Court : Supreme Court of India
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Leave granted.2. In this appeal, the appellant Indian Drugs & Pharmaceutical Ltd. (IDPL) challenges the judgment of Delhi High Court whereby the Writ Petition filed by respondent, Famy Care and another was allowed. The High Court passed the following operative order while allowing the writ petition:We quash the Rate Contract No. S-140013/4/2008-OP/100 dated 2nd December, 2008 awarded by respondent No. 1 in favour of IDPL, respondent No. 2 herein, to the extent that it awards 175 lakhs cycles of other OCP brands apart from Mala-D in the abovestated quantity of 25 lakhs cycles. The writ petition is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.3. The respondent, Famy Care Company is engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of family planning products including Oral Contraceptives Pills (hereinafter 'OCPs'). They have been supplying these OCPs to the Union of India. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 distribute these OCPs under the family welfare programmes by Union of India (r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2010)5SCC645
Deepak Verma, J.1. Narration of facts of the aforesaid criminal appeals arising out of common judgment and order passed by High court of Karnataka, Bangalore, in three criminal appeals, one preferred by convicted accused, other two by State of Karnataka, would reveal shocking and sad plight as to how a labour dispute can turn hostile culminating into a civil disobedience, thus, snatching away lives of two young women and injuring several others all working in BPL Engineering Ltd. (hereinafter shall be referred to as `BPL')2. Before coming to the prosecution story, it is necessary to give background facts of the case so as to appreciate as to how charter of demands, of workers of Trade Union had taken an ugly shape causing death of two employees and injuries to several others.3. BPL has eight units spread over different parts of Bangalore city, carrying on its business activities. It appears, looking to the nature of activities that are carried on by BPL, large numbers of workers, mostl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Harjit Singh Bedi, J.1. This appeal by way of special leave arises out of the following facts:2. On 16th August 1999 at about 8.30 p.m. Ravubha the complainant and his wife Lilaba along with their son Indrasinh and his wife and children were at their residential Flat No. 28, Madhuben Apartments, village Aduput, District Kutch. Indrasinh, however, left the house for purchasing a beedi from the adjoining shop. Ravubha, however, called out to him to return to the house immediately and a few seconds later Ravubha and Lilaba heard Indrasinh seeking help. They rushed out of their apartment and saw that Indrasinh had been caught by the first accused Balchandra Parmanand Panchal and his son Hitesh Balchandra whereas the second son Dilpesh Balchandra, the appellant herein, was inflicting knife blows on him. On seeing Ruvabha and Lilaba the three assailants ran away after throwing the knife and its scabbard on the floor. A neighbour Kishorebhai also reached the place immediately and helped the o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
H.L. Dattu, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Bombay in Appeal No. 326 of 2000, arising out of orders passed in Originating Summons No. 871 of 1999 dated 30.4.2001 in Suit No. 3659 of 1999.2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:The suit property is a residential building known as 'Vandan' having a ground and three floors situated at Ranade Road, near Shivaji Park, Dadar, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit building').3. The deceased, Shri Dattatraya Raghunath Chowdhari, the testator was the owner of the suit property having purchased the same under a registered sale deed from one Shri Kihimkar out of his personal earnings. At that point of time, it had only a ground and two floors. The building also had two garages on the ground floor. The possession of the vacant second floor was given to the purchaser. The testator Shri Dattatraya constructed a third floor as a single unit with one common entrance, hall, toilet ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Altamas Kabir, J.1. This is a petition filed by the wife of the respondent under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of Matrimonial Petition No. 9 of 2008 pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Vasco-da-Gama, Goa, to a Court of competent jurisdiction in Delhi.2. The case of the petitioner is that she is a Sikh by religion and was born in Kabul in Afghanistan on 16th October, 1984. Till January, 1998, she pursued her primary education in Afghanistan. Her family shifted to Delhi in the month of February, 1988, where she continued to live with her grandparents. She thereafter continued her studies at the Guru Harkrishan Public School, Nanak Piao, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi, and continued her education there till 1999.3. The petitioner's father who had stayed behind in Kabul on account of his business commitments till 1992, finally shifted to London where he was granted Afghan Refugee Asylum by the United Kingdom. In May, 2001, the petitioner also migrated to U...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Leave granted.2. The question that calls to be determined in this appeal by special leave is : on consideration of the report of the Inquiring Authority wherein misconduct of the respondent has been proved and after following the prescribed procedure, the Disciplinary Authority ordered his removal from service and the departmental appeal against that order has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, whether Central Administrative Tribunal was justified, on the facts found, in interfering with the order of punishment on the ground that co-delinquents were awarded lesser punishment in departmental appeals and directing the appellant to reconsider the whole matter and give the respondent the same treatment which has been meted out to the co-delinquents.3. Gulabhia M. Lad - respondent - while functioning as Land Reforms Officer--I , Dadra and Nagar Haveli for the period October 14, 1997 to April 27, 1998 allegedly granted occupancy rights of the government land situate ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDERAltamas Kabir, J.1. This Appeal, which arises out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6276 of 2007, is directed against the judgment and order of the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 898 of 1997, challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhar, in Sessions Trial No. 366 of 1994. By virtue of the said judgment, the Appellants, along with two other co-accused, were convicted under Sections 302/34, 326/34 and 324/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC, three years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 326/34 IPC and one year's rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 324/34 IPC along with further sentence in default of payment of fine. It may be mentioned that the Special Leave Petition filed by one of the other co-accused, Bhagwan, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. Leave granted in all the cases.2. The appellant is a well known actress who has approached this Court to seek quashing of criminal proceedings pending against her. As many as 23 Criminal Complaints were filed against her, mostly in the State of Tamil Nadu, for the offences contemplated under Sections 499, 500 and 505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter 'IPC'] and Sections 4 and 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 [hereinafter 'Act 1986']. The trigger for the same were some remarks made by the appellant in an interview to a leading news magazine and later on the same issue was reported in a distorted manner in another periodical. Faced with the predicament of contesting the criminal proceedings instituted against her in several locations, the appellant had approached the High Court of Madras, praying for the quashing of these proceedings through the exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. This civil appeal arises out of an order passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Suo Motu Contempt Case No. 974 of 1999 dated 19th February, 2002. By the impugned order, the High Court held that the appellants have committed act of contempt under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India and sentenced each of them to one month's simple imprisonment. However, in the interest of justice, the High Court has observed that the sentence shall remain suspended for a period of one year. It further observed that if, during the period of one year, the contemnors are punished again in a contempt proceeding, the order sentencing them shall become operative automatically; however, if they are not convicted for contempt during the period of one year, the sentence of imprisonment awarded against them shall not be carried out.2. This Court, while entertaining the special leave petition, granted an interim o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant and respondents 1 and 2 are companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Wescare Care (I) Ltd., the first respondent (for short 'Wescare'), is in the business of setting up and operating/managing windfarms and generation of power from Wind Electric Generators. Subuthi Finance Ltd - second respondent ('Subuthi' for short) is a promoter of the appellant company - Indowind Energy Ltd., (referred to as 'Indowind'). On 24.2.2006 an agreement of sale was entered into between Wescare and Subuthi. The agreement described 'Wescare (India) Ltd. including its subsidiary RCI Power Ltd' as the 'seller/Wescare'. It described Subuthi Finance Ltd. and its nominee as 'buyer' and as the 'promoters of Indowind Energy Ltd.' Under the said agreement, the seller agreed to transfer to the buyer certain business assets of the seller for a consideration of Rs. 98.19 crores, of which Rs. 24.19 crores was payable in cash and Rs. 74 crores by issue of ...
Tag this Judgment!