Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2269; 2008(5)ALLMR(SC)953; III(2008)CPJ1(SC); JT2008(7)SC92; [2008]84SCL200(SC); 2008AIRSCW4052; AIR2008SC2269; 2008(4)Supreme518
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment delivered by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as the `Commission') in Restrictive Trade Practices Enquiry No. 159 of 1996 dated 27th October, 2000.2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:The Director General (Investigation & Registration) under Section 10(a)(iii) of the Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') sent an application that an enquiry be instituted against Bajaj Auto Limited (hereinafter referred to as the `appellant') for indulging in restrictive trade practice within the meaning of Section 33 of the Act.3. The Notice of Enquiry was issued on 18.11.1996 in pursuance of which the appellant filed its reply refuting the allegations levelled against it. According to the appellant, the agreement between the appellant and the dealers contain certain clauses which are r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2286; 2008(4)AWC3490(SC); (2008)7SCC502; 2008AIRSCW4088; 2008(4)Supreme445
ORDER S.O. No./ 7153 (E), in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-paragraph (1) of Paragraph 25 of the Dugs (Price Control) Order, 1995, the Central Government having regard to the factors specified in the Clause (e) of Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 25 of the said order and also having been satisfied for the need to do so in the public interest hereby exempts the bulk drug and formulations based thereupon specified in column 2 of the Table bellow which is manufactured by the company specified in the corresponding entry in column 3 from the operation of price control stipulated in Sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 3, Sub paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 and Sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 9 of the said order, upto the period as indicated in column 4 thereof. TABLES.No. Name of the Name of the Period uptowhich theProduct Company exemption isgranted1 2 3 41 Pentazocine and M/s.its formulations Ranbaxy 31-10-1999LaboratoriesLtd.Sd/-(K. MULALIDHARAN)DESK OFFICER20. For issuance of an exemption ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC3111; [2008(4)JCR141(SC)]; 2008(7)SCALE763; 2008AIRSCW5247; 2008(3)Crimes48; 2008(4)Supreme540.
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 2.9.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred to as `I.P.C') read with Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentence imprisonment for life and payment of fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer further imprisonment for a period of two months under Section 302 of the I.P.C., and simple imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 323, I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Arms Act on each count and directed that both the sentences to run concurrently. Aggrieved against this order the present appeal was filed by the accused. Notice was given on the limited question of the offence.3. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that Aslam Khan, P.W.1 lodged...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2187; 2008(3)AWC2656(SC); (SCSuppl)2008(3)CHN200; JT2008(6)SC440; (2008)151PLR261; 2008(7)SCALE460; (2008)11SCC753; 2008AIRSCW3324; 2008(4)CivilLJ730; 2008(4)Supreme384; 2008(3)LH(SC)1945; 2008(3)ICC369
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Applicability of the principles of Res Judicata and Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure having regard to an observation made by this Court, is involved in this appeal, which arises out of a judgment and order dated 8th May, 2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 4070 of 2005.3. Appellant herein is a Public Trust registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act 1959 and governed by the provisions thereof. Acquisition of a Gaddi and the management thereof was the subject matter of a suit.Mahant Mani Ram Swami, admittedly was the holder of the said Gaddi.First respondent claimed himself to be the `Pota Chela' of the said Mahant Mani Ram Swami.4. Disputes and differences between the parties having arisen as regards succession and management of the Gaddi, first respondent filed a suit in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Rohtak . It was registered as Suit No. 295/2 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008ACJ2161; AIR2008SC2266; 2009(1)MhLj572; 2008(8)SCALE572; (2008)8SCC253; 2008(3)ShimLC249; 2008AIRSCW4048; AIR2008SC2266; 2008(8)SCC253; (2008)3SCC(Cri)476; 2008(4)CivilLJ762; 2008ACJ2161; 2008(4)Supreme396
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 13.11.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal No. 3441 of 2006 whereby and whereunder an appeal preferred by the appellant herein from a judgment and order dated 5.5.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Rajkot in MPCP No. 1211 of 2005 has been dismissed.3. One Majothee Salim Amadbhai was holder of a licence of a three wheeler. The licence was not meant to be used to drive transport vehicle. The vehicle was owned by one Rashmikant Natvarlal Joshi, Respondent No. 2. The Tribunal correctly noticed the description of the class of vehicle, i.e., an Autorikshaw Delivery Van. It was not being used for a private purpose. It was a commercial vehicle. Respondent No. 2, admittedly, entered into a contract of insurance in respect of the said vehicle. Certificate of insurance shows that the vehicle was a goods carrying public carrier wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 106(2008)CLT381(SC); 2008(226)ELT673(SC); 2008(7)SCALE624; (2008)5SCC580; [2008]84SCL321(SC); (2008)2SCC(Cri)649; 2008(4)Supreme419; 2008AIRSCW3577; AIR2008SC2564
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Constitutionality of Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 18 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 30.07.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 336 of 2007.3. Appellant No. 1 herein is a partnership firm and Appellant No. 2 is its partner. Appellant No. 1 used to export garments and textiles to various countries. It allegedly could not repatriate the value of goods from the export proceeds. According to the appellants, whereas export to developed economies like US, UK, Europe and Japan, on credit basis, does not undergo severe competition and very minimal profit margin can be maintained, export to the less developed countries or the countries with poor legal system earn greater profit margin.4. Appellants' business allegedly came to a standstill because of its inability to repatriate export proceeds to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008ACJ2041; AIR2008SC2312; [2008(4)JCR79(SC)]; 2008(2)KLT691(SC); (2008)151PLR759; 2008(7)SCALE360; 2008AIRCW3947; AIR2008SC2312; 2008(4)CivilLJ124; 2008(4)supreme348; 2008(5LH(SC)3216
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeal revolves around a very short issue, namely, the quantum of interest to be awarded on the compensation awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased who died in an accident. Before we deal with the issue that arises for our consideration, we will deal with the factual matrix out of which the aforesaid issue arises.3. Deceased, Pradeep Kumar was driving a motorcycle along with his wife, two minor daughters and a minor son. When they reached village Dadiaki on the Muzaffarnagar - Roorkee Road, Bus No. UP15L 7640, allegedly driving at a very high speed, rashly and negligently, hit the motorcycle. All the five persons traveling on the motorcycle died on the spot due to the aforesaid accident. The driver of the bus fled away from the place of occurrence immediately after the accident, leaving behind the bus. The age of the deceased Pradeep Kumar was 28 years and as per appellants he was earning an amount of Rs. 4,200/- per mo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(4)ALLMR(SC)438; 2008(3)AWC2697(SC); [2008(117)FLR1024]; 2008(3)GLT(SC)26; (2008)5MLJ328(SC); RLW2008(2)SC1669; 2008(7)SCALE403; (2008)8SCC725; 2008(3)SLJ244(SC); 2008AIRSCW3486; 2008AIRSC2513; 2008LabIC2416; 2008(4)Supreme462; 2008(3)KCCRSN193; (2008)2SCC771(LandS)
Markandey Katju, J.1. This appeal by special leave has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Gauhati High Court dated 26.11.2001 in Writ Appeal No. 447 of 2001. By the aforesaid judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal of the appellant filed against the judgment of the Learned Single Judge dated 21.8.2001.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The appellant was in the service of the Border Roads Engineering Service which is governed by the Border Roads Engineering Service Group 'A' Rules, as amended. As per these rules, since the appellant was promoted as Executive Engineer on 22.2.1988, he was eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer on completion of 5 years on the grade of Executive Engineer, which he completed on 21.2.1993. Accordingly the name of the appellant was included in the list of candidates eligible for promotion.4. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(6)SC576; 2008(8)SCALE147; (2008)7SCC405; 2009(2)SLJ150(SC)
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal arises from the judgment dated September 16, 2002 delivered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 556/2001.3. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:4. The respondent was appointed on probation for a period of three years in the Punjab Police in 1989. In July, 1992, he was sent to Barnala, Punjab to attend a departmental enquiry. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Barnala relieved the respondent on 1.8.1992 with the direction to report at his place of posting, but the respondent did not report at his place of posting, therefore, he was marked absent from 1.8.1992 to 19.9.1992. The respondent joined the duty on 20.9.1992 after one month and two days and again remained absent from 7.10.1992. The respondent remained absent for a long period without any permission from the senior officers which is a serious act of misconduct according to the police discipline rules...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2284; 2008(4)ALD141(SC); 2008(4)AWC3410(SC); JT2008(7)SC120; 2008(8)SCALE322
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 6.12.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court whereby the High Court affirmed the notification dated 15.6.2006 issued under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and the notification dated 19.10.2006 issued under Section 6 of the Act. A preliminary objection was raised before the High Court on behalf of the respondent- Bulandshahr-Khurja Development Authority, Bulandshahr that the writ petition was not maintainable at the instance of the appellants and secondly it was contended that the writ petition was bereft of basic pleadings with regard to the challenge of dispensing with Section 5A of the Act.3. The first question which was agitated before the High Court was that dispensing with requirement of Section 5A of the Act was arbitrary. The Division Bench of the High Court after referring to couple of decision...
Tag this Judgment!