Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted.2. This appeal, by grant of special leave, is directed against judgment and order dated 24/01/2011 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur. By the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge dismissed Criminal Revision Petition No.853 of 2010 filed by the appellant challenging order of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Chittorgarh allowing application submitted by the prosecution under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") and directing that trial should proceed against the appellant for offences under Sections 3,4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.3. Before, we turn to the facts of the case, it is necessary to have a look at Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for short, "the said Act"), as the controversy revolves round the 'consent to prosecute' contemplated therein. It reads thus: "Section 7: No court shall proceed to the trial of any person for an offence against this Act except with the consent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
H.L. DATTU; CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant against the rejection of his application for anticipatory bail before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-34997 of 2011 dated08.12.2011.3. Vide order dated 15th December, 2011, this Court while issuing notice and releasing the appellant on bail, had passed the following order: "In the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Agency, subject to the condition that he will join investigation as and when required and shall abide by the provisions of Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.4. Heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis.5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the order dated 15.12.2011 be confirmed and is confirmed. Appeal disposed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The petitioner is a businessman engaged in the business of distribution of pre-paid virtual and tangible calling value for mobile phone subscribers and also sells new customer acquisition packs and follows it up, by collection of customer application forms and executing tele-calling, to verify customer credentials. In this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has attempted to highlight the grave issue of non-observance of norms/regulations/guidelines related to proper and effective subscriber verification by various service providers. In fact, according to the petitioner, there is rampant flouting of norms/regulations/guidelines relating to this subject matter and there is no proper verification of the subscribers prior to selling of the pre-paid mobile connections to them.2. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (for short, "TRAI") is the regulatory body for the telecommunications sector in India and the Union of India has responsibility to issue guidel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2012SC2010
DALVEER BHANDARI J.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. These two appeals arise out of cross suits filed before the High Court of Judicature at Madras in S.A. No. 1973 of 2002 and S.A. No. 869 of 2009 dated April 20, 2011. In both these appeals, A. Shanmugam is the appellant and Ariya Kshatriya Raja Kulavamsa Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalana Sangam is the respondent which for convenience hereinafter is referred to as the Society.4. The property in question belonged to one, Muthu Naicker, who dedicated the suit land for construction of a Dharamshala. In the southern part of India, it is called as choultry. A Dharamshala is commonly known as a place where boarding facilities are provided either free of cost or at a nominal cost. In the instant case, a Dharamshala was to be constructed for the benefit of the Ariya Kshatriya community. The appellants father, Appadurai Pillai was engaged as a Watchman on a monthly salary by the respondent-Society to look after the Dharamshala and in that cap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Dipak Misra, J.1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions.2. The controversy pertaining to reservation in promotion for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes with consequential seniority as engrafted under Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) and the facet of relaxation grafted by way of a proviso to Article 335 of the Constitution of India being incorporated by the Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act,1995, the Constitution (Eight-first Amendment) Act, 2000, the Constitution(Eighty-second Amendment) Act, 2000 and the Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001 at various stages having withstood judicial scrutiny by the dictum in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India[1], the issue of implementation of the same through existing statutory enactment by the State Legislature and the subsequent rules framed by the authorities of the State or concerned corporation of the State of Uttar Pradesh, has, as the learned counsel appearing for both sides in their astute and penetrating manner have pyr...
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 dated06.01.2009 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.F.A. No. 998 of 1988 (O & M) along with seven other appeals by which the High Court declined to interfere with the order dated 11.02.1988 of the Additional District Judge, Farid kot in L.R. No. 20 of 1984.3. Brief facts:a. Colonel Sir Harindar Singh, since deceased, was the former ruler of the State of Faridkot. In 1979, 259 Kanals and 16 Marlas (33 acres) of land owned by him had been acquired by the Punjab Government for extension of existing Grain Market at Faridkot vide Notification No. 14(68)M-iv-78/17315 dated 22.12.1979 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") which was published in the Punjab Government Gazette. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on19.02.1982. The award by the Collector was announced on 02.10.1982 and possession of the land...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
DIPAK MISRA, J.1.In Criminal Appeal Nos. 838 of 2008 and 842 of 2008, the common proposition of law that has emerged for consideration is whether an authorised signatory of a company would be liable for prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity 'the Act')without the company being arraigned as an accused. Be it noted, these two appeals were initially heard by a two-Judge Bench and there was difference of opinion between the two learned Judges in the interpretation of Sections138 and 141 of the Act and, therefore, the matter has been placed beforeus.2. In Criminal Appeal Nos. 1483 of 2009 and 1484 of 2009, the issue involved pertains to the interpretation of Section 85 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short 'the 2000 Act') which is pari materia with Section 141 of the Act. Be it noted, a director of the appellant-Company was prosecuted under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of the 2000 Act without impleading the comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
T.S. THAKUR, J.1. This appeal by special leave arises out of a judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore whereby OS No.3119/90filed by the respondents for a declaration to the effect that they are co-owners of the suit property and for an injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from interfering with their possession has been decreed. The factual backdrop in which the suit is filed may be summarised as under: The suit property comprises a residential house bearing MunicipalNo.33, A and B Block, Austin Town, Bangalore-47 which was originally owned by the Corporation of the city of Bangalore.The said property was leased by the Corporation to late Smt. Stella Martins-mother of the parties before us. In the year 1978 the Corporation took a decision to sell the said property and presumably similar other properties to those in occupation of the same. The State Government also approved the said proposal with a note of caution that care should be taken to corr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.1. The appellant herein, who contested the parliamentary elections held on 16th April, 2009 for the No.05 - Kozhikode Constituency of the Lok Sabha, challenged the election of the Respondent, Shri M.K. Raghavan, who was the returned candidate from the said constituency, by way of an Election Petition filed under Section 81 read with Sections 100, 101 and123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the "1951 Act". The Appellant contested the election as the official candidate of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), hereinafter referred to as the "CPI(M)" led by the Left Democratic Front, hereinafter referred to as the "LDF", whereas the Respondent No.1 was a candidate of the Indian National Congress and he contested the election as the candidate of the United Democratic Front, hereinafter referred to as the "UDF".2. The ground on which the election of the Respondent No.1 was challenged was that he had published false statements with r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
O R D E RLearned counsel for the appellant has filed the Death Certificate of the appellant herein, inter alia, bringing to our notice that the appellant had expired on 30.03.2011. In view of the death of the appellant, the only order that can be passed in this matter is that the appeal stands abated.Ordered accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!