Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC922; JT2009(14)SC181; 2010(I)OLR(SC)134; 2009(13)SCALE703; 2009AIRSCW7226; 2009(6)LHSC3777
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Leave granted.2. In this appeal by special leave, the appellant has challenged the order dated May 24, 2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. By the said order, the petition filed by the appellant under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing F.I.R. No. 9 dated January 21, 2002 registered at Police Station Sehna under Sections 498A, 494, 506/34, IPC has been dismissed.3. Kamaljeet Kaur is a landed immigrant of Canada. On May 7, 1997, she married Pashaura Singh Sidhu - appellant - at village Ghall Kalan, District Moga, Punjab. She left for Canada on May 15, 1997. She sponsored her husband and, accordingly, Pashaura Singh went to Canada in 1998. They stayed together for few months and then relations between them became strained. Kamaljeet, thereafter, started living separately in Ontario. Pashaura Singh applied for divorce and dissolution of marriage before the Supreme Court of British Columbia and a divorce judgment was passed in his favour ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(14)SCALE184; (2010)1SCC351
ORDERTarun Chatterjee, J.1. Leave granted.2. The Executive Director (FM & HR) West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd. is the appellant before us. A school was set up by the appellant in the name of 'Kolaghat Thermal Power Plant High School' (in short `the School') mainly for the wards of the employees of Kolaghat Thermal Power Station. The respondent No. 1 Shri Ardhendu Sekhar Bala was appointed as Assistant Teacher of Bengali in the aforesaid School. Without going into the details, on or about 26th of February, 2009, nine employees of the West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd. including the respondent No. 1 were transferred from one Power Project to different Power Projects. The respondent No. 1 was aggrieved by the order of transfer and for that reason, he had challenged the order of transfer by way of a writ petition filed before the High Court of Calcutta on 24th of March, 2009. By a final order dated 30th of March, 2009, a learned Judge of the High Court rejected th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(14)SC184; 2009(14)SCALE1; 2010(1)SLJ255(SC); 2009(6)LHSC3880
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Leave granted.2. In this appeal by special leave, the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana passed on April 30, 2008 has been challenged. By the said judgment, the High Court allowed writ petition filed by the present respondent No. 4 fixing his seniority over appellant to the post of Senior Professor setting aside the communication of the Government of Haryana dated November 30, 2007 and consequential office order dated December 3, 2007 issued by the Director, PGIMS, Rohtak.3. The question that falls to be determined in this appeal by special leave is: whether 'Floating Professor' and 'Associate Professor' are different categories of posts in Haryana Medical Education Service and, if the answer is in affirmative; is High Court justified in holding that present respondent No. 4, having been selected as Floating Professor while the appellant continued as a substantive Associate Professor prior to their promotion as Senior Professor, must rank senior to the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC924; JT2009(14)SC273; 2009(13)SCALE706; (2010)1SCC609
H.L. Dattu, J.1. Leave granted.2. By our order dated 28.10.2009, we had ordered release of the detenu at once, subject to his custody being required in any other proceedings. We had not assigned reasons while doing so and we had observed that the detailed reasons will follow later.3. We now proceed to give reasons for allowing the appeal and for setting aside the decision of the High Court.4. The appeal is directed against the order passed by the Madras High Court in HCP No. 1874 of 2008, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant for grant of a Writ in the nature of habeas corpus, and thereby sustaining the order of detention passed by the detaining authority under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.5. The appellant-detenu is a Polish citizen and having business in Singapore. He had come to India on earlier occasions for purchase of antiques and garments (Textiles). He came to India for such business on 5.9.2008...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC508; 2010(1)AWC1047(SC); JT2009(14)SC191; (2009)8MLJ1550(SC); 2010(I)OLR(SC)31; RLW2010(1)SC293; 2009(13)SCALE676; (2010)1SCC53:2009AIRSCW7065
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. Leave granted. Heard learned Counsel.2. The appellant filed a suit for damages against his erstwhile employer - National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (`NTPC' for short, second respondent herein) and its then General Manager in the District Court, Delhi. After conclusion of Plaintiff's evidence, the defendants' evidence was commenced. On 6.1.2004 the suit was listed for further evidence of defendants. One S. Joseph, (DW 2), whose affidavit had been filed by way of an examination-in-chief, was present in court for being cross-examined by the plaintiff. The plaintiff requested for an adjournment on the ground that his counsel was busy elsewhere. The case was therefore adjourned to the next day (7.1.2004). Again, plaintiff sought time on the ground that his counsel was otherwise busy. When the court asked the plaintiff to cross-examine the said witness, as he had earlier cross-examined DW-1 without the assistance of a counsel, plaintiff refused to do so. The witness...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC518; JT2009(14)SC169; 2009(13)SCALE716; (2010)1SCC250
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Leave granted.2. Whether the appellant, who was named as one of the accused in the complaint lodged by respondent No. 2, Smt. Anita alleging harassment and torture at the hands of her husband and in-laws but qua whom the police filed negative final report, could be summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `Cr.P.C.') and whether Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as `the Judicial Magistrate') was justified in taking cognizance against the appellant under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC') are the questions which arise for determination in this appeal filed against order dated 10.3.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1366 of 2007.3. The appellant's brother Pramod Kumar was married to respondent No. 2 on 7.12.2000 at Sri Ganganagar. After one year and four months, respondent No. 2 submitted a complaint to the Judi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(170)LC232(SC); 2009(244)ELT3(SC); 2009(13)SCALE702; (2010)2SCC726; 2009(10)LC4953(SC)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. This batch of civil appeals is filed by the Department against the decision of CESTAT dated 23.1.04 in Final Order Nos. 103 to 105 of 2004. These are virtually cross appeals to civil appeals filed by the assessee bearing Civil Appeal Nos. 4309-4311 of 2008 - Pleasantime Products and Anr. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I, in which we have delivered the judgment today. The question in both sets of civil appeals, however, is common as far as the game 'Scrabble/Upwords' is concerned.2. In this batch of civil appeals filed by the Department we are concerned with classification of 12 items falling within the declaration filed by M/s. Funskool (India) Ltd.3. We make it clear that the following three items are classifiable under Heading 95.04 of the Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985 ('CETA', for short). They are as follows:(i) Snake and Ladder.(ii) Monopoly.(iii) Scrabble/Upwords (in terms of our judgment delivered today in M/s. Pleasantime Products (supra))4. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(170)LC225(SC); 2009(243)ELT641(SC); JT2009(14)SC392; 2009(13)SCALE681; 2009(10)LC4955(SC)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. This batch of civil appeals filed by the assessee involves common issue of classification of branded word game 'Scrabble' - whether the product 'Scrabble' is classifiable under sub-heading 9503.00 or sub-heading 9504.90 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985 ('CETA', for short).2. Assessee is a proprietary firm engaged inter alia in the business of manufacture and trade of toys, games and puzzles of various kinds falling under Chapter 95 of the First Schedule to the CETA. The goods are manufactured by the assessee either under their own brand name of 'United Toys' or under different brand names. One of the items manufactured by the assessee is 'Scrabble' which is a registered brand name owned by M/s. J.W. Spears & Sons Ltd., U.K. According to the assessee, 'Scrabble' is a puzzle or in the alternative it is an educational toy falling under sub-heading 9503.00 of the CETA. Assessee holds a licence from M/s. J.W. Spears & Sons Ltd., U.K., to us...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(14)SCALE134
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30th June, 2008, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in L.P.A. No. 120 of 2008 in Writ Petition No. 4166 of 1997.3. The brief facts, which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal, are recapitulated as under:4. The appellant was appointed as a Clerk by order dated 13th October, 1993, wherein it has been clearly indicated that his appointment was made on probation for a period of two years against a clear permanent vacancy. The appellant satisfactorily completed the probation period and was confirmed in that post.5. The appellant's services were terminated by order dated 6th November, 1995. The appellant challenged the order of termination before the School Tribunal, Kolhapur. The Tribunal, by its order dated 26th June, 1997, held the order of termination as illegal, ineffective and ab initio void and quashed the same. The respondents herein, aggrieved by the said judgment of the Tribuna...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010CriLJ609; JT2009(15)SC341; 2009(14)SCALE616
ORDER1. This appeal by way of special leave has been filed impugning the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 5th March, 2008, whereby the death reference with respect to the appellant's case has been declined and his appeal has been allowed to the extent that the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge has been modified to a conviction under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and a sentence of 8 years R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-2. As per the facts of the case the incident happened on 16th August, 1987, (on the day of the Janmashtami festival) when Constable Rishipal (DW.1) who was posted in police station Vivek Vihar, where the appellant was the SHO was stabbed by the deceased Mahender and his accomplice Ram Kumar. Information about the stabbing incident was received in the police station and a case under Section 307 etc. was registered against the two. The police thereafter launched a manhunt to trace the culprits but were unable t...
Tag this Judgment!