Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, in Criminal Revision Application No. 178 of 2003 and Criminal Application No. 481 of 2009 in Criminal Revision Application No. 178 of 2003. The appellants were convicted by the Trial Court under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 250/-; in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month. The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellants.3. The complainant has filed an affidavit before this Court in which it is mentioned that the parties have amicably settled the matter with the help of elderly people of the village and has no grievance against the appellants. It has been further stated in the affidavit that, in view of the cordial relationship between the parties, the appellants be released, as the complainant does not wis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC256; 2009(14)SCALE198; (2010)1SCC517:2009AIRSCW7475
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal is being prosecuted by the widow and children of one Shiv Pujan Prasad who died pending this appeal. On the eve of his retirement, as an Executive Engineer, he was served with an order of dismissal vide Office Memo dated 29.7.2005 dismissing him from service following a disciplinary enquiry initiated under Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.2. Shiv Pujan Prasad challenged the above mentioned order before the High Court of Allahabad, in Writ Petition No. 5709/2005 and also sought a direction to disburse the entire post-retiral benefits including the provident fund, leave encashment, gratuity, group insurance, etc. and also the pension due to him.3. Shiv Pujan Prasad was initially appointed as an Overseer in the Public Works Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh on 25.06.1971. While entering service he produced a certificate dated 22.02.1971 issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chakia, showing that he belo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. In our view, this appeal needs to be sent to the High Court on remand to consider the appeal afresh on merits. The decision in Bhag Singh and Ors. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh through the Land Acquisition Officer, Chandigarh : 1985 (3) SCC 737 and Buta Singh v. Union of India : 1995 (5) SCC 283 were duly considered in a recent decision of this Court in the case of Chandrashekhar and Ors. v. Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer : 2009 (9) SCALE 434 on the question of payment of enhanced compensation if additional Court Fees are paid. In that decision, it has been held that the enhanced compensation can be directed to be paid to the claimants/appellants in the event the claimants/appellants deposit the requisite Court Fees on the enhanced amount.3. Since we are sending this appeal back to the High Court for decision on the aforesaid question relating to the payment of enhanced compensation, if additional Court Fees are paid and also the other questions...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC259; 2009(14)SCALE237; (2010)1SCC730:2009AIRSCW7479
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The issue involved in these appeals is whether a statute made under Section 36 of the Bihar Agricultural Universities Act, 1987, providing for a benefit to the teaching staff, for which assent has been given by the Chancellor can be enforced in the absence of publication in the official Gazette.2. The appellant is an agricultural university governed by the Bihar Agricultural Universities Act, 1987 (for short `Act'). To provide relief to its teaching staff who were facing stagnation in service, the Board of Management of the Appellant University at its meeting dated 22.7.1989 framed a Statute providing for a Time Bound Promotion Scheme. The proposed Statute was placed before the Chancellor of the University for his assent under Section 36(2) of the Act and such assent was given on 17.8.1991. In pursuance of it, the university issued a notification (N. No. 106/RAU) dated 4.9.1991, making an addition in Statute 14.1 in chapter XIV of the Statutes of the Rajendra Agri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(2)SCALE698
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. These appeals at the instance of the complainant/informant (the brother of the deceased, Madhu Devi) are directed against the judgment and order dated August 22, 2008, passed by the Madras High Court whereby it quashed the charges under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, (for short, 'the IPC') and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act framed by the trial court against the three respondents who happened to be the Sister-in-Law, the Mother-in-Law and the Father-in- Law respectively of the deceased.3. Madhu Devi was married to Naveen Kumar, the son of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 on November 30, 2000. She committed suicide by hanging herself on July 1, 2006. Earlier to that also she had attempted to commit suicide in the year, 2002. She left behind a suicide note, a copy of which is at page 56 of the Special leave Petition and which was placed before us a number of times.4. The brother of the deceased, the appellant, lodged the first inform...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Applicant to cure the defect in I.A. Nos. 2352-2353 within four weeks, as last chance.2. List again on 7.1.2010....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2009)227CTR(SC)417; [2009]319ITR306(SC); JT2009(14)SC441; 2009(14)SCALE163; (2010)1SCC489; [2009]185TAXMAN416(SC)
S.H. Kapadia, J.Civil Appeal No. 7771/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 23851/2007, Civil Appeal No. 7770/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 17835/2008, Civil Appeal No. 7765/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 28521/2008, Civil Appeal No. 7769/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 6844/2008, Civil Appeal No. 7767/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 9589/2008, Civil Appeal No. 7756/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 9590/2008, Civil Appeal No. 7766/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 9591/2008, Civil Appeal No. 7763/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 14363/2008, Civil Appeal No. 7764/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 17840/2008, Civil Appeal No. 7758/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 20012/2009, Civil Appeal No. 7762/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 1344/2009, Civil Appeal No. 7760/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 3759/2009, Civil Appeal No. 7754/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 21067/2009, Civil Appeal No. 7759/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 25174/2009, Civil Appeal No. 7768/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 30587/2008 and Civil Appeal No. 7761/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 1476/2009.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. A short question which arises for determination in this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2009)227CTR(SC)437; [2009]319ITR303(SC); JT2009(14)SC449; 2009(14)SCALE161; (2010)1SCC510
S.H. Kapadia, J.Civil Appeal No. 8247 of 2004:1. Heard learned Counsel on both sides.2. This civil appeal is filed by the Controller of Estate Duty, Kerala, against the decision dated 18th July, 2003, delivered by the Kerala High Court in Tax Reference No. 62 of 1998.3. One V.G. Saraf passed away on 18th October, 1984. He was a partner in M/s. Saraf Trading Corporation, a partnership Firm carrying on business as commission agents and as exporters of Tea. The Firm was constituted under Deed of Partnership dated 27th November, 1963. The Firm had three partners. The deceased had fifty per cent shares in profit and loss. On 16th September, 1981, the Firm was re-constituted with the admission of one more partner and a minor. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, inter alia, held that, for determining the value of goodwill, there were two methods of valuation, namely, super-profit method and total capitalization method. The Assistant Controller preferred the super-profit method. It may be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(2)SCALE308
ORDER1. These two appeals by way of special leave arise out of the judgment of the High Court of Gauhati dated 26th March, 2004 whereby the two appellants have been convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine for offences punishable under Sections 376/34 and 336/34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts of the case are as under:2.1 At about 8:00 p.m., on the 15th September, 1997, the accused-appellants Md. Mizazul Haq and Abbas Ahmad Choudhury and one Ranju Das (absconder) took up the prosecutrix and drove her in a Maruti vehicle to the Jalalpur Tea Estate after gagging her mouth. She was also raped by the three of them whereas the absconder also removed a sum of Rs. 40/- from her. An FIR was lodged at 10:30 a.m. on 16th September, 1997, by P.W. 7 Safaruddin, the maternal uncle of the victim and a case was duly registered. On the completion of the investigation the appellants were charged for the aforementioned offences and as they denied the charges, they were bro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2009)227CTR(SC)425; [2010]321ITR371(SC); 2009(14)SCALE188; [2010]186TAXMAN19(SC)
ORDER1. In this batch of Civil Appeals, the main issue which arises for determination is: Whether 'interest' which the assessee earned on bonds and debentures was chargeable to tax in view of the definition of the term 'interest' in Section 2(7) of the Interest Tax Act, 1974.2. Respondent Company is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. One of the objects for which the company was incorporated is to buy, sell, invest or otherwise deal in securities, bonds or fixed deposits issued by any institution, body corporate, corporation, establishment constituted under any Central or State laws or any other securities in which the company may be required to invest under any law in force.3. For deciding the afore-stated issue, one needs to examine the provisions of the Interest Tax Act, 1974 as under:2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-(5) 'chargeable interest' means the total amount of interest referred to in Section 5, computed in the manner laid down in ...
Tag this Judgment!