Court : Supreme Court of India
P. Sathasivam, J.1) Leave granted.2) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 09.07.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 2347 of 2008 whereby the High Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “the Code”) and quashed the criminal proceedings pending against him in CC No. 44 of 2007 (Crime No. 36 of 2005) on the file of the Special Judge for CBI cases, Hyderabad.3) Brief facts:(a) According to the prosecution, basing on an information, on 30.11.2005, the CBI, Hyderabad registered an FIR being RC 32(A)/2005 against Shri P. Radha Gopal Reddy (A-1) and Shri Udaya Sankar (A-2), the then Branch Manager and the Assistant Manager, respectively of the Vijaya Bank, Narayanaguda Branch, Hyderabad, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 471 read with Section 109 of the Indian...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
A. K. PATNAIK, J.1. Leave granted.2. We have carefully read the learned opinion of our esteemed brother Swatanter Kumar, J. in this case but with great respect we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with his interpretation of Sections 529 and 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short the Companies Act).3. Before we give our interpretation of Sections 529 and 529A of the Companies Act, we may very briefly state the relevant facts as stated by the appellant. U.M.I. Special Steel Limited (for short the company) is a company registered under the Companies Act. The company became sick and went before the BIFR but the BIFR in its opinion dated 08.03.2002 recommended for winding up of the company. On 05.08.2003, the learned Company Judge of the High Court of Jharkhand passed orders for winding up of the company and appointed the official liquidator as liquidator to conduct the liquidation proceedings in relation to the company and to take over the assets, books and documents of the com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. We are, in this case, called upon to decide the question as to whether the transfer of land from a member of Scheduled Caste to a juristic person, other than Scheduled Caste, is void, in view of the provisions of Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’).3. The High Court of Rajasthan has answered the above question in several cases holding that such a transfer would not be hit by the above mentioned provision, since the expression ‘person’ would not take in a ‘juristic person’ and that juristic person does not have a caste and, therefore, any transfer made by a Scheduled Caste person would not be hit by Section 42(b) of the Act.4. In the impugned judgment, reliance has been placed on an earlier judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan in State of Rajasthan v. Indian Oil Corporation 2004 (5) WLC (Raj.) 703, which held as follows: “6. It goes without saying that though the Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
RANJAN GOGOI, J1. The appellant who has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo the imprisonment for life by the learned trial court seeks to challenge the order of affirmation passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh by means of the present appeal.2. The relevant facts, in brief, may be noted at the outset:According to the prosecution, on 1.8.1998 the accused-appellant had attacked his wife Shantibai in his own house with the backside of an axe resulting in her death. In the next morning, PW 2 (Ramchandra) informed PW 5 (Bandhanram), who was the Sarpanch of the village that the wife of the accused was not to be found. Thereafter, along with some other persons PW 2 and PW 5 had inquired from the accused-appellant the whereabouts of his wife. According to the prosecution, initially, the accused had disclosed that his wife had gone to her sister’s place but subsequently, on insistence, the accused disclosed that he had committed the murder of his wife by attac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
RANJAN GOGOI, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.10.2006 passed by the High Court of Madras whereby the conviction of the accused-appellant under sections 302, 304 (Part II) and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentences imposed by the learned Trial Court have been affirmed.The relevant facts2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that one Sekhar (deceased No.2) was running a Saw Mill, taken on lease, in which business he was assisted by his brothers Radhakrishnan (deceased No.1) and Rajendran (PW 2). The second accused, Munuswamy, who used to work in the Saw Mill was taken to task by Sekhar for unauthorized sale of some timber from the Saw Mill. The said incident happened on 3.10.2003. According to the prosecution, accused Munuswamy left the place threatening revenge and on 5.10.2003 he came to the house of Sekhar alongwith Ponnusamy (accused No.1) Mailraj (accused No.3) and Madavan (accused No.4).3. On 5.10.2003 at about 10.00 A.M. the decea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
T.S. THAKUR, J.1. Leave granted.2. In a suit for possession and recovery of mesne profit filed by the plaintiff- appellant before the trial Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi, the plaintiff prayed for a decree for possession in its favour on admissions, invoking the Court’s powers under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The trial Court examined the prayer and held that the jural relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted between the parties and so was the rate of rent as settled by them. Service of a notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant-respondent also being admitted, the trial Court saw no impediment in decreeing the suit for possession of the suit property. The application filed by the plaintiff-appellant under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC was accordingly allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff to the extent it prayed for possession of the suit property decreed in its favour.3. Aggrieved by the decree passed against the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Dipak Misra, J.Leave granted.2. The present appeal by special leave has been preferred assailing the legal defensibility of the order dated 26.04.2012 passed in Criminal Application No. 28461 of 2011 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and praying for quashment of the same, and further to cancel the grant of bail to the accused-respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’) in respect of offences punishable under Sections 365/506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’).3. The facts material for adjudication of this appeal are that an FIR was lodged by the present appellant on 29.05.2011 alleging that while he was going to his in-laws’ place in village Samadia, P.S. Patwai along with Bihari Lal near canal of Milk Road from Patwai which leads to Samdia Khurd, two persons came on a motorcycle and after inquiring about the identity of Bihari Lal told him that they had been asked by Lalla Babu @ Shiv Raj Singh to compel him to accompany t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgment dated 07/03/2011 delivered by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court. They involve the same questions of law and facts and hence can be disposed by a common judgment. The appellants in these appeals were posted as Additional District Judges, Fast Track Courts. They are direct recruits from the bar. By the impugned order, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition filed by the Judicial Officers who are members of the Subordinate Judiciary of the State of Jharkhand, challenging the appointment of the appellants to the posts of Additional District Judge (for short, ADJ), Fast Tract Courts (for short, FTC). The writ petitioners before the High Court, inter alia, claimed that they were eligible for being appointed as ADJs and that they are directly affected persons in monetary terms as well as in terms of their future promotional avenues because of the appellants ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
K.S. Radhakrishnan; Dipak Misra, JJ.1. These are the applications for seeking certain directions in view of the subsequent developments after the order passed on 5.7.2012.2. We have heard Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mukul Rohtagi and Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel for the Central Bank of India, respondent No. 1.3. Before we advert to order dated 5.7.2012, it is necessitous to refer to order dated 27.3.2012. In the said order, after referring to the order passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 2689 and other connected matters, the interim order passed by this Court on 25.11.2011, recording the contentions of Mr. Sundaram, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel for the Central Bank of India and taking note of the chart produced in respect of the dues of the Central Bank of India, Standard Chartered Bank and Workmen through Official Liquidator, this Court passed the following order: - &ldq...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether the widow of an employee is entitled to get family pension under the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 (for short ‘Scheme’), on the failure of the employer to exercise his option under the scheme, especially when the claimant has already received the entire Provident Fund amount, from the Fund maintained by the Corporation.3. Respondent Union raised a claim on behalf of the widow of late Hari Singh for family pension under the Scheme before the State Government. The State Government referred the matter to the Labour and Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (for short ‘Tribunal’) for adjudication of the claim. The Tribunal, after examining the Scheme, took the view that the employee was not informed of his right to exercise the option under the Scheme, consequently, allowed the application and gave a direction to the appellant- Corporation to disburse family pension to...
Tag this Judgment!