)LH(SC)1023
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and decree dated 17th of October, 2000 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Second Appeal No. 443 of 1994 whereby the High Court had set aside the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Panna who in his turn had allowed the appellant's appeal against the decree of the trial court dismissing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the appellant.2. The case of the appellant is that a temple in the name of 'Shala Janki Raman Mandir' in village Gadhi Padrariya and the agricultural lands (in short 'the suit lands') as fully described in paragraph 1 of the plaint were owned by Mahant Ramdas, who was the guru of the appellant, as Manager of the same. The temple and the suit lands were bequeathed to the appellant by Mahant Ramdas to succeed to the same as Manager. In the year 1987-88, the Collector Panna started auctioning the suit lands and therefore, the appellant fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(4)SC300; 2008(3)KarLJ664; 2008(4)SCALE17; (2008)11SCC586; 2008AIRSCW2230; 2008(3)AIRKarR242
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.07.2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular Second Appeal No. 242 of 2001 modifying the judgment and decree in part that the plaintiff is owner and in possession only to an extent of 7.00 acres of land.BRIEF FACTS:3. Mahaboobsab Modinsab Agasimani, plaintiff in O.S. No. 129 of 1990 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Hubli is the appellant in the above appeal. The appellant/plaintiff filed the said suit for declaration declaring him as the absolute owner of the suit property bearing RS. No. 93/3 measuring 7 acres and 10 guntas situate at Palikoppa in Hubli. According to the plaintiff, he is the owner and in possession of the suit property which came to the share of his father in the year 1973 in their family adjustment among the brothers. Subsequently, father of the plaintiff and others got their shares entered vide ME No. 480. The same has not been chall...
Tag this Judgment!