Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(4)BomCR774; JT2008(9)SC551; 2008(11)SCALE391; (2008)9SCC720; 2008(2)LC1155(SC); 2008(6)Supreme89
S.H. Kapadia, J.Civil Appeals arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 5855/07 and S.L.P. (C) No. 16237/08:1. Leave granted.2. Applications for interventions are allowed.3. An important question of law regarding interpretation of Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is involved in the present appeal, namely:Whether a Government Company falls within the compendious expression 'any public sector undertakings or corporation established by or under any Central or State Act' in Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 ('Rent Act' in short).4. For the sake of convenience we may state the facts of the case in SLP (C) No. 5855/07 in the case of Leelabai Gajanan Pansare and Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors.Facts:5. Appellants-landlords had let out the suit-premises admeasuring 3214 sq. ft. (approx.) in Thane to Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ('OIC' for short). The rent was Rs. 10,000/- per month. Vide notice dated 15.4.2002 under Section 106 of the Tra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(9)SC328; (2009)153PLR138; 2008(11)SCALE513; 2008(8)SCC557; (2008)3SCC(Cri)580; 2008(3)Crimes365; 2008(6)Supreme291; 2008(11)SCALE513; 2008(5)LH(SC)3506
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.10.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 505-SB of 2000, whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Hardip Singh and upheld the conviction and the sentence passed against him under the provisions of Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act').2. Briefly, the prosecution case is that on 20.8.1997 when Inspector Jarnail Singh (examined as PW 5 in the trial), along with SI Sukhwinder Singh and other police officials were standing on a drain bridge falling within the jurisdiction of village Chamairi, a truck bearing registration No. DIG 4615 being driven by Sri Inder Masih was seen coming from Ajnala side, when the truck was stopped. Hardip Singh, the present appellant, was seen sitting by the side of the driver, in the said truck. Meanwhile one Major Singh, who was examined...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008CriLJ4695; JT2008(9)SC212; 2008(11)SCALE385; (2008)11SCC797; 2008AIRSCW6509
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.11.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No. 60/2004 [C] confirming the conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life in respect of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code [for short `IPC'] and a fine of Rs. 15,000/- with a default stipulation of simple imprisonment for one year awarded by the Fast Track Court No. -II, Manjeri on 12.12.2003 in Sessions Case No. 439/2001.3. Brief facts, which led to the trial of the accused, are as follows:Raman-appellant herein, Narayanan (PW-1), Nadi (PW-6) and Unnikrishnan @ Bapputty-deceased were living at Edayattur, District Mambarakunnu. On 21.04.2000 at about 8:00 p.m., PW-1 and PW-6 were chatting by the side of the road when they heard the appellant and the deceased indulging in wordy quarrel. PW-6 intervened and separated them. Unnikrishnan then pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(9)SC281; 2008(11)SCALE586; (2008)9SCC230; 2008(2)LC1114(SC); (2008)16VST546(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 26523 of 2004.2. Challenge in these appeals is to the order of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the cancellation of exemption certificate after its validity period was over on 30.6.1997 did not attract the provisions of Clause (v) of Sub rule 10 of Rule 28 (A) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the `Rules'). According to the High Court, it was clearly not a case of cancellation of exemption certificate because it was done after expiry of the period. In that view of the matter, it was held that the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (in short the `DETC') was not justified in directing the respondent to deposit an amount of Rs. 40,45,324/- in respect of the exemption availed of by it for the period up to 30th June, 1997. The High Court did not think it necessary to examine whether Sub rule 10(v) of Rule 28(A) in so far as it empowers the department to withdraw th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(1)KarLJ85; 2008(11)SCALE567; 2008AIRSCW6007; 2008(3)Crimes406; 2008(5)LH(SC)3707; 2008(6)AIRKarR222
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. These appeals are interlinked and therefore they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The High Court by its judgment dated 24th August, 2005 disposed of three appeals. Criminal Appeal 394 of 2001 was filed by the State of Karnataka questioning acquittal of the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC'). The other appeals were filed by the accused persons who were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 504 read with Section 149, Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC, Section 326 read with Section 149 and Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. In all 25 persons faced trial. However, the trial Court found only 6 of the accused persons to be guilty and therefore they filed appeals which were numbered as Criminal Appeal Nos. 1344/2000 and 1359/2000. The other appeal was filed by the State as noted above.3. The High Court acquitted S. Holeyappa (A-1) but ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(2)ALD(Cri)726; JT2008(9)SC304; 2009(I)OLR(SC)106; 2008(11)SCALE557; 2008AIRSCW6132; 2008(3)Crimes325; 2008(6)Supreme40; 2008(5)LH(SC)3036
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court confirming the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short `IPC'), so far as the appellants 1 to 7 are concerned. The others have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.2. Originally, there were 57 accused persons. Some of them were acquitted by learned Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. The present appeal is filed by accused Nos. 1 to 7, 8, 12, 21 and 24, A1, A8, A12, A21 and A24 were convicted for homicidal death of Appalasamy (hereinafter referred to as `D1'). A1 and A7 were convicted for causing death of Appallanaidu (D2).3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:Accused party belongs to a particular political party. Prosecution party belonged to another political party. On 29.1.2000 around 6.30 A.M., all the accused persons Al to A57 came ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(11)SCALE504; 2008(2)LC1133(SC); 2008AIRSCW5914
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. These appeals, which are filed by the complainant, are against an order of acquittal passed by the Patna High Court on 9th August, 2000, whereby the Division Bench acquitted the respondents while allowing the appeals filed by them questioning the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge II, Gaya on 22nd December, 1997 in Sessions Tr. Nos. 177/1995 and 134/1995.2. Satendra Sharma, respondent No. 1 in Crl. Appeal 553/2001 was tried for offences punishable under Section 364, Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 while Pankaj Sharma and Ramakant Sharma, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in Crl. Appeal 554/2001 were tried for offences punishable under Section 364, Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for murder of one Ajay Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased'). The trial court found that all the three respondents are guilty and sentenced ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009CriLJ350; JT2008(9)SC543; 2008(11)SCALE715; (2008)18VST247(SC); 2008AIRSCW6901; 2008(11)SCALE715; 2008(5)LH(SC)3662; (2008)12SCC531
ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.9.2006 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 3. The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under: Bakaram Eswar, respondent No. 3 herein, on 15.6.2004, filed a complaint against the appellant in the Police Station, Uppal, Hyderabad which reads as under: To The Sub-Inspector of Police, Uppal. Subject: One Gorige Pentaiah s/o Bakkaiah of Uppal Village has come to our 3200 sq. yards of land in Sy. No. 80 of Peerjadiguda with his men at 11.30 in the night and demolished the wall and went away. You are requested to take action. Apart from that though on 27.5.2004 said Gorige Pentaiah s/o Bakkaia abused us with the name of our caste no action is taken against them. I am requesting you to take action against the said people. I am filing all xerox copies of documents to show my rights in the said land. Said Pentaiah obtained pass books and pahanies in his name illegal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC4206(SC); 2009(1)KarLJ34
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. By an order dated 5th of April, 2004, this Court passed the following order:Subject to the petitioner's depositing the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- (rupees two lakhs fifty thousands only) within a period of four weeks, there will be stay of the execution of the decree as far as the petitioner is concerned. The deposit is to be made with the Registry of this Court. If such deposit is made, the Registry shall invest the same in a short term fixed deposit in a nationalized bank and keep the same renewed till further orders of this Court. In default of payment, the prayer for interim relief will stand dismissed.3. It is not now in dispute that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-, as directed by this Court by its order dated 5th of April, 2004, has already been deposited and the same has already been invested by the Registry of this Court in a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank. The learned Counsel appearing 25/08/2008for the Syndicate B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(5)ALD72; 2008(4)AWC3634(SC); 2008(56)BLJR2836; (SCSuppl)2008(4)CHN57; JT2008(9)SC334; 2009(1)KarLJ1; 2008(4)KLT265(SC); (2009)2MLJ73(SC); 2008(11)SCALE373; (2008)10SCC
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5th of November, 1998 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Banglore in R.S.A. No. 831/1996, by which the second appeal filed by the respondents was allowed and judgment and decree of the courts below were set aside and the suit was decreed with costs.2. The moot question that was raised by the parties before the courts below as well as before the High Court was - whether the law of pre-emption based on vicinage is void as held by this Court in the case of Bhau Ram v. B. Baijnath Singh : AIR1962SC1476 and Sant Ram and Ors. v. Labh Singh and Ors. : [1964]7SCR756 . However, while setting aside the judgments of the courts below, the High Court in second appeal held that the law of pre-emption on the ground of vicinage could not be held to be void and unconstitutional in view of the amendment of the Constitution.3. Mohd. Ismail Urf Badshah-Plaintiff No. 1 (since deceased) and Mohammed Miyan Urf Baban- P...
Tag this Judgment!