Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC3352(SC); JT2008(6)SC618; 2009(2)MhLj13; RLW2008(4)SC3236; (2008)8SCC348; 2008AIRSCW4534
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Dr. S.R. Bawa was the owner of a property bearing House No. 169, Sector 11-A, in the town of Chandigarh. Two suits for specific performance of contract in respect of the said property were filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Chandigarh; one of them filed by the appellant on the basis of a purported oral agreement for sale entered into on or about 20.6.1995 for a consideration of Rs. 32,00,000/- in terms whereof allegedly a sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- was deposited in his account through Banker's Cheque on 22.6.1995. The said agreement of the appellant was repudiated by Dr. S.R. Bawa in or about October 1995. A suit for specific performance was filed on 20.11.1995. An ex parte order of injunction was issued passed therein for a limited period but was admittedly extended from time to time, the last one having been extended upto 16.10.1996. An application for extension was filed but no order was passed.Relying on or on the basis of a purported agreement dated 20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2337; 2008AIRSCW3844
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Application of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'the Act') in the facts and circumstances of this case is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 31.03.2001 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in L.P.A. Nos. 163 and 229 of 2000.3. Appellants are neighbours. The dispute between the parties relate to a passage. Plaintiffs - Appellants claimed to have purchased 590 sq. yards of premises No. 5-4-413 to 415 at Nampally, Hyderabad from one P.N. Vijaya Lakshmi. Allegedly, another 259 sq. yards of land was also purchased by them from the said vendor. When they had been proceeding with the construction of the building, allegedly, respondents interfered.A suit bearing No. OS No. 76 of 1975 was filed claiming for a decree for perpetual injunction. The said suit ended in a compromise, the terms whereof are as under:1. That the portion marked Green in the plan shall be exclusively enjoy...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008]144CompCas12(SC); JT2008(7)SC289; 2008(9)SCALE29; (2008)8SCC205; [2008]84SCL373(SC); 2008AIRSCW4139; 2008(8)SCC205; 2008(4)Supreme269
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Ritesh Polysters Ltd. (Company) was a company incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.One Surender Kumar Agarwal was shown to be a promoter in the brochure issued by the Company. However, his wife Rookprekha Agarwal and their two sons Ritesh Agarwal and Deepak Agarwal (Appellants, who were said to be minors at the relevant time) also purported to have made contributions. The Company came out with a public issue of 30 lakh equity shares of Rs. 10/- each at a premium of Rs. 5/- per share aggregating to Rs. 450 lakhs. A prospectus therefor was issued. The issue opened on 12.06.1995. It closed on 22.06.1995. 15 lakh shares of Rs. 10/- each for cash at a premium of Rs. 5/- per share were reserved for firm allotment to the promoters and directors of the company and their friends and relatives. A sum of Rs. 2.25 crores (Rs. 225/- lakhs) was to be invested by the promoters. The issue went through. It later transpired that Pratha Investments,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008ACJ2131; AIR2008SC2396; 2008(4)KLT116(SC); 2008(6)MhLj21; (2009)1MLJ995(SC); (2008)152PLR372; 2008(8)SCALE497; (2008)7SCC305; 2008AIRSCW3967; AIR2008SC2396; 2008(7)SCC305; (2008)3SCC(Cri)91; 2008(4)CivilLJ387; 2008ACJ2131; 2008(4)Supreme291; 2008(4)LH(SC)2523
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is the appellant before us. On 11.8.2001, he was driving a two wheeler vehicle being a scooter. It was hit by a bus bearing Registration No.DL-1P-A- 0746. He was a motor mechanic.In July 2003, he filed a claim in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, `the Act') claiming a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Allegedly, he suffered 60% total disability. His claim was based on the premise that he was earning a sum of Rs. 4,500/- per month.3. Before the Tribunal, the appellant relied upon a certificate purported to have been issued by the Civil Surgeon, Faridabad on 11.11.2003 stating that he had suffered 60% disability. The learned Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,68,941 by way of compensation opining that his income was Rs. 3,000/- per month and he was entitled to compensation upon taking 30% of his income at the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2907; 2008(2)ARBLR499(SC); 2008(4)AWC3454(SC); (2008)217CTR(SC)305; JT2008(7)SC98; 2008(7)SCALE703; (2008)11SCC267; 2008AIRSCW4888; 2008(4)CivilLJ119; 2008(4)Supreme480
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court of judicature at Bombay delivered in Appeal Nos.141 and 142 of 1995 dated 8th February, 2000.2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of these appeals are recapitulated as under:On 2nd March, 1983, the appellant, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited entered into an Agreement with the respondent, Atwood Oceanic International, S.A. for carrying out drilling operations in offshore waters of India and for rendering other related services with regard to the drilling unit Sagar Pragati belonging to the appellant on the terms and conditions set forth in the said Agreement.3. The said Agreement contained an Arbitration Clause 11. The said Arbitration Clause 11 reads as under:Arbitration:If any dispute, difference or question shall at any time hereafter arise between the parties hereto or their respective representative concerning anything herein contained or arising out of these presents or as to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2392; 2008(2)ALD(Cri)381; 2008(2)ALT(Cri)350; 2008CriLJ3065; (2008)3GLR2468(SC); 2008(2)KLT907(SC); RLW2008(2)SC1664; 2008(7)SCALE519; (2008)6SCC789; 2008AIRSCW3962(2008)3SCC(Cri)151; 2008(3)AICLR480; 2008(4)Supreme308; 2008(3)KCCRSN188
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Interpretation of Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure fall for our consideration in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 12.04.2006 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No. 358 of 2005 dismissing the Criminal Revision filed by the appellant herein.3. Son of the appellant Hanif Ahmed Patel was married to the complainant - respondent on 22.4.2002. Appellant indisputably is a citizen of Mauritius. Her son and daughter-in-law at all material times were residing at Kuwait.A Complaint Petition, however, was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navsari by the said respondent alleging physical and mental torture by her husband (the first accused). Allegations primarily against the appellant therein were that the first accused used to consult her and she used to instigate him.As the couple was residing at Kuwait, indisputably the entire cau...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008(118)FLR591]; (2008)IILLJ962SC; 2008(7)SCALE708; (2008)11SCC249; 2008AIRSCW4149; 2008LABIC2675; 2008-II-LLJ-962; 2008(4)Supreme170
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.8.2007 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in APOT No.363 of 2007.3. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are as under:The respondent was working as a Clerk with the appellant-Bank at Calcutta. The respondent was issued a charge-sheet for short deposit of Rs. 36,990.53. An enquiry was instituted against him and he was found guilty and consequently he was dismissed from service. The respondent aggrieved by the order of dismissal preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court.4. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the enquiry officer was biased and the proceedings were conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the delinquent respondent. The entire proceedings except the charge-sheet were quashed. The appellants herein were granted an opportunity to proceed with the matter de novo on the same charge-sheet. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. In this appeal the trail Court by its judgment dated 30.3.2005 convicted appellant No.1 (Ramji Jiranga Pawar) for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The trial court also convicted appellant No.2 (Parbatsingh Jiranga Pawar) and appellant No.3 (Dwarka Bhusalya Pawar) for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.3. On appeal, the High Court by its judgment dated 11th April, 2007 confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants by the trial court.4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having carefully gone through the evidence placed on record, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC3102; 2008CriLJ4309; [2008(4)JCR136(SC)]; JT2008(6)SC582; 2008(4)KLT211(SC); 2008(7)SCALE609; (2008)5SCC413; 2008AIRSCW5469; (2008)2SCC(Cri)631; 2008(3)AICLR329; 2008(4)Supreme305; 2008(4)LH(SC)2383
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court on a petition filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `the Code'). The prayer was to direct the respondent No. 2 the State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, Government of Home Department to withdraw the litigation in Crime No. 39/2004 on the file of Inspector of Police, Palayanoor Police Station, Sivagangai District and to entrust the same to the file of Central Bureau of Investigation (in short `CBI'). They are respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the present appeal. Respondent No. 1 had filed the petition seeking for direction to re- investigate the case by the CBI in an alleged case of murder by respondent No. 1. There were totally 59 witnesses in the case. The High Court disposed of the petition, inter alia, with the following directions:8. Under the above facts and circumstances of the case in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2314; 2008(2)ALD(Cri)389; 2008(3)ALT(Cri)117; 2008(7)SCALE712; (2008)8SCC72; 2008AIRSCW3940; 2008(4)Supreme287; 2008(3)KCCRSN187; (2008)3SCC(Cri)422; 2008(3)AICLR489
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.There can never be more shocking, depraved and heinous crime than when the father is charged of having raped his own daughter. He not only delicts the law but, it is a betrayal of trust. The father is the fortress and refuge of his daughter in whom the daughter reposes trust to protect her. Charged of raping his own daughter under his refuge and fortress is worse than the gamekeeper becoming a poacher and treasury guard becoming a robber.2. The appellant questioned his conviction for offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Guna and sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.3. The High Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence.4. Sans unnecessary details the background facts are as follows:The prosecutrix is the daughter of the appellant. The mother of the prosecutrix had died abo...
Tag this Judgment!