Court : Supreme Court of India
R.M. LODHA, J.1. Delay condoned.2. We have heard Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. M.P. Vinod, learned counsel for the respondents.3. The respondents were the original writ petitioners before the High Court. They were constables in the Border Security Force (BSF). On completion of 10 years service, they tendered resignation. Their resignation was accepted by the Commandant 48 BN BSF. The order accepting resignation provided that they would be entitled to pensionary benefits at their own request on extreme compassionate grounds.Later on, it was found that the pensionary benefits were not admissible to them and few others whose resignation was accepted under Rule 19 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (for short, "BSF Rules"). Accordingly, on October 20, 1998, a letter was sent intimating them that no pensionary benefits were admissible to those who have proceeded on resignation under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules. However, their case for reinstatement ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
H.L. Gokhale J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.2.2008 rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.188/2006 confirming the decision of a single Judge of that court dated 4.7.2005 in Arbitration Petition No.364/2004, whereby the High Court has set aside the award dated 25.5.2004 passed by a sole arbitrator which award had dismissed the Claim Petition of the respondent against the appellant herein.3. The questions involved in this appeal are two-fold, (i) firstly, whether under the relevant clause 9.3 of the terms and conditions of the contract between the parties, the appellant was right in deducting the service tax from the bills of the respondent and, (ii) secondly, whether the interpretation of this clause and the consequent award rendered by the arbitrator was against the terms of the contract and therefore illegal as held by the High Court, or whether the view taken by the arbitrator was a possible, if not a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
G.S. SINGHVI, J.1. Leave granted.2. Feeling dissatisfied with the enhancement granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the amount of compensation determined by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in MACT Case No. 97 of 1995, the appellant has filed this appeal.3. Shri Swaran Singh (the appellant’s husband) died in a road accident when the Maruti car in which he was travelling with Varinder Singh (husband of respondent No. 2 and the father of respondent Nos. 3 and 4) went out of control. Varinder Singh, who was driving the vehicle also suffered multiple injuries and died on the spot.4. The appellant and other legal representatives of Swaran Singh filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) for award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 4 lacs. They pleaded that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruti car by Varinder Singh; that at the time of...
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 18.8.2011 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 7807 of 2006, by which the High Court has dismissed the application filed by the present appellant under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred as `Cr.P.C.’) for quashing the I.CR No. 18 of 2004 and Criminal Case No. 5 of 2004 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patan, on the plea of double jeopardy for the reason that the appellant has already been tried and dealt with under the provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred as `N.I. Act’) for the same offence.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: A. Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint dated 22.10.2003 i.e. Criminal Case No. 1334 of 2003 under Section 138 of N.I. Act on the ground that the appellant had taken hypothecation loan of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.4.2011 passed in Appeal (Lodging) No. 247 of 2011 by the High Court of Bombay confirming the order dated 21.3.2011 of the learned Trial Judge passed on application for interim relief with certain modifications.3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: A. Appellant entered into an agreement dated 3.4.1998 with respondent no. 1 for alternate accommodation whereby the appellant was allotted Unit No. 401 i.e. Suit premises ad-measuring 2680 Sq.fts. built up area subject to payment of Rs.13.50 lacs, nominal fee in lieu of appellant’s occupational rights in the godown i.e. the original property. The said agreement was registered on 2.3.2000. The inter-se agreement between the respondent No.1 on one hand and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 dated 7.8.2006 regarding the sale of the part of the accommodation in the same building was served upon the appellant. By that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(5)SCC265; 2012(2)KLT92(SN)(C.No.86); 2012(3)LW326; AIR2012SCW2510,2012(4)SCJ991; AIR2012SC2528; 2012(5)ALD1; 2012(3)KCCR117(SN); 2012(3)BCR640; 2012(6)KarLJ1; 2012(5)MLJ611; 2012(2)CLT243; 2012(3)SLT364
GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.The impugned order dated 05.10.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.F.A.No. 597/2004 is under challenge in this appeal after grant of special leave at the instance of the plaintiff-appellant by which the High Court has set aside the judgment and decree of partition passed in favour of the plaintiff- appellant by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Chikmagalur dated 28.01.2004 and the appeal was remanded to the trial court in order to consider the matter afresh. The defendants-respondents herein have also been granted liberty to file written statement and produce the documents within four weeks from the date of the order passed by the High Court and the trial court was directed to dispose of the suit on merits in accordance with law within a period of six months. However, the decree of partition which the plaintiff- appellant already got executed in his favour was made subject to the result of retrial of the suit.2. (i) The core ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.1. The impugned order dated 05.10.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.F.A.No. 597/2004 is under challenge in this appeal after grant of special leave at the instance of the plaintiff-appellant by which the High Court has set aside the judgment and decree of partition passed in favour of the plaintiff- appellant by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Chikmagalur dated 28.01.2004 and the appeal was remanded to the trial court in order to consider the matter afresh. The defendants-respondents herein have also been granted liberty to file written statement and produce the documents within four weeks from the date of the order passed by the High Court and the trial court was directed to dispose of the suit on merits in accordance with law within a period of six months. However, the decree of partition which the plaintiff- appellant already got executed in his favour was made subject to the result of retrial of the suit.2. (i) The co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.1. Leave was granted on 22.9.2011.2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and order dated 6th March, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature of Mumbai, Nagpur Bench in Second Appeal No.198 of 2006, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the District Court, Pandharkawada (Kelapur) in Regular Civil Appeal No.129 of 2002 came to be confirmed.3. The first appellate court by the aforesaid judgment and decree reversed the judgment and decree dated 23rd September, 1998 and 3rd October, 1998 in Special Civil Suit No.175 of 1997 which was preferred by the appellant-plaintiff for specific performance.4. The suit in question was filed by the appellant against the respondent for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 18th April, 1996 in respect of agricultural land admeasuring 1 H. 61Are. at a price of Rs.51,000/-. It was the case of the appellant that he had paid th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Leave granted in the all the above SLPs..2. The Writ Petition being CWP No. 5740 of 2001 titled Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India and Ors. was filed in the High Court of Punjaand Haryanaat Chandigarh under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India prayingfor issuance of a writ in the nature of quo warranto and prohibition, requiring the respondents to stop the scheme and policy of appointment of the retired District and Sessions Judges as ad hoc Judges of the Fast Track Courts (hereinafter referred to as the FTCs) in the State Judicial Services.It was also prayed in that petition that in order to maintain the standards of judicial system, the scheme of appointing the retired Judges, as opposed to the regular appointment of Judges to the posts of District and Sessions Judges from the members of the Bar or from the lower judiciary, should be given up. The principal submission made in the writ petition was that the constitutional scheme contained under Articles 233...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. We may notice the case of the prosecution in brief at the very outset of this judgment. On 3rd July, 1994, Manohar Lal (deceased) who had retired from service as Subedar in the Indian Army, had taken his wife, Smt. Sushila (deceased) to Delhi for her treatment as she was complaining of pain in the chest. Naresh Kumar, PW-4 is the eldest son of Manohar Lal. All were residents of Village Nandrampurbas, Haryana.2. In the evening, when PW-4 was putting earth on a ditch in front of his house, accused Matadin and Rajender came there and abused and beat him. However, PW-4 did not lodge any police report in this regard. On 5th July, 1994, Manohar Lal and his wife Sushila returned from Delhi at about 9 AM. At that time PW-4, his sister Rajesh, PW-5 and their brother Suresh were sitting at the gate of their house. When Manohar Lal and Sushila were enquiring about the incident that had taken place on 3rd July, 1994, all the nine accused, namely, Matadin, Rajender, Krishan, B...
Tag this Judgment!