Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(11)SCALE666; (2009)9SCC800:2009AIRSCW5829
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. Leave granted in the special leave petitions.2. These appeals are by claimants for increase in compensation in regard to acquisitions of lands situated at Rithala village initiated under preliminary notifications dated 13.2.1981, 20.2.1981, 13.3.1981, and 31.12.1981.3. These matters are covered by the judgment in Lal Chand v. Union of India Civil Appeal No. 4945 of 2006 and connected cases, decided today. Following the decision and in terms of it, these appeals are allowed in part....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2009)10SCC752
1. The short question which arise for determination in this Civil Appeal filed by the Department is; whether the subject product 'Cheetos Masala Balls', 'Cheetos Cheese Puff and 'Cheetos X & O' is classifiable under Chapter Sub Heading 1904.10 (CSH) as is contended on behalf of the Department; or whether it falls under CSH 2108.00 (which is residuary Entry) as contended on behalf of the assessee.2.Heard both sides.3. At the outset, it may be stated that in this Civil Appeal we are concerned with the period December 2003 to August, 2005.4. For the sake of convenience we quote hereinbelow the relevant provisions:"CHAPTER 19 : PREPARATIONS OF CEREALS, FLOUR, STARCH OR MILK; PASTRY COOKS' PRODUCTS Heading19.04Prepared foods obtained by the swelling or roasting of cereals or cereal products (for example, corn flakes)' cereals [other than maize (corn)],; in grain form or in the form of flakes or other worked grains (except flour and meal), precooked, or otherwise prepared, not elsewhere spec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(8)SCC220.; JT2009(15)SC139; (2009)8MLJ432(SC); 2009(11)SCALE535; (2009)8SCC220
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Avinash Singh Bagri and five others have filed Writ Petition (C) No. 535 of 2008 in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India airing their grievance that most of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe students who have been given admission in IIT-Delhi are being denied the right to pursue their studies by the respondent-Institution on the ground of poor performance and such students are being expelled and their admissions are being cancelled after one year or two years.2. Ravindra Kumar Ravi and two others who have been similarly placed and expelled by IIT-Delhi by similar orders dated 21.05.2008 and 02.06.2008 filed a separate writ petition, i.e., Writ Petition (C) No. 10 of 2009 highlighting their similar grievance before this Court.3. The above-said petitioners belong to reserved categories (SC/ST/OBC). They were the students of IIT-Delhi and pursuing the B.Tech. Course. They got admission in IIT Delhi through All India Joint Entrance Test in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC170; 171(2009)DLT299(SC); JT2009(11)SC490; 2009(11)SCALE627:2009AIRSCW5810
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. This batch of appeals arise out a common judgment dated 27.4.2006 of the High Court of Delhi in RFA No. 751/1994 (Jas Rath v. Union of India) and other connected cases. They relate to determination of market value in regard to lands situated at village Rithala on the outskirts of Delhi, acquired for (i) construction of a supplementary drain; (ii) construction of sewage treatment plant; (iii) re-modelling of Nangloi drain; and (iv) planned development of Delhi. The said four acquisitions were initiated under notifications dated 13.2.1981, 20.2.1981 13.3.1981 and 31.12.1981 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('LA Act' for short). The extent of lands acquired and compensation awarded are as under:Rate awarded per Bigha (Unit of 1008 sq. yds.)Date of Extentnotification notifiedunder Bighas-BiswasSection 4(1)By LAO By Reference By High CourtCourt (impugned judgment)(In Rupees) (In Rupees) (In Rupees)13.2.1981 829 - 00 2600 (Block B) 20,000 25,0...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(10)SC315; 2009(11)SCALE48; (2009)9SCC390; 2009AIRSCW3395
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. Leave granted.2. In this appeal by special leave the appellant Amar Nath Shukla had challenged his conviction under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). He was tried by First Upper Sessions Judge, Nainital in S.T. No. 355 of 1989 of the charge of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 436 and 147 IPC. The trial court by its judgment and order dated 29.7.1991 found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 436 IPC and acquitted him of the charge under Section 147 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. On appeal, the High Court by its impugned judgment and order dated 21.8.2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 775 of 2001 (Old No. 1529/91) dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant.3. The occurrence giving rise to the present appeal is said to have occurred on 26.2.1989 at about 1.00 P.M. The case of the prosecution, as deposed to by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC133; JT2009(10)SC316; 2009(6)KarLJ422; 2009(11)SCALE432; (2009)8SCC736; 2009(8)LC3856(SC)
P. Sathasivam, J.1. This appeal, under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is directed against the order dated 19.09.2008 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Election Petition No. 4 of 2008 in and by which the High Court upheld the objection of the Registry that there was no proper presentation of the election petition in terms of Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), consequently dismissed the election petition.2. Election to Constituency No. 140, Bagepalli, Karnataka Legislative Assembly was held in the General Elections conducted in the State in 2008. Appellant No. 1 was the candidate of the CPM party. Appellant No. 2 was his election agent. Respondent No. 1 is the Returning Officer of Bagepalli Legislative Assembly Constituency. Respondent No. 2 is the Congress candidate who has been declared elected in the election held on 10.05.2008. Respondent No. 3 is the Observer appointed by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(12)SC277; 2009(12)SCALE174
ORDER1. This appeal by way of special leave arises out of the judgment and order dated 22.07.2004 in Criminal Appeal No. 481 of 1999 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby the High Court had allowed the appeal filed by the accused-respondent Rajinder Singh setting aside his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment and fine under Section 302 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, by giving him the benefit of doubt and had also dismissed the appeal against acquittal filed by the appellant-State against the acquittal of Kuldip Singh and Rachhpal Singh, by the Sessions Judge, Faridkot.2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows:Madan Lal - P.W. 2, the father of the deceased-Harinder Kumar was the co-owner of brick kilns in villages Madooke and Ajitwal with Rajinder Singh, respondent herein. About one year prior to the occurrence, a settlement had been arrived at between the parties aforesaid and the brick kiln in village Madooke had f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC3208; 2009CriLJ4118; JT2009(11)SC674; 2009(11)SCALE40; (2009)9SCC119; 2009AIRSCW5142
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This judgment will dispose of the Criminal Appeal No. 898 of 2004 filed by three appellants as also the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Rajasthan against the acquittal of one of the accused who was convicted by the Trial Court but was acquitted by the High Court. The three accused persons, namely, original accused No. 1 Bheru Lal, original accused No. 3, Kailash Chandra and original accused No. 5, Purushottam have come up before us challenging their conviction for various offences including offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), 436 read with Section 149, IPC and confirmed by the High Court. Originally, as many as seven accused persons were tried for all these offences. However, the Sessions Judge convicted in all five accused persons including the present three appellants and two others, namely, Girraj, original accused No. 6 and Gopal, original accused No. 4. The High Court allowed the appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 162(2009)DLT257(SC); JT2009(10)SC698; 2009(11)SCALE24
D.K. Jain, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave is directed against final judgment and order dated 1st February, 2007 rendered by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No. 62 of 2004. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the appellant herein under Section 397 read with Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'), upholding the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 8th January, 2004, framing charge against the appellant for commission of offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC') arising out of FIR No. 329 of 2002 dated 4th July, 2002 registered at Police Station Mehrauli.3. On 4th July, 2002, one Rahul Kaushik lodged the said First Information Report (FIR) with Police Station, Mehrauli stating that his father Jitendra Sharma (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') had commit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. The judgment in this case was to be pronounced after the pronouncement of the judgment by the Constitution Bench in State of West Bengal and Ors. v. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos. 6249-6250 of 2001] wherein an identical question is involved. As the judgment is yet to be pronounced by the Constitution Bench, let these matters be released from this Bench and be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders. ...
Tag this Judgment!