Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2607; 2008(5)ALD47(SC); 2008(4)AWC3442(SC); 2008(5)CTC188; JT2008(11)SC110; (2009)1MLJ997(SC); 2008(8)SCALE702; (2008)7SCC293; 2008AIRSCW4372; 2008(4)CivilLJ129; 2008(3)LH(SC)2252
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. The subject-matter of the challenge in this appeal is a judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 669/2001 on 18th July 2001 setting aside the judgments of the Courts below where both the trial court as well as the lower Appellate Court determined the provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (herein after referred to as the 'Act of 1950') at the rate of Rs. 400/-p.m. for the shop in question with effect from 01.06.1994 to 01.07.1999. The High Court in revision re-appreciated the evidences and reversed the concurrent findings of the Courts below and held as under:Thus, the provisional determination of rent by both the courts below at the rate of 400/-p.m. appears on the very face to be illegal and both the courts below have committed jurisdictional error in determining the rent at such rate and they should have determined the rent at the rate of Rs. 200/-p.m....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2737; 2008(4)AWC3258(SC); 2008(56)BLJR1979; 2008BusLR625(SC); LC2008(2)253; (2008)4MLJ942(SC); 2008(37)PTC413(SC); 2008(9)SCALE40; 2008AIRSCW4560
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special is directed against the judgment and order dated 12th October, 2007 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Trade Mark Second Appeal (TMSA) No. 2 of 1998 affirming the judgment and order dated 25th September, 1998 passed in T.M.A. No. 3 of 1989 whereby and whereunder an appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Section 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 arising out of an order dated 12th May, 1979 by respondent No. 3 was dismissed. 3. Appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It manufactures whisky under the mark 'Peter Scot'. Manufacture of the said product allegedly was started by the company in May, 1968. An application was filed by it for registration of its mark before the respondent No. 3. Appellant was informed that its application was accepted and allowed to proceed with the advertisement, subject to the condition that the mark would be treated as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(7)SC194; 2008(9)SCALE166; (2008)8SCC781; 2008AIRSCW4618; 2008(3)AICLR651
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the final judgment and order dated 24.08.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby and whereunder the High Court has dismissed Criminal Miscellaneous Applications bearing Nos. 7792 of 2006 and 7791 of 2006 filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short 'Cr.P.C.'] in Case Crime No. 412 of 2005 under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 and 427of the Indian Penal Code [for short 'the IPC'] and in Case Crime No. 21 of 2006 under Sections 452, 323, 336, 504, 506, 420 IPC respectively registered against them at Police Station, Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad and seeking for entrustment of further investigation of the aforesaid cases to the Central Bureau of Investigation [for short 'the CBI'].3. This case would reveal a chequered history of legal battle being fought by the appellants - the students of Santosh Medical College on one hand and the authorities of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2763; 2008(4)ALD11(SC); 2008(4)AWC3426(SC); 2008(56)BLJR2012; (SCSuppl)2008(4)CHN201; 2008(4)CTC355; (2008)7MLJ826(SC); 2008(8)SCALE698; 2008(2)LC733(SC); 2008AIRSCW4595; 2008(3)CivilLJ470; 2008(4)Supreme153; 2008(3)LH(SC)2237
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Whether a disciple attached to a Mahant in one of the establishments run by a Religious Trust will have locus standi to maintain an appeal from an order of the District Judge allowing an application filed by the Trust under Section 92(1)(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') is the short question which arises for consideration in this appeal. 3. One Swami Sarupanand was the founder of the Math. He was disciple of Swami Advaitanand. The latter was a religious preceptor of great learning and had a large following. Swami Sarupanand took his Samadhi at Meerut in March 1936 and according to his wishes Swami Atmavivekanand became the Mahant. He was succeeded by Swami Harsewanand who in turn was succeeded by Swami Harshankaranand. Swami Harshankaranand died on 22.02.1993. He had three disciples; Sarnanand, Premanand and Smt. Tapesara. Premanand died on 10.06.2005. He was succeeded by Swami Shankaranand. Appellant is said to have succ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2462; 2008(2)ALD(Cri)23; 2008CriLJ3034; 2008(3)CTC519; JT2008(7)SC245; (2008)11SCC520; 2008AIRSCW3777; 2008(3)AICLR621; 2008(4)Supreme7; 2008(3)LH(SC)2086
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant is an advocate. She was married to Respondent No. 1 on or about 1.12.1993. The parties indisputably are living separately since 1996. She allegedly filed a complaint before the All Women Police Station at Virudhunagar. An enquiry was directed to be conducted. As per the advice of the officers of the said Police Station as also the relatives of the parties, they entered into an agreement for divorce on or about 24.7.1996. It was registered in the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Virudhunagar being Registration No. 146 of 1996. Appellant also received a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards permanent alimony which was acknowledged by granting a stamped receipt therefor. The said purported divorce is said to have taken place in terms of the custom prevailing in the community the which the parties belong.3. Admittedly, the first respondent married again in 1998. He has two children out of the said wedlock.4. Appellant, however, filed a complaint petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(4)ALD40(SC); 2008(4)ALT21(SC); 2008(4)AWC3449(SC); (SCSuppl)2008(4)CHN134; [2008(4)JCR59(SC)]; JT2008(11)SC57; 2008(2)KLT1016(SC); 2009(1)MhLj582; (2008)5MLJ1388(SC); 2008AIRSCW4264; 2008(8)SCC198; 2008(4)CivilLJ361; 2008(4)Supreme137; 2008(3)LH(SC)2183
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Whether an application for initiating a final decree proceedings in terms of Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') would be governed by any provision contained in the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963 is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 12.2.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 7382 of 2005. 3. A suit for partition was filed by the respondents herein claiming 1/3rd share in the joint family property. The said suit was registered as Regular Civil Suit No. 145 of 1969. A decree was passed therein on or about 27.6.1975, the relevant portion whereof reads as under:It is hereby declared that Plaintiff, Defendant No. 1 and 2 each have 1/3 share in the suit property described in the schedule 7 to the plaint. Plaintiff do recover separate possession of the land excluding the lands which are in the possession of Defendant No. 7 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(2)ALD(Cri)17; 2008(3)ALT(Cri)242; 2008(56)BLJR2033; 2008CriLJ3190; RLW2008(2)SC1785; 2008(8)SCALE608; 2008(2)LC739(SC); 2008(3)AICLR557; 2008(4)Supreme1; 2008AIRSCW4259
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. How to determine the age of a juvenile in delinquency within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short 'the Act') is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 11th September, 2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision No. 156 of 2007 whereby and whereunder an order dated 20th January, 2007 passed by a learned Additional Session Judge, Delhi, was set aside. 3. Appellant before us is the first informant, the father of a boy, Parkash Chadha @ Sunny who was kidnapped for ransom and later on murdered. He was aged about 20 years. He was found missing after he had gone out with his friends on 18th January, 2003. A missing report was lodged on the said date. On or about 19th January, 2003, Respondent No. 1 was suspected of involvement in the said crime by the police. He, on the basis of the investigation carried out for the said purpose char...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008(118)FLR318]; JT2008(8)SC585; 2008(2)KLT929(SC); 2008(9)SCALE16; (2008)7SCC210; 2008AIRSCW4591; AIR2008SC2760; 2008LABIC3338; 2008(4)Supreme239
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellants are before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 18.07.2006 passed by the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 2275, 2527 and 2622 of 2005 affirming the judgment and order dated 7.9.2005 passed by a learned single judge of the said Court. 3. Recruitment to the posts is made by the respondent No. 4 - Commission. A requisition was made for filing up of 214 posts. Allegedly, the respondent No. 2 approved only 208 posts. 201 vacancies were filled up. Contending inter alia that the Respondent - Cooperative Bank could fill 16 more vacancies, a writ petition was filed. A learned single judge of the High Court opined that having regard to the approved vacancy position, six more vacancies could be filled up and one vacancy having arisen due to non-joining of the same could also be filled up. A direction was, therefore, issued to fill up seven more vacancies. An intra- court appeal was preferred thereagainst, which by reaso...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(8)SCALE262; 2008AIRSCW3803; 2008(4)Supreme34
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 against the final judgment and order dated 26.02.2007 passed by the Additional Judge, Designated Court, Maximum Security Jail, Nabha (Punjab) in Sessions Case No. 2 of 15.04.2004 whereby and whereunder the Designated Court convicted and sentenced the appellant for offences punishable under Section 302/382 of the Indian Penal Code [for short 'the IPC'] and Section 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 [for short 'TADA'].2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 9.5.1992, Kirandeep Singh- the complainant (P.W. 7), son of Balkar Singh (P.W. 4), went to Inspector Swaran Singh, the Station House Officer (P.W. 15) who along with other police personnel was on patrol duty at Atalan bus stand and reported that he is a resident of village Atalan, P.S. Ghagga, District Patiala. They are four brothers, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(129)ECC103; 2008(155)LC103(SC); 2008(227)ELT3(SC); JT2008(7)SC299; 2008(8)SCALE81; (2008)7SCC220; 2008(4)Supreme157.
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The validity of an exemption notification bearing No. 11/97-Cus dated 1.3.1997 as amended by notification No. 55/97-Cus dated 13.6.1997 granting exemption to various imported goods including EOT mobile crane required for setting up crude petroleum refinery subject to fulfilment of certain conditions, is in question in this appeal which arises out of judgment and order dated 8.7.2005 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Court No. 2.2. The fact that the crane in question was imported for using the same in setting up a refinery is not in dispute.What is in dispute is that whether a crane when placed on a vehicle which the appellant wrongly stated to be a `motor vehicle' would fulfill the description of a mobile crane or a `material handling equipment'. Valuation of the said crane was also questioned.The fact that different parts of the said crane were imported by the respondent herein as second hand equipment is also not in d...
Tag this Judgment!