Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC3703(SC)
ORDER1. In these appeals, an order was passed on 17th of January, 2008 in the following manner:On the prayer of learned Counsel for the parties and on the submission made by them that the parties have already entered into a settlement for which some time is required for the purpose of exchanging the properties between themselves, the matters are adjourned for a period of one month from this date.2. Now the learned Counsel for the parties have filed a joint compromise petition in this Court in compliance with the said order dated 17th of January, 2008 of this Court. The terms and conditions of the joint settlement have been duly signed by the parties. Such being the stand taken by the parties before us, the appeals are disposed of in terms of the joint settlement arrived at by the parties. The joint settlement shall form part of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(11)SCALE111; 2008AIRSCW5509
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. The above appeal relating to the affairs of Sree Narayana Dharma Sanghom Trust was disposed of by judgment dated 2.5.2006. By subsequent order dated 26.2.2007 this Court had constituted a Monitoring Committee with eleven members, to function as a Board of Visitors advising the Trust Board on matters of policy and functioning, in particular:(i) to act as a vigilance organization to ensure that the affairs of the Sanghom are conducted in a proper, efficient and fair manner;(ii) to inspect (either itself or by persons authorized) the educational or other institutions run by the Sanghom and examine their records and activities and cause any inquiry to be made in regard to the administration and finances of the Sanghom and its institutions;(iii) to address the Trust Board with reference to the result of such inspection or inquiry or seek clarifications;(iv) to tender advice on matters of policy to the Trust Board (which shall give due weight and consideration to s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008CriLJ4353; 2008(11)SCALE16; (2008)9SCC707
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation as recorded by learned Sessions Judge, Srikalulam.2. Background facts as projected by the prosecution to fasten guilt on the appellant are as follows:Accused had suspected the fidelity of his wife Polamma (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') towards him, for about one week prior to the offence. On 24.8.2000 at 2.00 p.m. the accused with an intention to kill her, stabbed on the left side of her abdomen with a knife. On hearing her cries, the neighbours Damyanthi, Appamma, Shanthi (PW-3) the daughter of the accused Ankamma and Ors. rushed there and found the accused holding a knife and on seeing them, he left the house. Polamma informed them that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(2)ALD(Cri)737; JT2008(9)SC145; 2009(I)OLR(SC)212; 2008(11)SCALE5; (2008)7SCC755; 2008AIRSCW5944; 2008(7)SCC755; 2008(3)Crimes334.
Markandey Katju, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court dated 9.11.2004 in Criminal Appeal No. 1438 of 2002.2. Heard learned Counsels, Shri M. Karpagavinayagam for the appellant and Shri V. Kanagaraj for the respondents.3. Before the Trial Court there were 10 accused persons accused under Section 302 and other provisions of the IPC. Accused Nos. 1 to 6 were found guilty under Section 302 and the other provisions of the IPC by the Trial Court and they were convicted to life imprisonment and awarded various other punishments under various other provisions of the IPC.4. On appeal before the High Court, accused Nos. 2 to 6 were acquitted but the conviction of accused No. 1, the appellant before us, under Section 302 etc. was upheld. Aggrieved, the accused No. 1 has filed this appeal before us.5. The F.I.R. in the case was filed by one S. Elangovan, Forest Guard. The FIR reads as follows:To the Inspector of police, Ayilpatti police station, su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC3704(SC); 2008(11)SCALE454; 2008AIRSCW6765
ORDER1. These appeals are directed against the order dated 26th of November, 2001 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision Petition No. 6189/2001 by which the civil revision petition filed by the Union of India was rejected.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and examined the materials on record including the impugned order which had affirmed the order passed by the Executing Court. It is not in dispute that against the judgment and order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Chandigarh, the Union of India has filed an appeal before the appellate court which has been registered as C.A. No. 31 of 2001. The said appeal is still pending decision. Since there was no stay of the execution proceeding for recovery of the money decree, the execution case proceeded and final order in the execution case was passed. In the execution proceeding, the executing court allowed the execution petition accepting the calculations made by the judgment-deb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC3216; 2008(5)ALLMR(SC)481; 2008BusLR825(SC); (SCSuppl)2008(4)CHN51; JT2008(9)SC26; 2008(3)KLT860(SC); LC2008(3)1; (2008)8MLJ63(SC); 2008(11)SCALE175; 2008AIRSCW5518
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. The present appeals are filed at the instance of the appellants against the Judgment and final order dated 18th of April, 2002 passed by the High Court of Madras in O.S.A. Nos. 149 & 150 of 2002 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed the appeals of the appellants.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of these appeals may be narrated as under:The appellants are engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling Banana Chips and had adopted the trade mark A-ONE with respect to the said Banana Chips in 1986. The appellants had applied for an application for registration of the trade mark A-ONE before the Trade Mark Registry at Chennai on 6th of December, 1999 with respect to the said Banana chips. The application of the appellants for registration of the trademark is still pending.3. On 7th of February, 2000, the respondent filed O.S. No. 1 of 2000 on the file of the District Judge at Coimbatore against the appellants, seeking an injunction ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(9)SC289; 2008(3)KLT730(SC); 2008(11)SCALE136; (2008)8SCC65; 2008AIRSCW5677; 2008(5)LH(SC)3211
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. The present appeal is filed at the instance of the State of Kerala & Another against the impugned judgment dated 1st of June, 2001 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in C.R.P. No. 1365 of 1992 whereby the High Court had allowed a Revision Petition filed by the respondents and set aside the order of the Taluk Land Board (hereinafter referred to as the `Board') and directing that the Board may proceed afresh under Sub-section (9) of Section 85 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (in short `the Act').2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be narrated as under:The Respondents had filed a statement under Section 85(A) of the Act relating to lands held by their family. According to the verification report, the family of the respondent consisted of five members including the respondent, his wife and three minor children. According to the said verification report the total extent of land held by the family was equivalent to 25.40 standa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008CriLJ4367; II(2008)DMC735SC; JT2008(9)SC151; 2008(11)SCALE20; (2008)8SCC232; 2008AIRSCW5712; (2008)3SCC(Cri)463
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the application filed in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Cr.P.C'). Appellants have filed the petition for quashing criminal proceeding against them in Complaint Case No. 896 of 1994 subsequently numbered as Criminal Case No. 931 of 1995 relating to alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 494, 120B and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short the `Dowry Act') pending in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi. The prayer was rejected by the High Court being of the view that the trial court can be directed to conclude the trial expeditiously and at the time of framing charges, the appellants can raise such points as has been raised in the present dispute. Liberty was also granted to ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(6)ALLMR(SC)413; JT2008(10)SC98; (2008)7MLJ903(SC); 2008(11)SCALE198; 2008AIRSCW5666
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. These appeals are directed against a common judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court disposing of three Second Appeals filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short `CPC'). All the three appeals and the cross objections filed related to certain acts of one Shivdev Singh. All the appeals and cross objections were dismissed except with certain modifications.2. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Shiv Dev Singh was allotted land measuring 811 kanal 14 marlas out of which he effected sale of 440 kanals earlier. The said sale is not disputed in the present proceedings. Shiv Dev Singh earlier married Harbans Kaur and from the said wedlock one son i.e. plaintiff Lt. Col. Rattan Singh, and four daughters who are also plaintiffs along with Lt. Col. Rattan Singh in Civil Suit No.172 of 3.9.1994 were born. Smt. Harbans Kaur died in the year 1986. Shiv Dev Singh thereafter married Iqbal Kaur and from wedlock...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : IV(2008)BC292(SC); (2008)3CompLJ440(SC); 2008(11)SCALE168; (2008)8SCC431; [2008]86SCL207(SC); 2008(8)SCC431; 2008(11)SCALE168
ORDERC.A. No. 4649 of 2006 -1. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the averments made in the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Securities Appellate Tribunal and also after considering the impugned judgment rejecting the application for condonation of delay and the nature of the order passed in respect of which the appeal has been proposed to be filed before the Securities Appellate Tribunal, we are of the view that the delay of 720 days in filing the appeal before the Securities Appellate Tribunal can be condoned and sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal can be held if the appellant is directed to pay or deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as cost to the respondent. Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal in the following manner:2. The delay of 720 days in filing the appeal is condoned, subject to payment of deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- as cost to the respondent within six weeks from the date of sup...
Tag this Judgment!