Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2013)1SCC205
RANJAN GOGOI, J.1. Leave granted.2. The judgment and order of High Court of Delhi dated 11.4.2012 affirming the order of the learned trial court rejecting the application filed by the appellant for discharge in the criminal prosecution initiated against him has been challenged in the present appeal.3. The above order of the High Court challenged in the present proceeding came to be passed in the following facts:An FIR dated 03.06.1998 was filed by the Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACU.XX/New Delhi alleging commission of the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act') by the appellant during his tenure as the Union Railway Minister from 21.06.1991 to 13.10.1995. Commission of the offence under the aforesaid provision of the Act was alleged on the basis that the appellant had dishonestly made the Managing Directors of RITES (Rail India Technical & Economics Services Ltd.) and IRCON (Indian ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
P. Sathasivam, J.1) Leave granted.2) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 04.11.2010 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Appeal No. 237 of 2010 whereby the Division Bench while affirming the order dated 05.08.2010 passed by the learned single Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein.3) Brief Facts:a) In the year 2007, pursuant to the order of the Company Judge, High Court of Orissa, in Companies Act Case No. 25 of 2005, the Official Liquidator, made an advertisement for sale of movable and immovable assets and properties of the Factory Unit of M/s Konark Paper & Industries Limited which was in liquidation on "as is where is and whatever there is" basis.b) The sale was confirmed in favour of respondent No.1 – M/s Raghunath Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd., being the highest bidder, and the possession of the Unit was handed over on 28.03.2008. Since there was no power supply, respondent No.1 made an application to the Chief ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
RANJAN GOGOI, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeals seek to challenge a judgment dated 10.01.2011 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad allowing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 13519 of 2009 filed by the accused (respondents herein) seeking quashing of the criminal case registered against them under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. By its aforesaid order the High Court has also dismissed Special Criminal Application No. 770 of 2009 filed by the appellants, Shantibhai J. Vaghela and Prafulbhai J. Vaghela, seeking investigation of the aforesaid case against the accused by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The High Court has, however, directed that the proceedings against the accused –respondents so far as the offence under Section 304A of the IPC and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 may continue.3. The core facts in which the aggrieved parties had moved the High Court may now be noticed:The appellants – Shantibha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.9.2009, passed by the High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) in Writ Petition No.3129 of 2009, filed by respondent no.5, challenging the caste certificate of the appellant.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as follows:A. The competent authority in the present case, issued a caste certificate dated 19.10.1989, after following due procedure, in favour of the appellant stating that he does in fact, belong to Bhil Tadvi (Scheduled Tribes). On the basis of the said certificate, the appellant was appointed as Senior Clerk in the Municipal Corporation of Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as the, 'Corporation') on 6.2.1990, against the vacancy reserved for persons under the Scheduled Tribes category. The Corporation referred the caste certificate of the appellant for the purpose of verification, to the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee (hereinafter referred to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.1. The Government of Maharashtra acquired the land in question in favour of the appellant – Voltas Limited, (hereinafter referred to as 'Company' for short) and issued a Sanad (order of allotment) with the specific condition that the Company shall not in any way whatsoever, alienate the said land or any portion thereof by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease, exchange or otherwise howsoever except with the prior permission in writing, of the Government. After about 24 years, the order of allotment was stayed and the Company was called upon to show cause as to why the land should not be forfeited and the amount of Rs.14,11,45,851/- towards unearned income be not charged as it violated the terms and conditions of the order of allotment by granting rights to the developers for the construction of houses and selling them after development, thereby benefiting to a large extent. After submitting their reply, the respondents issued the impugned orders agains...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2013)1SCC197
ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.1. This Special Leave Petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th March, 2012, passed by the Gujarat High Court dismissing the petition filed by the Petitioner, Dr. Vipul Shital Prasad Agarwal, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), being SCRMA No.2698 of 2011.2. There are certain special features in this case which need to be recorded in order to decide this matter.3. The Petitioner was at the relevant time posted as Superintendent of Police, Banaskantha, Gujarat. On 28th December, 2006, one Tulsiram Prajapati was killed in an encounter and a First Information Report (F.I.R.), being I.C.R.No.115 of 2006, was registered with the Ambaji Police Station, Banaskantha, Gujarat, against unidentified persons under Sections 307, 427 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act, 1959, and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.4. In 2007, N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.1. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.7.2001, passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu in SWP No. 1393 of 1999, and judgment and order dated 1.8.2002 passed in LPA No. 275 of 2002.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are mentioned as under :A. The appellants and contestant respondents are Assistant Commandants in the Border Security Force (hereinafter referred to as, 'BSF'). The appellants and respondent nos. 4 and 5 are direct recruits, while respondent no.1 has been promoted against the quota of 10 per cent posts, that are reserved for Ministerial Cadre posts.B. The Union of India – respondent no.2, issued a seniority list dated 18.7.1995, placing respondent no. 1 at Serial No. 1863, below all the officers of Batch No.17 and thereafter, a final seniority list of Assistant Commandants was published on 5.7.1996.C. Respondent no.1 challenged the said seniority list in which h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
T.S. THAKUR, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals have been filed by the State of Maharashtra and senior officers in the Department of Prisons, Government of Maharashtra against a common judgment and order dated 21st July, 2009 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay whereby a batch of criminal writ petitions filed by the respondents have been allowed, transfer of the respondents-prisoners from Arthur Road Jail in Bombay to three other jails in the State of Maharashtra held to be illegal and the appellants directed to transfer the prisoners back to the jail at Bombay. The High Court has expressed the view that jail authorities having used force against undertrial prisoners for no fault of theirs and since such force was used for extraneous reasons and was excessive, the Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra shall initiate a disciplinary inquiry against all those involved in the incident. The High Court has further held that if need be in addition to de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
RANJAN GOGOI, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.12.2007 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in a Public Interest Litigation registered and numbered as Writ Petition No.1773/2006. By the order impugned in the present appeal, directions have been issued by the High Court for demarcation of the surplus land of the appellant – Company both under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 (since repealed) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Urban Land Ceiling Act') as well as the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agriculture Holding Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act). After the demarcation of the excess land in terms of the directions issued by the High Court, further directions have been issued for vesting of the excess land, both urban and agricultural, in the Government. Furthermore, the appellant – Company has been restrained from affecting any transfers of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has arisen from the impugned judgment and order dated 14.11.2011, passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.9513 of 2009, by way of which the High Court has rejected the claim of the appellants for any compensation due to them for the land taken by the respondent authorities, without resorting to any procedure prescribed by law.3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as under:A. The land in dispute admeasuring 0-2-3 and 0-7-1 (9500 sq.mtrs.) in Survey nos. 2 and 3 respectively, situate in the revenue estate of village Shirwame Taluka and District Thane, was owned by the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants, namely, Kana Ganpat Joshi, Maruti Kana Joshi, Dinanath Ganpat Joshi and Gopinath Ganpat Joshi. A very large chunk of land including the said land stood notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) on 6.6.1964 for the establishm...
Tag this Judgment!