Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2010(3)SC368
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. This writ application under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed by a Member of Lok Sabha, challenging the validity of the proceedings in the Lok Sakha commencing from 29th January, 2004 on the ground that the President has not addressed both Houses of Parliament as envisaged under Article 87 of the Constitution. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue appropriate Writ or direction or order declaring that the Session of the Lok Sabha called by the Notice dated January 20, 2004 is the first Session in the year 2004; and the proceedings of the Lok Sabha pursuant to the Notice dated 20th January, 2004 are unconstitutional, illegal, null and void.2. The case set up by the petitioner is that the Session commenced on 29th January, 2004 was the first Session of the Lok Sabha in the year 2004, and there was no address by the President informing the Parliament, the cause of its summons as provided for and required under Article 87(1) of the Constit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2010(3)SC472,RLW2010(2)SC1118
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. Leave granted.The appellant filed a suit (Case No. 381/2007) on the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandigarh for several reliefs. The plaint contains several elaborate prayers, summarizes below:(i) for a declaration that two houses and certain agricultural lands purchased by his father S. Rajinder Singh were co-parcenary properties as they were purchased from the sale proceeds of ancestral properties, and that he was entitled to joint possession thereof;(ii) for a declaration that the will dated 14.7.1985 with the codicil dated 17.8.1988 made in favour of the third defendant, and gift deed dated 10.9.2003 made in favour of fourth defendant were void and non-est 'qua the co-parcenary';(iii) for a declaration that the sale deeds dated 20.4.2001, 24.4.2001 and 6.7.2001 executed by his father S. Rajinder Singh in favour of the first defendant and sale deed dated 27.9.2003 executed by the alleged power of attorney holder of S. Rajender Singh in favour of se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2010(3)SC476
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. The petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Rederessal Commission, New Delhi (for short `National Commission') wherein and whereunder it has directed the appellant to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of filing of petition in favour of the respondent. Leave granted.FACTS:2. The Respondent had applied for loan on 03.03.1990 to the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (in short `Corporation') for setting up a manufacturing unit of plastic doors, windows etc. The Corporation after considering the request made, had sanctioned term loan of Rs. 18,000/- for machinery and also Rs. 1,26,000/- as the working capital limit for the said business. As per the sanction letter, the Corporation was to provide only 75 per cent of the purchase price to the respondent and the remaining share, i.e., 25 per cent was to be contributed by the respondent. The sanc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This matter is squarely covered by our judgement and order passed today, i.e., 26th March, 2010, in the civil appeal arising from S.L.P. (C) No. 3905 of 2008 in the case of Kamal Kumar Agarwal v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal and Ors. Hence, we see no reason to interfere with the order of penalty in this case also. However, we wish to clarify that the Sales Tax Authorities at the 'first checkpost' will not insist that it is the Customs House Agent/Clearing and Forwarding Agent alone who will be authorized to make the Declaration under Rule 211A(1) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995.3. Subject to above, this civil appeal stands also dismissed with no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2010(3)SC390
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned Counsel on both sides.3. In this civil appeal arising out of special leave petition, we are required to consider the scope and effect of Section 68(3) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 ['Act', for short] read with Sub-rule (6) of Rule 211A of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 [`Rules', for short].4. On 8th September, 2001, M/s. Sanman Trade Impex Private Limited, Mumbai, appointed the appellant as it's Customs House Agent [CHA] to clear the consignment of goods imported from Hamburg. To enable the appellant to clear the consignment, M/s. Sanman Trade Impex Private Limited sent all the relevant documents required for getting the goods cleared from Kolkata to Mumbai. M/s. Sanman Trade Impex Private Limited also forwarded copy of the Declaration in Form 44A, duly endorsed, to the appellant to be produced before the Sales Tax Authority posted at Haldia [for short, `first checkpost']. M/s. Sanman Trade Impex Private Limited appointe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(2)SCALE198
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 15779 and 19890 of 2009.2. These appeals emanate out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of Uttaranchal High Court. On 31st August, 2007, the appellant herein invited bids for turn- key execution of the Tehri Pump Storage Plant, Phase-II. After the pre-bid conference and amendments four pre-qualification bids were submitted on 29th December, 2007 by respondent No. 1 - Alstom Hydro France, Patel Engineering, Sumitomo Corporation, Japan and Voith Seimens as leaders of their respective consortia. Initially respondents 1 and 2 along with Sumitomo Corporation, Japan were qualified, however, subsequently the bid of Sumitomo Corporation was declined as non-responsive. Thus there were two parties in the fray, they being respondents 1 and 2 herein. These two gave two price options. However, respondent No. 1 filed a Writ Petition being W.P. No. 167 of 2009 in the Uttarakhand High Court on two grounds, namely, (a) that respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2010(3)SC482
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. Leave Granted.2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.03.2008 passed by the Calcutta High Court under its ordinary original civil jurisdiction whereby the High Court dismissed the application G.A. No. 800 of 2008 in C.S. No. 14 of 2008 moved by the appellant herein under Chapter XIIIA of the Rules on the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court for a summary judgment.3. The issue and the controversy that falls for consideration in the present appeal deals with the interpretation of the provisions of Sub-section 4A of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The question that arises for our consideration is whether the fair rent in respect of a tenancy which subsists for 20 years or more in respect of the premises constructed in or before the year 1984 and used for commercial purpose is required to be determined by the Rent Controller or whether the same would stand automatically determined under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(2)SCALE193
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.2. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are recapitulated as under:The deceased was an engineering graduate working as a Branch Manager in Fancy Traders Company at Bangalore. He had gone to Velpucharla from Bangalore on the eve of Sankranti festival. On 11.1.1993 at about 11.00 a.m., the deceased, namely, Manam Yasovardhana, along with one Tummala Nageswara Rao had gone to Gannavaram Village on the scooter bearing No. AP-16-D-699. In the evening, they were returning to Velpucharla and when they reached the District Electrical Stores, Vatluru, N.H. 5 road at about 6.30 p.m. while the deceased was driving the scooter on the left side of the road slowly and cautiously, the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP-Z-1247 drove in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and while proceeding towards Eluru hit the scooter from behind, as a result of which the deceased who was driving the scooter died on th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. The decision of the Full Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is challenged before us.2. Heard learned Attorney General for India and also Mr. Harish Salve, learned senior counsel for the respondents.3. The Act passed by the A.P. Legislature giving 4% reservation to Group 'E' of the Backward Classes was challenged before the High Court and the same was struck down by the High Court on various counts. As several Constitutional issues are involved in these appeals, as an interim measure, we direct that for the time being, reservation of 4% be extended first to the 14 categories mentioned in the Schedule appended to the Act (The Andhra Pradesh Reservation in favour of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes of Muslims Act, 2007)(Act No. 26 of 2007), excluding creamy layer. This is a temporary measure till the matter is finally decided.4. These matters are referred to the Constitution Bench to be listed in the 2nd week of August 2010 along with C.A. No. 7513/2005 for appro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(2)SCALE184
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 13.10.2008 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter, `National Commission') which upheld the concurrent finding of the District and State Consumer Forums that the car at the time of the accident was being driven on hire and was outside the scope of the insurance policy.3. The appellant who is the original complainant had taken a comprehensive insurance policy in respect of his private car being No. WB-34C/1919 vide policy No. 311701/3/99/7172 of 1999 and the complainant paid the insurance premium duly.4. As per the complainant, United Bank of India's regional office is his tenant and many of its employees are known to him. One of its employees had approached the complainant to hand over the aforesaid vehicle for a few hours for urgent use by the employees of the Bank. The complainant handed the aforesaid vehicle by way of a good gesture and did not ta...
Tag this Judgment!