Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted.2. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order passed by the High Court of Calcutta whereby Civil First Appeal No.290 of 1986 filed by the respondent-tenant has been allowed, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court set aside and the suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff- appellant against the defendant-respondent dismissed.3. A residential premise comprising two rooms with a gallery situate at the first floor bearing no.95-A, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta and owned by Gauri Devi Trust of which the appellants are trustees was let out to the respondent-tenant on a monthly rental of Rs.225/-. One of the conditions that governed the jural relationship between the parties was that the tenant shall not make any additions or alterations in the premises in question without obtaining the prior permission of the landlord in writing. Certain differences appear to have arisen between the parties with regard to the mode of payment of rent as also with regard to repa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
R.M. Lodha, J.1. This appeal raises the question of the competence of the commanding officer of the accused, who signed and issued the charge sheet, to convene and conduct the summary court-martial against that very accused.2. The above question arises in this way. The respondent, Dinesh Prasad, joined the 11th Assam Rifles as washerman/rifleman in 1995. For the period between 26.07.1998 and 11.10.2000 (FN), he absented himself from unit unauthorisedly while in active service. On 03.08.2001, Col. A.S. Sehrawat, Commandant, under his signature served a charge sheet under Section 39(a) of the Army Act, 1950 (for short, 'Army Act') on the respondent for the absence without leave for 808 days. The Commandant constituted summary court- martial to try the respondent for the above charge. The respondent pleaded guilty to the charge before the summary court-martial. The summary court- martial, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, passed an order on 04.08.200...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The question before us is whether the appellant murdered his wife Remani or whether she committed suicide. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Trial Judge and affirmed by the High Court that the case was one of murder and not of suicide.The facts:2. The appellant and Remani had been married for about four years. They had two children, the second child having been born just about three months before the murder of Remani.3. There was a history of matrimonial discord between the parties. Remani believed that the appellant was having illicit relations with the wife of his elder brother which seems to have been the cause of conflict. At one stage Remani had even left the matrimonial home. However, on an application having been filed by the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights, the matter was settled between the parties and Remani went back to the matrimonial home. Unfortunately, it appears that even thereafter, matrimonial disputes took place between ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2013)1SCC297
R.M. LODHA, J.1. The Vishaka [Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others; [(1997) 6 SCC 241]] judgment came on 13.8.1997. Yet,15 years after the guidelines were laid down by this Court for the prevention and redressal of sexual harassment and their due compliance under Article 141 of the Constitution of India until such time appropriate legislation was enacted by the Parliament, many women still struggle to have their most basic rights protected at workplaces. The statutory law is not in place. The Protection of Women Against Sexual Harassment at Work Place Bill, 2010 is still pending in Parliament though Lok Sabha is said to have passed that Bill in the first week of September, 2012. The belief of the Constitution framers in fairness and justice for women is yet to be fully achieved at the workplaces in the country.2. This group of four matters – in the nature of public interest litigation – raises principally the grievance that women continue to be victims of sex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. This special leave petition has been filed against the order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated 9.9.2011 in RP No.96/2011 in RFA No.427 of 2006. On 20.1.2012 notice was issued on the special leave petition as well as on the prayer of interim relief. The respondent entered appearance AND filed a detailed counter affidavit AND raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the special leave petition.2. Shri Rajesh Mahale, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner had earlier challenged the judgment AND order dated 12.11.2008 in RFA No.427 of 2006 before this Court. The same came up for hearing before this Court on 4.12.2009 AND the respondent entered appearance AND opposed the petition. This Court, while condoning the delay in filing SLP, dismissed the SLP on the same day. Later the petitioners filed Review Petition NO.96 of 2011 for reviewing the Judgment dated 12.11.2008 in RFA No.427 of 2006 before the High Court of Karna...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether the High Court was justified in issuing a writ of quo warranto holding that the appellant has no authority in continuing as Chairperson of U.P. State Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short 'the Commission') on the ground that the Selection Committee had not complied with sub-section (5) of Section 85 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act').3. The post of the Chairperson of the Commission fell vacant on 21.10.2008. The government of Uttar Pradesh, in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 85(1) of the Act, constituted a Selection Committee vide notification dated 22.12.2008 consisting of three members headed by a retired judge of the High Court AND two other members i.e. Chief Secretary of the State of U.P. AND Chairman of the Central Electricity Commission for finalizing the selection of the Chairperson. Applications were invited intimating various authorities in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Leave granted.2. We are, in this appeal, concerned with the legality AND propriety of an order passed by the High Court of Allahabad in a disposed of Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition.3. Facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:The marriage of the appellant AND 1st respondent took place in the year 1997 according to the Muslim rites AND customs AND out of that wedlock three children were born. According to the appellant, 1st respondent married again for a third time. During the subsistence of the appellant's marriage, 1st Respondent kept on harassing the appellant demANDing dowry, which resulted in the lodgment of an F.I.R. by the appellant's brother, being F.I.R. No. 72 of 2003, on 5.8.2003 AND a case was registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 324, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) AND Sections 3 AND 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against 1st respondent AND his family members. The case was later transferred to the Ladies Police Station, Rakab Ga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Dipak Misra, J.Leave granted.2. Despite many a pronouncement in the field, it still remains a challenging situation warranting sensitive as well as dispassionate exercise how to determine the incalculable sum in calculable terms of money in cases of personal injuries. In such assessment neither sentiments nor emotions have any role. It has been stated in Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associate Collieries Ltd. [1942 AC 601] that it is a matter of Pounds, Shillings AND Pence. There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act') stipulates that there should be grant of "just compensation". Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine "just compensation" which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, AND simultaneously, should not be a p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals arise out the judgment and orders dated 2nd July, 2012, 6th July, 2012 and 6th August, 2012, passed by the Delhi High Court in Crl. M.C. No.2180 of 2012.3. By virtue of the first order dated 2nd July, 2012, the High Court issued notice on the question whether the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was competent to remand the accused beyond 15 days for offences under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Notice was also issued to the learned Additional Solicitor General since the case involved interpretation of the provisions of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the abovementioned Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Proceedings pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Central-II, Delhi, in CR No.86 of 2012, were also stayed till the next date of hearing and the matter was directed to be listed on 9th October, 2012. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2013)1SCC283
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Leave granted.2. We are, in this appeal, concerned with the question whether the appellant is legally entitled to be intervened in a claim petition filed by the 3rd respondent herein under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short 'Tribunal Act').3. The claim petition OA No. (1) 2 of 2010 was preferred by the 3rd respondent against the Southern AND Eastern Central Railways before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench claiming an amount of Rs.9,46,85,726/- together with the interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment AND also for other consequential reliefs.4. In the claim petition, the appellant herein filed I.A. 3/2011 for intervention claiming to be an interested party stating that its presence is necessary for a proper adjudication of the claim. I.A.4/2011 was also preferred by the 2nd respondent herein Central Railway to implead three other parties, namely Subham Sugar Agencie...
Tag this Judgment!