Court : Supreme Court of India
ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.1. Certain questions of fact and law were raised on behalf of the parties when the review petitions were heard. Review petitions are ordinarily restricted to the confines of the principles enunciated in Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but in this case, we gave counsel for the parties ample opportunity to satisfy us that the judgment and order under review suffered from any error apparent on the face of the record and that permitting the order to stand would occasion a failure of justice or that the judgment suffered from some material irregularity which required correction in review. The scope of a review petition is very limited and the submissions advanced were made mainly on questions of fact. As has been repeatedly indicated by this Court, review of a judgment on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is permissible, but an error apparent on the face of the record has to be decided on the facts of each case as an erroneous de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Leave granted.2. The Bihar Public Service Commission (for short, 'the Commission) published advertisement No.6 of 2000 dated 10th May, 2000 in the local papers of the State of Bihar declaring its intention to fill up the posts of 'State Examiner of Questioned Documents’, in Police Laboratory in Crime Investigation Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. The advertisement, inter alia, stated that written examination would be held if adequate number of applications were received. As very limited number of applications were received, the Commission, in terms of the advertisement, decided against the holding of written examination. It exercised the option to select the candidates for appointment to the said post on the basis of viva voce test alone. The Commission completed the process of selection and recommended the panel of selected candidates to the State of Bihar.3. One Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, respondent No.1 herein, claiming to be a public spirited cit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Leave granted.2. We are, in this case, concerned with the validity of an Order of attachment passed under Section 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Haridwar on 25.11.2009 attaching property situated in khasra No. 181 admeasuring 0.400 hectares situated at Gram Subhash Garh, Pargana Jawala Pur, Tehsil and District Haridwar. The above- mentioned order was affirmed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Misc. Application (C482) No. 1029 of 2010 dated 27.03.2012.3. Mona Sharma, the second respondent herein, mother of minor children, preferred O.S. No. 168 of 2009 before the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Haridwar with the appellant and third respondent as defendants praying for a decree of temporary injunction restraining them from interfering with their peaceful enjoyment and possession of the above-mentioned and few other items of properties. The suit was instituted on 02.09.2009. An application was also p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The appellants are aggrieved of the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 06.04.2005. At the very outset it is relevant to mention that the second appellant, namely, Lakha Singh also known as Lakhiwinder Singh s/o Gian Singh stated to have died on 03.12.2005 as per the death certificate enclosed along with the special leave petition papers and the application filed on 25.07.2006 in this Court. Therefore, the special leave petition itself, which was stated to have been filed on 25.07.2006 on behalf of Lakha Singh alias Lakhiwinder Singh, has become infructuous. However, in the criminal miscellaneous petition for substitution application, also filed on 25.07.2006, the first appellant has made a prayer to substitute her as the legal representative of the deceased Lakha Singh and pursue his appeal as well in order to enable her to get the monitory benefits from the employer of the deceased Lakha Singh who was state...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Ranjan Gogoi, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant, who was married to the respondent in the year 2006, had filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DV Act’) seeking certain reliefs including damages and maintenance. During the pendency of the aforesaid application the appellant filed an application for interim maintenance which was granted by the learned trial court on 13.02.2008 at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month. The order of the learned trial court was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge on 09.07.2008. As against the aforesaid order, the respondent (husband) filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Jharkhand.3. While the Writ Petition was pending, the respondent sought a recall of the order dated 13.02.2008 on the ground that he could subsequently come to know that his marriage with the appellant was void on the ground that at the time of the said marriage the appellant was alr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Appellants, herein, were awarded death sentence by the trial court after having found them guilty under Sections 395, 396 and 397 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). They were sentenced to death by hanging under subsection 5 of Section 354 of Criminal Procedure Code for offences committed under Section 396 IPC. The trial court after noticing that, the accused persons came from a State about 2000 k.m. away from Tamil Nadu, held as follows:In this case, the accused came from a state about 2000 k.m. from our state and they did not think that the victims were also human like them but they thought only about the well being of their family and their own life and committed the fear of death amongst the common public of our state by committing robbery and murder for about 11 years. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the death sentence that would be imposed on them would create a fear amongst the criminals who commit such crime and further this c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
A.K. PATNAIK, J.1. Leave granted.2. The facts very briefly in these two appeals are that the appellants filed compensation applications C.A. No.110 of 1997 and C.A. No.126 of 2008 under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for short 'the MRTP Act') before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (for short 'the MRTP Commission') constituted under the MRTP Act. By Section 66(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, the MRTP Act was repealed and the MRTP Commission was dissolved. Section 66(3) of the Competition Act, 2002 provided that all cases pertaining to monopolistic trade practices or restrictive trade practices pending before the MRTP Commission shall, on the commencement of the Competition (Amendment) Ordinance, 2009, stand transferred to the Competition Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Competition Act, 2002 and shall be adjudicated by the Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the MRTP Act as if the MRTP Act h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Dipak Misra, J.Leave granted.2. The appellant-wife instituted F.C.O.P. No. 568 of 1997 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity 'the Act') in the Principal Family Court, Chennai for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent-husband filed F.C.O.P. No. 805 of 1998 under Sections 13(1)(i-a), 26 and 27 of the Act read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 praying for dissolution of marriage, custody of the child and return of jewellery and other items. The learned Family Judge jointly tried both the cases and, on the basis of the evidence brought on record, dismissed the application for restitution of conjugal rights preferred by the wife and allowed the petition of the husband for dissolution of marriage and held that the child would remain in the custody of the mother on the principle that welfare of the child is paramount, and further the husband was not entitled to return of jewels or any other item from the wife in the absence of any cogent evidence in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The suspicion that the deceased had illicit relationship with the wife of the accused was the reason for this mid-night murder. The accused had disclosed the same to PWs 8 and 9 and requested them to warn the deceased, or else, the accused announced that he would deal with the same and was even prepared to go to jail. PWs 8 and 9 warned the deceased, but the deceased reacted stating that the accused was only suspecting him.2. At mid-night 12 O'clock on 13.6.2001, the deceased was sleeping on the western side of Pancha of his house along with wife PW 2. PW 3, brother of the deceased, was also sleeping inside the house along with the children of the deceased. At midnight PW 2 heard the cries of the deceased and woke up and saw the accused standing near the deceased with an axe. PW2 then called PW 3 who chased the accused, but he escaped leaving the axe at the spot. Noticing that the deceased was bleeding with head injury, PW 3 along with PW 5, brother-in-law of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The assessee utilizes cenvat duty paid Low Sulphur Heavy Stock (for short LSHS) as fuel input for generating steam. The steam so generated is utilized to generate electricity for the manufacture of fertilizer which is exempt from excise duty. According to the assessee, it is entitled to claim cenvat credit on the input, that is, LSHS even though fertilizer is exempt from excise duty. The correctness of this view was disputed by the Revenue.2. Consequently, the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara-II (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commissioner') issued two notices to the assessee to show cause why cenvat credit wrongly availed by it should not be recovered under Rule 12 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Rules) read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The assessee was also required to show cause why interest be not recovered on the wrongly availed cenvat credit and why penalty be not imposed on it.3. Th...
Tag this Judgment!