Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(2)SCALE137
ORDER1. List all the Haryana Mining Matters on 11.02.2010, a list of which will be furnished by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae.I.A. Nos. 2647, 2687-2688, 2689-2690, 2696-2697, 2703-2704, 2709 & 2718 & W.P. (C) No. 469/2005:2. List on 19.02.2010.3. Mr. Harish Salve, who was appearing as amicus curiae, wants to withdraw from these matters. Let his withdrawal be recorded.4. Learned Attorney General for India seeks two weeks' time to look into the fresh suggestions given by the NHAI and the Ministry of Surface Transport.I.A. No. 2211 in I.A.1424-1425 & 2649:5. Mr. Harish Salve, who was appearing as amicus curiae in these matters, no longer wishes to appear in these matters. Let his withdrawal be recorded.6. List on 12.03.2010.I.A. Nos. 2250-2251:7. The State of Madhya Pradesh proposes to construct a submersible Bridge across Parvati river falling within the National Chambal Crocodile sanctuary. The C.E.C. has examined the matter and recommended following conditions subject to whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2010(1)SC647,2010(1)SCALE701,(2010)2SCC786
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. These appeals by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (for short, 'the Board') are directed against judgment dated 1.8.2001 passed by the Division Bench of Madras High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 796 and 1135 of 1999 whereby the appellant-Board has been directed to reconvey the acquired land on which no construction has been made to the respondents on their depositing the amount of compensation together with interest at the rate of 9%.2. The land of the respondents falling in Survey Nos. 340, 341 and 343, Mogappair Village, Sedapet Taluk formed part of 513.52 acres acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu for Ambattur Neighborhood Scheme. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') was issued on 23.10.1975 and declaration under Section 6 was issued on 2.11.1978. After fmalization of the acquisition proceedings, the respondents were paid compensation in lieu of their land.3. Some of the land owners including A.S. Naidu challenged the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2010(2)SC148,LC2010(1)101,2010(1)SCALE714,(2010)2SCC535
Altamas Kabir, J.1. Leave granted.2. Two First Appeals were filed in the Delhi High Court, being FAO No. 131 and 132 of 2008, against two orders, both dated 28th March, 2008, passed by the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata, under Section 19(1) of the Designs Act, 2000, cancelling two registered designs for 'Insecticide Coil' in Class 12 belonging to the Respondent No. 1 herein. The question for determination before the High Court in the two appeals was whether the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the same against the order passed by the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata. Inasmuch as, in the said two appeals, it was held by the Delhi. High Court that it had jurisdiction to entertain the appeals, these two appeals have been preferred by M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. against the said decision.3. On 27th January, 2005, the Respondent No. 1 herein, M/s. Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty. Ltd., filed a suit, being C.S. (O.S.) No. 121 of 2005, against the appellant, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDERR.V. Raveendran J.1. Leave granted. Heard the parties.2. The appellants awarded a construction contract to the respondent. The work which had to be completed within 18 months from 18.3.1985, was actually completed on 30.11.1989. The delay led to claims by the contractor and counter-claims by the employer (appellants). The disputes were referred to a sole Arbitrator who made an award dated 22.06.2000. The Arbitral Tribunal rejected the counter claims of the appellants. It awarded in all Rs. 14,94,000/- with interest to the respondent-contractor. The operative portion of the award is extracted below:I award Rs. 14.94 lacs (Rupees Fourteen Lacs Ninety Four Thousands only) along with interest at the rate of 12% with effect from 19.12.1990 till the date of award in favour of M/s. S.L. Arora and Company, 5E-10, Bunglow Plot, N.I.T., Faridabad (Claimant) to be paid by the Haryana PWD B&R; Branch Department (respondent). In case the total amount of award together with this interest is not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(58)BLJR441; JT2010(1)SC560; 2010(1)SCALE694; (2010)2SCC646
H.L. Dattu, J.A mother is the truest friend we have, when trials heavy and sudden, fall upon us; when adversity takes the place of prosperity; when friends who rejoice with us in our sunshine desert us; when trouble thickens around us, still she cling to us, and endeavor by her kind precepts and counsels to dissipate the clouds of darkness, and cause peace to return to our hearts- Washington Irving1. Leave granted.2. It is in this backdrop, we seek to introduce the facts of this case : A wicked mother is facing life sentence having been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for killing her own son with an axe by the Court of First Additional Judge, Ambikapur in Case No. 366 of 1996. On appeal, the conviction is upheld by the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court.3. The appellant, Satni Bai is the mother of the deceased. She belongs to a tribal community. She has filed this appeal from prison, where she is undergoing her sentence of life imprisonment. She is repre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(2)SCALE503
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. Leave granted. Heard the parties.2. The first batch of appeals is filed by the Haridwar Development Authority ('the Authority', for short), the beneficiary of an acquisition. The connected appeals are filed by the claimants-landowners whose lands measuring 38.6.8 Bighas (8,45,174 sq.ft.) in village Jwalapur, Tehsil and District Haridwar, were acquired for planned development of a housing colony, under preliminary notification dated 7.12.1991 and final notification dated 16.5.1992. As the ranks of parties in the appeals and counter-appeals vary, the appellant in the first batch (who is the second respondent in other appeals) will be referred to as the 'Authority'. The respondents in the first batch (who are the appellants in the other appeals) are referred to as the 'claimants'.3. The Land Acquisition Collector made an award dated 9.5.1994. He divided the acquired lands into three belts and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 26.25 per sq.ft. for the lands...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC762,2010(58)BLJR389,JT2010(1)SC535,2010(1)SCALE676,(2010)2SCC748,2010(2)LC1081(SC)
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. Several appeals were heard together as they arose out of similar incidents and some common questions are also involved.2. The prosecution version as unfolded in the case is that on 29.11.2000 around 7:10 P.M. one Pappu @ Prakash Tripathi (PW-3) was in his apartment. Then on hearing the firing of three shots, he came out of his apartment and saw a light blue coloured scooter, which was parked in front of the apartment, was being started by a man and after him two other persons also boarded that scooter. PW-3 also saw a Matiz car which was parked by the side of the road and he saw the body of Mallu Bhaiya, the deceased, half inside the car and the other half was lying outside the same. PW-3 further saw that after starting the scooter, those persons drove it towards the road and took a turn to the right and drove towards the side of Dainik Bhaskar Press. PW-3 further deposed that at the time those persons left in the scooter they were 'turning their heads back'. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(58)BLJR401,JT2010(1)SC666,2010(1)SCALE669,(2010)2SCC445,2010(2)LC1097(SC)
H.L. Dattu, J.1. This appeal, by the accused, arises out of the judgment of High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 1994 dated 20.3.2008, whereby the appellant is convicted for the offence of rape punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code by reversing the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra Division in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1992 dated 2.8.1993. The High Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has brought home the charge under Section 376 of I.P.C. and has sentenced the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. The accused feeling aggrieved sought special leave to appeal, on the same being granted, this appeal is before us.2. Co-accused Naresh Singh alias Titta died during the pendency of appeal before the High Court.3. We shall state the facts of the case as put forth by the prosecution: Smt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC659; JT2010(1)SC468; 2010(I)OLR(SC)517; 2010(1)SCALE664; (2010)2SCC631
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J1. Leave granted.2. Assailing the judgment of High Court dated 05.02.2009 rendered in Criminal revision No. 552/2000 this appeal was filed.3. The main contention of the appellants before this Court is that without any colour of right the respondent herein repeatedly filed complaints on same facts and the High Court without proper appreciation of the facts and the legal position allowed the revision petition of the respondent and caused a grave failure of justice.4. The material facts are that a complaint was filed by the respondent in the court of judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nuh on or about 10.06.1992 alleging therein that the appellants who own and possess his own house at Faridabad came into contact with the respondent and ultimately won the confidence of the respondent. In the complaint it was alleged that the respondent is an illiterate, innocent person with a poor village background and he was induced to purchase some land at village Mohammedpur for and on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC670; JT2010(1)SC529; 2010(1)SCALE657; (2010)2SCC669
Harjit Singh Bedi, J.1. This appeal is an example and a reflection of the way we treat our freedom fighters inasmuch that while we applaud their contributions to the fight for freedom, deny them a pension, which, even if granted, amounts to a pittance and while many who apply are under financial distress, all without exception, wear it as a badge of honour and as a certificate of recognition of their efforts in the struggle for independence.2. The respondent, A. Manickam Pillai claiming to be a freedom fighter, applied for the grant of a freedom fighter's pension on 30th December 1996. This representation was rejected by the Collector on 21st August 1997. Undeterred, the respondent again filed an application on the 8th May 1998 and after a recommendation by two Collectors and the District Level Screening Committee, it was forwarded to the State Government. This was, however, rejected by the State Government on the ground that in the face of Government Order No. 30 dated 7th February 19...
Tag this Judgment!