Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(10)SCALE223; (2008)9SCC407; 2008(2)LC894(SC); (2008)16VST181(SC); 2008AIRSCW5186
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court disposing of the writ petition without any decision on merits because in respect of the assessment year in question, i.e. 2001-02, an order was earlier passed by this Court on 31.03.2006.3. A brief reference to the factual aspects will be necessary.The appellant, a Public Sector Undertaking carries on business in manufacture and sale of Iron & Steel and Chemical Fertiliser as its finished product and bi-product, surplus and rejected articles, in course of inter-state trade and commerce and export. Apart from that, the appellant- Company effects transfer of stock of goods to its branches located at various places of the country. For the assessment year 2001-02, notice was issued under Rule 12(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa), Rules, 1957 (in short `Central Rules') for the purpose of assessment under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short the `Act'). After...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(5)ALLMR(SC)992; 2008(3)JKJ5[SC]; JT2008(13)SC605; (2008)6MLJ684(SC); 2008(10)SCALE184; (2008)9SCC161; 2009(1)SLJ496(SC); 2008AIRSCW6518
ORDER FOR THE ASSEMBLY OF AGENERAL COURT MARTIAL UNDER ARMY ACT Orders by IC-5095P Major General K. Mahipat Sinhji Officiating General Officer Commanding 16 Corps. Place: Field Date:15 December, 1981.No. 3973649A Sepoy The details of officers mentionedBachan Singh 2nd below will assemble at Field onBatallion The Dogra the Sixteenth day of DecemberRegiment 1981 for the purpose of trying bya General Court Martial theaccused person named in themargin (and such other person orpersons as may be brought beforethem.) The Senior Officer to sit as Presiding Officer.MEMBERSIC-7757L Brig. Talwar Harjeet - Cdr 191 Inf BdeIC-12716L Lt. Col. Borkar, Mukand Narasinha -OC 1890 Indep Lt Bty.IC-28737L Maj Vohra, Satyendra Mohan - 2 SIKHIC-25247M Capt Jagmal Singh - 37 Med RegtIC-34139K Capt Ranjit Barkakoty - 81 Armd Regt.WAITING MEMBERS IC-13474A Lt Col. Brar, Surjit Singh - OC 28 EME BnIC-24826M Gill Mohanjit Singh - 8 CAVIC-35033K Capt Hari Mohan Joshi - 374 Sig RegtJUDGE ADVOCATE IC-36504Y Maj Deost...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC3099; [2008(3)JCR155(SC)]; 2008(10)SCALE168; (2008)7SCC511; 2008AIRSCW5199
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi dismissing the Miscellaneous application filed by the appellants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the `Act').3. Case of the appellants, in a nutshell, is as follows:Pramod Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') died in a vehicular accident in which Maruti Van bearing registration No. ER-14P-4320 was involved. The Maruti Van was being driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently. Initially, Pramod Kumar had sustained grievous injuries. He was first taken to the Government Hospital from which he was referred to Bokaro General Hospital where he had expired on 18.4.2000. The deceased was 37 years of age. The petition for compensation in terms of Section 166 of the Act was filed by the dependants of the deceased. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (in short the `MACT') on consideration of the materials pl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC3095; 2008(4)ALD130(SC); 2008(56)BLJR2293; JT2008(8)SC213; 2008(10)SCALE257; 2008(11)LC811(SC); 2008(8)SCC497; 2008AIRSCW5193
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.02.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-tenant. Challenge in the writ petition was to the order passed by the prescribed authority as affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar (Appellate Authority) allowing the release application of Smt. Lajwanti Kathuria respondent-landlady.2. Facts, in brief, leading to the origin of this case, are as under:Smt. Lajwanti Kathuria, respondent-landlady was the owner of house No. 251 Ghaoo Khera Post, Chakeri, Harjinder Nagar, Kanpur. The appellant herein is the tenant on the ground floor of the demised premises consisting of one room with doo-chatti (store), courtyard, one bathroom, one toilet and kitchen since the year 1972 on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-. The landlady filed release application No. 18 of 2001 under Section 21(1)(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(4)ALD102(SC); 2008BusLR712(SC); III(2008)CPJ48(SC); 2008(4)CTC170; JT2008(7)SC552; (2008)6MLJ721(SC); 2008(II)OLR(SC)446; 2008(9)SCALE768; (2008)10SCC345; 2008[12]S.T; 2008AIRSCW5216; 2008(4)CivilLJ60; 2008(5)LH(SC)3748.
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. This appeal is against the order dated 3.2.2004 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ('Commission' for short) in Revision Petition No. 1878 of 2000. It relates to the question whether a land owner, who enters into an agreement with a builder, for construction of an Apartment Building and for sharing of the constructed area, is a `consumer' entitled to maintain a complaint against the builder as a service-provider under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.The agreement2. The appellant is the owner of premises No. L-3, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. He entered into a `collaboration agreement' dated 17.5.1991 with the first respondent, the terms of which are, in brief, as follows:(i) The owner shall place at the disposal of the builder, vacant possession of the premises and authorize the builder to secure necessary sanctions, permissions and approvals for demolition of the existing building and construction and completion of a new building.(iii) Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(8)SC154; 2008(10)SCALE1; (2008)11SCC738; 2008AIRSCW7499
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and the sentence of imprisonment for 7 years as awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Accused appellant Baijnath and deceased Kalika Prasad were real cousin. The father of the accused Beche Lal and Khargi father of Kalika (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') who was the informant, were real brothers and they lived separately in two adjoining houses. There was some dispute in between the two families regarding `nabdan' and fixing of `kuntas' (pegs), which were used for tying the cattle. On the date of the occurrence that is 13.7.1993 at about 7.00 p.m., a Panchayat had been called to settle the dispute in between the two families. The village Pradhan and many others were also pres...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008(118)FLR1040]; JT2008(8)SC207; 2008(10)SCALE301; (2008)7SCC648; 2009(1)SLJ92(SC); 2008AIRSCW5231; 2008LABIC3334
Altamas Kabir, J.1. This Special Leave Petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 22nd March, 2007 passed by the Delhi High Court dismissing Writ Petition No. 899 of 2006 filed by the petitioner herein challenging the decision of the Central Government, to reject the recommendation made by two Special Selection Boards for promoting the petitioner to the rank of Lieutenant General.2. The petitioner, who was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the Indian Army on 16th December, 1967, was promoted to the rank of Major General in the year 2001. Two successive Special Selection Boards of the Indian Army recommended the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Lt. General, but the Central Government did not approve the said recommendations. General. The said decision of the Central Government was challenged by the petitioner in the aforesaid Writ Petition on the ground that such denial of promotion to the petitioner to the rank of Lt. General was arbitrary, discriminatory, wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR2300; JT2008(7)SC614; 2008(9)SCALE787; (2008)8SCC708; 2008AIRSCW6034; 2008(8)SCC708; 2008(3)Crimes160
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeals have been instituted by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 19th July, 2007 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Revision Petition No. 4126 of 2006 and companion matters. By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed revision petitions filed by the appellants herein as also by the State of Kerala.3. To understand the issue raised in the present appeals, few relevant facts may be stated:4. The appellants are partners of M/s LIS, Ernakulam, a partnership firm engaged in the business of sale of lotteries and magazines after collecting advance money. They floated a scheme known as 'LIS Deepasthambham Scheme'. The scheme was simple in its conception. A person has to pay Rs. 625/- and purchase one unit of lotteries from the promoters. The promoters will make use of Rs. 350/- to purchase 35 lottery tickets of the Kerala State Government each of Rs. 10/- for the unit holder for the next 35 weeks. If the unit ho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008CriLJ3446; 2008(10)SCALE3
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Leave granted.3. Though in SLP (Crl.) No. 6796 of 2006, notice has not been issued, at the request of and with the consent of the parties, the same was taken up along with SLP (Crl.) No. 1411 of 2007 where notice had been issued.4. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 698-SB/1999. The appellant- Bhupinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as the `accused') had filed the appeal before the High Court against the judgment dated 20.9.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, convicting him for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `the Code'). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulations for the first offence and rigorous imprisonment for nine months in respect of the second offence.5. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC3093; 2008(5)ALLMR(SC)963; 2008(5)ALT1(SC); 2008(6)BomCR49; (SCSuppl)2008(4)CHN28; 2008(4)CTC285; II(2008)DMC167SC; [2008(4)JCR89(SC)]; (2008)7MLJ1238(SC); 2008AIRSCW5190; 2008(7)SCC734; (2008)3SCC(Cri)225; 2008(5)LH(SC)3176
Altamas Kabir, J.1. As far back as on 13.1.1995 two Judges of this Court in the case of Romesh Chander v. Savitri (1995) 2 SCC 7 had occasion to pose the question as to whether a marriage which is otherwise dead emotionally and practically should be continued for name sake. In the instant appeal, we are also faced with the same question.2. Marriage between the appellant and the respondent was performed on 22.5.1992 according to Hindu rites and customs. On 21.8.1994 the respondent, for whatever reason, left her matrimonial home and went back to her parents and the couple have been living separately ever since. Soon thereafter, the parties took recourse to the law when on 30.12.1994 the appellant sent a notice to the respondent asking her to return to her matrimonial home. On 20.10.1995 the respondent lodged a complaint against the appellant and his family members under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code alleging demand of dowry and it is only on 2.2.2003 that they were finally acquit...
Tag this Judgment!