Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC112; JT2009(10)SC509; (2009)6MLJ510(SC); 2009(10)SCALE416:2009AIRSCW5676:2009(5)LHSC3054
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted in both the SLPs.2. These appeals involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. On the requisition of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity as the `SAIL') for establishment of a steel plant at Salem commonly known as Salem Steel Plant, 3651 acres of land was acquired wherefor a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity as `the Act') was issued in the year 1964 and a declaration under Section 6 was published in 1969.4. Land acquisition proceedings for preparation of awards were initiated in 1971 during the period 1971 to 1975. 305 awards were made. A large number of landholders being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to them by the Land Acquisition Officer received the same without protest.5. Some of the land owners, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(10)SC190; 2009(10)SCALE316
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against an interim order dated 25th March, 2008 passed by a learned single judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court whereby and whereunder while issuing notice of motion, the reversion of the first respondent was stayed.2. The matter has a chequered career. The dispute involved in the present appeals revolves round the seniority between the direct recruits and the promotees. Indisputably, the conditions of service of the employees hereto are governed by the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1976. It repealed and replaced the Rules framed in the year 1930. By reason of 1930 Rules, 68% slots were fixed in the roster for direct recruits. Rule 18 of 1976 Rules, however, provided for 50% of the slots to be filled by direct recruits.3. The State sent requisition to the Punjab Public Service Commission for filling up the vacancies of 48 officers; 24 by direct recruitment through examination and 24 by nominating officers from the existing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(12)SC515; 2009(10)SCALE355:2009AIRSCW5411:2009(5)LHSC3104:2009CriLJ4425
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. The State is before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 19.07.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur whereby and whereunder a judgment of acquittal was recorded in favour of the respondent herein who was convicted by the Special Judge, Wardha in Special Case No. 4 of 1996 under Section 7(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').3. Respondent was, at all material times, serving as a Head Constable in Police Station, Karanja in the District of Wardha. Madhukar Dhote, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, was a resident of village Taroda in the Tehsil of Karanja (Ghadge). He had lodged a report against Dhanaraj Mohod and his servant Sudhkar Borkar for allegedly allowing their cattle to graze orange plants. Sudhkar Borkar's mother, however, lodged a report against the complainant that he had assaulted her son. In his capacity as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 108(2009)CLT681(SC); 2009CriLJ4299; JT2009(10)SC360; 2009(5)MPHT123(SC); 2009(II)OLR(SC)628; 2009(10)SCALE255; (2009)8SCC539:2009AIRSCW5265
P. Sathasivam, J.1. In the case of Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat : 2000CriLJ1384 : (2000) 2 SCC 513, a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that compliance of Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act') is mandatory and failure to take down the information in writing and forthwith send a report to his immediate official superior would cause prejudice to the accused. In the case of Sajan Abraham v. State of Kerala : 2001CriLJ4002 : (2001) 6 SCC 692, which was also decided by a three-Judge Bench, it was held that Section 42 was not mandatory and substantial compliance was sufficient. In view of the conflicting opinions regarding the scope and applicability of Section 42 of the Act in the matter of conducting search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization, these appeals were placed before the Constitution Bench to resolve the issue.2. The statement of objects and reasons of the NDPS Act make...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(10)SC474; 2009AIRSCW6185; 2009(4)LHSC2757; 2009(10)Scale476
S.B. Sinha, J.1. These appeals involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The State of Gujarat issued diverse notifications for acquisition of a huge tract of lands for construction of a dam over a river known as `Thebi'. The lands sought to be acquired were spread over in three villages, namely, Amreli, Baxipur and Giriya. Whereas villages Amreli and Baxipur are situated on the western side of river and within the municipal limit of the town of Amerli; village Giriya is on the eastern bank thereof and outside the municipal limit of the said town Amreli.3. Amreli is the headquarters of the District Amreli. It is a well developed town. A National Highway known as 'Amreli - Chittal Road' passes through the town of Amreli.4. The residents of the town enjoy the facilities of transportation, hospitals, schools, colleges, telephone, etc. It is, however, admitted that the entire development has taken place...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(1)AWC509(SC); JT2009(11)SC666; 2009(II)OLR(SC)576; 2009(10)SCALE402; 2009AIRSCW5416; 2009(5)LHSC3048
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present Civil Appeal raises questions relating to interpretation of Section 32 and 33 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The dispute pertains to a Flat situated on the ground floor of a building commonly known as 'Nilachal' at Tollygunge, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises). The appellant by virtue of a Registered Deed of Conveyance dated 28.02.1990 purchased the said premises from one Sri Nandlal Tantia (also referred to as Shri N. L. Tantia), Karta of M/s R. L. Tantia & Sons (HUF). The said Deed of Conveyance was executed by the constituted attorney of Shri N. L. Tantia, Shri Indra Kumar Halani, on the basis of a Power of Attorney). It is pertinent of mention herein that the said premises was purchased by Shri Nandlal Tantia in his capacity as a Karta of M/s R. L. Tantia and sons (HUF) in August 1978. Mrs. Ava Rani Ghosh Dastidar (Predecessor in interest of Respondent No. 1 herein) was allowed to sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(6)ALT8(SC); JT2009(15)SC99; 2009(11)SCALE166
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Interpretation of the application of the provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [hereinafter called for the sake of brevity as `the Act'] vis-`-vis Section 6 thereof is in question in this appeal. It arises out of a judgment and order dated 16.11.2007 passed by the High Court Karnataka at Bangalore in RFA No. 1403/2003 and 1404/2003 dismissing the appeals preferred by the appellants herein from a judgment and order dated 14.07.2003 in O.S. No. 305/2000 and O.S. No. 567/2001 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mysore between both the parties for a suit of partition. The two aforementioned suits for partition were filed - one by the appellants herein and the other by respondent Nos. 1,2 and 4 herein. One K Doddananjundaiah indisputably is the predecessor- in-interest of the plaintiffs of both the suits. He along with his own brothers rightly formed a coparcenery. In or about 1941, a partition took place in terms where...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009CriLJ4429; JT2009(12)SC428; 2009(10)SCALE349; (2009)13SCC608
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellants are before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 19th March 2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh whereby and whereunder the revision application filed by them questioning the legality and/or validity of the order dated 11th September 2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalandhar allowing an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, `the Code') filed by the complainant (respondent No. 2 herein) summoning them as additional accused in connection with FIR No. 45 dated 13th March 2005 under Sections 306/509/420/120B/456 of the Indian Penal Code, was dismissed.3. Appellants and one Sarabjit Singh used to live together. Sarabjit Singh is the brother of the appellant No. 2. He used to follow the deceased Rajni despite protests made by her. He gave a proposal of marriage to her which was not accepted. Appellants also asked...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(5)LHSC2940; 2009AIRSCW6161; JT2009(9)SC697; 2009(II)OLR(SC)561; 2009(10)SCALE246; (2009)9SCC163
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 24.06.2008 passed by the Orissa High Court at Cuttack whereby and whereunder the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and set aside the conviction of the appellant under Sections 304B, 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the IPC') and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short `the D.P. Act') but convicted her under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.3. In order to appreciate the rival contentions advanced by the parties and issues involved, it is necessary to set out brief facts of the case which gave rise to the present criminal appeal:Marriage was solemnized between the deceased Anjali and Benudhar on 15.07.1999. Deceased Anjali died in the hospital on 14.02.2000 while under treatment for burn injuries which she had sustained on 08.02.2000. Sukanti Moharana, the appellant herein is t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009AIRSCW5378; 2009CriLJ4408; JT2009(10)SC130; (2009)13SCC614; 2009(5)LHSC3113; 2009(5)AIRKarR473
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and final order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore whereby and whereunder the High Court set aside the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Belgaum under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `the IPC'). However, the High Court maintained the order of acquittal passed by the trial court under Section 498A IPC.2. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced by the parties and legal issues involved, it is necessary to state brief facts of the case:Deceased Shoba was the daughter of the sister of Somappa Irappa Hunji (PW-1). As the mother of the deceased Shoba was suffering from typhoid fever after six months of the birth of Shoba, Shoba was being maintained and looked after by PW-1. Shoba studied upto VII standard. Subsequently, PW-1 arranged the marriage of deceased Shoba with one Prakash (PW-5) as per their customs when she was 18...
Tag this Judgment!