Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008CriLJ2999; 2008(4)SCALE815; (2008)11SCC579; 2008(3)SLJ306(SC); 2008AIRSCW2657; 2008CriLJ2999
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This is a Contempt Petition field by Promotee Telecom Engineers Forum and others. They complain that the Department of Telecommunications has flouted the judgment and directions dated 28.9.2006. The observations on which the petitioners rely are as follows:The question then arises as to whether the applicants can claim the protection of their seniority and consequent promotion on the basis of observations and the clarification contained in the judgment of this Court reported in (2000) 9 SCC 71. Having considered all aspects of the matter, we are satisfied that those whose cases stand on the same footing as that of Parmanand Lal cannot now be adversely affected by re-determination of their seniority to their disadvantage relying on the later judgment of this Court in C.A. No. 4339 of 1995 reported in (1997) 10 SCC 226 (supra) as affirmed by this Court in its judgment reported in (2000) 9 SCC 71 (supra).2. The petitioners rely on the further directions given by the C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(4)SC73; 2008(4)SCALE537; (2008)11SCC703; 2008AIRSCW2184; 2008(2)LH(SC)1271
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant herein has challenged the order passed by the High Court, whereby his petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. was disposed of with certain directions. In his petition, the appellant had sought registration of criminal case against respondent nos. 4 to 6 for offences under Sections 341, 342, 211 I.P.C. and Section 58 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act') read with Section 120B I.P.C in relation to the incident which took place on 7.8.2004. The High Court, however, refused to issue any direction regarding the registration of a criminal case on the ground that there was no material on record, from which it could prima facie be found that respondent No. 4 had stopped the vehicle and conducted the search with mala fide motive. The High Court viewed it as a part of the duty of respondent No. 4. The High Court did not also find fault with the alleged role played by respondent nos. 5 and 6, howeve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(3)BomCR284; JT2008(4)SC532; 2008(4)SCALE676; (2008)11SCC90; 2008(3)SLJ402(SC); 2008AIRSCW2877; 2008LabIC2351; 2008(2)LH(SC)1293; 2008(4)AIRKarR21
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Leave granted.2. The judgment of the Bombay High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein as also the subsequent order dismissing the review petition are challenged in this appeal.3. Appellant herein came to be appointed by Leva Education Union, Leva Boarding Zilla Peth, Jalgaon, hereinafter called the 'Management' in Nandinibai Vamanrao Girls High School, Jalgaon w.e.f. 1.1.2001 vide letter dated 30.12.2000. The appellant belongs to the 'Other Backward Class' (OBC) category. He was a science graduate and had worked as a clerk in a private bank. He applied to an advertisement issued by respondent No. 3 dated 23.12.2000 inviting applications for the post of Junior Clerk. Significantly, this post had become vacant since the earlier employee working on this post was promoted. That promotion was given due to the superannuation of a Chief Clerk. With the result, Shri S.S. Gangapurkar was promoted as a Chief Clerk and so also Shri V.B. Patil who w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2715; (SCSuppl)2008(3)CHN138; JT2008(4)SC351; 2008(4)SCALE136; (2008)7SCC447; 2008AIRSCW4528; 2008(4)KCCRSN316
ORDER1. This special leave petition is filed against the order dated 24th of April, 2007 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in APOT No. 44 of 2007 whereby the High Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant challenging an order passed by a learned Judge sitting in the original side jurisdiction of the High Court.2. The petitioners are trustees of a trust named Gouri Devi Trust, which at all times was and still is the absolute owner of premises situated at 95A Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta-700 073 (in short the disputed premises). The disputed premises consists of a three storied building and comprises an area of 1 Bigha 4 Cottahs of land and is situated in the heart of the city. A portion of this building comprising 11 rooms on the 1st floor and 11 rooms on the 2nd floor including 2 kitchen rooms was let out by the then trustees of the said Trust to one M/s.B.Majumdar Samajpati at a monthly rent of Rs. 1610/-. In the year 1992, at the request of the said B.Majumdar Samajpa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1970; 2008CriLJ2245; 2008(4)SCALE186; (2008)5SCC752; 2008AIRSCW2289; 2008(2)Supreme596
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court dismissing the petition filed by the appellant. The Criminal Revision was filed against order dated 22.12.2003 made in CMP No. 7255 of 2003 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. II, Ponneri, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C.'). The application was filed for release of lorry bearing Registration No. TN-01-F- 9797 which was alleged to have been involved in a case registered for offences punishable under various provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The case of the appellant before the High Court was that money was provided to the respondent No. 2 to purchase the said lorry under a hire purchase agreement. In terms of the agreement, the hirer was required to pay 32 monthly instalments of Rs. 1 4,875/- between the period from 24.6.2000 and 24.1.2003. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2943; JT2008(4)SC619; 2008(4)SCALE823; 2008(2)Supreme646
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Allahabad High Court allowing the Writ Petition (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33291/2004) and holding that no further order need be passed in the connected Writ Petition (Civil Misc.W.P. 37610/2004) in view of the order of the former case.3. Challenge in the first writ petition was to the order passed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad dated 2.8.2004 holding that respondent-Pramod Kumar Shukla had received grant in aid to the tune of Rs. 21,27,551.13 between 2.4.1990 to 1.4.1995 under Government Order dated 21.7.1986 by concealing facts and by practicing fraud. It was pointed out that he had concealed the fact that he was not the owner and was not, therefore, entitled to receive the grant in aid. Therefore, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 5(3) of the U.P. Cinema Regulation Act, 1955 (in short the 'Cinema Act') order of recovery was given and grant in aid sanctioned to him vid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1747; JT2008(4)SC401; 2008(2)KLT231(SC); 2008(4)SCALE566; 2008AIRSCW2414; 2008CriLJ2259; 2008(3)AICLR218; 2008(2)Supreme643; 2008(4)LH(SC)2317
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentence of imprisonment for life as awarded by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Report was lodged by one Tulsh Singh at the Tolesar Police station stating that on 19.11.1999 he was standing in the road along with Swai Singh, Sumer Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') and Vijay Singh. Around 4 P.M. Laxman Singh who was then studying in a nearby school came and inform that while the child were talking amongst each other, appellant Ram Swaroop slapped him. At that time Ram Swaroop and Shrawan were standing on the road. When Sumer Singh asked Ram Swaroop as to why he had beaten Laxman, on this Shrawan started beating Sumer Singh and the compla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1786; 2008(3)ALD27(SC); 2008(3)ALLMR(SC)809; 2008(2)AWC1760(SC); (SCSuppl)2008(3)CHN35; 2008(1)CTLJ337(SC); 2008(4)SCALE805
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. By this appeal, the appellants (plaintiffs in the suit) (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs' for the sake of convenience) have challenged the judgment and order of the High Court dated 7.5.2002 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs on 10.5.1973 for specific performance of the contract to reconvey the suit property by Manaklal, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein (original defendant No. 1 in the suit) (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant' for the sake of convenience) was dismissed by the High Court.2. The facts necessary are that the suit property was a joint family property of the plaintiffs, namely, Bal Krishna and Ramanlal, both brothers and their late grandmother Mainabai. The parents of the plaintiffs as also their grandfather late Ramnarayan Bhutda, husband of late Mainabai had died much before the execution of the transaction in dispute. On 19.7.1952, when the plaintiffs were minors, their late grandmother Mainabai p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1854; 2008CriLJ2987; JT2008(5)SC350; 2008(4)SCALE452; 2008AIRSCW2599; JT2008(5)SC350; 2008(2)LH(SC)1299
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant, Bavisetti Kameswara Rao original accused No. 1 (A- 1) has approached this Court challenging the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, confirming his conviction (accused No. 1) for an offence under Section 302 IPC. 3. Initially, as many as eight persons were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) for various offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 etc. The allegation is that all the accused persons alongwith some others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in pursuance of the common object of that assembly, they committed murder of one Samudrala Pandu Rangarao @ Rayalam Rangadu. According to the prosecution, on 28th July 2007, at about 11 P.M., the deceased alongwith his friend Tamarapalli Subba Rao had visited mini lorry supply office of the first accused and he wanted to consume alcohol there. The first accused refused to let him have the alcohol there and on this, there was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008ACJ1488; AIR2008SC1858; 2008(3)ALD129(SC); 2008(3)ALLMR(SC)872; 2008(2)CTC621; JT2008(4)SC637; (2008)5MLJ469(SC); (2008)151PLR452; RLW2008(4)SC3370; 2008(4)SCALE983; 2008AIRSCW2605; 2008ACJ1488; JT2008(4)SC637; 2008(2)LH(SC)1513; 2008(3)KCCRSN179
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is filed by the widow and five children of one Rajendra Singh who died in an accident on 12.4.2004 when he was riding on his bicycle and was given a dash by the offending vehicle, a Canter Truck bearing Registration No. UA-04-1486. Rajendra Singh died on the spot. The driver of the offending vehicle was caught on the spot. The claimants, therefore, filed the claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the basis that Rajendra Singh used to earn Rs. 140/- per day and Rs. 4200/- per month and that his age at the time of accident was barely 35 years. In support of the claim, three witnesses including Laxmi Devi, the wife of the deceased were examined and the Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence, held that the deceased Rajendra Singh died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident on 12.4.2004 which accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. As regards the income, the Tribunal...
Tag this Judgment!