Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009CriLJ365; [2008(4)JCR94(SC)]; 2008(12)SCALE789; 2008AIRSCW6975; 2008(4)Crimes163
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. In these appeals challenge is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court disposing of several petitions. By the impugned judgment in each case the High Court inter alia directed as follows:In the result, the petition is allowed. Order dated 11.4.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Complaint No. 103 of 2008 is quashed and set aside. Inquiry under Section 156(3) of the Code is ordered. Complaint be registered as an FIR by the officer in charge of the concerned Police Station for the offences disclosed in the complaint. Rule is made absolute.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:A complaint alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) which was numbered as Criminal Case No. 103 of 2008. The bas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(6)ALD130(SC); IV(2008)BC485(SC); (2009)1MLJ81(SC); 2008(12)SCALE680
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. The appellant - Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies [Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings] Act, 1970 filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 91,58,480.09 against the defendants - respondents on 30th of August, 1982, inter alia, alleging that on the request of defendant Nos. 1 to 5, namely, M/s Mehta Brothers and Ors. on 26th of June, 1979, the appellant Bank issued an irrevocable Letter of Credit for US $ 6,10,900, equivalent to Indian currency about Rs. 50,00,000/-, in favour of M/s Bentrex and Co., Singapore. The said Letter of Credit was expressly made subject to the terms and conditions of Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits [1974] Revision, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 290. On 1st of September, 1979, the beneficiary drew a site draft for an amount of US $ 6,10,740 and presented the same along with other documents to Deutsche Bank Asia [formerly known as European Asian Bank], a body corpor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2009]314ITR302(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Appellant is running a paper mill at Ahmedgarh in District Sangrur, Punjab. It is engaged in the business activity of manufacturing paper.3. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1996-97, appellant applied to the Pollution Control Board and the Forest department to allow it to discharge its effluent water from its mill to Village Tallewal. The Department of Environment & Forest agreed to provide forest land for open drain to be constructed by the assessee (user agency) for carrying its effluent to Tallewal drain subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions was that the appellant will transfer 4.063 hectare non-forest land in favour of the Forest Department. That was done.4. The main controversy which arises for determination in this civil appeal is whether an amount of Rs. 70,79,862 incurred by the appellant on construction of open drain for disposal of effluents is revenue expenditure, as claimed by the appellant. According to the de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC103; 2008(6)ALD121(SC); 2008(4)AWC4152(SC); (SCSuppl)2009(1)CHN1; [2008(4)JCR71(SC)]; 2008(4)KLT357(SC); 2008(12)SCALE697; 2008AIRSCW6996; 2008(5)LH(SC)3585.
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.12.2004 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Second Appeal No. 146 of 2004.2. Brief facts of the case which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are as under:The appellant who has lost both before the Court of learned District Judge, Palanpur and the High Court has approached this Court by way of special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution.3. The appellant (who was the plaintiff before the trial court) filed a suit for declaration of permanent injunction with the following prayer:1) To hold and declare that the plaintiff is the lawful owner and occupier in respect of land of survey No. 66/3 admeasuring 6 Acre 11 Guntha situated in the boundaries of village Yavarpura, Taluka Deesa.2) That the defendants of this case themselves or their agents, servants, family members do not cause or to be caused hindrance in the possession and occupation of the plaintiff in respect of land of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC12; 2008(6)ALD73(SC); [2008(4)JCR108(SC)]; 2008(12)SCALE822; (2009)2SCC134; 2008AIRSCW6851
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. Leave granted.1A. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order dated 15th of June, 2007 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in CRP No. 6618 of 2006, whereby the High Court had affirmed the order dated 30th November, 2006 of the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada in IA No. 3861 of 2005 arising out of OS No. 34 of 2005 allowing an application filed by the respondent under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, 'the Act').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 appellant is a company dealing in the business of manufacturing and exporting food products and cereals/grains etc. The appellant was to export sorghum (hereinafter referred to as the 'cargo') to the State of Niger. The appellant thereafter negotiated with the head of the State of Niger through a lady Principal Officer for an export or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1103; 2009(1)AWC706(SC); 2008(15)SCALE158:2009AIRSCW287:2009(1)LHSC652
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. Leave granted. Heard the learned Counsel. For convenience, the parties will be referred to also by their ranks in the suit.The facts2. Respondents 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaration, possession and injunction (Title suit No. 133/1982 on the file of Sadar Munsiff, Purnia) against the appellant (first defendant) and Sujash Kumar Ghosh (second defendant) in regard to the suit property. The suit property is a strip of land measuring East to West: 72 feet and North to South : 1'3' on the Western side and 10' on the Eastern side described in Schedule `B' to the plaint. Plaintiffs claimed that the suit property was a part of the `A' schedule property purchased by them under sale deed dated 29.12.1962. The reliefs sought in the said suit were:(i) declarations that (a) the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in possession of the suit property; (b) the defendants do not have any right, title or interest or possession in respect of suit property; and (c) t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Heard both sides.2. We had explored the possibility of a reconciliation between the parties but it was not successful and the petitioner-wife seeks transfer of the case filed by the respondent-husband, which is pending before the Civil Judge, 1st Class (Junior Division), Bulandsheher (U.P.) to the District Court, Delhi. We are told that the petitioner-wife is now staying in Delhi and she contends that it will not be possible for her to contest the case at Bulandsheher, in view of her financial condition. In the circumstances, we direct the case titled Petition No. 309/2003 Faiyaz Ahmed v. Fatima Noor, pending before the Civil Judge, 1st Class (Junior Division), Bulandsheher be transferred to the District Court at Delhi. The District Judge, Delhi will try the case himself or entrust the same to any other Court having jurisdiction.3. The transfer petition is allowed accordingly.4. All the records be transmitted to the transferred Court....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR3060; [2008(4)JCR91(SC)]; RLW2009(1)SC738; 2008(12)SCALE739; 2008(10)SCC81; 2008(4)Crimes126; 2008(6)Supreme596; 2008(5)LH(SC)3473.
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and upholding his conviction for offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and sentence of 7 years imprisonment as was imposed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh.3. We do not propose to mention name of the victim. Section 228A of IPC makes disclosure of identity of victim of certain offences punishable. Printing or publishing name of any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence under Sections 376, 376A, 376B, 376C or 376D is alleged or found to have been committed can be punished. True it is, the restriction, does not relate to printing or publication of judgment by High Court or Supreme Court. But keeping in view the social object of preventing social victimization or ostracism of the victim ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008(119)FLR392]; JT2008(10)SC530; 2008(12)SCALE815; (2008)9SCC403; 2009(1)SLJ293(SC); 2008(2)LC1284(SC)
Aftab Alam, J.1. Leave granted2. A little lapse by the respondent authority (Respondent No. 2 before this Court) coupled with a somewhat unwarranted interference by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, that was affirmed by the Madras High Court has led to a situation where this Courtis faced with the competing rights of the appellant and respondent No. 1.3. The matter in controversy is the appointment as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master of Kadambadi village. The concerned authority issued a notice for filling up the position on 22 December 1999. The last date for receipt of applications was 5 January 2000. Respondent No. 1 submitted his application that was received within time on 4-1-2000. On this application, however, he omitted to put his signature. Realising his mistake he sent another application duly filled-up and signed by him on 4 January 2000 with the request that the second application may be treated as part of the first one. The second application sent by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(2008)DMC764SC; 2008(6)KarLJ577; RLW2009(1)SC307; 2008(12)SCALE735; 2008(3)ShimLC267
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court setting aside the acquittal of the appellant as was recorded by learned Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in SC No. 82 of 1994. The trial court had acquitted the appellants for charge of commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC').2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is as follows:On 30.4.1994 at about 1 p.m. the appellant herein had assaulted one Smt. Umadevi (hereinafter referred to as `deceased') with an intention to cause her death, dragged her inside the cattle shed, where the accused No. 2 poured kerosene oil on her person and accused No. 1 set fire to her after lighting a match stick as a result of which, the said Smt. Umadevi sustained burn injuries and died. The incident in question took place in the house of the accused No. 4. The deceased Smt. Umadevi had been married to the accused No. 1. ...
Tag this Judgment!