Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : air2010sc327; air2010sc111
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this case, the tenant's appeal being Civil Appeal No. 2663 of 2004 was dismissed by this Court by our order dated November 04, 2009 and we gave the tenant nine months' time from that date to vacate the premises in question. Review Petition filed by the tenant was also dismissed on March 25, 2010.2. We are informed that the tenant has not vacated the premises in question. Hence, this contempt petition. Accordingly, we direct that the tenant-Anderson Wright & Co. shall be evicted from 7, Red Cross Place, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata-700 001 forthwith by police force. The Contempt Petition is disposed of....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Leave granted.2. Having failed to convince the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court that order dated 29.7.2008 passed by respondent No. 3 - Chief Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Regional Office Loni, District Ghaziabad (U.P.) cancelling the panel/merit-list prepared by the Selection Committee on 29.8.2007 for appointment of LPG distributor at Nawabganj, District Farukhabad (U.P.) is vitiated by an error of law, the appellant has filed this appeal.3. In response to advertisement dated 9.2.2004 issued by respondent No. 3, ten persons including the appellant and respondent No. 4 submitted applications for appointment as LPG distributor at Nawabgunj. The Selection Committee interviewed the eligible candidates on 29.8.2007 and awarded marks in accordance with the criteria specified in paragraph 13 of the brochure issued by respondent No. 2 - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The appellant was placed at No. 1 in the panel/merit-list prepared...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(6)SCC562
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. In this Special Leave Petition, the Petitioner, S.P. Gupta, has challenged the order dated 19th February, 2008, passed by the learned Single Judge 2 of the Delhi High Court in Crl.M.C. No.847 of 2005, dismissing the Petitioner's application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the Criminal Complaint No.932 of 1992, instituted against the Petitioner and the other co-accused by the Complainant (father of the Respondent) under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. By an order dated 7th April, 1992, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, issued summons to the Petitioner, Accused No.1 Smt. Motian Devi Lamba and Accused No.4 Shri G.R. Singhal under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The Revision Petition filed against the said order issuing summons having been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, on 8th February, 2005, the Petitioner moved the Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court. 3 3. H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
H.L. Dattu, J.1) This appeal by special leave is limited to a particular question only, namely, correctness of the conviction of the appellant Arun Raj for an offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and the propriety of the sentence passed thereunder by the Presiding Officer of General Court Martial under the Indian Army Act. The short facts are these - The appellant joined the Indian Army in the year 1983 and 1in the year 1998 he was working as Ex-Signalman (Lance Nayak) of 787 (Independent) Air Defence Brigade Signal Company. On 22.3.1998, one Mr. S.S.B Rao (PW-4) was the Section In-Charge of Operator Section. At about 1 PM, Mr. Rao returned from lunch and the appellant reported to him that Havildar R.C Tiwari (deceased) and Havildar Inderpal (PW-3) abused him by using the word "Gandu". On Mr. Rao making an inquiry into the same, they replied in the negative, despite the appellant making repeated assertion that they insulted him using the said word. The appellant also brought ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
R.M. Lodha, J.: 1.Leave granted.2. Of the two appeals by special leave, one has been preferred by Shimnit Utsch India Private Limited (for short, Shimnit) being aggrieved by the judgment dated June 27, 2006 of the Calcutta High Court whereby the Division Bench dismissed their appeal and affirmed the order dated February 20, 2006 of the Single Judge dismissing their writ petition and the other at the instance of M/s Tonnjes Eastern Security Technologies Private Limited (for short, `Tonnjes) challenging the order dated March 23, 2010 whereby the Division Bench of Orissa High Court dismissed their writ petition.The Issue3. The common question that arises for consideration in the two appeals is, whether after decision of this Court in Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India and Ors. (2005) 1 SCC 679 wherein the conditions provided for experience in the field of registration plates in the foreign countries and a minimum annual turnover from such business were upheld as essentia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. This is a statutory appeal under Section 19(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Order XXI Rule 15(1)(e) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 from the final judgment and sentence dated 3.9.2008 of the High Court of Patna in Original Cr. Misc.(DB) No. 8 of 2008.2. The said Original Misc. (DB) No. 8 of 2008 was a reference through a communication dated 22.4.2008 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Khagaria about an incident which happened in his Court on 13.2.2008. The High Court treated the same a reference made under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter, 'the Act') made by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Khagaria (hereinafter, 'the Judge').3. The reference by the Judge was made for the reason that during the course of the Sessions Trial No. 46/93 on 13.02.2008, five of the alleged contemnors were on one side and the sixth contemnor, the appellant Ranveer Yadav, on the other side, and all of them disrupted the proceeding...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
A.K. Patnaik, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 19.02.2001 of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in L.P.A. No. 127 of 2000 (for short `the impugned judgment').2. The relevant facts briefly are that land measuring 1.30 acres comprising Revisional Survey Plot Nos. 1501, 1512, 1513, 1514 and 1527 of Khata No. 229 in village Paiga in District Bhojpur in Bihar was sold by Brij Bihari Singh and Rash Bihari Singh to respondent No. 1 by a registered Sale Deed on 04.08.1980. Soon thereafter, the appellant filed an application before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar, Arrah, under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') claiming that he was a co-sharer and a boundary raiyat in respect of the land and that the land be transferred to him. The appellant also deposited the purchase money together with 10% extra of the purchase money in accordance with the proviso to Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
H.L. Dattu, J.1. The Petitioner has filed the present Arbitration Petition under Sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is prayed in the petition to appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.2. The Petitioner is a company wholly owned by the Government of the Republic of South Africa, duly incorporated as per the laws of the Republic of South Africa, with its main business address at Denel Head Office, Nelmapius Drive, Irene, Pretoria, Republic of South Africa.3. The Respondent is a Corporation duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Pune, Maharashtra. It is a Government of India Enterprise, Ministry of Defence, Government of India.4. The Petitioner - company had several internal divisions, one of them being Denel Eloptro at the time when the contracts between Petitioner and Respondent were entered into. The name of the said division was c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDERDetermination of right to mining iron ore, a natural resource, has reached this Court in second round of litigation. Respondent No.1 in both the Special Leave Petitions had challenged the Order of State of Andhra Pradesh issued on 25.11.2009, suspending the mining operations of the respondent No.1-Company (R-1 is different in both SLPs), based on the proceedings of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Hyderabad dated 6.11.2009, 20.11.2009 and letter dated 23.11.2009 issued by Member of Central Empowered Committee. Against the interim order passed in favour of the respondent No.1-Company by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, State had preferred to approach this Court in SLP(C)Nos.35169-35170 of 2009 titled Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. M/s Obulapurm Mining Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. on the ground that no case was made out by respondent No.1-Company for grant of injunction, against those orders challenged in the writ petition and therefore, those interim orders passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
P. Sathasivam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 08.02.2006 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in C.R.A. Nos. 339 and 354 of 2002, in and by which the High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellants herein under Section 302 and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment.2 Case of the prosecution in brief:i) According to the prosecution, on 21.10.1982, at about 1 p.m., the appellants and few others armed with deadly weapons like spears, axes, bombs etc., launched an attack on the informant and his associates. Finding their lives at stake, the witnesses scampered through the fields. While chasing the witnesses, the miscreants viz., Lalu Dealer and Salim threw bombs at regular intervals. A bomb hurled by them struck a person called Tulu. As he fell into the ground, he was encircled by six persons. Finding the injured in helpless condition, Lalu the first appellant struck him with a spear. Another accused called Rausan also struck him with a d...
Tag this Judgment!