Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1738; 2008(5)ALLMR(SC)424; 2008BusLR403(SC); [2008]143CompCas97(SC); (2008)2CompLJ496(SC); 2008(3)SCALE650; (2008)6SCC750; [2008]83SCL451(SC); 2008(1)LC583(SC); 2008AIRSCW2402; 2008(2)Supreme502; 2008(4)KCCRSN299
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. M/s. Shree Bhaarathi Cotton Mills Private Limited is a company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (For short, 'the Act'). Out of the 2,84,000 equity shares in the company of Rs. 10/- each, 2,83,999 shares are held by the first respondent and his son (appellant herein). The remaining one share is held by M/s. Visva Bharathi Textiles Private Limited, shares in which again is held equally by the first respondent and the appellant. Thus, for all intent and purport, all shares of the company are held by the appellant and the first respondent. 3. Whereas the first respondent is the Managing Director of the Company, the appellant is the Director thereof. Indisputably the parties are not on good terms. 4. Respondent No. 1 filed an application purported to be under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act alleging several acts of oppression on the part of appellant herein before the Company Law Board, Additional Principal Bench, Chennai. The said ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(3)SC545; 2008(3)SCALE614; (2008)4SCC185; 2008(4)SCC185; (2008)2SCC(Cri)768; 2008(2)AICLR484; 2008(2)Supreme562
Harjit Singh Bedi, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by way of special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 30th May, 2006 confirming the judgment of the trial court and the first appellate court convicting the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC but reducing the sentence imposed by the first two courts to 6 months imprisonment but retaining the fine as it is.3. The appellant who was working as a Head Constable with the Delhi Police and posted at P.S. Kashmere Gate was directed to go to the Police Headquarters at ITO to convey an urgent message. He left the Police Station driving police Mini Truck No. DDL-6462. As the vehicle reached under the railway bridge on the Ring Road going towards Jamuna Bazar it went over the road divider and hit a scooter driven by Hans Kumar with his friend Atma Ram sitting on the pillion seat. Unnerved, the appellant attempted to steer the truck back on the other side of the road but in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2068; 2008CriLJ2623; I(2008)DMC489SC; JT2008(4)SC78; 2008(3)SCALE624; (2008)4SCC580; 2008AIRSCW2810; (2008)2SCC(Cri)462; 2008(2)AICLR491; 2008(3)LH(SC)1743
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the petition filed in terms of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C.').3. The appellant had sought for protection in terms of aforesaid provision in FIR No. 105 dated 15.8.2007 registered at the Police Station Bhogpur, District Jalandhar. The complainant had alleged that she was married to Ranjit Singh, son of the appellant on 23.10.2002. The said Ranjeet Singh went abroad in February, 2002 and came back after about one year. Alleging that the complainant was harassing her for brining insufficient dowry, the complaint was lodged in the police station. The appellant filed a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for protection. The High Court observed that ordinarily in such cases the court is inclined to grant protection against arrest to family members of husband of the complainant, however the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2675; 2008(5)ALD99(SC); 2008(2)AWC1636(SC); 2008(5)BomCR441; (2009)1GLR200(SC); [2008(3)JCR14(SC)]; JT2008(3)SC530; RLW2008(4)SC3440; 2008(4)SCALE601; (2008)4SCC64; 2008AIRSCW4475; AIR2008SC2675; 2008(4)SCC649; 2008(3)CivilLJ798; 2008(3)AICLR9; 2008(2)Supreme413; 2008(5)LH(SC)3092
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Leave granted in both the matters.2. These two appeals being inter related were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by the common judgment.3. Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel (Appellant in Civil Appeal is the mother in law of Sonalben Rameshchandra Desai - respondent No. 3 in Civil Appeal and respondent No. 2 in Criminal Appeal) while she alongwith her husband are the appellants in the Criminal Appeal. For the purpose of disposal of these appeals, Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel is being described as Appellant No. 1 while her husband Ajitbhai Revandas Patel is being described as Appellant No. 2. Sonalben Rameshchandra Desai was married to Jitendra Ajitbhai Patel (son of the appellants) on 4th May, 1992. The couple fell apart. In 1993 a complaint petition was filed by the 3rd respondent against her husband and the appellants alleging commission of an offence under Sections 406 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said complaint the 3rd respondent accepted that h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(2)AWC1806(SC); [2008(118)FLR1189]; JT2008(5)SC342; 2008(2)KLT95(SC); (2008)IILLJ708SC; 2008(4)SCALE512; 2008(3)SLJ344(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.Leave granted.1. Whether jurisdiction of the Industrial Courts are ousted in regard to an order of dismissal passed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, a Corporation constituted and incorporated under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 3.2.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam.2. Respondent herein was appointed as a Development Officer of the appellant. Departmental proceeding were initiated against him. Articles of Charges were framed; fifth of it being, forgery of a signature on a proposal. According to the Enquiry Officer, the respondent was negligent in the performance of his duties as he did not personally verify the details of the person concerned and relied wholly upon the representation of the agent. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the first four charges, but exonerated him on the fifth one. He was dismissed from service by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(6)ALLMR(SC)404; 2008(225)ELT161(SC); [2008(118)FLR1121]; JT2008(4)SC150; 2008(4)SCALE360; (2008)4SCC1; 2008(3)SLJ294(SC); 2008AIRSCW2813; 2008(3)LH(SC)2068
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Respondent at all material times was working as a Sub-Inspector (AICO-II). He was posted in the Intelligence Bureau. His principal function was to identify and collect sources of information from the locality in regard to anti national activities. On or about 5th August, 1983, the respondent accompanied by the driver of an official jeep bearing Registration No. RSN 939, went to a place known as 'Ramsar Gagaria Road' in the District of Barmer. There, he allegedly found a large number of smuggled goods. While bringing the same in his jeep for their delivery to the Customs Authorities it was intercepted by a Jonga Jeep, which was being driven by one Bhoor Singh, a known smuggler, accompanied by the Head Constable Bhori Das and Constable Kirta Ram of the concerned Police Station. They were brought to the Police Station and arrested inter alia on the charge that the respondent, in conspiracy with the smugglers had been taking the smuggled goods in his official jeep. 2. Proc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008(117)FLR584]; JT2008(4)SC521; (2008)IILLJ650SC; 2008(4)SCALE663; (2008)5SCC171; 2008AIRSCW2812; 2008-II-LLJ-650
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the present appellant. Challenge in the writ petition was to the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court 1, Faridabad.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: Respondent claiming to have been appointed by the appellant as a baildar in December, 1991 alleged that while working with the appellant, had met with an accident and FIR was lodged. Respondent could not attend the duties and the reasons for the absence were within the knowledge of the management of the appellant. The management was also requested to provide for reimbursement of medical aid to the claimant who was admitted in the hospital and continuously long thereafter. The accident in question occurred on 21.8.1992. Accordingly a claim petition was filed. The prayers made in the claim petition were resisted by the present appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1867; 2008(3)ALLMR(SC)861; 2008(3)BomCR25; [2008(117)FLR891]; JT2008(4)SC211; (2008)IILLJ697SC; 2008(4)SCALE704; AIRSCW2618; 2008(2)Supreme760; (2008)13SCC441
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Hindalco Industries Ltd., aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20.01.2000 of the High Court of Bombay in L.P.A. No. 58 of 1999 confirming the order of the Industrial Court accepting the case of the Association of Engineering Workers' Union, has filed the above appeal.2. The respondent herein namely, Association of Engineering Workers' Union (hereinafter referred to as 'the Union') filed a complaint of unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971') against Hindalco Industries Ltd. - appellant herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') before the Industrial Court at Thane. According to the Union, the complainant is a trade union recognized as a representative union of the appellant- company. The Company has engaged employees in unfair labour practices on and from 1971 on a continuous basis from mo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1771; 2008(3)ALLMR(SC)816; [2008(2)FLR1531]; JT2008(4)SC10; 2008(4)SCALE278; (2008)4SCC144; 2008AIRSCW2446; AIR2008SC1771; 2008(5)LH(SC)3429; 2008(2)KCCRSN141
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the common judgment and order dated 10-15th November, 2006 of the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in LPA No. 1453 of 2005 and Miscellaneous Civil application for Review No. 3165 of 2006 dated 14th February, 2007; whereby the High Court dismissed the cross-objections filed by the appellants in LPA No. 1453 of 2005. Essentially grievance in this appeal pertains to the dismissal of cross objections preferred by the appellants.3. The Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (for short the said Act) came into force with effect from February 1st, 1978. The State Government in exercise of its power conferred under the provisions of the Act constituted Surat Urban Development Authority (SUDA) which prepared a draft development plan whereby the lands belonging to the appellants were proposed for designating the use of the lands for residential purposes. The State Government having considered ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2015; 2008(2)AWC1813(SC); 3(2008)CCR132(SC); JT2008(4)SC541; 2008(4)SCALE657; (2008)7SCC105; 2008AIRSCW2664; 2008(7)SCC105
Harjit Singh Bedi, J.1. In this appeal by special leave the facts have been taken from the judgment of the first appellate Court as they have not been detailed in the judgment of the High Court.2. The plaintiff-appellant Rama Devi executed a mortgage/sale deed dated 15th May 1974 for 6 Bigha and 10 Biswas out of her total land area of 12 Bigha 1 Biswa for Rs. 13,000/- as she needed funds for her business. In the document aforesaid, it was recited that in case the amount of Rs. 13,000/- plus interest at the rate of 24% per annum was returned to her within a period of 5 years the land would be re-conveyed to her. It is the case of the appellant that she had made a request to the respondent within the aforesaid period for re-transfer but the respondent had refused to accede thereto. This refusal prompted the appellant to issue two notices dated 27th April 1979 and 9th April 1981 to the respondent but he refused to accept the same but under the influence of the local people he returned the...
Tag this Judgment!