Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(10)SCALE245
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. This special leave petition, in which leave has already been granted, has been filed against the final judgment and order dated 2nd of March, 2005 in Writ Petition ) No. 683 of 2002 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore.4. In view of the recent enactment of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nayayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that permission may be granted to the appellants to withdraw the present petition and to pursue his remedy by way of Letters Patent Appeal (LPA).5. In view of the recent enactment of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nayayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, which confers power on the High Court to entertain the LPA against an order of the learned Single Judge, we set aside the impugned order and grant liberty to the appellants to file an LPA before the Division Bench of the High Court with an application for condonation which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(13)SCALE111; [2010]186TAXMAN47(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. An order of transfer passed by the CIT on 18-1-2007, purported to be under Sub-section (2) of Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is questioned in this appeal, which arises out of a judgment and order dated 21-2-2007 passed by the High Court of Allahabad, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.4. A search was conducted in the premises of M/s Radico Khaitan Ltd. on 14-2-2006 wherein, inter alia, it was found that some payments had been collected by the U.P. Distilleries Association for payment to public servants. By a notice dated 10-11-2006, the appellant was directed to attend the office of the CIT, stating:As per result of search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of the abovementioned group conducted on 14-2-2006, the CIT, Delhi (Central-III), New Delhi vide his letter F. No. CIT(C-II) Cent/010/CC- 19/2006-07/45/807 dated 18-10-2006 has prop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. This appeal by way of special leave has been filed against the concurrent judgments of conviction of the Sessions Court and the High Court by which the appellant, Rupchand has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for having committed the murder of Parasram Bhoyar, resident of village Pathari, police station Goregaon.2. The facts of the appeal are as under:Bhaiyalal Patel PW. 1, a resident of village Saitola, which is adjacent to village Pathari, was at the relevant time working as a Police Patil of villages Saitola and Pathari. On 14th May, 1999, he received a message from one Premlal Rane of village Pathari that a dead body was lying in the field of Shriram Maldhari, a resident of village Pathari. Bhaiyalal Patel thereupon proceeded to Pathari and thereafter to the field of Shriram Maldhari and found the dead body of Parasram Bhoyar lying there. He accordingly made a report and on that basis a first information report was registered at Police Station, Goregaon. PW. 7 Kri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(12)SC576; (2009)8MLJ1495(SC); 2009(11)SCALE1:2009AIRSCW6388
S.B. Sinha, J.Leave granted.1. Some of the defendants in the original suit, who purchased the suit property from the defendant Nos. 1-3, are before us questioning the judgment and order dated 25.4.1996 passed by a learned single Judge of the High Court in Appeal Suit No. 396/2000 whereby and whereunder judgment and decree dated 12.07.2000 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi in O.S. No. 242 of 1999 was set aside.2. Inter se relationship between the plaintiffs and the predecessor-in- interest of the original defendant Nos. 1-3 is not in dispute. It would appear from the following genealogical tree:Muthuswamy Othuwar||---------------------------------------------------| |Seeni Othuwar Gnana OthuwarMuthuswamy Othuwar Kulanthaively Othuwar| || |Seenia Pillai Gnanam Pillai Mariappa Pillai Shanmugam PillaiMuthuramalingam Pillai || || |Ranthinam Ammal Gomathi Muniasamy Panchavarnam Visalakshi(1st Plaintiff) (4th Defendant) 2nd Plaintiff 3rd Plaintiff| | |Ravindran Aathi Naryaanan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(11)SC526; 2009(11)SCALE619; 2010(1)SLJ271(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The State of Madhya Pradesh is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 4.1.2008 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench at Indore in Writ Appeal No. 201 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the appellant herein from a judgment and order dated 3.11.2004 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said High Court in Writ Petition No. 4005/2003, was dismissed.2. The core question which arises for consideration before us is as to whether the respondent herein who is working as Physical Training Instructor in Government Ayurvedic College is entitled to claim parity of pay with the teachers who have been granted UGC scale of pay.3. The respondent was appointed as Physical Training Instructor in Government Ayurvedic College, Ujjain by an offer of appointment dated 18.1.1973. He filed O.A. No. 907 of 1998 before the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Indore Bench (for short, 'the Tribunal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC142; JT2009(10)SC340; (2009)IVLLJ644SC; (2009)8MLJ451(SC); 2009(10)SCALE334; (2009)10SCC32:2009AIRSCW5779
Tarun Chaterjee, J.1. The judgment and order dated 30th of September, 2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court affirming the judgment and order dated 4th of October, 2004 of a learned Judge of the same High Court and the order dated 31st of October, 2003 of the Vth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal is under challenge before us at the instance of Biecco Lawrie Ltd. and another, the appellants herein.2. By the order of Vth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, dated 31st of October, 2003, the order of dismissal passed by the appellants against Provash Chandra Mondal - respondent No. 2 [hereinafter referred to as the `respondent'] was set aside.3. The respondent was appointed as general mazdoor in the Switch Gear works of the appellants and his duty, inter alia, was to bring materials from the shop rack to the working benches and afterwards to take them to their respective racks. On 4th of August 1984, a charge sheet was issued against the respondent on charges of major misco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. We are not going to take any serious view against the respondents-contemnors as we find that the tenant has already vacated the premises in question and handed over the possession to the petitioner. However, if it is found that the possession has not been handed over to the landlord-petitioner, he will be at liberty to file a fresh Contempt Petition. The Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed of. The contempt notice is discharged. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(4)AWC3178(SC); 2009(10)SCALE142; 2009AIRSCW5425; 2009(9)Scale142; 2009(5)LHSC3173
Deepak Verma, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment pronounced by Division Bench of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, at Jaipur Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Civil) No. 195 of 2006 decided on 5.7.2007, arising out of the Award passed by learned Single Judge on 21.8.2006 in Misc. Appeal No. 104 of 1995, which in turn arose from the Award dated 5.12.1994 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), is before us challenging the same on variety of grounds.3. We have accordingly heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.4. Basic and material facts for deciding the said appeals are mentioned herein below:5. On 22.8.1983, the bus belonging to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'RSRTC') was plying between Ramgarh to Jhunjhunu. At the relevant point of time, it was being driven by PW-5 Ghosh Mohammad. When the said bus reached near the crusher machine, after Jhunj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC2404; 2009(240)ELT321(SC); JT2009(14)SC473; 2009(10)SCALE138; 2009AIRSCW4772:2009AIRSCW4228
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. One Seethapathy (Accused No. 1), since absconding, President of M/s Chandra Importers Inc., New York (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as, 'the Company'), was indulging in illegal internet pharmacy business. It has a branch at Coimbatore. Appellant herein (Accused No. 2) was managing the activities of the said branch. A search was made in the office of the accused and various documents and computers were seized. It is alleged that the appellant used to mail consolidated requirements by means of packing slips in the name of individual customers to the e-mail I.D. of the first accused. The first accused used to procure different drugs indicated by the appellant by the local pharmacy and pack separately as per packing slips and dispatch the same to the customers abroad through airmail and RMS post office at Coimbatore. The drugs procured and exported are Alprazolam, Lorazepam, Nitrazepam, etc. Indisputably, these drugs find place at Serial...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC2416; JT2009(12)SC526; 2009(10)SCALE109:2009AIRSCW4789
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant herein was a Deputy Tehsildar, Director of Civil Supplies, Punganoor in the District of Chittoor. He worked in the said capacity from 11.5.1992 to 21.1.1993. During the aforementioned period, Essential Commodities meant for public distribution were supplied to the private parties; the price whereof is stated to be Rs. 12,46,523.60.He was placed under suspension on 29.1.1993. A departmental proceeding was initiated. An enquiry officer was appointed for the said purpose. He was found guilty in the said departmental proceedings, relying on or on the basis whereof, an order of dismissal was passed on 21.10.1994.3. An appeal preferred by the appellant thereagainst was also dismissed. He filed an original application before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. On the premise that the enquiry officer was not competent to frame the charges, the order of dismissal was set aside.4. The State filed a writ petition thereagainst before the High Cou...
Tag this Judgment!