Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2009(121)FLR728]; JT2009(4)SC518; (2009)IIILLJ231SC; 2009(5)SCALE326; (2009)12SCC264
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants. In the Writ Petitions filed by the appellants the challenge was to the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court in I.D. Case No. 71 of 1988.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:The industrial dispute was initiated by the respondent workman, inter alia, challenging the termination of his service. Conciliation having failed, the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 10 read with Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the `Act') referred the following dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. The reference read as follows:Whether the termination of Sri Bilash Chandra Ojha, Compositor from service by the management of M/s. Information and Publication Printing Press, Krushi Sambada Sarabaraha Sanstha in November, 1981 is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2009)5SCC791
1) Leave granted.2) In all these appeals, the question for consideration is whether the High Court has power to condone the delay in presentation of the reference application under unamended Section 35 H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") beyond the prescribed period by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. When S.L.P.(c) No. 14467 of 2007 came up for hearing on 4.12.2008, a two- Judge Bench, after noticing the decision in Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, Noida vs. Punjab Fibres Ltd., Noida (2008) 3 SCC 73, expressed doubt about the said judgment with regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court in the matter of condoning delay beyond the prescribed period under the Act. After finding that under Section 35H of the unamended Act (before enactment of Act 49/2005), with regard to application for reference, the High Court exercises its advisory jurisdiction in a case where the substantial question of law of public importance arise, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(5)SC347; 2009(4)KarLJ545; 2009(5)SCALE305
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. Appellants 1 to 6 and respondent No. 2 were plaintiffs (that is plaintiff Nos. 1, 3 to 7 and Plaintiff No. 2 in O.S. No. 1831/1989 on the file of the Additional City Civil Court, Bangalore. Respondents 1 and 3 were defendants 1 and 2 in the said suit for declaration of title and possession in regard to an extent of 2 acres and 12 guntas of land in Survey No. 101/2 of Kodigehalli village , Bangalore North Taluk. For convenience the appellants and respondent No. 2 will together be referred to as plaintiffs, first respondent as `BEL' and third respondent as `LAO'.2. The case of plaintiffs as per the plaint averments and evidence of plaintiffs is as follows:2.1) Sy. No. 101 of Kodigehalli measures 10 acres 29 guntas (of which 24 guntas was phut Karab). An extent of 5 acres 17 guntas in Sy. No. 101, alongwith other lands were acquired for BEL on 25.2.1954. One Anjaneya Gowda who was the owner of the remaining extent of Sy. No. 101, sold to V. Varadaraju, (father of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC3247; 2009(4)ALT13; 2009(3)AWC2237(SC); JT2009(4)SC533; 2009(2)KLT149(SC); 2009(5)SCALE286; (2009)11SCC537:2009AIRSCW3275
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Delhi High Court which by the impugned order allowed the appeal filed by the respondent.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Respondent, the propounder of the registered will dated 13th July, 1989 executed by his mother, has locked horns with his step brother, Krishan Kumar Sharma, the appellant herein Smt. Sneh Prabha Sharma, the testatrix, and her husband Ram Mohan Sharma were married twice. Respondent is the son of testatrix and Ram Mohan Sharma. Appellant is the son from the first wife of Ram Mohan Sharma. The respondent's case is this that the will dated 13th July, 1989 was made by the above said testatrix in sound disposing mind on 13th July, 1989 and it was got registered on 11th September, 1989. Smt. Sneh Prabha Sharma died on 9th July, 1990. Except the appellant, none of the other siblings of the appellant contested the petition moved by the appellant under Section 276 of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. The only contention raised in this appeal is that although admittedly a raid was conducted in the house of the appellant in a remote village at midnight, no reason as is required in terms of the proviso appended to Section 42(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act) had been recorded.2. Respondent - State of West Bengal has filed a counter affidavit, stating:(i) That there is no challenge by the Petitioner regarding compliance of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act;(ii) That the only point that has been argued is that non-compliance of the provision of Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act;(iii) That in a peculiar situation the search was conducted where the higher officials did not feel it proper to obtain a prior authorisation, lest the entire purpose of the search and seizure would be rendered futile in such a situation;(iv) That the raiding party was accompanied by Senior Officials in the rank of Addl. S.P. and we think that there was due compliance of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. This appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the final order dated 10th July, 2002 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') in O.P. No. 171 of 1996.2. By the impugned order the complaint filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the Commission on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The Commission has noted that the claim made on the Bank was lastly on 16th May, 1994 and the complaint was filed on 26th August, 1996, which was obviously beyond the period of limitation.3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Mr. Shiv Pujan Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has strenuously urged that the Commission has erred in not condoning the delay in preferring the complaint because there was sufficient cause for the delay. It is pleaded that the appellant was arrested in some case on 5th June, 1994; he remained in custody for a period of ab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(5)SCC507; JT2009(4)SC547; 2009(4)SCALE184; 2009(4)Scale183; 2009AIRSCW2371; 2009(4)KCCRSN222.
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Pursuant to this Court's order dated 26th February, 2009, the Chief Secretaries, State of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh are personally present in the Court. Their personal presence is dispensed with unless directed in future.3. The present Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitituion of India relates to conservation of wet lands which in our opinion would include ponds, tanks, canals, creeks, water channels, reservoirs, rivers, streams and lakes. Although, the writ petition as framed related to protection of wetlands in the country for preservation of the environment and maintaining the ecology, we have suo motu expanded its scope as mentioned below.4. There is acute shortage of water in our country and one of the main reasons for that is that most of the water conservation bodies in our country such as ponds, tanks, small lakes etc. have been filled up in recent times by some greedy persons and such persons have constructed buildings...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This is an appeal for setting asid1e the order of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court whereby permission granted by the State Government to the appellant for starting new college at Ghugus, District Chandrapur was declared illegal and quashed.3. The appellant submitted an application dated 21.10.1998 to Nagpur University, Nagpur [for short 'the University'] for grant of permission to start an Arts and Commerce College at Ghugus. Respondent No. 3 also made similar application on 29.10.1998. The University forwarded both the applications to the State Government though recommendation was made only in favour of respondent No. 3. In July 1999, a Committee comprising of the then Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister and Education Minister considered various applications filed for grant of permission to set up colleges at various places in the State. For Ghugus, the Committee decided to grant permission to the appellant for starting the col...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. These appeals by Himachal Pradesh Housing Board/ Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority are directed against final order dated 18th April, 2002 passed by the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as the `Commission'), awarding to the complainants before it interest @ 18 per cent per annum on the amount deposited, for a period of one year, on account of delay in delivery of the possession of the flats allotted to the applicants.2. Since a common issue is involved in all these appeals, these are being disposed of by this order.3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.4. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Commission has awarded interest at a flat rate of 18 per cent per annum in all the cases by placing reliance on its order in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Darsh Kumar R.P. 1197/1998. Learned Counsel points out that the view taken by the Commission in the said case h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC2108; 2009(4)ALT58(SC); 2009(2)AWC1760(SC); JT2009(4)SC457; 2009(4)SCALE529; (2009)4SCC585; 2009(4)LC2052(SC):2009AIRSCW2691:2009(4)LHSC2408
Markandey Katju, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2007 of the Delhi High Court FAO(OS) No. 469 of 2006.3. Heard Shri Arun Jaitley learned Counsel for the appellants and Ms. Nita Gokhale learned Counsel for the respondents.4. The dispute in this case is between brothers. The appellant Sunder Kukreja filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 praying for an appointment of an Arbitrator. The parties are real brothers and were carrying on business with each other in the name and style of M/s. D.R. Kukreja and Company. Their mutual rights and obligations were governed by partnership deeds, the last of which was executed on 10.7.1984. In terms of Clause 11 of the said deed, disputes arising between the parties had to be resolved by way of arbitration before a sole arbitrator to be nominated by the parties. Clause 11 reads as follows:11. In the event of any dispute or disputes arising between the pa...
Tag this Judgment!