Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(1)KLT17(SN); 2012(2)SCC64; AIR2012SCW234; AIR2012SC486
1. This is an Appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short the 1951 Act). 2. The respondent - Sanjay Shyamrao Dhotre - contested the election from Akola Constituency for the 15th Lok Sabha and was declared elected. 3. The appellant - a voter in the constituency - challenged the election of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as returned candidate) in the election petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. The invalidity of the election of the returned candidate was sought under Section 100(1)(a) of the 1951 Act. The appellant avered in the election petition that the returned candidate was disqualified to contest the election as he was holding the 'office of profit' under the Government company being a Director of the Maharashtra Seeds Corporation (for short Corporation). Section 10 of the 1951 Act and Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution of India were pressed into service by the election petitioner in this regard. 4. The ret...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(1)SCC537; 2012(1)KLT56(SN); AIR2012SCW1; 2012(1)LLN675; 2012(3)SCJ457
1. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the decision of the Union Public Service Commission (for short, `the Commission') to reject the respondent's candidature for the post of Legal Advisor-cum- Standing Counsel in Land and Building Department, Government of NCT of Delhi was legally correct and the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, `the Tribunal') and the Delhi High Court committed an error by nullifying the same. 2. After acquiring Degree in Law from Allahabad University in 1979, the respondent got himself enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. He practiced in the Allahabad High Court from September 1980 to September 1986. Thereafter, he worked as Assistant (Legal), Law Officer, Assistant Director of Estates (Litigation), Vigilance-cum-Legal Officer and Officer on Special duty (Litigation) in different departments of the Central Government for over two decades. 3. In response to Advertisement No.11 issued by the Commi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(2)SCC60; 2012(1)SCC(Cri)740; 2012(1)LW1010; 2012(2)SCJ450; AIR2012SCW730; AIR2012SC466
1. Leave granted. 2. On 3rd August, 1998, the Appellant No.1 filed an Ejectment Application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for eviction of the Respondent from the premises in question. 3. The said Respondent filed Crl. RBT Complaint No.283/19.8.2003/2.8.2005 against the Appellants before the Illaqa Magistrate, under Sections 193, 420, 120-B IPC, for allegedly making false statements in judicial proceedings before the Rent Controller, Amritsar. The statement of the Complainant/Respondent was recorded before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Complainant/ Respondent also filed an application under Sections 193/420/425 IPC before the Rent Controller-cum-J.M. First Class, Amritsar, in Rent Application No.111 of 1998, which had been filed by the Appellant No.1, in which allegations had been made that the Appellant No.1 had made false statements therein. By order dated 14th March, 2005, the Rent Controller disposed of the application filed by the Compla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(1)KLT15(SN); 2012(1)LW705; 2012(3)MLJ141; AIR2012SCW822; 2012(3)SCJ314
1. Leave granted. 2. In these appeals prayer has been made for setting aside the order of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court whereby the applications filed by the appellants for condonation of delay in filing appeals under Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (for short, `the Act') were dismissed along with the appeals filed against order dated 2.8.2007 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange (for short, `the Appellate Tribunal'). Background facts 3. On an information received from the Reserve Bank of India that M/s. Classic Credit Ltd. and M/s. Panther Fincap and Management Services Ltd. had taken loan of 25 lakh shares each of DSQ Industries Ltd. on 1.3.2011 from M/s. Greenfield Investment Ltd, Mauritius and the Indus Ind Bank Ltd with whom M/s. Greenfield Investment Ltd. was maintaining NRE Account had informed that records did not indicate any such transaction, the Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai conducted enquiries from different source...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(2)MLJ(Crl)393; 2012(1)SCC414; 2012(1)SCC(Cri)454; 2012(1)KCCR7(SN); 2012(2)SCJ421; AIR2012SC1856; 2012CriLJ2135
1. These two appeals, by special leave, can be disposed of by a common judgment as they challenge the judgment and order dated 14/3/2005 passed by the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No.130 of 1997 filed by Swami Kannu, Basavaraj, Kumaran, Kanagaraj and Gnanapazham (original accused 1 to 5 respectively) who are hereinafter referred to as A1 to A5 respectively for convenience. 2. In Sessions Case No. 151 of 1993, A1 to A5 were charged for offence punishable under Section 147 of the IPC. A2 and A4 were charged for offence punishable under Section 148 of the IPC. A2 to A5 were charged for offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC. A1 was charged for offence punishable under Section 149 read with Section 341, offence punishable under Section 109 read with section 324 and offence punishable under Section 109 read with Section 302 of the IPC. A4 was charged for offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC. A2, A3 and A5 were charged for offence punishable under Section 149 read...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2011(4)ILR(Ker)807; 2011(4)KLT857; 2012(1)CTC96; 2012(1)KLJ131; 2012(1)LW113; 2012(1)MWN(Civil)232; 2012(2)SCC51,2012(2)MLJ307; 2012(1)SCC(Cri)732; AIR2012SCW465; 2012(1)KCCR20(SC)(SN); 2011(4)KHC722; 2012(2)SCJ853
1) Leave granted. 2) This appeal raises an important question as to the interpretation of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (in short `the Act'). The question posed for consideration is that when a criminal case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 referred to by the Magistrate Court to Lok Adalat is settled by the parties and an award is passed recording the settlement, can it be considered as a decree of a civil court and thus executable? 3) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 24.11.2009 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Petition (C) No. 33013 of 2009 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein. 4) Brief facts: (a) The appellant herein filed a complaint being C.C. No. 1216 of 2007 before the Judicial Ist Class Magistrate Court No.1, Ernakulam against the respondent herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short `the N.I. Act'...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2011(4)ILR(Ker)705; 2012(2)SCC93; AIR2012SCW472; 2012(3)SCJ473
1. The petitioner has filed the present application under Sections 11(4) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with paragraph 2 of the Appointment of the Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of India Scheme, 1996. It is stated that the parties had entered into a legally valid and enforceable Memorandum of Understanding (`MOU') dated 25th September, 2007, providing, inter alia, for the respective obligation of both the parties in connection with the marketing of the cars of the petitioner. Though the term of the MOU was till December, 2007, it was extended by the acts of the parties in terms of Clause 2 of the MOU. 2. The petitioner makes a reference to various requests made by the respondent for supply of cars in terms of MOU on 22nd April, 2008; 24th August, 2008; and 1st April, 2009. The petitioner further claims that some time in September 2009, disputes arose between the parties. Numerous e-mails were exchanged between the parties, apart from the personal discussio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(1)SCC285; 2012(1)LLN671
1. The petitioner herein was inducted into the service of the State Bank of Mysore (hereinafter referred to as, the Bank) as a temporary Sub-Staff in 1985. He was intermittently taken into employment based on the need for such staff. During the year 1994-95, he claims to have rendered more than 240 days of service in a calendar year. Based thereon, he claimed that he be included in the protected category of employees. Having satisfied the protected category criteria, the petitioner applied for absorption as a permanent employee, by citing the example of one Devaraju, by addressing representations to the Bank. It is also the contention of the petitioner, that the employees union of the Bank also addressed a communication dated 13.12.1997 to the management of the Bank requiring it to absorb the petitioner as a permanent employee. Since the representations made by the petitioner, and recommendation made by the employees union of the Bank, did not result in any consideration at the hands o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(1)KLT8(SN); AIR2011SCW6816; 2012(2)SCJ258; 2012(2)MLJ(Crl)141; 2012CriLJ688
1. Leave granted. 2. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.04.2010 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Revision No.669/2000, whereby the High Court acquitted the respondents-accused persons (hereinafter the accused persons ) from all the charges levelled against them under Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (hereinafter the Act ). By this impugned order, the judgment and order passed by the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur and the appellate order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurgaon were set-aside by the High Court in revision. 3. The accused persons were convicted under Section 8 of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year by the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur vide judgment dated 14.09.1998 in Crl. Case No.23/96. On Appeal, this order of conviction and sentence was confirmed and upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(1)KLT4(S.N); 2012(1)LW1; 2012(2)SCC196,2012(1)SCJ513,2012(1)CTC741; 2012(2)SCC196; 2012(1)KCCR6(SN); 2012(1)MWN(Civil)434; 2012(2)MLJ595; AIR2012SCW1101
1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal, by special leave, raises questions of legality of an ex parte decree passed by the trial court and affirmed in first appeal by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. 3. M/s. M.S.S. Food Products--respondent (hereinafter referred to as `plaintiff') sued the appellants (i) Dhariwal Industries Ltd. and (ii) Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal (hereinafter referred to as `defendants') in the court of 1st Additional District Judge, Mandaleshwar (West) Madhya Pradesh for declaration that defendants do not have right to use the mark Manikchand to sell masala, gutka, supari, supari mix or any other goods which is deceptively similar to the mark Malikchand'; for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from dealing in or selling the above articles under the name/brand Manikchand; for rendition of the accounts of profits earned by the defendants by selling the said goods and other consequential reliefs. 4. The case of the plaintiff is this: Prabhudayal Choubey son of...
Tag this Judgment!