Search by Keywords x
contact us contact us | home help



 Welcome Guest | Sep 7 2008
 
Home Skip Navigation Links
Search by Database Expand Search by Database
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

Database Updates
Search by Database
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.
Bhushan Kalra vs State of Rajasthan and Others  [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, 04 Sep 2008]
Challenge to the order dismissing suit and application for temporary injunction - Courts below recorded a concurrent finding in respect of prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury against the plaintiff-petitioner - Held, reasons assigned by both the courts below are perfectly justified and they do not call for any interference by High Court u/art. 227 of the Constitution - High Court cannot, while exercising jurisdiction u/art. 227, interfere with findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal - Petition dismissed.
Ritu Gambhir and Others vs State of Rajasthan and Others  [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, 04 Sep 2008]
Whether filing of writ petition instead of filing petition u/s. 482 CrPC, 1973 to challenge order dismissing revision petition against order of taking cognizance of offence justified? - Held, jurisdiction of High Court u/arts. 226 and 227 cannot be invoked where the petitioners have an alternative remedy against the impugned order - Petition dismissed.
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 Rajasthan and Another vs Daljeet Singh and Others  [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, 04 Sep 2008]
Challenge to the order allowing suit for permanent injunction alongwith an application for temporary injunction in respect of disputed shop - Courts below recorded a finding that plaintiff was in possession of the shop over the disputed land and his possession was old one and that irreparable injury and balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff - Held, illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the said orders so as to interfere with the same - High Court cannot, while exercising jurisdiction u/art. 227, interfere with findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal - Petition 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.
Rajendra Kumar vs Versus Additional District and Session Judge and Others  [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, 04 Sep 2008]
Challenge to the order rejecting application filed under O. 13, r. 2 r/w s. 151 CPC, 1908 - Held, order passed by the trial court is self speaking and well reasoned and no interference is called for in the same - High Court cannot, while exercising jurisdiction u/art. 227, interfere with findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal - Petition dismissed.
(1) Yogesh Chandra and Others; (2) Jai Shree Woolen Mills Private Limited and Another vs (1) Jai Shree Woolen Mills Private Limited and Others; (2) Yogesh Chandra and Others  [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, 03 Sep 2008]
Petitions preferred on behalf of both parties for direction to set aside impugned order dated 15-09-2006 passed by Executing Court and to proceed with the execution application, in accordance with law - Direction issued - Petitions disposed of.
Hargian Singh, Nangloi, Delhi vs (1) Government of Nct of Delhi, Through Chief Secretary; (2) Director of Education; (3) Labour Department, Through Labour Commissioner; (4) Deputy Director of Education; (5) Senior Accounts Officer (Administration); (6) Deputy Controller of Accounts (Funds), Government of Nct of Delhi; (7) Principal, Government Comp. (Sarvodaya) Girls Secendary School, Delhi  [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 03 Sep 2008]
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Whether applicant was entitled to seek salary withheld by respondents for four years and arrears pension with interest withheld by respondents for two years? - Held, the plea raised by the respondents that the Application is barred by limitation is concerned, the same also needs summary rejection, as surely the cause of action for grant of salary arises every month; it is a recurring cause and cannot be defeated on plea of limitation - Salary of the applicant has been denied to him on wholly untenable grounds - Insofar as, grant of interest to the applicant is concerned, the same would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case, and there is no justification whatsoever forthcoming for withholding the pay and pension of the applicant - Writ or an application for interest alone would be competent - Application allowed.
Pratap and Another vs Murti Khobra Nath Bhairo, Through Khobra Nath Bhairo Trust Committee and Another  [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, 03 Sep 2008]
Challenge to order rejection review application filed to frame additional issues - Held, no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same - High Court's function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority; it cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and reappreciating it - Petition dismissed.
(1) Pankaj; (2) Krishna Murti and Another; (3) Koshlendra @ Kaushal vs State of Rajasthan  [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, 03 Sep 2008]
IPC, 1860, ss. 302/34 - Arms Act, 1950, ss. 3/25 - Appeal to challenge conviction and sentence - Dying declaration - Sole eye witness - Held, prosecution is not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that deceased was in a fit state of mind to make a lucid statement - When ocular evidence is cogent, credible and trustworthy, minor variance, if any, is not of any consequence; testimony of sole eye witness gets corroboration from the evidence of Pw.5, who had seen accused no.1 coming out of the shop with Katta; evidence of sole eye witness is further corroborated by the testimony of IO who got accused no.1 arrested and recovered Katta on the basis of his disclosure statement - After Accused no.1 volunteered information about Katta, the IO got it recorded u/s. 27 of the Evidence Act and pursuant to the information katta was recovered at the instance of appellant Accused no.1 - Prosecution has established charges u/s. 302 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act, 1950 against Accused no.1 beyond reasonable doubt; for charge u/s. 302/34 IPC, 1860 against appellants no. 2, 3 and 4, at the time of incident they were present inside the shop with appellant Accused no.1 but prosecution however could not establish that they shared joint responsibility for the criminal act of Accused no.1 so they cannot be held guilty u/s. 302/34 IPC, 1860 - Appeal disposed of.
Mangat Ram Sharma (Deceased), Through Legal Heirs Pratima Sharma and Shivan Prabhakar, New Delhi vs (1) Delhi Development Authority, Through Its Vice Chairman; (2) Chairman, Delhi Development Authority  [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 03 Sep 2008]
Challenge to the order of compulsory retirement passed against applicant - Held, proceedings suffer from arbitrariness; he could not have been answerable if hastily the columns of CR were filled up; it was also not his duty to get the remarks reviewed; there is nothing adverse against him after the year 1996; even the two punishment orders served on him were about the alleged lapse of suspension, which was there in the course of his work during 1982-83; it is surprising that in spite of the High Court quashing the charge sheets, the Committee has thought it fit to consider them as charges substantiated; presumably the only reason is that there was an occasion for issuing charge sheets; the presumption was totally erroneous - Approach was totally unwarranted and shows lack of application of mind - Application allowed.
Lali and Another vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, 1St Class, Sarwad, and Others  [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, 03 Sep 2008]
CPC, 1908, O. 39, r. 2A, s. 151 - Whether trial court committed an illegality in rejecting application u/s. 151 CPC, 1908 for providing police aid to ensure compliance of the injunction order only by observing that since an application under O. 39, r. 2A CPC, 1908 had already been filed by the plaintiffs the present application could not be decided without any evidence? - Held, so far as the application under O. 39, r. 2A CPC, 1908 is concerned, the same can be decided only by adducing evidence by both the parties and in that application in case the trial court reaches to the conclusion that the defendants have disobeyed the order then the order of their conviction can be passed but the order for compliance of the order cannot be passed therein - So far as the application u/s. 151 CPC, 1908 is concerned, the trial court cannot reject the same only on the ground that another application under O. 39, r. 2A CPC has already been preferred - It is a duty of the trial court to decide the application u/s. 151 CPC on the basis of affidavits filed by respective parties about compliance or non-compliance of the order - Petition allowed.
B.L. Kaul, New Delhi vs (1) Delhi Development Authority, Through Its Vice Chairman; (2) A.K. Patnaik, Finance Member, Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi  [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 03 Sep 2008]
Whether penalty of reduction in salary with cumulative effect on applicant-a Senior Assistant Director in the Delhi Development Authority, for issuing lease deed papers presented before without verification of the factual details, was justifiable? - Held, stern measures will have to be employed as the situation might demand - The court is not expected to upset proceedings when it is evident that disciplinary proceedings are initiated for valid and justifiable reasons and the due procedure is followed - No interference - Application dismissed.
Bhorya vs Ramdhan and Others  [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, 03 Sep 2008]
Whether court below committed an illegality in rejecting application for restoration of appeal which was filed within 30 days of rejection of application with an explanation that appellant was 70 years old and his counsel could not attend the matter on that day because of his illness? - Held, court below has committed an illegality in rejecting the application for restoration of the appeal, which was filed within time - Petition allowed.
Lalit Mohan, New Delhi vs Delhi Development Authority and Others, Through Lt. Governor and Vice Chairman, New Delhi  [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 03 Sep 2008]
Challenge to the sustainability of the disciplinary proceedings, which had culminated in a penalty advice - Held, if an inquiry had been held, it would have been possible for applicant to substantiate its contentions; such opportunity had been denied to him - It is not disclosed as to what prompted to the disciplinary authority to come to the conclusion that the charge against the employee is proved - Disciplinary authority had erred in issuing order not to hold inquiry in a cryptic manner; he has practically overlooked, to note the contentions as raised in the objection which as the disciplinary authority he was bound to examine and comment upon which he was obliged under the Regulations - Imposition of penalty cannot be held as diligent exercise of power, the defect affects the root of the matter, and the order requires to be set aside - Application allowed.
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) 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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.


Copyright © 1997-2008 | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer