Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(2)AWC1892(SC); 2009(4)SCALE643; (2009)11SCC68
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 `National Commission') refusing to accept the prayer made by the present appellant to set aside the ex parte order dated 30.11.2005.3. Background facts, as projected by the appellant, are as follows:The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the `insured') gave a cheque for Rs. 1451/- dated 8.10.86 to one Development Officer of the appellant-Company for obtaining Marine (Inland Transit Policy) for Rs. 5,00,000/- for incoming goods from various States. On 9.10.1986 an oil tanker of the respondent-insured bearing No. RND-9259 coming from District Mehsana, Gujarat, met with an accident near Pali, Rajasthan. On 11.10.1986 the insured informed the appellant about the accident of its oil tanker. The cheque in question was received in the Divisional Office of the appellant on 13.10.1986 without any cover note. On 19.1.1987 responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(3)SC311; 2009(3)SCALE326
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. This appeal is connected with Criminal Appeal No. 1365 of 2002 which has been disposed of by us today by a separate judgment. The present appeal is by the complainant and the order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1365 of 2002 shall operate so far as the present appeal is concerned. The appeal is disposed of accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(3)SCALE332; (2009)12SCC270; .2009AIRSCW6620
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. These transfer petitions were listed in the Supreme Court Lok Adalat held on 7th February, 2009. With the efforts of the mediators of the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, the parties had arrived at a settlement which reads as follows:This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT is entered into on 6th day of February, 2009 between:Shri Alok Mishra (Husband), Son of late Shri Jaiprakash Mishra, C/o Mr. Adrash Mishra, R/o A-10, LG Housing Society, Sector Pie, Greater Noida, Dist. Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh and Smt. Garima Mishra (Wife), W/o Shri Alok Mishra, R/o HIGD - 6, Dhanwantri Nagar, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh.WHEREAS:1. Disputes and differences had arisen between the Parties hereto leading to filing of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 870/2007 and Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 445/2008 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.2. The matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre Delhi High Court for exploring the possibilities of settlement between ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4th October, 2007 rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, at Jabalpur. By the impugned order the High Court has upheld the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as also the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, awarded by the Trial Court.3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.4. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to explain the delay in lodging of FIR and there are discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, whose testimony has been relied upon by the Courts below. It is contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the case, against the appellant and therefore, he deserves to be acquitted. Learned Counsel also stated that the appellant has already undergone more than one year of sentence. It is pleaded that a lenient...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2010]153CompCas497(SC); JT2009(3)SC216; 2009(3)SCALE451; (2009)4SCC94; (2009)12VatReporter137; (2009)21VST505(SC); JT2009(1)SC216
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) No. 24767 of 2005.2. Whether Section 38C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 [for short 'the Bombay Act'] and Section 26B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 [for short 'the Kerala Act'] and similar provision contained in other State legislations by which first charge has been created on the property of the dealer or such other person, who is liable to pay sales tax etc., are inconsistent with the provisions contained in the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short `the DRT Act') for recovery of `debt' and the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short `the Securitisation Act') for enforcement of `security interest' and whether by virtue of non obstante clauses contained in Section 34(1) of the DRT Act and Section 35 of the Securitisation Act, two Central legislations will have primacy over State legislations are the questions whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. The predecessor of the plaintiffs-respondents filed Special Civil Suit No. 204 of 1990 for recovery of Rs. 2,03,300/- with interest @ 18% from the date of notice i.e. 20th August, 1988. He also prayed for grant of a declaration that the defendant-Mahanagarpalika, Bhavnagar (appellant herein) is bound to allot shop No. 40-I to him at the upset price. After 13 years of the institution of suit, the evidence of the plaintiffs-respondents was closed on 6.1.2003 and the case was adjourned to 21.2.2003 for the evidence of the defendant-appellant. As no witness was produced on that day, the trial Court closed the evidence of the defendant-appellant. The suit was decreed on 31.3.2003. When the matter was taken to the High Court in first appeal, the same was dismissed summarily.4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court was not justified in closing the evidence of the defend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 25th January, 1992. In terms of the agreement, the parties were required to perform their respective obligations by 31st March, 1992. By an order dated 3rd April, 2007, the trial Court, after taking note of the fact that the suit could have been filed within a period of three years from 31st March, 1992, when the cause of action is said to have accrued to the plaintiff but the suit was filed in the year 2006 held that the same is barred by limitation and accordingly rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court allowed the revision filed by the petitioner and set aside the order of the trial Court only on the ground that the same was passed without requiring the defendant to file written statement.4. We have been taken through the plaint. A perusal thereof makes it clear that the cause of acti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(3)SCALE367; (2009)4SCC33; 2009(2)SCC(Cri)46
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants for offence punishable under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC'). Two appeals were disposed of by a common order. Criminal Appeal No. 441 of 1985 was filed by the present appellants questioning their conviction while Criminal Appeal No. 608 of 1985 was filed by the State of Maharashtra contending that the appropriate conviction should have been under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:The informant Murlidhar Krishna Ronge (PW-4) is the son of Krishna (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased'). At the time of the incident, the informant, Manik Suryabhan Dhas (PW-5), Vasant Bhagwan Dhas (PW-6) and the appellants were living in Village Dhas Pimpalgaon within the limits of Taluka Barshi, District Solapur. The appellants are closel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC3171; 2009(3)AWC2355(SC); JT2009(4)SC477; (2009)155PLR591; 2009(3)SCALE724; (2009)11SCC60:2009AIRSCW5090:2009(2)LHSC1254
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 17.07.2008 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition (civil) No. 28664 of 2003 dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellant and confirming the judgment passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the `Appellate Tribunal').3. The appellant is the son of late C.V. Kunjikuttan, who was carrying on business as a civil contractor. Said C.V. Kunjikuttan carried on business of contracts in his individual capacity. He died on 8th September, 1989 and on his demise, the business was taken over by his legal heirs. While C.V. Kunjikuttan was alive he had availed of certain facilities from Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Cherthala Branch, Alappuzha District - Respondent herein (for short the `Bank'). The respondent is a scheduled bank and has its principal place of business at Thrissur in Kerala and Branches in various ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(3)SCALE717; (2009)4SCC321; [2009]19STT399; (2009)21VST417(SC):2009AIRSCW2281
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Leave granted.2. A short question which arises in this batch of civil appeals is : whether the taking of the delivery of chemicals in Delhi by the purchasing dealers, in the context of they being the distributors/stockists of the assessee (appellant), for the assigned territories outside Delhi would take away the transaction in question from the category of sale inter-State sale(s)?Facts in Civil Appeal No. of 2009 -arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 20624 of 20073. During the assessment year 1974-75 the dealer, M/s. DCM Ltd., claimed exemptions on account of the following sales made to the registered dealers:Name of the Amaount of Sale claimed(purchasing/registered) to be made by DCM toDealer the Registered Dealer1. M/s. Dayal Sons Rs. 32,33,704.742. M/s. Dayal Brothers Rs. 5,93,628.623. M/s. Vaish Brothers Rs. 35,69,571.77_________________Total: Rs. 73,96,905.134. The Assessing Authority vide Order dated 28.3.1979 did not grant exemption in respect of the above-mentione...
Tag this Judgment!