Court : Supreme Court of India
T.S. THAKUR, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Chhattisgarh, at Bilaspur whereby Election Petition No.15 of 2009 filed by the appellant has been dismissed on the ground that the same does not make a concise statement of the material facts on which the appellant relies and hence fails to disclose a cause of action.3. Election to No.4 Korba Parliamentary Constituency in the State of Chhattisgarh was held as a part of the general elections of the year 2009. As many as twenty two candidates filed their nomination papers for election from the above constituency but with the withdrawal of nominations by four of such candidates, only seventeen candidates were left in the fray besides the appellant-petitioner who contested as an independent candidate and respondent No.1 set up by the Indian National Congress Party.The margin of victory between respondent No.1 and Karuna Shukla set up by the Bhartiya Janta Party who emerged as his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
RANJAN GOGOI, J1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 10.08.2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi whereby the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 460 read with Section 34 of the IPC as well as under Section 25 of the Arms Act has been affirmed. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC whereas for the offence under Section 460 read with Section 34 IPC sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment has been imposed. Insofar as the offence under the Arms Act is concerned, the accused appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. The short case of the prosecution is that on 06.06.2001, H.C. Brij Pal (PW 11), who was posted in the PCR, received an information at about 10.35 PM that firing is taking place at Savitri Nagar near a sweet shop. Accordingly, PW 11 alo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
T.S. THAKUR, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Union of India against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Criminal Appeal No.193 of 2008 whereby the High Court has acquitted the respondents of the charges framed against them under Section 8/18(b) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, primarily for the reason that no evidence regarding the destruction of the 3.36 Kgs. of opium allegedly seized from the respondents had been provided by the prosecution. In the absence of any evidence to show that the seized contraband was destroyed as per the prevalent procedure, the contraband should have been, according to the High Court, produced before the Trial Court. The failure of the prosecution to do so, therefore, implies a failure to prove the seizure of the contraband from the possession of the respondents.2. When this appeal came up for hearing before us on 11th April, 2012, Mr. Anoop G. Chaudhary, learned se...
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 16.08.2011 passed by the High Court of judicature at Madras in O.S.A. Nos.100-102 of 2006 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court while rejecting OSA Nos. 101 and 102 of 2006 allowed the appeal being OSA No. 100 of 2006 filed by the respondent herein in respect of the rejection of the plaint against the appellant herein (1st defendant in the suit) by the learned single Judge of the High Court.3. Brief facts:a. On 07.01.1990, the appellant-Society (first defendant), the owner of the property situated at Door No. 35, Lock Street, Kottur, Chennai entered into an Agreement for Sale of the property in favour of one S. Velayutham - 2nd defendant in the suit on the condition that the transaction should be completed within 6 months after obtaining clearance from Income Tax and other departments and also received an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs as an advance. On 19.10.1990, the 1st defendant-So...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Chelameswar, J.1. Leave granted.2. The 5 petitioners herein filed O.S.No.100 of 2004, against one Sengoda Gounder, who is not a party to the Special Leave Petition, essentially, for the specific performance of a registered agreement dated 22 03 1995, of sale of the suit scheduled land admeasuring approximately Acs.2 00 and delivery of possession of the same; in the alternative, it was prayed that the defendant be directed to refund the amount of Rs.12,15,125/- with interest, etc.3. The parties are referred to in this Judgment as they are arrayed in the abovementioned Suit.4. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that the abovementioned defendant was indebted to one Mr. Radhakrishnan and also to the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited (for short 'TNIIC"). It is alleged in the plaint that Sengoda Gounder wanted to clear the debts to the abovementioned two persons before the property is actually conveyed to the plaintiffs. For the said purpose, Sengoda Gounder collected an amo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
T.S. THAKUR, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals arise out of similar but different orders passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam whereby the High Court has allowed the claim for compassionate appointment made by the respondents and directed the institutions concerned to appoint them to posts against which they are otherwise eligible for appointment. The factual backdrop in which the writ petitions came to be filed by the respondents and eventually allowed is different in each case but the underlying principle on which the said petitions have been allowed and the provisions on the basis whereof the same have been allowed being common, we propose to dispose of these appeals by this common judgment.3. In Civil Appeal arsing out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.7556 of 2008 father of respondent No.5 who was working as a 'Peon' in a school known as SHGSHS, Kadakkodu, died-in-harness on 14th October, 2000. Respondent No.5 was a minor aged about 16 years at that time. He attained ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.1. Leave granted.2. These two appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment as they arise out of the same facts and challenge the same judgment and order dated15/-12/-2011 of the Madras High Court. Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2299of 2012 is filed by accused R. Mohan ('the accused' for convenience) and Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.3327 of 2012 is filed by complainant A.K. Vijaya Kumar ('the complainant' for convenience).3. The accused was tried by the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "the said Act") and, by order dated16/-4/-2004 he was sentenced to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment and to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (for short, "the Code"), in default, to undergo two months simple imprisonment. In appeal, the IIIrd Additional Fast Track District & Sessions Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
T.S. THAKUR, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 15th July, 2010passed by the High Court of judicature at Calcutta whereby Criminal AppealNo.641 of 2006 filed by the appellants has been dismissed and their conviction for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and fine upheld.3. Facts giving rise to the commission of the offence by the appellants and their eventual conviction have been set out in the judgment under appeal which need not be recounted again especially because notice in this appeal was issued by us limited to the question of quantum of sentence to be awarded to the appellants. Suffice it to say that the unfortunate incident in which the deceased Shyamalendu who was then working as Income Tax Inspector did no more than object to the commission of the nuisance in front of his house escalated into ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
G. S. Singhvi, J.1. Leave granted.2. Whether a Village Panchayat established under Section 3 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act') or any other statutory dispensation existing prior to the enactment of the Act has the locus to file a petition under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution for setting aside an order passed by the designated officer exercising the power of an appellate authority qua the action/decision/resolution of the Village Panchayat is the question which arises for consideration in these appeals filed against order dated 18.08.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Goa Bench in Writ Petition Nos. 16 and 312of 2010.3. M/s. Kay Jay Constructions Company Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter described as, 'the company') (respondent No.4 in the appeal arising out of SLP (C)No.1758 of 2011) was granted permission by the appellant in 2006 for raising construction on property bearing Survey No. 362/12 and part of Survey No. 362/10 at Porba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
G. S. Singhvi, J.2.1. Undeterred by the dismissal of two similar petitions, Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) has filed these petitions for review of judgment dated 17.08.2010 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6515 of 2009 and batch whereby the appeals filed by it against the judgments of the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court were dismissed, those filed by the landowners were allowed and a direction was given for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 20 lakhs per acre with all statutory benefits.2.2. The facts necessary for deciding whether the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case for review are encapsulated below:2.1. For the purpose of setting up an Industrial Model Township at Manesar, District Gurgaon, the Government of Haryana acquired large chunks of land. By Notification dated 30.4.1994 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State Government proposed the acquisition of 256 acre...
Tag this Judgment!