Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Following questions of law projected, are required to be adjudicated by this Court in the aforesaid Appeal:-(i)Whether import of MS Pipes by Appellants was pursuant to a term of contracts between Appellant No.1 and National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (for short 'N.T.P.C.').(ii)Whether import of said MS Pipes and supply thereof by the Appellant No. 1 to N.T.P.C. C.A. No. 1123 of 2003 Constitutes an integral and inseparable part of the Contracts between them.2. Brief history of the case is as under:-Appellant No. 1 is a Limited Company duly incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the business of Works contract. Appellant No. 2 was working for gain as Senior Manager of Appellant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company').3. Tenders were invited by N.T.P.C on 08.01.1988 for submitting bids for Ash Handling Plant Package for its Farakka Super Thermal Power Project, Stage-II, by way of International Competitive Bidding, popularly known as Global T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1) Application for intervention is allowed. 2) Leave granted.3) This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated 19.07.2010 whereby the learned single Judge confirmed the order dated 15.05.2010 passed by the District Judge-VII/NE-cum- Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in S.C. No. 26/10, RC SII 2005 S0024. By the said order, the Additional Sessions Judge has ordered the framing of charges against the appellant for offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 153A, 295, 302, 395, 427, 436, 339 and 505 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and for the offence under Section 109 read with Sections 147, 148, 149, 153A, 295, 302, 395, 427, 435, 339 and 505 IPC, besides framing of a separate charge for offence punishable under Section 153A IPC and rejected the application for discharge filed by the appellant.4) Brief Facts:-(a) The present case arises out of 1984 anti-Sikh Riot cases in which thousands...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. This appeal is against the final Judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore, in Criminal Appeal No: 469/2000 wherein the order of conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC, passed by the Special Judge (S.C & S.T Prevention of Atrocities) and Additional Sessions Judge, Indore has been confirmed.2. The deceased Jayawati was the second wife of Machi Singh. The prosecution version of the tragic episode, leading to the death (murder) of Jayawati (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) has been primarily narrated by Hukum Singh (PW 11). He is the son of Machi Singh and the deceased. The first wife of Machi Singh, Kaushalya Devi had given birth to 13 children. She had produced 8 sons, namely, Surendra Singh, Narendra Singh, Balwant Singh, Nanak Singh, Ranjit Singh @ Dara (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), Jasbir Singh, Santosh Singh, Trilochan Singh (PW 12), and five daughters. 3. The deceased Jayawati used to resi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Both the writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner, namely M/s.Tamil Nadu Petroproducts Limited, Chennai. The issue involved in both the cases being one and the same, both the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.2. In W.P.No.28457 of 2008 the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 3.8.2007 calling for returns for re-assessment of income for the Assessment Year 2001-2002 insofar as escaped assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. In W.P.No.19260 of 2009 the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.11.2008 overruling the objection filed by the petitioner for the notice dated 3.8.2007.4. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions are as follows:(a) The petitioner Company is engaged in the business of manufacture and export of Linear Alkyl Benzene and Epichlorhydrin and it is eligible for claiming deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of its export activities. Petitioner is also havin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Special Leave Petition(C) No. 3009 of 2009 has been preferred against the order dated 31st July, 2008 passed in Writ Appeal No. 383 of 2008. In Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 3029-3031 of 2009, petitioners assail the order dated 31st July, 2008 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No. 350 of 2008 and Writ Appeal No. 356 of 2008. Writ Appeal Nos. 350, 356 and 383 of 2008 have been dismissed by a common order dated 31st July, 2008 whereby the appeals preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 25th February, 2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 1295 of 2004 have been dismissed on the ground that the petitioners have no locus standi to prefer appeals and while doing so, it has been observed that in case their rights in any manner are affected, they have to agitate the same by filing separate writ petition. By order dated 5th September, 2008, passed in MCC No. 689 of 2008, the review application preferred against the aforesaid order has been dismissed.2. Writ App...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. The Petitioner seeks writ of certiorarified mandamus seeking to quash the proceedings of the Respondent in IRD/184/1/2000 dated 3.5.2000 dismissing him from service and to direct the Respondent Bank to reinstate him into the service of the Respondent Bank with all attendant benefits. 2. The Petitioner claims to be belonging to KONDA REDDY community. The Petitioner was appointed as Clerk-cum-Sheriff in Respondent Bank on 2.5.1980 against a reserved quota for Scheduled Tribe community. He produced community certificate dated 31.8.1978 issued by the Tahsildar, Tirunelveli. Later the Petitioner was confirmed and promoted as Special Cadre Assistant. In the year 1988, a complaint was received by the Bank stating that the information given by the Petitioner that he belongs to KONDA REDDY community was wrong. Therefore, by order dated 25.3.1988, the Respondent bank requested the Collector to enquire into the matter. The Sub-Collector, Cheran Madevi conducted thorough enquiry and forwarded t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. The Respondent No.1 herein, Shri N. Baskaran, and the Union Public Service Commission filed two separate writ petitions, being W.P. Nos.41237 of 2005 and 10771 of 2006, challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, on 7th December, 2005 in O.A. No.689 of 2004. The relief prayed for by the Petitioner herein, who was the Applicant in the Original Application, was for a direction upon the Union Public Service Commission (U.P.S.C.) to appoint him to the post of Principal in a Higher Secondary School in Pondicherry under the Scheduled Caste category instead of Shri N. Baskaran, pursuant to order No.F.1/114/2003-R.III dated 16th July, 2004, issued by the said Respondent. The said relief was subsequently amended in the following manner :- "Under these circumstances, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to implead the third respondent as party respondent in O.A.No.689/2004 so as to quash the appointment order issued by the 3rd responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the final judgment and order dated 2nd December, 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 4703 of 2004 whereby the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants and thereby maintaining the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC') with modification of sentence of death by substituting it to imprisonment for life. The conviction and sentences awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Meerut against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with 149, IPC have been confirmed. Hence this appeal.2. The main question that arises for our consideration in the instant appeal is whether the courts below committed any serious error in convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302? Whether the courts below committed any error in convicting the appel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Permission to file SLPs is granted. Taken on board. State of U.P. and their officials aggrieved by the interim orders dated 16.07.2010 and 25.08.2010 passed in W.P. No. 1872 of 1986 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow have filed the above SLPs. W.P. No. 1872 of 1986 was filed by one Dr. Neeraj Chaubey for redressal of his grievance regarding an advertisement for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor. In the said advertisement, the eligibility criteria was fixed as teaching experience of 7 years whereas according to the Statutory Rules, the teaching experience required is only 5 years. The aforesaid writ petition was not listed as per the directions of the Division Bench of the High Court which passed the impugned order. The Registry of the High Court was directed to show cause as well as a cost of Rs. 2,000/- was also awarded on the Joint Registrar of the High Court. In response to the aforesaid direction, one of the officials of the Registr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Appellant herein challenges the judgment of the High Court affirming the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. The Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/accused Sunder Singh for offences under Sections 302, 307 and 436, Indian Penal Code (IPC). While he was awarded the death sentence along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year, he was given the punishment of seven years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year separately on the other two counts.2. The incident in this case had taken place on 30.6.1989 in village Mahargheti, Patwari Circle Dangoli in the newly formed District Bageshwar (which was part of District Almora at the time of incident). In this ghastly incident, Pratap Singh, his wife Nandi Devi, his elder son Balwant Singh (aged about 28 years), another son Prem Singh (aged about 19 years), daughter Kamla (aged about 16 years) lost their lives while wife of Ba...
Tag this Judgment!