Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR2812; 2008CriLJ4576; JT2008(9)SC504; 2008(12)SCALE133; 2008AIRSCW6258; 2008(4)Crimes260; 2008(5)LH(SC)3611
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-accused against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala on March 5, 1998 in Criminal Revision Nos. 11 and 12 of 1997 and confirmed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana on November 26, 2006 in Criminal Revision Nos. 401 and 402 of 1998.3. To appreciate the issues raised in the present appeal, few relevant facts may be stated.4. On August 21, 1986, First Information Report (FIR) No. 87 was lodged against the appellant for commission of offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The allegation in the FIR was that the appellant was a Clerk in Government High School, Rurke Kalan. He had forged signature of Sher Singh-respondent No. 2 herein who was the Head Master-cum-Drawing and Disbursing Officer and embezzled substantial amount of more than Rs. one lakh between 1979 and 1986. As stated in the FIR, the said fact came to light when audit wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009CriLJ396; 2008(12)SCALE95; 2008AIRSCW7444; 2008(4)Crimes55; 2008(5)LH(SC)3631
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the `accused') was found guilty of offence punishable under Sections 366 & 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation in respect of offence punishable under Section 366 IPC and 7 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence relatable to Section 376 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. Though the conviction as recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, was affirmed by the High Court it reduced the sentence to the period undergone. The reason for such reduction appears from the cryptic order of the High Court that the appellant was aged about 19 years at the time of his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1041; 2008(4)AWC4209(SC); IV(2008)BC143(SC); JT2008(10)SC188; 2008(4)KLT204(SC); (2009)1MLJ1291(SC); 2008(12)SCALE318:2009AIRSCW182:2008(12)SCR1069:2008(6)LHSC4065
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.3.2006 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Writ Petition (C) No. 33208 of 2005 and I.A. No. 3350 of 2006 in Writ Petition No. 12156 of 2005.Defendant - judgment debtor is the appellant before us.The properties in suit belonged to one Francis Periera (Periera), the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent. A deed of usufructuary mortgage was executed by him in favour of one Kumaran Kesevan, the predecessor- in-interest of the appellants. Periera is said to have executed a will in terms whereof the equity of redemption in respect of the said mortgage ultimately devolved on some of his children. A suit was filed for redemption of the said mortgage by his successors. A preliminary decree was passed therein. Final decree was passed on 11.7.1997 directing the respondents herein to deposit a sum of Rs. 41,33,508.70 within a period of six months purported to be as a part of the redemption being ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(133)ECC273; 2008(159)LC273(SC); 2008(230)ELT3(SC)
ORDER1. M/s Superior Products, respondent No. 1 herein and M/s. Superior Pets (P) Ltd., respondent No. 3 herein, which are small scale industries and which had been granted SSI exemption under Notification Nos. 16/97 dated 1.4.1997 and 8 & 9/98 dated 2.6.1998 were issued two show cause notices to show cause as to why clearance of both the units be not clubbed together as both the units had common Directors and that one person was looking after the affairs of both the units. It was alleged that second unit was created only to get the loan and did not have even complete machinery in its premises to manufacture the final product. They were also asked to show cause as to why packing charges for the goods which were produced by them be not included in the assessable value.2. The assessing officer confirmed the demand, aggrieved against which the respondents filed separate appeals before the Commissioner(Appeals) who partly accepted the appeal. It was held that both the units be clubbed toge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent although the respondent was duly served.3. This appeal arises out of a judgment of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, by which, the appeal of the respondent was allowed and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded to the widow of the deceased employee of the present appellant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the impugned judgment of the High Court, we are not inclined to interfere with the said Judgment of the High Court in the exercise of 1 our discretionary powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.4. Accordingly, the Civil Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.5. However, we make it clear that the question of law involved in this appeal is kept open to be decided in appropriate case and dismissal of this appeal will not be treated as precedent in other similar cases. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC4207(SC); 2008(11)SCALE684; 2008AIRSCW7120.
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This Court has heard the learned Counsel for the parties regarding relief claimed by the appellants.3. The appeal is directed against order dated July 10, 2008, rendered by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 866 of 2007, which was filed in Writ Petition No. 403 of 2007 by which the parties have been directed to maintain status quo in respect of construction within 50 to 100 meters of High Tide Line on survey Nos. 12/1 and 99/2 situated near river Zuari at Goa till the matter is finally heard by the Court.4. The record would indicate that after purchase of the lands in question the appellants applied to the Panchayat for sanction of plans for construction of hotel. The permission was granted by the village Panchayat on November 26, 1993. The Ministry of Environment and Forests had issued a notification called Coastal Regulation Zone for regulating the development of areas within 500 meters of the coast. The said notification w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008CriLJ4692; JT2008(10)SC376; 2008(12)SCALE543; (2008)10SCC305; 2008AIRSCW6455
ORDERArijit Pasayat, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court directing acquittal of the respondents Munni Bai and Gendalal. The accused persons faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 302 and Section 328 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). The accused persons were found quilty and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and five years by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara.3. The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:Munni Bai (PW.3) is a professional dancer and prior to the date of incident, she used to reside with Tirath Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') as his keep. Accused Gendalal and accused Mulayam Singh (since absconding) wanted that Munni Bai should live with then as keep, but she was not willing. While Munni Bai was staying with deceased Tirath Singh accused Gendala...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 152(2008)DLT117(SC); JT2008(10)SC109; 2008(11)SCALE742; (2008)8SCC765
J.M. Panchal, J.1. Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.2. These appeals are directed against common judgment dated May 19, 2004 rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in C.W.P. No. 4154 of 2000, whereby it is held that the order rejecting building plans submitted by the respondents is illegal as well as without jurisdiction and declared that the building plans submitted by the respondents, are deemed to have been sanctioned under Section 241(2) of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 (for short 'NDNC Act'). Further, the New Delhi Municipal Council is directed to return the building plans submitted by the respondents with an endorsement 'sanctioned' within the time specified in the order.3. The relevant facts emerging from the record of the case are as under:The disputed plot was leased to one Shri R.B.L. Teerath Ram on March 9, 1923. The plot was thereafter mutated in the name of M. Rai and Sons on September 2, 1958. A portion of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1109; JT2008(10)SC366; 2008(12)SCALE415; (2008)10SCC104; 2009(2)LHSC731
ORDERArijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court directing acquittal of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused'). Learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala had found the accused quilty of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and two years and fine with default stipulation.2. The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:Prosecutrix (PW-2) daughter of Nirmala Devi (PW-1) and Jagar Nath (PW-3) was, on 23.3.1996 present in her house in village Sadwan. The accused and Ishwar Dass alias Sheru (who was a co-accused before the trial court and will Joe referred to as such hereafter) came to her house. Accused asked her to marry him. On her refusal, the accused and the said co-accused threatened to kill her brother. They made her to accompany then a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR2889; 2008CriLJ4590; 2008(12)SCALE88; (2008)10SCC268; 2008AIRSCW6283; 2008CriLJ4590; 2008(6)Supreme281; 2008(5)LH(SC)3165
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court setting aside the judgment of acquittal rendered by learned Special judge, Pondicherry in STR No. 95 of 1984 so far as the appellants are concerned while upholding the acquittal in respect of five others.2. The seven accused persons faced trial in the following manner:The charges against the accused/appellants are that Al is a partnership firm and A2 is the partner of the firm, A3 is the Driver of the Vehicle concerned and A4 is Cleaner, while A5, A6 and A7 are said to be retail dealers of Kerosene. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited from Madras is distributing Kerosene to A1 firm at Pondicherry and Al firm has to observe Clause 13 of the Pondicherry Kerosene Control Order, 1969 (in short the `Control Order') and sell the Kerosene only to another wholesale dealer licensed under that order or to registered dealer or to any institution or person approved by the lic...
Tag this Judgment!