Court : Supreme Court of India
G. S. Singhvi, J.1. Whether the cause shown by Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai (for short, the Corporation) for condonation of 7 years and 108 days delay in filing appeals against judgments and decrees dated 2.5.2003 passed by the City Civil Court (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court) in L.C. Suit Nos. 2726, 2727, 2728 of 1999 was sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court was justified in condoning the delay is the question which arises for consideration in these appeals.2. At the outset, it deserves to be mentioned that the respondent had withdrawn one of the three appeals filed before the High Court and, as such, the impugned order makes a reference to the two appeals only.3. The appellants filed suits for grant of a declaration that notices issued by the Corporation under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short, the Act) for demolition of the properties...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
G.S. SINGHVI, J.1. Whether the application submitted by the appellant under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) was barred by time and Civil Judge (Senior Division), Junagadh (hereinafter described as the Reference Court) rightly refused to entertain his prayer for enhancement of the compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is the question which arises for consideration in this appeal filed against judgment dated 16.8.2011 of the learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court.2. The appellants land was acquired by the State Government along with other parcels of land for implementation of Mendarda Amrapur Road Scheme. Notification under Section 4(1) was issued on 4.3.1982 and the declaration under Section 6(1) was published on 7.10.1982. The Special Land Acquisition Officer determined the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.110/per Are for irrigated land and Rs.80/ per Are for non irrigated land.3. After passing of the award,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
P. Sathasivam,J.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated10.02.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in First Appeal No. 223 of 2009 whereby the High Court disposed of the appeal filed by the appellant herein with certain modifications in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Notice of Motion No. 4026 of 2003 in L.C. SuitNo.539 of 2002.4. Brief facts:a. The appellant-Corporation is a public body duly enacted and formed for the benefit of public at large and to regulate and control the unauthorized construction carried out in the city of Mumbai. The respondents are the owners of the suit premises.b. On 17.04.1998, a notice bearing No. KW/036/AEM/OD under Section 314of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as the MMC Act) was issued to all persons who are in occupation of the Patra structures which are constructed on foot paths and streets situated near Empire House...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.1. Leave granted.2. These Appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 14th September, 2006, passed by the Jharkhand High Court in L.P.A. No.229 of 2006, dismissing the same. The said Letters Patent Appeal was directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 13th April, 2006 in W.P.(S) No.831 of 2006, and was disposed of in terms of an earlier order passed by the High Court in W.P.(S) NO.5459 of 2005. L.P.A. No.729 of 2005, preferred by the said Writ Petitioners, was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court on 22nd February, 2006, upholding the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.5459 of 2005. In order to appreciate the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, it will be necessary to set out some facts in relation to L.P.A. No.729 of 2005, which had arisen out of W.P.(S) No.5459 of 2005 and had been dismissed.3. By an advertisement No.2/2004 published in the Hindustan,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.1. Leave granted.2. The challenge in this appeal, by special leave, is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the criminal appeal filed by the appellant questioning the correctness of the judgment and order passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. By the said judgment, the appellant (original accused 3) and two others viz. Myla Rambabu and Myla Muralikrishna (original accused 1 and 2 respectively and for convenience, referred to as A1 and A2 respectively) were convicted for offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short, the NDPS Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each.3. According to the prosecution, on 5/1/2001, PW-3 CI Koteswara Rao on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2012SCW3901; 2012(6)SCJ59; 2012(6)ALD2(SC); 2012ACJ2002(SC)
1. Delay condoned2. Leave granted.3. Feeling dissatisfied with the reduction of compensation determined by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim No.80/2008 and being aggrieved for not enhancing the amount as was claimed, the appellants preferred this appeal.4. The deceased-Ritesh Bhanu Shali, son of the Ist and 2nd appellants, was going to Thanod on 20th July, 2008 by Swift Car bearing Registration No.CG-04-HA/6905 from Naharpara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. While he was coming back at about 4.30 p.m. near Thanod, one Scorpio Car bearing Registration No.CG-04-HA/5372 coming rashly and negligently from Abhanpur dashed the Maruti Swift Car. Due to that accident, Ritesh Bhanu Shali and one Sardar Jaspreet died on the spot and another Shivam received injuries. The Ist appellant-Amrit Bhanu Shali is the father, the 2nd appellant-Smt. Sarlaben is the mother and 3rd appellant-Mamta Bhanu Shali is the sister of the deceased. Claiming...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.1. Leave granted.2. The Appellant herein was elected to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from the 240-Omerga Legislative Assembly Constituency, which was reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate. His election was challenged by one Shri Yadavrao, son of Bhimrao Suryawanshi, who was also a Scheduled Caste candidate. In order to contest the elections, the said Shri Yadavrao had filed three nomination forms which were all rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that the proposers name was not included in the voters list. Accordingly, the Returning Officer found Shri Yadavrao to be ineligible to contest the said elections as a candidate.3. On 26th September, 2009, Shri Yadavrao filed Writ Petition No.6474 of 2009, challenging the rejection of his nomination form which had been submitted by him as an independent candidate. On 1st October, 2009, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the order of the Returning Officer. The order of the High Court was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
P.Sathasivam, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 30.07.2010 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. M.C. Nos. 3376 & 3375 of 2009 whereby the High Court rejected the prayer of the appellants herein for quashing the summoning order dated 16.01.2009 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in FIR No. 290 of 2002 registered at Police Station, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC.3. Brief facts:a. The present cases pertain to a property dispute regarding distribution of the assets left behind by late Shri Gulshan Kumar (of T- Series fame). On 19.02.1998, a handwritten note was executed between the appellants and Respondent No. 2 wherein distribution of certain assets and shares in different companies was provided for. Subsequently, on 21.02.1998, a fresh agreement was entered into between the appellants and the Respondent No. 2 which supersed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.1. Leave granted.2. The challenge in this appeal, by special leave, is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the criminal appeal filed by the appellant questioning the correctness of the judgment and order passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. By the said judgment, the appellant (original accused 3) and two others viz. Myla Rambabu and Myla Muralikrishna (original accused 1 and 2 respectively and for convenience, referred to as A1 and A2 respectively) were convicted for offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short, the NDPS Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each.3. According to the prosecution, on 5/1/2001, PW-3 CI Koteswara Rao on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. We are in these applications called upon to decide the question as to whether the unfilled NRI seats are to be transferred to general pool and be shared equally to be filled up on the basis of the Common Entrance Test conducted by the State level Committee Vyavsayik Pariksha Mandal (VYAPAM) or by the Common Entrance Test conducted by the Association of Private Dental and Medical Colleges (APDMC), so far as the private unaided medical/dental colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh are concerned.2. Applicants, herein had filed Writ Petition No. 2732 of 2009 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Jabalpur) challenging the constitutional validity of Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh KaViniyaman Avam Shulk ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 (in short the Act and the Rules framed there under. The High Court vide its judgment dated15.5.2009 repelled the challenge to the Act and the Rules but declared that the provisions of Rule 10(2)(iii) of 2009 as...
Tag this Judgment!