Search by Keywords x
contact us contact us | home help



 Welcome Guest | Sep 5 2008
 
Home Skip Navigation Links
Search Judgments by Expand Search Judgments by
Skip Navigation Links
Subject Modules Expand Subject Modules
Skip Navigation Links
State Modules Expand State Modules
Skip Navigation Links
Legal Focus Expand Legal Focus
 

Login

  
Support | Info | Renew

Free Demo

Judgments by Category
Search Judgments by
Resources
Subject Modules
Database updates


Judgments

Ravi vs State, Represented By Inspector of Police  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 05 Sep 2008]
CrPC, 1973, s. 302 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Conviction for murder u/s. 302 on the basis of solitary witness's evidence - High Court found the evidence of interested and a partisan witness to be clear and cogent and dismissed the appeal - Appeal against - Recovery u/s. 27 of 1972 Act on the basis of confessional statement - (A) Contention that in a murder case the court should insist upon plurality of witnesses - (B) Plea of non possibility of identification - Availability of light - (C) Evidentary value of evidentiary value of evidence of interested and partisian witness - Contention held, is much too broadly stated and Supreme Court declined to interfere with HC judgment - Plea of identification being not possible has no substance - On a consideration authorities and Evidence Act, following propositions may be established that : (1) As a general rule, a court can and may act on the testimony o a single witness though uncorroborated. One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character;(2) Unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute, courts should not insist on corroboration except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires as a rule of prudence, that corroboration should be insisted upon, for example in the case of a child witness, or of a witness whose evidence is that of an accomplice or of an analogous character; (3) Whether corroboration of the testimony of a single witness is or is not necessary, must depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and no general rule can be laid down in a matter like this and much depends upon the judicial discretion of the Judge before whom the case comes - Appeal dismissed.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs Modern Engineers Construction Cooperative Society Limited  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 04 Sep 2008]
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Appeal against order of High Court dismissing appeals u/s. 260-A - Claim of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) - Negatived on the ground that income reflected can neither be attributed to actual labour of members nor can be treated as arising out of collective disposal of its labour - High Court failed to notice that the profit earned by the Society in executing the work was retained by the members themselves - And mixed up the factual position of some other case - Held, remit the matter for fresh consideration in the light of Madas Autorickshaw Drivers v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1998 INDLAW SC 2175, keeping in view the correct factual position - Court declined to expressed any opinion on the merits of the case - Appeal disposed of.
Sanjay Soni vs Whole Time Member, Securities and Exchange Board of India  [SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 04 Sep 2008]
SEBI Act, 1992, s. 11B - Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003, Regn. 4 - Appeal against order of whole time member of the SEBI u/s. 11B of 1992 Act debarring appellant/trader from buying, selling or dealing in securities for six months - For forming group and executed circular and synchronized trades - Their trades constitute 67.11% of the total traded quantity in 17 days - Contended that they were lured - Documentary material corroborated findings - Held, penalty imposed is reasonable and cannot be said to be harsh or disproportionate to the gravity of the charge established - Appeal Dismissed.
State of West Bengal vs Shyamadas Banerjee and Another  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 03 Sep 2008]
Constitution - West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 - CrPC, 1973 - IPC, 1860 - Public Servant - Whether a Special Judge exercising jurisdiction under the provisions of 1949 Act, can take cognizance of an offence against a member of the State Legislative Assembly when he had ceased to be a MLA, though the offence was alleged to have been committed when he was a sitting MLA - Held, since he ceased to be a MLA at a point of time when cognizance was taken by the Special Judge, such cognizance and the proceedings taken on the basis thereof must be held to have been vitiated - Appeal dismissed.
Supri Advertising and Entertainment Private Limited vs Dr. Anahita Pandole and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 02 Sep 2008]
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Preservation of Trees Act 1975 - Respondent challenged the permission granted to various advertising agencies for display of hoardings in breach of the guidelines - Held, High Court in its anxiety to ensure the free movement of traffic and the safety of both motorists and pedestrians and to avert any untoward incident, has proceeded to question the decision taken by the competent authorities without having proper material before it to do so - Contrary to the authority vested in the State Government and the local authority under the provisions of s. 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and ss. 328 and 328-A of the 1888 Act, the High Court has given directions which, are beyond the scope of the writ petition - Appeal allowed.
(1) K. Velayudham Pillai; (2) M. Karunakaran Pillai; (3) N. Krishna Das vs (1) T. Velayutham Pillai (Died); (2) V. Prama Kumari; (3) V. Thanunathan @ Nageswaran; (4) V. Padmini  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 02 Sep 2008]
Whether the previous judgment, to which the plaintiff in the present suit is a party would disable, on the principle of res judicata, the plaintiff from getting relief? - Whether the deceased plaintiff is precluded from claiming right to the suit property by way of estoppel by attestation under Section 115 of the Evidence Act? - Held, conflict of interest between the contesting defendants has been present in Original Suit No.67 of 1958 and the said conflict is very much essential to give the relief to the plaintiffs therein; further the said conflict between the contesting defendants has been finally decided and the contesting defendants are also necessary and proper parties in Original Suit No.67 of 1958 and therefore, it is quite clear that all the conditions culled out in the decision are present in the present suit and under the said circumstances, the decision rendered in Original Suit No.67 of 1958 with regard to present suit property would clearly operates as res judicata to the present suit - Attestation proves no more than of that the signature of an executing party has been attached to a document in the presence of a witness; it does not involve the witness in any knowledge of the contents of the deed; it can, at the best, be used for the purpose of cross-examination but by itself, it will neither create estoppel nor imply concern - Appeal allowed.
Madan Kishore vs Major Sudhir Sewal and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 02 Sep 2008]
Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Reforms Act, 1953 - Suit for declaration of title and for possession in respect of the suit land - Whether a sub- tenant under the Act is entitled to file an application for conferring proprietary rights under the Act in respect of the suit land? - Held, it was only the tenant who could make an application under the Act for acquiring proprietary rights in respect of the suit land - Scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions do not indicate that any right was conferred by the Act on the sub-tenant to acquire any proprietary rights in respect of the suit land under the Act - Order conferring proprietary rights on defendant no. 1/appellant by Compensation Officer was without jurisdiction and that the Compensation Officer was lacking jurisdiction in holding that the defendant No. 1/appellant could be conferred proprietary rights in respect of the suit land - Appeal dismissed.
R. Arivudainambe vs (1) Secretary To Government, Home Department, Chennai; (2) Additional Director General of Prisons, Chennai; (3) R. Kanagaraj; (4) D. Pazhani; (5) A. Murugesan; (6) G. Shanmuga Sundram; (7) K. Jeyabharati; (8) R. Rajalakshmi  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 02 Sep 2008]
Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules - Whether the petitioner having been temporarily promoted as early as 29.07.1997, could be placed over and above the directly recruited Jailors who were appointed from 07.04.2004 - Held, u/r. 39(a)(i) of TNSSS Rules, such temporary promotion would not confer any right on the petitioner to claim any seniority in the promoted post - As per r. 39(e) of the TNSSS Rules, the service of a person promoted under sub-r. (a) shall be liable to be terminated by the appointing authority at any time without notice without any reason being assigned - A person who is appointed temporarily to discharge a function in a particular post cannot be said to be in service till such time his appointment is regularised and he cannot claim any seniority - Petitions dismissed.
New India Co-Operative Housing Society Limited vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Another  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 02 Sep 2008]
Lease - Appeal against withdrawal of stop work notice - Held, when there is a specific stipulation in the Lease Deed that NOC from the lessor has to be obtained for the purpose of obtaining sanction of the building plan from the Municipal Corporation such NOC from the lessor would also be necessary for an amended building plan before the Municipal Corporation can sanction the building plan - Respondent No. 2 has violated clause 3(6) of the Lease Deed dated 31.5.1973 and hence construction as per the amended plan dated 27.12.2004 was wholly illegal - Appeal allowed.
State, Represented By D.S.P., S.B.C.I.D., Chennai vs K.V. Rajendran and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 02 Sep 2008]
Cr.PC, 1973 - Appeal by special leave under article 136 of constitution- Whether in exercise of the inherent power under section 482 of Cr.PC, 1973 an order disposing of a criminal petition, refusing to grant any relief, could be modified and, thereafter, an investigation, which was with the state police authorities could be transferred to the CBI Matter already disposed of, still High Court ordered transfer - Held HC was not justified in handing over the investigation to the CBI-Appeal allowed.
R.K. Jain, New Delhi vs (1) Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi; (2) Delhi Milk Scheme (Dms) Through Its General Manager West Patel Nagar, New Delhi  [DELHI HIGH COURT, 02 Sep 2008]
Whether the departmental inquiry against the Petitioner was vitiated in any manner whatsoever and whether the dismissal of his revision petition against the punishment of compulsory retirement had been decided by the correct authority?- Held, there was no necessity of the Inquiry Officer submitting a long, drawn out report; he considered the documents and evidence on record and gave his report based on that material; no fault can be found with the inquiry report in this regard - Merely because Disciplinary Authority communicated the order of the President- the Revisionary Authority does not make him his Revisionary Authority - No interference - Petition dismissed.
V.N. Bharat vs D.D.A. and Another  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 02 Sep 2008]
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - Self-Financing Scheme - Allegation of unfair trade practice by DDA - Whether the demand letter for payment of the fifth and final installment had, in fact, been received by the appellant and as to whether non-compliance with the same resulted in termination of the appellant's allotment and whether the restoration of such allotment on a representation made by the appellant would amount to a fresh or new allotment? - Held, MRTP Commission erred in law in shifting the onus of proof of service of the demand notice on the appellant and in discharging the notice of inquiry and vacating the interim order issued under s. 12-A of the M.R.T.P. Act - Allegation of unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent authority stands established - Appeal allowed.
(1) Board of Directors, Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited, Represented By Chairman; (2) Managing Director, Chennai vs N. Somasundaram  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 02 Sep 2008]
Whether imposition of penalty on respondent was based on no evidence and the enquiry wherein none of the charges levelled against respondent was proved by the Management by examining any witness and that the documents relied on by the Management were not marked through witnesses as required by the Service rules, was farce in nature? - Held, enquiry has been concluded on the basis of the charge memo and the documents filed by the Management Representative without there being any explanation to the same from the respondent; the process of conducting enquiry is definitely against the statutory requirement; violation can only be regarded as violation of substantive statutory provision - Even without a show cause notice, the disciplinary authority has reached the conclusion that in respect of charge Nos.7, 13 and 14, which were held as 'not proved' by the Enquiry Officer, has also been held to be proved - When a disciplinary authority disagree with the conclusion and finding arrived at by the enquiry officer, he is required to record its tentative reasons for disagreement and reasoning should be given to the delinquent officer to represent before ultimate finding is recorded - Non furnishing of reasons to the delinquent officer is fatal and vitiates ultimate order passed by the disciplinary authority - Appeal dismissed.
M. M. Synthetics, Theni vs (1) Commercial Tax Officer II, Theni; (2) Assistant Commissioner (Ct), Madurai; (3) Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 01 Sep 2008]
Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - Whether the Department can interfere with the Eligibility Certificate and whether the date of the application should be taken into account for implementing the deferral? - Held, Deferral Scheme is a concession shown for an industry established in a backward area; concession cannot be interpreted by High Court as if it is part of a legislation or Rule made thereunder - In a concession given by the Department, there is no scope for High Court to interfere when there is no scope for interpretation to find out whether an assessee is eligible for benefit under A or B Scheme - After High Court gave a direction, the Department had taken a specific stand that the petitioner is covered by new Government Order of 1994 and also stated that the eligibility certificate as well as commercial production commenced by the industry commenced after 1994, hence, there is no scope for interfering with the impugned order - Petition dismissed.
V. Murugaiah vs (1) State of Tamil Nadu, Represented By Home Secretary; (2) Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai; (3) District Revenue Officer Cum Additional District Magistrate, Tirunelveli  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 01 Sep 2008]
Arms Act, 1950 - Whether the petitioner had filed the appeal u/s. 18(1) of AA, 1950 to challenge order refusing grant of gun license within time? - Held, the postal cover produced by the petitioner in the typed set shows clearly that inspite of the order was signed by the 3rd respondent / District Revenue Officer - Cum - Additional District Magistrate on 09.08.2002, it was despatched by his office only on 28.08.2002 i.e. nearly after a period of 19 days from the date of signing of the order, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for not filing the appeal within 30 days of the issue - When the Rules provides for 30 days' time limit for filing the appeal, the second respondent should have looked into the same and should have condoned the delay on his own, when circumstances so warrant the same - Petition disposed of.
Manoj Kumar Dhaka vs Municipal Board, Mandawa and Others  [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, 01 Sep 2008]
CPC, 1908, O. 39 rr. 1 and 2, O.43 - Alternative remedy - Writ petition against order of rejection of application under O. 39 rr. 1 & 2 - Order appelable under O. 43, but without availing an opportunity of alternative remedy, petitioner preferred writ petition directly before High Court - On the ground that auction proceedings will take place in the matter on the very next day and no time is left for him to approach first appellate court - Court held, declined any indulgence in the matter - Petition Dismissed.
State of Punjab vs Rakesh Kumar  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 29 Aug 2008]
IPC, 1860, ss. 366, 376 - Appeal against reduction of sentence as to the period undergone by High Court - Issue relates to proper sentence and whether merely because of lapse of time or that the accused belonged to rural areas, the accused is to be waived from undergoing it - Held, imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise - Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter productive in the long run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system - In order to exercise the discretion of reducing the sentence the statutory requirement is that the Court has to record "adequate and special reasons" in the judgment and not fanciful reasons which would permit the Court to impose a sentence less than the prescribed minimum - Sentence is fixed at 3 years RI and fine of Rs.10, 000/- - Appeal partly allowed.
Kunnashada Muthukoya vs Administrator U.T. of Lakshadweep and Another  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 29 Aug 2008]
Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 - Whether r. 5 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 carves out any exception to the general principles of service law, or lays down a different principle, and if so whether r. 5 had been wrongly ignored - Held, First Schedule classified the pay scales for convenience under the headings 'Group D' and 'Groups C & B' did not mean that a government servant working in Group 'C' but whose existing scale of pay was shown under the heading Group 'D', could ignore his existing scale and claim the benefit of a revised scale corresponding to some other higher pre- revised scale of pay - Object and intent of r. 5 was to bring all government servants covered by the Revised Pay Rules to the revised scales except those who elected to continue to drawing pay in the existing scales - R. 5 does not mean that if a government servant was in a post classified as a Group 'C' post with an existing pay scale shown in the First Schedule as a Group 'D' pay scale, the government servant would get the pay scale applicable to a Group 'C' post - Appeal dismissed.
Bholu Ram vs State of Punjab and Another  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 29 Aug 2008]
IPC, 1860, ss. 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471; Cr.P.C, 1973, s. 319 - Application to add respondent No. 2 as accused allowed by Magistrate - Sessions Judge set aside the order - Appeal against - Held, Magistrate had power and jurisdiction to entertain applications filed by the appellant- accused under s. 319 and to issue summons to respondent No. 2 by adding him as accused - Said order could not be said to be illegal, unlawful or otherwise objectionable - Once an order is passed by a competent Court issuing summons or process, it cannot be recalled - Revisional Court was not justified in entering into correctness or otherwise of the evidence at the stage of issuance of summons to respondent No.2 - Mens rea can only be decided at the time of trial and not at the stage of issuing summons - Since the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate was in consonance with law, the Additional Sessions Judge should have refrained from exercising revisional jurisdiction - Appeal allowed.
Jammu Rural Bank vs Mohmmed Din and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 29 Aug 2008]
Debt Relief Scheme for the borrowers in the State of Jammu & Kashmir - Whether the loans obtained by respondents for purchasing of sheep and buffalos, establishing dairy units etc. were covered by the Scheme; In the absence of specific plea by the respondents- loanees whether the Court is justified in granting relief in terms of the Scheme - Held, following the very reason for introduction of the Scheme i.e. to offer financial help to the poor and indebted borrowers of militancy hit Jammu & Kashmir, the courts below rightly concluded that the agricultural and allied business activities viz., the types of trade/business which are substantially or partially depending on agriculture and/or agricultural produce as a business activity under the Scheme - Approved the conclusion and the ultimate decision of courts below granting relief to the respondents - Appeals dismissed.
Vishnu Sarup Gupta vs Securities and Exchange Board of India  [SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 29 Aug 2008]
Whether Padmini which made an allotment of equity shares to a select group of persons without receiving application/allotment money and issued false certificates to get those shares listed was a party to the manipulation in the price of the shares which were sold in the secondary market by Ketan Parekh and his entities? - Held, it is not necessary to find out as to who was the mastermind but the fact that Padmini was a party to the whole game plan is enough to uphold the impugned order - Board had framed proper show cause notices with greater attention to the specific circumstances attaching to each of the delinquents - Appeals dismissed.
Manjul Srivastava vs Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 29 Aug 2008]
Dispute pertains to allotment of a certain plot of land by the GDA in its Govindpuram Housing Scheme - Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission held that the Ghaziabad Development Authority had not resorted to any "unfair trade practice" inasmuch as the appellant was unsuccessful in the draw for allotment of a plot - Appeal against - Held, since the appellant was not allotted any plot and only a plot was reserved subject to holding of a lottery for the specific plots for allotment, the appellant would not acquire any legal right to such plot, only she would be entitled to get refund of her amount deposited with the GDA - Directed the respondent to refund the money already deposited with the GDA with interest at the rate of 18 per cent and not at the rate of 5% - Appeals partly allowed.
Vivek Nagpal vs Securities and Exchange Board of India  [SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 29 Aug 2008]
Whether Padmini which made an allotment of equity shares to a select group of persons without receiving application/allotment money and issued false certificates to get those shares listed was a party to the manipulation in the price of the shares which were sold in the secondary market by Ketan Parekh and his entities? - Held, it is not necessary to find out as to who was the mastermind but the fact that Padmini was a party to the whole game plan is enough to uphold the impugned order - Board had framed proper show cause notices with greater attention to the specific circumstances attaching to each of the delinquents - Appeal dismissed.
Hari Singh Gond vs State of Madhya Pradesh  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 29 Aug 2008]
IPC, 1860 - CrPC, 1973 - Evidence Act - Muder and setting fire to the house - Division Bench of High Court confirmed the order of conviction u/ss. 302 and 201 of Penal Code - (A) Availability of benefit of s. 84 of IPC, 1860 - Unusual behaviour of accused - (B) Applicability of s. 339 of CrPC, 1973 - Held, standard to be applied is whether according to the ordinary standard, adopted by reasonable men, the act was right or wrong; mere fact that an accused is conceited, odd irascible and his brain is not quite all right, or that the physical and mental ailments from which he suffered had rendered his intellect weak and had affected his emotions and will, or that he had committed certain unusual acts, in the past or that he was liable to recurring fits of insanity at short intervals, or that he was subject to getting epileptic fits but there was nothing abnormal in his behaviour, or that his behaviour was queer, cannot be sufficient to attract the application of this section. - Court held, declined to express opinion - Appeal dismissed.
(1) N.D.M.C. and Others; (2) Union of India vs Tanvi Trading and Credit Private Limited and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 28 Aug 2008]
New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994, s. 241(2) - Appeal against the order holding that order rejecting building plans submitted by respondents is illegal as well as without jurisdiction and declared that the building plans submitted by the respondents, are deemed to have been sanctioned under s. 241(2) - Held, in view of the provisions of s. 241 of the NDMC Act, the building plan submitted by the respondents which are contrary to the provisions of the Zonal Development Plan approved by the Central Government under the DD Act could not have been sanctioned - Law for approval of the building plan would be the date on which the approval is granted and not the date on which the plans are submitted - Appeals allowed.


Copyright © 1997-2008 | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer