Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(2)AWC1212(SC); JT2009(1)SC615; 2009(4)KarLJ337; (2009)154PLR501; 2009(1)SCALE11; (2009)4SCC255:2009AIRSCW1968:AIRKarR211:2009(1)LHSC353:2009(3)KCCRSN105
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowing the appeal filed by the claimants-respondents. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:On 19.3.1998 a bus owned by the appellant-corporation was plying between Erode to Mysore via Nanjangud. At about 8.15 p.m. one Jayasheela (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') who was driving two wheeler sustained injuries, because the bus dashed against the deceased who died on the spot. Respondent No. 1 the widow of the deceased and his two minor children filed a Claim Petition claiming compensation in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the `Act'). Appellant filed its objections denying the liability and took the stand that the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the deceased. The first Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) and Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Mysore (in short the `MACT') aw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Delay condoned.3. Leave granted.4. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.10.2005 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1332 of 2003 whereby the High Court dismissed the said writ petition.5. This appeal has been filed by Smt. Bala, mother of Dinesh who died on 25.7.2003 while he was studying in 8th Class in Sarvodaya Vidyalaya, Bakner, New Delhi (respondent No. 2 herein). She filed the writ petition before the High Court seeking adequate compensation for the negligence of the school authorities. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition by slipshod order without assigning any reason. Against the said order, the appellant has approached this Court.6. The order impugned in this appeal is wholly untenable and unsustainable and is, therefore, set aside. We are of the view that instead of remitting the case back to the High Court for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1989; 2009(1)SCALE87; 2009AIRSCW1636; 2009(2)SCC694; 2009(2)Scale87; 2009(2)JT298
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties.2. Leave granted.3. This appeal arises from the order passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court allowing the writ appeal filed by the respondent No. 1.4. The facts, as presented by the appellants, are as follows:Respondent No. 1 was appointed to the post of Superintendent of Chhoto Jagulia Junior Technical School, presently named as Industrial Training Centre Chhoto Jagulia, by the Governing Body of the said Institute on 7.7.1993. He was also given the responsibility of the Ex-officio Secretary of the Governing Body.Due to some allegations against Respondent No. 1, namely, non- functioning of the administrative work as well the non-attending the Institution an Enquiry Committee was set up. On the basis of the decision of the Committee, administrative function as a Member Secretary was withdrawn and another person was appointed.A writ petition was filed by respondent No. 1 taking the stand that he should be al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(2)AWC1639(SC); 2009(1)SCALE3; (2009)4SCC56
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. Leave granted.2. The judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 4.2.2005 in S.A. No. 572 of 2003 has been impugned in this appeal. The parties are descendants of common ancestor Pusau, who partitioned his property including the suit land during his life time. The suit which was filed by the appellants herein in Civil Suit No. 103A of 1997 was for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of Plot No. 138/6 and 207/1 situated at village Katangi and also for permanent injunction restraining the respondents- defendants from interfering in their possession.3. Admittedly, it appears from the record that the appellants herein have disposed of plot No. 207/1. The suit is only confined in respect of Plot No. 138/6.4. It is the concurrent finding of both the courts below that the aforesaid plot was never allotted to the appellants herein in the course of partition.5. Whether the aforesaid plot was allotted in partition in favour of the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009CriLJ3042; 2009(1)SCALE51; (2009)2SCC624; 2009(1)LC346(SC):2009AIRSCW3648:2009(4)LHSC2710
D.K. Jain, J.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. Challenge in this appeal, by the Union of India, is to the order dated 13th November, 2006, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad suspending the sentence awarded by the trial Court to the respondent for having committed offences under Sections 8/27A and 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act') and granting him bail.4. Since in this appeal we propose to deal with the short question, viz. whether the High Court, while accepting the prayer for grant of bail, had kept in view the parameters of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, we deem it unnecessary to advert to the facts of the case against the respondent in greater detail, it would suffice to note that the case of the prosecution against the respondent was that he was involved in financing and trading in 14.900 kilograms of heroin, recovered from a specially made cavity above the cabin of a truck. Upon consideration of the eviden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1816; 2009CriLJ1727; RLW2009(2)SC2221; 2009(1)SCALE41; (2009)3SCC337
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant was convicted for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Allegations against him were that on or about 9.5.1994 at about 1.00 p.m. he committed murder of one Pittala Chandrakala by pouring kerosene over her and setting her on fire with a matchstick.3. One of the grounds taken by him during trial was that he was a juvenile within the meaning of the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (for short, 'the said Act') on the date of commission of offence. Indisputably, the date of birth of the appellant is 10.5.1978. The question, however, which arises for consideration is as to whether he had completed the age of 16 years on 9.5.1994. During the trial, it appears, such a contention was rejected by the learned trial judge opining that he was not a juvenile as no reliance could be placed on the date of his birth recorded in the registers of the primary sch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2009]179TAXMAN129(SC)
ORDER1. At the outset, Mr. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that despite the fact that the agreements in question had not been filed before the High Court as also before this Court, copies thereof have been served upon the learned Additional Solicitor General. 2 It is stated by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the department has sought for some particular documents. 3. In the facts and circumstances of this case, thus, we are of the opinion that the question in regard to the jurisdictional issue, may be determined, by the authority concerned as a preliminary issue, in terms of the decision of this Court in Management of Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd., Madras v. The Workers and Ors. : (1962)IILLJ227SC , Wherein this Court has held as under: (15) The High Court undoubtedly has jurisdiction to ask the Industrial Tribunal to stay its hands and to embark upon the preliminary enquiry itself. The jurisdiction of the High Court to ad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC2082; 2009(3)AWC2437(SC); 2009(3)BomCR377; 2009(1)SCALE4; (2009)3SCC432:2009AIRSCW1912
Ganguly, J.1. Leave granted.2. The Appellant impugns the judgment and order dated 23.11.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay in an appeal from Order No. 688 of 2006 of City Civil Court, Mumbai whereby the learned Judge rejected the application for injunction after a detailed judgment dated 23.8.2006.3. The City Civil Court, Mumbai in a detailed judgment, came to a finding that the Plaintiff- Appellant herein failed to show that the suit structures existed prior to datum line i.e. prior to 1962 and no Sanctioned Plan of the suit structure was produced before the Court. The documentary evidence, produced by the Plaintiff-Appellant was discrepant in that the Assessment Numbers and the addresses did not tally.4. Further finding of the City Civil Court, Mumbai was that the Appellant could not produce any documentary evidence to link the assessment documents with the suit structure and thus the Court held that the Appellant failed to make out any prima-facie case...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1792; 2009CriLJ1592; 2009(1)SCALE751; (2009)11SCC286; 2009(1)LC464(SC)
ORDERS.L.P (Crl.) No. 3589 of 20061. Leave is granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1375 of 2006 dated July 5, 2006. By the impugned order, the High Court has rejected the writ petition, however, has directed the respondent therein, not to arrest the appellant for a period of six weeks, in R.C. Case No. 1(A).2004 registered under Sections 120(b), 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending on the file of the Special Judge (C.B.I.), Ranchi, Jharkhand, to facilitate the appellant to move the appropriate court for appropriate relief. It may be useful to extract the reasoning, conclusion and the directions issued by the court to appreciate the issues canvassed by the appellant. It is as under:From the submissions made by the petitioner's advocate, it is clear that the Jharkhand Court sei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1896; 2009CriLJ1755; JT2009(1)SC616; 2009(1)SCALE38; (2009)4SCC63; 2009AIRSCW1490
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of Uttarakhand at Nainital High Court finding the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Two persons i.e. Khemanand and the present appellant filed the appeal before the High Court which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:On 6.2.1985 the prosecutrix was sent by her mother to purchase rice from cheap grain shop. The prosecutrix waited there for sometimes in front of the shop. Ultimately, the prosecutrix returned to her home without purchasing rice. When her mother saw her without rice and coming late at home, she scolded and admonished her. The prosecutrix was again sent to the cheap grain shop and she again found it closed. When the prosecutrix was in a sad and remorseful mood, the accused B...
Tag this Judgment!