Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2585; III(2008)BC387; (SCSuppl)2008(4)CHN119; [2008]114CompCas200(SC); (2009)1GLR284(SC); JT2008(5)SC575; 2008(7)SCALE363; 2008(3)CivilLJ845; 2008(4)Supreme66; 2008AIRSCW4343
S.B. Sinha, J.1. These appeals involve an interesting question as regards the power of judicial review of a Superior Court.2. Respondents herein are cooperative societies registered under the Cooperative Societies Act and/or their Members.They deposited certain amounts in cash in fixed deposits of Banks wherefor Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) were to be issued. Such deposits were made through some so-called Commission Agents of the Banks on payment of huge commission which is ordinarily not allowed by the Nationalized Banks.3. Applications for grant of loans by various persons were filed before the prescribed authorities of the banks on the basis of the said FDRs. Allegedly a large number of officers of the banks were involved in a scam whereby unofficial investments of the said amount were being made.4. As and when the FDRs matured, the investors requested the Banks for their encashment. The banks refused to accede thereto stating that the amount under the FDRs had already been paid by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008ACJ2170; AIR2008SC2851; 2008(5)ALD116(SC); 2008(4)AWC3835(SC); (2008)5MLJ1171(SC); RLW2008(4)SC3453; 2008(8)SCALE604; (2008)6SCC767; 2008(2)LC786(SC); 2008AIRSCW4712; AIR2008SC2851; 2008(6)SCC767; 2008ACJ2170; 2008(4)LH(SC)2369
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court disposing of several appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act'). Appeals were filed by the claimants as well as the present appellant-Corporation and its functionaries. By the impugned judgment the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the claimant while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-Corporation. One K. Lingam lost his life purportedly in a vehicle accident. His widow arid the minor children claimed compensation. Similarly his widow Smt. K. Hemlatha also claimed compensation for about Rs. 8,00,000/- while the injured claimant in respect of the same accident claimed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. It was the case of the claimants that on 19.3.1998 the deceased and injured claimant in O.P. No. 878 of 1998 were proceeding on motor bike bearing No. AP.10J 5350 towards Yadagirigutta and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2357; III(2008)BC283(SC); 2008(5)BomCR461; [2008]144CompCas27(SC); (2008)4CompLJ293(SC); 2008CriLJ3049; 2008(2)KLT983(SC); 2008(7)SCALE769; (2008)7SCC442; 2008AIRSCW3899; AIR2008SC2357; 2008(7)SCC442; (2008)3SCC(Cri)118; 2008CriLJ3049; 2008(4)CivilLJ382; 2008(3)AICLR492; 2008(4)Supreme379; 2008(3)ICC805; 2008(4)LH(SC)2386
Harjit Singh Bedi, J.1. Leave granted.2. This judgment will dispose off Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 3074 and 3075 of 2006. The facts have been taken from the record of SLP (Crl.) No. 3074 of 2006. They are as under:3. Tata Finance Limited, which had commercial dealings with the accused, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter called the 'Act') alleging that the accused had issued two cheques dated 25th November 2001 and 18th December 2001, each for Rupees One Lakh, which had been dishonoured on 20th December 2001 with the remarks 'Exceeds Arrangements'. Notice was issued to accused No. 1 i.e. the Company, including accused No. 2 Paresh P.Rajda, the Chairman and accused No. 4 Vijay Shroff, a director of the Company and they appeared reluctantly before the court after bailable warrants had been issued. Accused Paresh Rajda thereupon moved an application that as per the averments made in the complaint itself, no case for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008(117)FLR1001]; (2008)11SCC263; 2008AIRSCW4599; AIR2008SC2766; 2008LABIC3512
J.M. Panchal, J.1. Leave granted.2. The instant appeal is directed against interim order dated April 25, 2008, rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 6821-CAT of 2008 staying the order dated April 3, 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in Original Application No. 692-CH of 2007 (1) holding that the repatriation of the appellant to the State of Maharashtra under order of Union of India dated April 10, 2007 as also his joining in his parent cadre under the State of Maharashtra is valid, (2) quashing the order of suspension dated April 4, 2007 as well as holding that final authority to take disciplinary action after termination/expiry of the period of deputation vests with the Central Government and (3) directing the State of Punjab to remit the entire matter relating to the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant to the Central Government for taking a final decision.3. The appellant is a 1970...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2579; 2008(5)ALD120(SC); 2008(4)AWC3414(SC); (SCSuppl)2008(4)CHN102; JT2008(7)SC247; (2008)7MLJ695(SC); 2008(8)SCALE375; (2008)8SCC485; 2008AIRSCW4335
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 8.4.2004 whereby and whereunder the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabd set aside the judgment and order dated 24.4.1998 passed by the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S. No. 573 of 1991 and remanded the matter back to the learned trial judge.Devi Singh is the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent. The original dispute between the parties centered round 1250 square yards of land purported to be situated in a market called `Maidan Bazaar Jamerath' situate at Karvan Aspan and bounded on the east by canal and police station, on the west by `Bakar Mandi, on the north by cement road, graveyard and huts belonging to the plaintiff and on the south by land, huts and graveyards belonging to the plaintiff. It was said to be the ancestral property of the plaintiff and was owned by him having been purchased by his ancestors.In the said suit, Devi Singh sought for permanent inju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008ACJ2045; AIR2008SC2729; 2008(6)ALD15(SC); 2008(3)JCR68(SC); 2008(2)KLT936(SC); (2008)6MLJ149(SC); 2008(5)MPHT240(SC); RLW2008(2)SC1680; 2008(8)SCALE402; (2008)7SCC428; 2008AIRSCW4549; AIR2008SC2729; 2008(7)SCC428; (2008)3SCC(Cri)110; 2008(3)CivilLJ449; 2008ACJ2045; 2008(8)SCALE402; 2008(4)Supreme329; 2008(3)LH(SC)1969
S.B. Sinha, J.Leave granted.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 22.3.2006 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in M.F.A. No. 536 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the appellant herein from the judgment and award dated 31.10.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor awarding a sum of Rs. 1,18,900/-(Rupees One lakh eighteen thousand and nine hundred only) together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the filing of the claim petition till date of realization of the amount against the appellant as also against the owners of the vehicle was dismissed.2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Thankamani (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was travelling as a pillion rider on a scooter on 20.10.1993. She fell down from the scooter and succumbed to the injuries sustained by her. In regard to the said accident, a claim petition was filed.Appellant having been served with a not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2854; 2008(4)AWC3556(SC); 2008(9)SCALE191; 2008AIRSCW4715; 2008LABIC2935
Harjit Singh Bedi, J.1. Leave granted.2. Respondent No. 1, M/s. Swadeshi Polytex Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'SPL') a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and presently a sick unit has its registered Office at Kavi Nagar, Industrial Area, Ghaziabad. Concededly approximately 33% of the shares of the SPL are held by Swadeshi Cotton Mills Limited, Kanpur (a unit of the National Textile Corporation, a Government Enterprise) about 28% and 15% by M/s. Paharpur Cooling Towers Limited and some financial institutions respectively, and the remaining 23% or so by the general public. It is on record that the CMD of the National Textile Corporation Ltd. is holding the charge of SPL and steps are underway for the rehabilitation of the company. It appears that till year 1996-97, SPL was doing reasonably well whereafter a financial crisis seems to have set in, forcing its closure on 30th September 1998. As SPL was unable to pay the wages due to its employees, several applications w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC3422(SC); III(2008)BC654(SC); [2008]144CompCas346(SC); (2008)4CompLJ397(SC); (2009)153PLR134; 2008(9)SCALE208; 2008AIRSCW4505; AIR2008SC2697; 2008(7)SCC601; 2008(4)KCCRSN303
Harjit Singh Bedi, J.1. In the light of the order we intend making, only the skeletal facts are necessary. They are as under:2. The appellant, Sajjan Textile Mills Ltd. was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 3 Crore by the respondent Bank on 15th July 1992. As the appellant committed default in making re-payment, a civil suit for recovery was filed. The Bombay High Court also passed an order dated 18th December 1997, appointing the Court Receiver, as the Receiver for the movable and immovable properties of the appellant. The appellant, however, made an application before the BIFR on 23rd June 1998 for being registered as a sick industrial unit and it was registered as such on 15th July 1998 and was declared a sick unit by order dated 6th August 1998. Two suits were thereafter filed by the respondent Bank in the Bombay High Court, one against the appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,36,15,087/- and the other against the guarantors. The aforesaid civil suits as also suits filed by the Central ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC3123; 2008(4)AWC3515(SC); LC2008(2)215; (2008)5MLJ1394(SC); 2008(37)PTC332(SC); 2008(8)SCALE385; (2008)10SCC595; 2008AIRSCW5265; 2008(3)LH(SC)2121
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant is a manufacturer of a product known as `Dabur Red Tooth Powder' or `Dabur Lal Dant Manjan'. In the year 1993, it had allegedly adopted a unique colour combination and arrangement of features which was subsequently changed in December 1999.3. Respondent herein is also said to be manufacturer of a tooth powder known as `Sujata'. It is said to have infringed the copy right of the appellant. A suit was filed by the appellant against the respondent in the Delhi High Court. Paragraph 7 of the plaint reads thus:7. In December 1999, the plaintiff adopted a new carton while retaining the conical shape and white cap for their product which is described hereinbelow: On one column has the words RED TOOTH POWDER within a yellow blurb.Immediately below the blurb is an oval shaped picture of a family with a yellow background.Above these two features there is a legend within a blurb mentioning the fact that this is a new pack.The column immediately next to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008LC(SC)550; JT2008(7)SC138; 2008(9)SCALE529; 2008AIRSCW6536
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Interpretation and/or application of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1998 (for short the 1998 Act) vis-a-vis the orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short `the Commission') are involved in these appeals which arise out of the judgments and orders passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.2. The matter relating to generation, supply and distribution of electrical energy in the State of Andhra Pradesh used to be governed by the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (For short, the 1948 Act).3. With a view to bring reforms in the Power Sector and to meet shortages in power supply, the State of Andhra adopted a policy decision for generation of power through MPPs of 30 MW capacity in private sector. For the said purpose it issued two G.Os. being G.O. No. 116 dated 5th August, 1995 and G.O. No. 152 dated 29th November, 1995.4. In the said Government orders, the liberalization p...
Tag this Judgment!