Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(3)ARBLR531(SC); 2008(4)AWC4082(SC); 2008BusLR885(SC); 2008(12)SCALE720; (2009)2SCC337; 2008AIRSCW7396
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 26th of October, 2006 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in AR No 18 of 2006 whereby, the High Court had allowed the prayer for appointment of the arbitrator at the instance of the respondents and directed the parties to submit their disputes to arbitration.3. The pivotal questions that need to be decided in this appeal are:i) Whether the levy of liquidated damages under Clause 16.2 of the tender document is an 'excepted matter' in terms of Clause 20.1 of the said document so that the same cannot be referred to arbitration or looked into by the arbitrator. ii) Whether Clause 62 of the special conditions of the tender document will prevail over Clause 16.2 of the general conditions of the contract.4. The relevant facts, which would assist us in appreciating the controversy involved are narrated in a nutshell, which are as follows:The appellant had issued a notice inviting ten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(10)SC435; 2009(2)KarLJ84; 2008(12)SCALE429; (2008)9SCC607; 2008(9)SCC607; 2008(5)LH(SC)3545
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. Leave granted.2. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and final order dated 24th of July, 2006 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in RFA No. 126/2006 whereby the High Court had affirmed the decision of the Trial Court dismissing the suit of the appellant for partition and separate possession along with mesne profits.3. The relevant facts leading to the filing of this appeal, as emerging from the case made out by the appellant in the plaint, are as under:Late Anjanappa had two sons viz., Ramakrishnappa and Venkataramachar, arrayed as defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit. Defendant No. 2/respondent No. 2 is the father of the plaintiff/appellant. Defendant No. 3/respondent No. 3 is the wife of Defendant No. 1/respondent No. 1. When Anjanappa was alive, he was serving as an Archak of Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple situated in Belesivalaya and there were Devadaya inam lands attached to the temple, which were cultivated by him. After Anjanappa's de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(10)SC318; 2009(1)KarLJ353; 2008(12)SCALE516; (2008)9SCC667; 2008(2)LC1297(SC)
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. Leave granted.2. The respondent/landlord herein filed an eviction petition under Section 27(2)(r) read with Section 27(2)(j) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (in short, the 'Act') against the appellant for eviction in respect of a portion of shop No. 575, 11th Main, 5th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore - 41, measuring 12 feet East to West and 8 1/2' North to South (hereinafter referred to as the 'said shop'). The said eviction petition was filed before the Judge, Court of Small Causes at Bangalore, which came to be registered as HRC No. 196/2003, inter alia on the ground that the respondent required the said shop for his own use and occupation and for starting a business for his son who was handicapped. So far as the ground under Section 27 (2)(r) of the Act was concerned, the same was allowed and eviction was directed, but the ground under Section 27(2)(j) of the Act was, however, rejected and the appellant was directed to vacate the said shop within three months from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC4093(SC); 2008(12)SCALE490
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21st of August, 2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 4690 of 2005 by which, the High Court had dismissed the said revision case on account of failure of the appellant/husband to pay the wife/respondent a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) as directed by the Court earlier. In our view, the High Court was not justified in rejecting the said revision case without going into the merits of the case and only on the ground that since the payment of maintenance of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) as directed earlier was not deposited, the Civil Revision case must be dismissed.3. It was brought to our notice that the appellant/husband was liable to pay maintenance from 26th of March, 2003 till the month of September, 2008, which comes to Rs. 4,62,000/-, out of which, a sum of Rs. 1,86,000/- has already been paid by the husband to the wife. This figure of Rs. 4,62,00...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC4096(SC); 2008(4)KLT142(SC); (2008)8MLJ505; 2008(12)SCALE495:2008AIRSCW7164:2008(6)LHSC4362.
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in these appeals is to the order of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. A Revision Petition, in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short `the Constitution) was filed before the High Court questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Executing Court, i.e learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana holding that the respondents were entitled to claim interest on the amount of solatium. The petition was dismissed in the light of a judgment of this Court in Sunder v. Union of India : AIR2001SC3516 . It was held in the said case that the interest is payable on the amount of solatium as well.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in the present case, the Reference Court had categorically observed as follows while disposing of several land reference cases under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short `the Act'):However, they shall not be entitled to any intere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1126; 2008(6)BomCR570; (2009)1GLR637; JT2008(10)SC378; 2008(12)SCALE547; (2008)9SCC358; 2008(6)Supreme703
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order dated 9th of June, 1999 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 4600 of 1983, whereby the High Court had affirmed the decision of the courts below.2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of this appeal, as emerging from the case made out by the appellant may be summarized as follows:3. The dispute arose out of the provision of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') relating to the land being Gat No 44, measuring 5 Hectares and 24 Acres in village Malangaon, Kavathe, Mahankal Tahsil of Sangli District in the state of Maharashtra (in short 'the disputed land'). Late Smt. Narmadabai who was a widow, was the original landowner of the disputed land. She died in 1964 leaving behind her two sons Ramchandra and Laxman Bhau Sutar. On 1st of April, 1957, i.e. on the Tiller's Day, the Appellant was in cultivation of the disputed la...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(2)ALD(Cri)766; 2008(56)BLJR3064; 2008CriLJ4562; JT2008(10)SC164; 2008(12)SCALE420; 2008AIRSCW6210; 2008(4)Crimes16; 2008(5)LH(SC)3768; 2008AIRSCW6210; 2008(4)Crimes16; 2008(6)Supreme677
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. In this appeal challenge is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants who were appellant Nos. 5 and 6 before it and before the trial Court they were accused Nos. 5 and 6. Before the trial Court there were six accused persons. After finding them guilty of various offences the trial Court recorded the conviction and imposed sentences in the following manner:A-1 is found guilty of charges under Section 147 IPC and sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment. A-2 to A-6 are found guilty of charge under Section 148 IPC and each one of them is sentenced to 2 years RI. A1, A-2 and A-4 are found guilty of the charge under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 and each one of them is sentenced to life imprisonment. A3, A5 and A6 are found guilty of the charge under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 and each one of them is sentenced to life imprisonment. A3 is found guilty of the charge under Section 307 IPC ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008(4)JCR123(SC)]; JT2008(10)SC67; 2008(12)SCALE491; (2008)10SCC69; 2008AIRSCW6046; 2008(10)SCC69; 2008(4)Crimes99; 2008(6)Supreme472; 2008(5)LH(SC)3704
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench, upsetting the acquittal as recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar, in Sessions Trial No. 12/86. Three accused persons namely the present appellants and one Chaturbhuj faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 376, 392, 342 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC'). The trial Court directed acquittal of all the three accused persons. In appeal filed by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code') the order of acquittal was set aside and accused persons were found guilty of offence punishable under Sections 342 and 376 of IPC. But it upheld the acquittal for offence relatable to Section 392 and 506 (II) IPC. The appellants were sentenced to undergo seven years and six months custodial sentence and fine with default stipulation for offences relat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC3873(SC); 2008(12)SCALE631
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court disposing of Second Appeal. The only grievance in the appeal is that the High Court in the appeal could not have set aside the decree of the trial Court so far as it relates to the partial relief granted in the suit filed by the plaintiffs-appellants when there was no appeal so far as said relief is concerned.3. Learned Counsel for the appellants pointed out to the following observations of the High Court.In the light of the above discussion, it is to be held that there was division in the family and Munusamy Reddy and Ramu Reddy separated themselves from other coparceners at the time of their death and therefore the shares so obtained by them under the division, certainly would pass on to their heirs, by succession and not by survivorship upon the surviving brothers. The deceased first plaintiff, suppressing all the above facts, misleading the Court, obt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(12)SCALE679:2008AIRSCW7408
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This is an appeal filed at the instance of Union of India against the Judgment and final order dated 29th of December, 2005 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Civil Application Nos. 12992 to 13002 of 2005 with Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 1446 to 1456 of 2005, by which the High Court had refused to condone the delay of 148 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeals.3. We have heard Mr. B. Dutta, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the appellants and Mr. Vimal Chandra S. Dave, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the explanations offered by the appellants in their application for condonation of delay, we are of the view that the delay in filing the LPAs must be condoned and LPAs be restored to its original file. Accordingly, we order the same.4. The High Court is therefore requested to dispose of the LPAs on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from ...
Tag this Judgment!