Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(2)ALD(Cri)299; IV(2008)BC531(SC); 2009CriLJ326; 2008(4)CTC190; 2008(3)KLT480(SC); RLW2008(4)SC3165; 2008(10)SCALE373; 2008(8)SCC529; 2008(4)CivilLJ86; 2008(3)Crimes158; 2008(4)KCCR2509
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against an order dated 17th of May, 2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.11313 of 2005.3. In spite of due service, no one has appeared before us to contest this appeal.4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the materials on record.5. A proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was initiated against the respondents. In the said proceeding, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Saharanpur passed an order summoning the respondents for trial. Challenging the aforesaid order, an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was moved by the respondents for quashing the summons. The High Court by the impugned order had quashed the said proceeding on the ground that no notice was served on the respondents.6. Feeling aggrieved, this Special Leave Petition was filed which, on grant of leave, was heard in the presence of the lear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 106(2008)CLT909(SC); ILR2009NULL551; JT2008(8)SC284; (2008)9SCC177; 2008AIRSCW5807; 2008(9)SCC177; 2008(5)LH(SC)3512
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition Nos. 11233-11234 11233-11234 of 2001.2. All these appeals involving identical issues were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment and order.3. The prime issue that falls for our consideration in these appeals is whether in view of the provisions of Delhi Lands (Restrictions and Transfer) Act, 1972 (for short 'Delhi Lands Act'), read with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'Land Acquisition Act') transfer of land made by the original owner by registering a sale deed on the basis of which mutation was also granted would and could be accepted as legal and valid transfer despite the fact that such land was acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the public purpose.4. Learned Counsel appearing for the parties advanced elaborate and in- depth arguments on the aforesaid issue. But before we deal with and discuss the same, it would be n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (SCSuppl)2008(4)CHN113; III(2008)CPJ66(SC); [2009(1)JCR38(SC)]; JT2008(8)SC568; (2008)8MLJ255(SC); (2008)153PLR123; 2008(10)SCALE367; 2008AIRSCW6501
Altamas Kabir, J.1. Civil Appeal Nos. 7726 to 7730 arise out of a common order dated 18th September, 2001, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in respect of Revision Petitions Nos. 1056, 1057, 1058, 1136 and 1055 of 2001. Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7280 of 2002 arises out of a similar order of the National Commission dated 7th November, 2001, passed in Revision Petition No. 1743 of 2001. Since the five appeals arise out of a common order of the National Commission and the issue involved in the special leave petitions is the same, all the six matters were taken up for hearing and final disposal together. Leave is granted in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7280 of 2002.2. As will appear from the materials on record, in 1989 the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'PUDA'), the appellant herein, invited applications from persons who wished to acquire Higher Income Group (Single Storey) category houses at Phase IX SAS ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(10)SCALE174; (2008)11SCC695; 2008AIRSCW5961; 2008(3)Crimes86
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, upholding conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') as was awarded by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. Three persons faced trial. They are Sk. Rahim(A-1), Sk. Azim (A-2) and Sk Ibrahim (A-3). A-1 was acquitted and A-3 was convicted for offence punishable under Section 325 IPC.2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:The house of Abdul Jabbar Qureshi (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') was adjacent to the house of the appellant/accused in Nava Nakasha, Lashkaribagh, Nagpur. At the relevant time, the appellant along with his two brother i.e. Sk. Rahim and Sk. Ibrahim as well as his parents and grand father were residing in the same house. According to the prosecution, about four months prior to the incident in question, the relations between the family of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008AIRSCW5805; 2008(4)MPHT525(SC); (2009)153PLR667; (2008)9SCC353
ORDER1. Since Mr. Brajesh Kumar and Mr. Ajay Kumar Talesara, Advocates have entered appearance on behalf of the respondent, service of notice is, therefore, complete.2. This is an application for transfer of Matrimonial (T.S.) Case No. 1 of 2006 titled Dharmendra Kumar Gupta v. Arti Devi @ Pinki Devi and Anr., pending in the Court of District Judge, Palamu at Daltanganj, within the State of Jharkhand, to the Family Court at Patna, within the State of Bihar.3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record including the statements made in the application for transfer, we are of the view that since the petitioner is a lady having a minor male child, it would be difficult for her to attend the court at Palamu, Daltanganj which is within the State of Jharkhand and quite a distance from Patna where she is now residing with her child, we allow this application for transfer and the proceedings now pending being Matrimonial (T.S.) Case No. 1 of 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(3)ARBLR355(SC); 2008(10)SCALE169; 2008AIRSCW5960
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.3. It has now been brought to the notice of this Court that the civil suit filed by the appellant has already been withdrawn. A copy of the same has already been filed in this Court with an affidavit. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the High Court is directed to decide the application filed by the appellant under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator which was registered as S.B. Arbitration Application No. 6 of 2005 before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench. It is expected that the said application shall be decided by the High Court as early as possible preferably within six months from the date of supply of a copy of this order.4. We, however, make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act which shall be decided by the High Court in ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR2537; JT2008(8)SC148; 2008(10)SCALE138; (2008)8SCC313; 2008(2)LC936(SC); 2008(8)SCC313; 2008(5)LH(SC)3232
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the acquittal passed by learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, directing acquittal of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the `accused') by setting aside the judgment of conviction recorded by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1993. The trial Court had convicted the respondent for offences punishable under Section 8(c) and 15 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the `Act') and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and fine of rupees one lakh with default stipulation.2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:On the basis of secret information Sri Naseem Ahmad, an Inspector of Narcotics Department along with other officials raided the house of the respondent on 20.11.1992 at about 8.00 a.m. in village Dadari Jamalpur. The house of the respondent was searched and from his house 29 bags containing p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC3790(SC); (2009)1MLJ1359(SC); (2008)152PLR224; 2008(10)SCALE240; 2008AIRSCW6507
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of learned Single judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the Civil Revision Petition filed by the appellant. Challenge in the Civil Revision Petition was to the order dated 7.8.2006 passed in I.A. 546 of 2006 in OS No. 9 of 2004 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge at Bobbil. Learned Senior Civil Judge had dismissed the application filed by the defendant i.e. present appellant for action in terms of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the `Act'). Prayer was to send Exh. B1 to B12 to Government Expert for comparison of signatures of CW 1 therein with the admitted signatures appearing on his deposition and summons served on him.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner defendant for recovery of Rs. 2,28,150/- basing on a promissory note purportedly executed by him over Rs. 1,50,000/- on 25.3.2001 and execut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(5)ALLMR(SC)915; (SCSuppl)2008(4)CHN6; JT2008(8)SC633; 2008(10)SCALE212; (2008)8SCC296
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th of October, 2005, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Review Application No. 86- CII/2002 in Civil Revision No. 3273/2001, Review Application No. 87-CII/2002 in CR No. 3275/2001, Review Application No. 88-CII/2002 in CR. No. 3276/2001, Review Application No. 89-CII/2002 in CR No. 3277/2001, Review Application No. 90-CII/2002 in CR No. 3278/2001, Review Application No. 91-CII/2002 in CR No. 3280/2001, Review Application No. 92-CII/2002 in CR No. 3281/2001 and Review Application No. 93-CII/2002 in CR No. 3282/2001 by which the bunch of review applications filed at the instance of claimants-landowners-appellants in the connected civil revision petitions was disposed of. A bunch of 13 civil revision petitions was decided by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 25th of October, 2001. All the revision petitions were filed by the Haryana Urban Developme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(10)SCALE37; (2008)11SCC76
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissing the criminal revision filed by the appellant. Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P. had convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation for the offence relatable to Section 304A and simple imprisonment for three months for the other offence. The appeal filed by the appellant before the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, was dismissed.2. A revision petition was filed before the High Court questioning conviction as well as sentence, which as noted above was dismissed.3. The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:On 16.6.1990, one Shri Mast Ram (PW-7) was travelling in bus bearing registration No. HTC 34 be...
Tag this Judgment!