Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2436(SC); 2009(6)BomCR489; 2009(2)SCALE103; (2009)4SCC229
1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 31st of August, 2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Family Court Appeal No. 15 of 2006, by which the decree passed by the Family Court at Pune, granting divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was affirmed but had remanded the matter back to the Family Court for proper determination of issues of permanent alimony and ownership of flat in Triveni Nagar. Against the aforesaid order of remand, the husband/appellant had filed a Special Leave Petition, which on grant of leave, was heard in presence of the learned Counsel for the parties. It is to be noted that while issuing notice on this Special Leave Petition on 12th of March, 2007, this Court passed the following order:Delay condoned. Issue notice. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he does not challenge the finding on divorce and monthly maintenance. 3. The issues that were framed by the impugned Judgment of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Leave granted.3. The parties have filed a Compromise Settlement Deed stating therein that they have settled their dispute and the respondent has received the money in full from the appellant and the money due is fully settled towards full and final settlement of the cheque payment vide cheque No. 993618 dated 07.05.2002. The respondent has further stated in the Compromise Settlement Deed that he will not proceed or take any action in the same cause of action. The parties have also agreed to compound the offence. That being so, we feel that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order and quash the proceedings, if any. We order accordingly. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in terms of the compromise settlement arrived at between the parties....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. After bearing learned Counsel for the parties we dispose of the appeals with following directions:The appellant shall be permitted to continue as licencee till the period ending 30th September, 2009. He has to pay Rs. 7,62,48,333/- p.a. The amount shall be payable in 12 monthly instalments . If any amount has already been paid, the same shall be duly adjusted. Needless to say, if any amount is payable for the period ending on 30th January, 2009, the same shall be paid along with instalment due for February, 2009. The respondent No. 6 i.e. M/s. Joshi Freight Carriers Dhule, shall be given licence for the subsequent two years, i.e. period ending on 30th September, 2011 at the aforesaid rate of Rs. 7,62,48,333/- p.a. payable in 12 monthly instalments basis. The earnest money, if any, deposited by respondent No. 6 shall be returned to be re-deposited by 1st October, 2009. 3. The other I.As and petitions are disposed of.4. The appeals are disposed of ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code [for short, `I.P.C.'] and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months. On appeal being preferred, the High Court acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. and convicted him under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and directed him to pay compensation of Rupees fifteen thousand for being paid to the legal representatives of the victim. Against the said order, present appeal has been filed by special leave.4. When the case was placed for consideration, notice was issued limited to the question of sentence only.5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant stated that the appellant has remained in custody for a period of about ten months. Taking i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by way of special leave petition has been preferred against an order dated 20th August, 2008 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 637 of 2008, by which the High Court had dismissed Letters Patent Appeal(LPA) of the Appellants merely on the ground of delay of 285 days in filing the L.P.A.3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and going through the application for condonation of delay in filing the L.P.A., we are satisfied with the explanation offered for the same. We accordingly set aside the impugned order of the High Court, condone the delay in filing the L.P.A. and restore the Letters Patent Appeal to its original number with the request to the High Court to dispose of the aforesaid L.P.A. by the end of April, 2009 without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.4. This Appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009ACJ666; 2009(2)AWC1634(SC); JT2009(1)SC612; 2009(4)MhLJ20(SC); (2009)153PLR512; 2009(1)SCALE8; (2009)2SCC523:2009(1)LHSC358:2009(1)JT612.
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, (in short the `National Commission').3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Respondent was the owner of a vehicle- a Maruti van which was the subject matter of insurance with the present appellant for a period from 27.1.2003 to 26.1.2004. The Vehicle in question met with an accident on 12.6.2003 and was badly damaged. The estimate of the cost of repair was prepared by Automobiles Satya of Bilaspur. According to him the estimated expenditure on total repair of the vehicle was Rs. 2,00,000/-. Intimation of the same was given by the complainant to the present appellant and claim was made. The same was rejected on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence and the vehicle which was a private vehicle was insured for personal use, but was being used as a taxi for carrying marriage parties. a m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC3041; JT2009(1)SC624; 2009(1)SCALE15; (2009)4SCC199
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. The petitioner has sought for transfer of Criminal Case FIR No. 352 dated 7.12.2005 under Sections 406, 498A read with Section 34 IPC titled Sangeeta v. Rajesh pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chittorgarh, to a court of competent jurisdiction in Hissar.2. This transfer petition was posted before Supreme Court Lok Adalat on 6.12.2008. The parties and their lawyers appeared and filed a joint petition stating that their disputes have been settled under the guidelines of the mediators who acted as Amicus Curiae.3. The following were the terms of settlement:A. It is agreed between the parties that Shri Rajesh will pay a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs by way of a demand draft to Smt. Sangeeta on or before 30th June, 2009.B. It is further agreed that the articles, as agreed upon by the parties in a separate list, shall be sent by Shri Rajesh to the house of Smt. Sangeeta at Chitorgarh.C. It is further agreed that the custody of the minor child named Lucky who...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(2)SCALE114; (2009)3SCC511
ORDERArijit Pasayat, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. Delay condoned.3. Leave granted.4. In view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Sunrise Associates v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. reported in : AIR2006SC1908 , we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. It need to be stated that this Court in the said case inter alia held as follows:We have noted earlier that all the statutory definitions of the word `goods' in the State Sales Tax Laws have uniformly excluded, inter alia, actionable claims from the definition for the purpose of the Act. Were actionable claims etc., not otherwise includible in the definition of `goods' there was no need for excluding them. In other words, actionable claims are `goods' but not for the purpose of the Sales Tax Acts and but for this statutory exclusion, an actionable claim would be `goods' or the subject matter of ownership. Consequently, an actionable claim is movable property and `goods' in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. Vide judgment and order dated September 28, 2007 passed by the High Court in WPCT No. 208 of 2007 the Writ Petition filed by Union of India stood dismissed.4. Thereafter, Union of India moved Review Petition bearing No. RVW 19 of 2007 which stood allowed in the following terms:In our view, this is a fit case where the order should be reviewed and accordingly, we allow the Application for recalling the order passed by the Division Bench on 28.9.2007 in WPCT No. 208 of 2007 and fix the matter for fresh hearing. 5. As can be seen from the operative part of the Order passed by the Division Bench in the Review Petition, the earlier Order dated 28th September, 2007 stood recalled and the Writ Petition bearing No. WPCT 208 of 2008 stood restored.6. After restoration the impugned judgment has been delivered by the Division Bench in WPCT 208 of 2007. The dispute revolves around the promotion claimed by the respondent to the post of Executive Engineer. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(3)SC539; 2009(2)SCALE132; (2009)3SCC473:2009AIRSCW2720:2009(4)LHSC2377:2009(4)KCCRSN202
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Heard.2. Leave granted.3. This is an appeal against the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondent who had filed a claim petition claiming compensation on the ground that he had sustained injuries on account of vehicular accident which took place on 03.12.2002 near G.T. Road, Flyover, Shahdara, Delhi. Learned MACT, Karkardooma Court, Delhi fixed the amount payable as compensation to be Rs. 3,00,598/-. But deducting 40% for the alleged contributory negligence of the claimant, ultimately the amount payable by the present appellant to the claimant was fixed at Rs. 1,80,358/- (approximately). In appeal filed by the claimant, the High Court by the impugned judgment held that the reasons indicated by the MACT for making deduction on account of alleged contributory negligence were not sufficient for the purpose of making a deduction.4. In the present appeal, it is stated by learned Counsel for the appellant- ...
Tag this Judgment!