Court : Supreme Court of India
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. Leave granted.2. In the present appeals, the appellants have challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 12.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay whereby the High Court dismissed all the three Civil Applications preferred by the appellants herein seeking recall of an earlier order dated 13.06.2006 passed by the High Court which was based on the consent terms duly signed by all the parties.3. In order to properly appreciate the precise nature and scope of the controversy arising in the present appeals, it would be appropriate as well as expedient to set out a brief statement of pertinent facts. The original appellant, Budhiya Vesta Patel, was the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants. Budhiya Vesta Patel was appointed as a watchman by one R.K. Tiwari, who was cultivating grass on the suit property since 1954-55, to take care of the suit property and for this a Kachcha shed on the suit property was provided to him. In due...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. Leave granted. Heard.2. These appeals relate to Plot No. 1043/2/1 measuring 1.43 acres claimed by the appellant (Gram Sabha, Dhania Mau), Tehsil & District Jaunpur, U.P. as Talab (tank) vesting in it. One Ram Manohar claimed Sirdari rights in regard to the said land and filed objections under Section 9(A)(ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 ('Act' for short). The Consolidation Officer, Jaunpur, by order dated 8.9.1972 held that the said land was a Talab land used for irrigation purposes by the public and the name of Ram Manohar entered in regard to the said plot should be deleted and the land should be entered in the Gram Sabha Khata. The appeal filed by Ram Manohar was dismissed by the Settlement Officer by order dated 11.1.1974. Ram Manohar challenged the order of the Appellate Authority by filing a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur. The revision petition was also dismissed by order dated 7.8.1976. The legal representa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2010)5SCC425
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The respondent is a company incorporated on 9.4.2003 under the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant (Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., for short 'APTDC') is a 'government company' within the meaning of that expression in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. According to the respondent, the parties had entered into two agreements in regard to a property known as Hill View Guest House, Alipiri, Tirupathi, measuring 1.08 acres. The first was a lease agreement under which APTDC granted a lease of the said property to the respondent for a term of 33 years; and the second was a development and management agreement under which APTDC entrusted to the respondent, the development of a Three-Star Hotel in Hill View Guest House property on construction, operation and management basis. According to the respondent, both agreements contained a provision for disputes resolution (Clause 17 of the lease agreement and Article 18 of the management agreement) pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Petitioner No. 1 (hereinafter `the petitioner') and the respondent used to be husband and wife. The petitioner married her after the death of his first wife who had left behind a two and a half year old son. The petitioner and the respondent are now separated by a decree of divorce obtained by the former. The respondent has filed an appeal against the decree but there is no stay in the pending appeal.2. On July 15, 2003 the petitioner's son Parag (eleven and a half years old) from his first wife died by falling into a well. The petitioner was then away from home. He suspected that the respondent had killed the child from his first wife and instituted a criminal case against her under Section 302 of the Penal Code. The respondent was put on trial in which her two sons from the petitioner deposed against her. Anyway, the trial ended in her acquittal.3. The death of the petitioner's son from his first wife completely broke down his marriage with the respondent and he eventually ob...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.02.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, whereby the High Court affirmed the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the private respondent No. 1 herein and holding that necessary correction be made in the seniority list of the Civil Engineers and recast the same by accepting the date of appointment of the respondent No. 1 as on 02.05.1989 and those of the appellants herein from their respective dates of regularization and that the ad-hoc period of service rendered by them as Assistant Engineers would not be counted towards their seniority in the rank of Assistant Engineer.3. The appellants herein are aggrieved by the aforesaid directions issued by the learned Single Judge which were subsequently affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court, since by the aforesaid direction they are losing the benefit of se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Issue notice.2. Mrs. Kamaldeep Gulati, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 accepts notice on his behalf. Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, learned Counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No. 2. four weeks' time to file Counter Affidavit. They request for Rejoinder Affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks' thereafter.3. List this matter thereafter.4. The prayer for granting stay is rejected as it has become infructuous....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Deepak Verma, J.1. Leave granted. Arguments heard.2. Even though a short but important and crisp question of interpretation of Section 41(2) of Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Act') arises for our consideration in these Appeals. The provision stands as under:SECTION 41(1) The term of office of the Councillors shall be co-terminus with the duration of the council.(2) A Councillor may resign his office unconditionally at any time by notice in writing in his hand addressed to the Collector and delivered in person and sign before the Collector and then only such resignation shall be effective.(emphasis supplied)This particular Sub-section (2) of Section 41 is required to be interpreted by us in this and the connected matter.3. It is pertinent to mention, prior to amendment carried out sometime in 1994, said Section 41 stood as under:Resignation of Councillors - (1) A Councillor may resign his offi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. Crl. M.P. No. 19538/2009 for permission to file Special Leave Petition is allowed.2. Leave granted in both the appeals.3. These appeals are being disposed of by a common order since the same impugned order dated 09.09.2009 made in MCRLA No. 10625/2009 in SCRLA No. 822/2004 of the High Court of Gujarat is under challenge in both the appeals. The High Court by the impugned order granted stay of the report submitted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 07.09.2009 in Crime No. 8/2004 registered with DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad. The impugned order is challenged by the appellants on various grounds. In order to consider the same it may be just and necessary to notice few relevant facts:4. The appellant in Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7305/2009 is the mother of the deceased Israt Jehan who is alleged to have been killed by the Gujarat Police in an alleged encounter dated 15.06.2004. The appellant in Criminal Appeal @ Crl. M. P. No. 19538/2009 is the f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(3)LC1650(SC)
P. Sathasivam, J.1. These statutory appeals are filed under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 and under Section 379 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the final judgment and order dated 18/20.12.2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 2006 whereby the High Court reversed the order of acquittal dated 21.02.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 105 of 2001 and convicted Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma (appellant in Crl. A. No. 179 of 2007) under Section 302, 201/120B IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC together with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to the family of the victim and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for three years and also sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for four years for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act with a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. Leave granted.2. This matter relates to the appointment of Chowkidars (village watchmen) in Madhepura District, Bihar. The appellants allege that in the pre-constitutional set-up, the practice in Bihar was to appoint village Chowkidars for lifetime who used to work without any leave or retirement. During his illness or absence, any of his family members would assist him in performance of his duties; and when he died or became infirm, usually his family member nominated by him would take over the functions of Chowkidar, though the post was not strictly hereditary. In the post- constitutional set-up, there was a gradual change in the village administration and several lifetime or hereditary or semi-hereditary appointments gave way to regular public service with appointments based on equal opportunity. This Court in Yogender Pal Singh v. Union of India : 1987 (1) SCC 631 held that an opportunity to get into public service should be extended to all citizens equally; t...
Tag this Judgment!