http://www.advocatekhoj.com/ Subscribe to the latest Supreme Court judgments with complete details of case numbers, parties name, judge names and headnotes. en-us Copyright 2013 AdvocateKhoj Tue, 07 May 2013 06:12:00 +0530 Tue, 07 May 2013 06:12:00 +0530 AdvocateKhoj Feed Generator 144 43 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/ http://www.advocatekhoj.com/images/site/logo.jpg [Civil Appeal No. 4440 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.27335 of 2012]. We are in these appeals concerned with an issue of considerable national and international importance, pertaining to the setting up of a nuclear power plant in the South-Eastern tip of India, at Kudankulam in the State of Tamil Nadu. The incidents occurred in Three Miles Island Power Plant USA, Chernobyl, Ukraine, USSR, Fukoshima, Japan, Union Carbide, Bhopal might be haunting the memory of the people living in and around Kudankulam, leading to large-scale agitation and emotional reaction to the setting up of the Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) and its commissioning. The nature of potential adverse effect of ionizing radiation, adds to fears and unrest which might not have even thought of by Enrico Fermi a noble laureate in physics in 1938, who was responsible for the setting up of the first Nuclear reactor in a Doubles quash Court at Slagg Field, at the Chicago University, USA. Since then, it is history, India has now 20Nuclear Reactors, in place, and the world over about 439, but people still react emotionally, for more reasons than one, when a new one is being established. People's concern was mooted, even in the Constituent Assembly when it deliberated the issue before constituting India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic and adopting and enacting the Constitution of India. Tue, 07 May 2013 06:12:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3487 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3487 [Civil Appeal Nos.4150-4163 of 2013]. Unsuccessful appellant in the Writ Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore is the appellant before us. This appeal is directed against the common judgment in W.A. Nos. 1936/2005 (LR) along with W.A. Nos. 1941/2005, 1946/2005 and 2202 of 2005(LR). The appellant is a religious Mutt called 'Kannada Mutt'. Land of 197 acres was granted as Jagir to the Mutt in Survey Nos. 9, 10, 12 and 13 of Bettegeri village, Ammathy Hobli, Virajpet Taluk, Coorg District in the year 1809 by the then Ruler of Kodagu, Sri Veerarajendra Wodeyar. By a mortgage deed dated 1.3.1955, the predecessor of present Mathadhipathi stated to have mortgaged possession of 175.60 acres out of 197 acres of lands in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the present contesting respondents. By yet another mortgage deed dated 5.4.1967, a second mortgage deed in favour of the very same parties in respect of 17 acres of land was stated to have been made. The mortgages were made for a period of 99 years. Be that as it may, on 18.5.1978, Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 (hereinafter called as the "1977 Act") came into force and the effective date was 01.03.1974. By virtue of Section 4(2)(b) of the 1977 Act all Inams that were existing on that date stood abolished with effect from 01.03.1974, namely, the effective date. After the coming into force of the 1977 Act, the Mutt filed an application on 25.6.1987 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the entire lands. Tue, 07 May 2013 06:07:10 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3486 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3486 [Criminal Appeal Nos. 931-932 of 2009]. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 4.1.2008, passed by the High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in D.B. Crl.A. Nos. 1250 and 1749 of 2003 by way of which, the High Court has dismissed the aforesaid appeals and affirmed the judgment and order dated 5.8.2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur District in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2002 by way of which, the appellant stood convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 376 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC'), and was awarded a sentence of life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 302 IPC; 10 years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 376 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment of 5 years along with a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 201 IPC, and in default of depositing such fine, to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The substantive sentences, however, were ordered to run concurrently. As per the case of the prosecution, the necessary facts related to the present case are as under: A. Pooja, a 4 year old girl, went missing on 22.5.2001. Her family members searched for her relentlessly and also reported the matter to the police. She was eventually found lying dead on the roof of a lonely house on 24.5.2001. Rohtash (PW.1), father of the deceased, submitted a written report (Ex.P-1) of the incident at Police Station, Kotputli and upon the receipt of such report, a case under Sections 302 and 201 IPC was registered, and investigation pertaining to the same also commenced. Thereafter, postmortem was performed on the dead body, necessary memos were drawn, and statements of witnesses were recorded. Tue, 07 May 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3485 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3485 [Civil Appeal Nos._4345-4429_/2013 arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 10230-10314/2012]. Whether the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can compel the State to complete the acquisition proceedings initiated under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'), is one of the short questions arising for consideration in these cases. Another short question is - Whether writ can be issued compelling the Land Acquisition Collector/Officer to implement the instruction issued to him by the Government otherwise than under the procedure under the Act? SHORT FACTS: The writ petitioners/appellants herein having their property in Mukundur village, Hassan Taluk in Karnataka State approached the High Court for following directions: "Issue Writ of Mandamus directing Deputy Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer to pass the award as per the directions of the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka and the decision of State Government dated 19.11.2009." The letter dated 19.11.2009 from the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Hasan District, reads as under: "Sir, Sub:- Framing award in respect of Mukundooru, Gaddebindenahalli and Chikkagondanahalli villages which are acquired as seepage affected villages at Hassan District - Reg. Ref:- Your Letter No. BhuSwaSa-150:2008-09 dated 11.09.2009. Tue, 07 May 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3484 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3484 [Criminal Appeal No.1156 of 2008]. In these appeals the challenge is to the common judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital dated 14.6.2007 in Criminal Appeal Nos.17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 95 of 2005. The High Court by the impugned judgment confirmed the conviction and sentences awarded by the trial Court in its judgment and order dated 01.2.2005, in Sessions Case No.156/2002 State v. Soma and Others. The appellants were all convicted for offences under Section 302, 307 read with Section 149 and Sections 147 & 148 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). Each of the accused was awarded the punishment of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- under Sections 302/149 IPC and seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.3000/- under Section 307/149 IPC and one year's rigorous imprisonment and Rs.1000/- fine under Section 148 IPC and six months' rigorous imprisonment and Rs.500/- fine under Section 147 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Criminal Misc. Petition No.22687 of 2011 in Criminal Appeal No.1160 of 2008 filed by the de facto complainant is allowed. Applicant is impleaded as party-respondent. The genesis of the case was that the complainant Sajjad @ Kala PW-2 was the resident of village Dadoobas, within the jurisdiction of Bhagwanpur police station, district Haridwar. On 21.11.2001 his brother Ayyub (PW- 3) went to his field situated near the river. Sat, 04 May 2013 06:32:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3483 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3483 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9967 of 2013]. The three petitioners before us are now detained in judicial custody in the Tihar Jail on being convicted under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner no. 3 was the Chief Minister of the State of Haryana from 1999 to 2005 and during his tenure 3206 Junior Basic Trained Teachers were recruited in the year 2000. During that time, one Shri Sanjiv Kumar, IAS, was the Director, Primary Education, Government of Haryana. From 2000 onwards, upon certain facts being brought to the knowledge of the Government of Haryana, several disciplinary and vigilance inquiries were initiated against the said Shri Sanjiv Kumar. An FIR was registered against him under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. While the said inquiries were pending, Shri Sanjiv Kumar filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 93/2003 before this Court, holding himself out to be a whistle blower and claiming that while he was functioning as Director, Primary Education, Haryana, he was pressurized into altering the lists for appointment of Junior Basic Trained Teachers. Since, he had resisted and did not succumb to such pressure, he was being unfairly targeted by the administration. Sat, 04 May 2013 06:28:40 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3482 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3482 [Civil Appeal No.1071 of 2006]. This Civil Appeal raises the question as to whether the will of one Smt. Nagammanni was validly executed, and whether the same was duly proved by the respondent no.1 and another (original plaintiffs). There is one more connected issue raised in this appeal as to whether a learned Judge of the High Court of Karnataka was right in interfering in Second Appeal, into the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court in exercise of High Court's powers under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. Facts leading to this Civil Appeal are as follows:- The respondent no.1 and another, the original plaintiffs are the sons of a cousin of one Smt. Nagammanni who died on 21.11.1970. It is claimed by them that she left behind a will executed way back on24.10.1943, and registered with the Sub-Registrar at Mysore, on 25.10.1943. The original plaintiffs claimed that through the said will she has bequeathed her property in their favour. The property referred in the will is her ancestral property. The property of late Smt. Nagammanni consisted of 11 parcels of dry land situated in village Mallinathpuram, and 2 parcels of wet land situated in village Kaggalli, both in taluk Mallavalli in district Mandya, State of Karnatka. Out of these 11 parcels of dry land those at Sl. Nos.2, 5 and 10 (from the list referred in the plaint) were not covered in the will. Sat, 04 May 2013 06:24:10 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3481 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3481 [Criminal Appeal No. of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) No.6287 of 2011]. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 24th August,2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, whereby Criminal Appeal No.359 of 2008 filed by the appellant and two others has been dismissed in so far as the appellant is concerned and allowed qua the remaining two, thereby upholding the appellant's conviction for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C and the sentence of imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.2,000/- awarded to him. In default of payment of fine the appellant has been sentenced to undergo a further imprisonment for a period of three months. The factual matrix in which the appellant came to be prosecuted and convicted has been set out in detail by the trial Court as also the High Court in the orders passed by them. We need not, therefore, recapitulate the same all over again except to the extent it is necessary to do so for the disposal of this appeal. Briefly stated, the incident that culminated in the death of deceased-Nilkanth Pawar and the consequent prosecution of the appellant and two others occurred at about 10.00 p.m. on 3rd February,2006 while the deceased and his wife P.W.1-Mangalbai were guarding their Jaggery crop growing in their field. Sat, 04 May 2013 06:20:50 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3480 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3480 [Civil Appeal No.5513 of 2012 arising out of SLP (C) No.6367 of 2012]. The present appeal is filed against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1831 and 2071 of2003. By the impugned judgment dated 29th July, 2011, the Rajasthan High Court upheld the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') and observed as follows: "13. In the situation, in the light of the above detail and analysis it appears that the learned tribunal's basis of calculating amount of compensation might be erroneous but in totality determined, assessed and awarded total amount of compensation Rs.14,93,700/- is proper and justified, and there is no adequate basis for increasing or reducing it. Therefore, judgment dated 21.06.2003 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur is affirmed and appeals by the appellants and Insurance Company are dismissed. The factual matrix of the case is that on 14th September, 1996 one Mr. Sajjan Singh Shekhawat was sitting on his scooter which was parked on the side of the road and was waiting for one Junior Engineer, N. Hari Babuand another whom he had called for discussion. At that time, the non-applicant No.1, driver of the Jeep No.RJ-10C-0833 came driving from the Railway Station side with high speed, recklessly and negligently and hit the scooter. Sajjan Singh along with his scooter came under the Jeep and was dragged with the vehicle. Due to this accident fatal injuries was caused to him and on reaching the Hospital he expired. The scooter was also damaged completely. Sat, 04 May 2013 06:16:20 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3479 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3479 [Criminal Appeal No. 684 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) No. 7293 of 2009]. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.78 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2013(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7293 of 2009). This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated02.09.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Application No. 3112 of 2006 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein while confirming the order dated 27.09.2005, passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ghatanji in Criminal Complaint Case No. 92 of 2005. Brief facts: The Government of Maharashtra has published a Government Resolution on 02.06.2004 wherein it was informed to the public at large that the percentage of educated un-employed amongst the Scheduled Caste and neo-Buddhist are on the higher side and those who are below poverty line are required to work under different schemes and their standard of living is consequently adversely affected. For the said reason, it was resolved that land should be made available to such people to create a source of income for them. For the said purpose, a scheme was framed by name Karamveer Dadasaheb Gaikwad Sabalikaran and Swabhiman Yojana Samiti. Sat, 04 May 2013 06:12:50 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3478 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3478 [Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 2008]. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 26.09.2006passed by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Criminal Death Reference No. 1 of 2006 along with Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2006 whereby the High Court disposed of the appeal preferred by the appellant-herein by confirming his conviction and altering the sentence of death to imprisonment for life passed by the Court of Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur dated 18.03.2006 in Sessions Case No.40(NL) 03 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). Brief facts: As per the prosecution case, on 29.03.2000, at around 12 noon, one Rupamoni Dutta (the deceased), aged about 22 years, r/o Mauza Talwa, Village Kakattiup, PS Lakhimpur, Assam went to the field near an embankment to attend her goats. When she did not return home, Ganesh Dutta (PW-2),father of the deceased, went in search for her. After enquiring about her daughter in the house of his elder brother, Khira Dutta, PW-2 started searching for her along the embankment. While returning, he heard a loud laughter at the farm house of the appellant-accused. Sat, 04 May 2013 06:07:20 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3477 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3477 [Civil Appeal No. 4282 of 2013 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.29831 of 2011]. The question raised in this case is whether the Public Service Commission of West Bengal (for short 'the Commission') was justified in considering the application of respondent No.1 as a general candidate for recruitment to the West Bengal Judicial Service Examination, 2007 rather than a member of the Scheduled Tribe Community. The Commission circulated a notification on 17th January, 2007 for the information to the candidates on 17th February, 2007 of its conducting West Bengal Judicial Service Examination 2007. In response to the said information the respondent submitted his application by paying an amount ofRs.200/-, as required by the candidates in the general category in order to appear for the examination of 2007. In the application form he had mentioned that he belonged to 'Gonda Community' - Scheduled Tribe Community and also attached a certificate from the Director, Backward Class Welfare, West Bengal. The Commission considered the application of the respondent as a general candidate since he had not produced the certificate required to be produced from the competent authority. Sat, 04 May 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3476 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3476 [Criminal Appeal No. 1421 of 2007]. This appeal arises out of a common judgment and order dated 14.8.2006passed by the High Court of Calcutta in CRA No. 425 of 2001and CRA No. 463of 2001, whereby the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants. The prosecution version is that on 5.7.1983 at about 5 AM to 5.30 AM, some 200-250 villagers, which included the accused persons as well, armed with various weapons like Lathi, Ladna, Farsa, Hasua and Ballam surrounded the village Siktahar. The accused persons forced out a number of persons from their houses, assaulted them in various ways and ultimately took four of them in tie-bound condition to a place called Hijul Pakur Field which is some distance away from village Siktahar and they assaulted them with various weapons causing serious injuries. The injured persons were admitted to Ratua Public Health Centre and later, shifted to Malda Sadar Hospital. One of the injured, namely Azad Ali, succumbed to his injuries. The remaining injured persons, viz. the informant - Md. Yasin PW1, Hasan Ali PW4 and Farjan Ali PW2 sustained serious injuries. During the course of occurrence, accused persons also assaulted Mohammed Badaruddin PW3,Mohamed Sabiruddin PW5 and Mohammed Kalimuddin PW6. However, those persons could escape from the clutches of the accused persons and flee from the place of assault. Sat, 04 May 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3475 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3475 [Civil Appeal No. 4169 of 2013 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.612 of 2007]. An award dated 27.02.2004 passed by the learned Labour Court, Ambala, upholding the termination of service of the appellant was challenged before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The High Court having dismissed the aforesaid challenge the present appeal has been filed. The brief facts that would be relevant for the adjudication of the present case may be noticed as herein below: The appellant, Sohan Lal, was employed as a regular driver in the Haryana Roadways having been appointed in the said post on 01.04.1993.According to the appellant, while in service, he sustained certain injuries as a result of a road accident. A medical examination of the appellant was conducted by the Civil Surgeon, Yamuna Nagar to determine the fitness of the appellant to continue to be employed as a driver. He was found to be unfit to discharge his duties. Thereafter, a notice dated 03.03.1997 was issued to the appellant by the General Manager of the Haryana Roadways proposing to retire him from service on medical grounds. The appellant submitted his reply on consideration of which, by order dated 27.03.1997,the appellant was retired from service with effect from 31.03.1997 on ground of medical unfitness. Fri, 03 May 2013 06:12:40 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3469 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3469 [Civil Appeal No. 4167/2013 arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 22263/2011]. While registering an instrument of partition, whether the registering authority under the Registration Act, 1908 is bound by the assessment of stamp duty made by the court as per suit valuation, is the question arising for consideration in this case. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 02.09.2010 of the High Court of Calcutta passed on a petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Siliguri on 22.08.2007. Respondents are parties to a partition suit filed by the 1st Respondent herein before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Siliguri in T.S. (Partition) No. 70 of 1999. The Trial Court had directed the petitioner, who was not a party before the court, to complete the registration on the basis of the stamp duty as per the suit valuation. The suit was valued at Rs.50 lakhs for the purpose of suit valuation. During the pendency of the suit, dispute was compromised and, accordingly, Annexure P3 - Order dated 30.03.2001 was passed ordering: "that the suit be and the same is decreed in final form on compromise in terms of the joint compromise petition dated 15.11.2000 which do form part of the decree. The parties do bear their respective costs. Parties are directed to file Stamp Papers as would be assessed by the Sheristadar for engrossing the Final Decree and for registration of the same. Sheristadar is directed to assess the amount of Stamp Paper over the valuation of the suit property at once...." (Emphasis supplied) Fri, 03 May 2013 06:07:10 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3468 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3468 [Civil Appeal No. 4166 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 12644 of 2009]. The short question for consideration in this appeal by special leave is whether High Court was justified in staying the proceedings in civil suit till the decision in criminal case. It is not necessary to narrate the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that the appellant filed an FIR (P.S. Case No. 8 of 2003) at Dharampura Police Station against respondent nos. 1 to 4 for commission of the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120B, IPC alleging that they had executed a false, forged and fabricated will on 02.07.1997 in the name of late Devkinandan Sahay with the intention to grab his property. It was further alleged that based on the fabricated will, these respondents had obtained a mutation order dated 24.11.1999 from the Tehsildar, Ajaygarh. On completion of investigation in the above F.I.R., the challan has been filed against the above respondents and trial against them is going on in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ajaygarh, Panna (M.P.). On 09.02.2004, the appellant brought legal action in representative capacity against the respondents nos. 1 to 4 by way of a civil suit in the Court of District Judge, Panna (M.P.) praying for a decree for declaration of title, perpetual injunction and possession in respect of disputed lands and for annulling the sale deed dated 14.08.2003 and the mutation order dated 24.11.1999. Fri, 03 May 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3467 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3467 [Criminal Appeal No. 677 of 2013 arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 1105 of 2012]. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether 12 years delay in the disposal of the petition filed by the appellant under Article 72 of the Constitution was sufficient for commutation of the sentence of death into life imprisonment and the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court committed an error by dismissing the writ petition filed by him. The appellant was prosecuted for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the allegation that he had killed Rajen Das, Secretary of Assam Motor Workers Union on 24.12.1990. He was convicted by Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as, 'the trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 80(K) of 1990 vide judgment dated 11.11.1997 and was sentenced to life imprisonment. While he was on bail in Sessions Case No. 80(K) of 1990, the appellant is said to have killed Hare Kanta Das (a truck owner). He was tried in Sessions Case No. 114(K) of 1996 and was convicted by the trial Court and was sentenced to death on the premise that the murder was most foul and gruesome. Fri, 03 May 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3466 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3466 [Civil Appeal No. 4168 of 2013 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.3036 of 2009]. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7th January, 2009 passed by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court on a reference made to it by the Hon'ble Chief Justice pursuant to the order dated 19th November, 2008 of a learned Single Judge to answer the question as to whether the Office Memorandum dated 7th January, 2008 issued by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh and adopted by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission on 16th April, 2008 prescribing cut-off marks of 33% or more to be secured in each written examination papers in the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Combined Competitive Examination (Main) 2006-07 (in short, "the Main Examination") conducted by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission for recruitment into various posts in Grade-A and Grade - B under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, is permissible after commencement of the recruitment process and applicable to the candidates who already took the Main Examination initiated in pursuance of the advertisement dated 25th July, 2006 for such recruitment. The facts of the case are that the Arunchal Pradesh Public Service Commission (in short, "the Commission") issued an advertisement dated 25th July, 2006 inviting applications for admission to the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Combined Competitive Examination (Preliminary) 2006-07 for recruitment to Group-A and Group-B posts under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. A decision was taken by the Commission on 13th June, 2007 fixing a minimum cut-off marks at 40% in English as qualifying marks or as would be decided by the Commission in every written examination for recruitment to the posts and a notification to that effect was issued on 2nd July, 2007. Thu, 02 May 2013 06:12:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3459 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3459 [Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2008]. Appellants herein, the original accused A-1, A-3 and A-7, were charge - sheeted along with certain other accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 452, Sections 341, 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC etc. The trial Court acquitted all the accused persons in Sessions Case No. 7 of 1989 vide its judgment dated 25.9.1989. On appeal by the State, the High Court set aside the acquittal of the appellants of the offences under Section 452 read with Section 34 IPC and convicted and sentenced each one of them with a sentence of 1-2 years and fine with default sentence. The High Court also sentenced them for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, appellants herein have come up with this appeal. The prosecution version is as follows: Deceased Sanjay Gaonkar and his two friends, namely, Anil Raut - PW8 and Rajan Angane - PW15 were chit-chatting in front of Kishor Cycle Mart at Bharad Naka, Malwan. At that time, the complainant Suryakant Ramchandra Phansekar - PW4, a resident of Malwan having his house in an area known as Vaiery, had gone to a saloon situated just in front of Kishor Cycle Mart, which was owned by Vijay Chavan - PW3. PW4 used to go to that saloon regularly for reading newspaper. Thu, 02 May 2013 06:07:10 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3458 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3458 [Criminal Appeal No.911 of 2007]. The appellants herein were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused Habib was charge- sheeted under Section 302 IPC and the remaining two accused persons including Manuwa were charge-sheeted under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, however, Manuwa was also charge-sheeted under Section 307 IPC as well. The trial court after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence acquitted all the accused persons vide its judgment dated 3.10.2008. Aggrieved by the said order the State preferred G.A. No.114 of 1982 before the High Court of judicature at Allahabad. The High Court, vide its judgment dated 23.3.2007 confirmed the acquittal of the accused Bhappa but acquittal of Habib and Manuwa was set aside. Habib was found guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and accused Manuwa was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Aggrieved by the said order Habib has filed Criminal Appeal No.911 of 2007 and Manuwa has filed Criminal Appeal No.915 of 2007. The prosecution story is that Sammo, daughter of deceased Fakira and sister of Hamid (PW 1) - complainant was married to Habib, one of the accused. Sammo left the matrimonial home due to demand of dowry. Later PW 1 settled her marriage with another person but the nikah was not performed since no divorce was obtained from her husband-accused Habib. Thu, 02 May 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3457 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3457 [Criminal Appeal No. 427 of 2007]. This is an appeal by the State of Rajasthan against the Judgment in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 2001 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan. The Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused persons under Section 302, IPC and sentenced them for life imprisonment with fine which was reversed by the High Court and acquitted the accused persons. The prosecution case is as follows: Guddi, the deceased, was admitted in the hospital on 11.09.1998 with ninety nine per cent burn injuries. Parcha Bayan (Ex.P14A) of the deceased was recorded by ASI, Ram Kishan and signed by SHO Mohan Lal PW13 in the hospital. On the basis of the said Parcha Bayan, FIR No. 300/98 was registered at police station Madanganj (Ajmer) against the accused persons under Section 307, IPC. During treatment, Guddi died at about 10AM on the same day and the case was converted into Section 302, IPC. During the course of investigation, both the accused persons were arrested on 12.09.1998, first accused is the father-in-law and second accused is the husband. The accused persons denied the charges and the case went to trial. On the side of the prosecution 14 witnesses were examined. The Additional Sessions Judge, placed considerable reliance on the dying declaration stated to have been made before PW 3 Prem Chand, a neighbour which find a place in the statement (Ex. P6) made by him to the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. PW3 has stated that the deceased had raised hue and cry after the burn injuries and abused the father-in-law - Sharvan Ram and based on the evidence of PW3 and his 161 statement, the Session Court found the accused persons guilty. Thu, 02 May 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3456 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3456 [Civil Appeal No.......... of 2013 (D 7961/2013)]. We have heard Shri H.P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for the appellant. After hearing the learned A.S.G., we are of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed only on the ground of delay. Accordingly, the Civil Appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay. Wed, 01 May 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3474 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3474 [Civil Appeal No. 4127 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 30 of 2012]. These are appeals against the common order dated 02.09.2011 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Civil Revision Nos.179, 180 and 181 of 2008. The facts very briefly are that the appellant let out shops in premises No.5 Cart Road, Shimla (for short "the building") to the respondents. The appellant filed applications under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short "the Act") before the Rent Controller, Shimla, for eviction of the respondents from the building on grounds inter alia that he bona fide required the building for purposes of addition and alteration of the building or rebuilding. The respondents filed their replies before the Rent Controller denying that the appellant required the building for additions and alterations or rebuilding. The Rent Controller framed an issue as to whether the building was required bona fide by the appellant for rebuilding or reconstruction. The appellant examined an official of the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, in support of his case that a plan for rebuilding/ reconstruction had been sanctioned and also a Civil Engineer in support of his case that the building was in dilapidated condition and required to be reconstructed. Wed, 01 May 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3454 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3454 [Civil Appeal Nos. 4119-4120 of 2013 Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.34282-34283 of 2012]. These appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 4856 of 2011 and Writ Appeal No. 5359 of 2012, dated 13.09.2012. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court had dismissed the appeals filed by the auction purchaser questioning the demands raised by the Corporation of City of Mangalore for payment of the property tax. Before this Court, the appellant-company has given an undertaking that the company would deposit the property tax of Rs.20 lacs as demanded by the Corporation. In view of that, this Court had issued notice to the respondents. The appellant-Company has now deposited a sum of Rs. 20 lacs in the State Bank of Travancore. When the matters were taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the appellant-company had submitted that he is ready and willing to deposit the entire auction amount to the respondent-bank and would further undertake to pay any other liability such as property tax, etc. for the immovable property in question. The appellant-company has now filed an affidavit of undertaking before this Court categorically stating therein that the company would undertake to pay the property tax, etc. as and when it is due from the respondent-bank. Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:16:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3473 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3473 [Civil Appeal No. D. 437 of 2013]. The learned Solicitor General of India, on instructions, would submit that there is yet another report of a High Level Working Group constituted under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and, further, submits that the said report has taken exception to certain recommendations made in Western Ghat Ecology Expert Panel (W.G.E.E.P.) Report. If that is so, the appellant should bring the aforesaid fact to the notice of the National Green Tribunal by filing an appropriate application. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain this civil appeal for the present. Accordingly, the Civil Appeal is disposed of. We also grant liberty to the appellant to make an appropriate application for bringing the aforesaid fact to the notice of the National Green Tribunal. It is for the Tribunal to consider the same in accordance with law. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the submission made by learned Solicitor General. Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:12:50 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3472 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3472 [Criminal Appeal No. 641 of 2013 @ Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No.7923 of 2012]. While issuing notice, this Court vide Order dated 18th October, 2012 has passed the following order : ".... Mr. Tulsi, learned senior counsel, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner has already undergone half of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Since the punishment imposed is only for eight years for the aforesaid offences, we are of the opinion that during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the sentence imposed on the petitioner requires to be suspended. Accordingly, we provisionally suspend the sentence of the petitioner and direct that he be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. We have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis. Having perused the records and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid Order dated 18.10.2012 be made absolute and is hereby made absolute. The Criminal Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:07:10 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3471 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3471 [Criminal Appeal No. 642 of 2013 Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No.2480 of 2012]. In this appeal, the appellant is calling in question the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order passed by the High Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.2602 of 2004, dated 12.10.2009. The learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 29.01.2004 had dismissed the application filed by the appellant for discharge of the offence under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant had approached the High Court by filing Criminal Revision Petition No.2602 of 2004. The High Court, by impugned judgment and order dated 12.10.2009had permitted the learned counsel for the appellant to withdraw the Criminal Revision Petition. However, In the appeal filed by the appellant, the appellant has stated on oath that he had not authorized any learned counsel to withdraw the Revision Petition filed by him before the High Court. Therefore, it is stated that the High Court ought not to have entertained the application made by the learned counsel for withdrawal of the Criminal Revision Petition. Having heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis, we are of the opinion that the learned counsel, who had withdrawn the Criminal Revision Petition before the High Court, was not authorized by the appellant to withdraw the same. Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3470 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3470 [Criminal Appeal Nos. 628-629 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P (CRL.) Nos.5059-60 of 2012]. These appeals arise out of judgments and orders dated 8th April, 2010and 30th April, 2010 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla whereby Criminal Appeal No.406 of 1995 has been allowed, the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court set aside, the appellant convicted for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years besides a fine of Rs.50,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year. The appellant was charged with commission of an offence of rape upon a girl hardly 11 years old while she was working in the fields along with another girl aged around 10 years in Village Kanda, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. At the trial, the prosecution examined not only the prosecutrix who supported the charge but also other witnesses including PW-2-her companion whose name is withheld to protect her identity and who had escaped an attempted assault by the co-accused, Dinesh Kumar. An alarm raised by PW-2 appears to have attracted the attention of PW-3-Piar Devi, mother of PW-2, who had rushed to the spot to rescue the girls, where upon both the accused appears to have fled away. PW-5-Misru-the father of the prosecutrix and PWs-7, 8 and 9 namely Dr. Ajay Negi, Dr. Suresh Bansal and Dr. D.C. Negi were also examined at the trial all of whom have supported the prosecution case in their respective depositions. Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3453 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3453 [Civil Appeal No. 3935 of 2013]. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 4.10.2011 of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay in Letters Patent Appeal No.171 of 2011 arising out of Writ Petition No. 1849 of 2003, by way of which the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge, as well as that of the School Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), quashing the enquiry against the appellant, while giving liberty to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to hold a fresh enquiry on the charges levelled against the appellant. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: The appellant was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the school run by the respondents on 7.6.1965, and was promoted as the Head Master of the said school on 21.6.1979. A new Management Committee came into power in the year 2000, and began to raise allegations of misconduct against the appellant, as the appellant had certain apprehensions with respect to the eligibility of certain office bearers of the Management Committee. The respondents-management issued show-cause notice dated 21.2.2001 to the appellant, under Rule 28 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules 1981'), seeking an explanation as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him, for his alleged misconduct. Mon, 29 Apr 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3451 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3451 [Civil Appeal Nos.4112-4113 of 2013 (D.No.201 of 2013)]. India's capital market in the recent times has witnessed tremendous growth, characterized particularly by increasing participation of public. Investors' confidence in the capital market can be sustained largely by ensuring investors' protection. Disclosure and transparency are the two pillars on which market integrity rests. Facts of the case disclose how the investors' confidence has been eroded and how the market has been abused for personal gains and attainments. The Appellate Jurisdiction of this Court guaranteed under Section 15Z of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (for short 'SEBI Act') has been invoked challenging a joint order dated 5.10.2012 passed in Appeal Nos. 28 and 29 of 2012 passed by Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (for short 'Tribunal') upholding the order passed by SEBI dated April 18, 2011 restraining the appellant for a period of two years from buying, selling or dealing in securities and the order passed by the adjudication officer dated July 28, 2011 imposing a monetary penalty of 50 lacs under Section 15HA of SEBI Act. The appellant was the promoter as well as a whole time Director of M/s Pyramid Saimira Theatre Limited (PSTL), a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Mon, 29 Apr 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3450 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3450 [Criminal Appeal No.1268 of 2007]. The appellant, the 10th accused in Sessions Case No.20 of 1986, was charge-sheeted along with others for the offences punishable under Section147, 148, 149, 323 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. The Trial Court, after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence vide its judgment dated 22.4.1987 acquitted all the accused persons, except Accused No.3 Tarun Mondal, who was convicted for the offences punishable under Section148 and 302 of IPC for causing the murder of Amrita Dome and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC. The State of West Bengal, aggrieved by the order of acquittal, preferred G.A. No.22 of 1987 before the High Court of Calcutta. The High Court vide its judgment dated 28.11.2006 partly allowed the appeal and convicted the appellant along with four others, while maintaining the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, in respect of rest of the accused persons. Tarun Mondal, 3rd accused, was further found guilty of the murder of Sultan Khan. We are, in this case, concerned only with the appeal filed by Guiram Mondal, 10th accused. Sat, 27 Apr 2013 06:12:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3448 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3448 [Civil Appeal No. 5274 of 2008]. The short question involved in these appeals is : Whether the employees of the appellant-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation are eligible to claim pensionary benefits under the Pension Scheme in view of the non-compliance with the essential conditions stipulated in the Regulations which govern the said Pension Scheme? Admittedly, the concerned employees [Madugiri and Yakub Khan, respondents (since deceased) in Civil Appeal No.5274 of 2008 and late Nathu Singh, respondent's husband in Civil Appeal No. 952 of 2009] of the appellant-Corporation retired from service respectively on 31.1.1991,31.1.1992 and 31.3.1992 and were paid Contributory Provident Fund (CPF)including the share of employer's contribution. On 11.1.1993, the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees Pension Regulations, 1989 (in short "the Regulations") came into force. As per clause 3(1) of the said Regulations, option was given to the existing employees as well as those employees who retired before coming into force of these Regulations but before acceptance of option and grant of benefit condition was placed on the employees to refund the employer's share of CPF with interest. The above named employees exercised their option in favour of the pension scheme under the Regulations, but did not deposit the amount of employer's share of CPF with interest in lump sum within the stipulated time. Sat, 27 Apr 2013 06:07:20 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3447 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3447 [Criminal Appeal No. 805 of 2009]. The present appeal by special leave arises out of the judgment and order dated 8th May, 2008 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 239 of 2002 whereby the appeal of the appellants herein was dismissed upholding the judgment and order dated 23rd January, 2002 of the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 16 of 2001 whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of rupees one thousand each and in default in payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each in addition. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant No.2 Kalla Singh was granted bail by this Court on 3rd February, 2010. The case of the prosecution in brief is that complainant Baltej Singh (PW-1) submitted a written report on 7th February, 2001(Ex.P/1) in the police station Sadulshahar upon which FIR (Ex. P/17) was drawn and a case under Section 307, 341, 323/34 was registered. Sat, 27 Apr 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3446 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3446 [Criminal Appeal No. 1132 of 2009]. The present appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th October, 2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh partly allowing Criminal Appeal No. 1187 of2002 filed by the appellants herein (accused Nos. 1 and 2) by inter alia modifying the conviction of accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence under Section 304 IPC into conviction for the offence under Section 304(2) IPC and reducing the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years to three years in respect of both the accused and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of four years for the offence under Section 325 IPC in respect of accused No. 2 to one year. The case of the prosecution which led to the conviction of accused Nos. 1 and 2 is that the deceased Boddu Maraiah and accused No. 2 were having prior disputes between them. The son of said accused loved the daughter of the deceased. As the elders did not agree to the proposal, the deceased married his daughter to some other person. Even after her marriage, the son of accused used to go to her house and tried to create problems in her married life, because of which the son of accused was beaten by the deceased and his family members which became the subject matter of a criminal case. Sat, 27 Apr 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3445 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3445 [Criminal Appeal No. 624 of 2013 (@Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 5910 of 2012]. The allegation in the case is very distressing. A Kashmiri teenager lost his life by the bullet of Lakhwinder Kumar, a constable of the Border Security Force (hereinafter referred to as "the Force") at the Boulevard Road, Srinagar. He allegedly fired at the instigation of R.K. Birdi, Commandant of the 68th Battalion of the Force. The cause of firing, as alleged by the prosecution, if true, is appalling. R.K. Birdi on 5th of February, 2010 had gone for Annual Medical Examination at Composite Hospital, Humhama. While on way back at 4.40 P.M. to the Force Headquarters at Nishat, Srinagar, accompanied by other Force personnel, they got stuck in a traffic jam. This led to a verbal duel with some boys present at Boulevard Road, Brain, Srinagar. The verbal duel took an ugly turn and the Force personnel started chasing the boys. It is alleged that at the instigation of R.K. Birdi, constable Lakhwinder Kumar fired twice and one of the rounds hit Zahid Farooq Sheikh. Zahid died of the fire arm injury instantaneously. The aforesaid incident led to registration of FIR No. 4 of 2010 at Police Station, Nishat. Fri, 26 Apr 2013 06:07:40 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3442 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3442 [Civil Appeal No. 1145 of 2004]. The appellants filed these civil appeals questioning the correctness of the common judgment and order dated 19.11.2003 passed by the High Court of judicature at Madras in W.A. 2652 of 2001, W.A. No. 3090 of 2001, WA 2835 of 2001, WA 3087 of 2001, WA 2836 of 2001, WA 3091 of 2001, WA 3092 of 2001, WA 2837 of 2001, WA 3088 of 2001, WA 2838 of 2001 and WA 3089 of 2001, dismissing the writ appeals thereby affirming the dismissal of writ petitions by wrongly interpreting the provisions of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (for short AICTE Act) and held that even though the University is not required to take permission from the All India Council for Technical Education (for short AICTE), its affiliated colleges are required to do so. Further, the High Court has held, while dismissing the writ appeals, that the appellant colleges should get its course of MCA ratified by AICTE as per the prescribed format which according to the appellants herein is in contravention of settled principles of interpretation of Statutes and also runs contrary to the law laid down by this Court in case of Bharathidasan University & Anr. Vs. AICTE & Ors. Certain relevant facts in relation to the appeals are stated hereunder:-- The appellant colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu are running Arts and Science courses. Most of them are affiliated to Bharathidasan University and some of them are affiliated to Manonmaniam Sundaranar University. Fri, 26 Apr 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3441 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3441 [Criminal Appeal Nos. 362-363 of 2010]. We are in these appeals concerned with a gruesome murder of a minor girl with intellectual disability (moderate) after subjecting her to series of acts of rape by a middle ager, who has now been sentenced to death by the High Court of Bombay. Appellant, Shankar Kisanrao Khade (Accused No.1) and his present wife Mala Shankar Khade (Accused No.2) were charge sheeted, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 302, 201 read with Section 34IPC, for having, in furtherance of their common intention, kidnapped a minor girl and accused No.1 had committed rape on her several times and committed the murder by strangulation. The Additional Sessions Court in Sessions Case No. 165/2006 convicted the first accused and sentenced him to death under Section 302 IPC, subject to confirmation by the High Court and was also awarded imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment (for short RI) for six months for offences under Section 376 IPC, further seven years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer RI for three months under Section 366-A IPC and five years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer RI for one month for offences punishable under Section 363 IPC, read with Section304 IPC. Fri, 26 Apr 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3440 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3440 [Civil Appeal No. 5892 of 2006]. While granting leave on December 12, 2006, a two Judge Bench (S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ.) felt that there was inconsistency in the decisions of this Court in U.P. Jal Nigam and others vs. Prabhat Chandra Jain and others 1, and Union of India and another vs. Major Bahadur Singh and consequently, opined that the matter should be heard by a larger Bench. This is how the matter has come up for consideration before us. The referral order dated December 12, 2006 reads as follows: "The appellant herein was appointed as Deputy Director of Training on or about 13.11.1992. He attended a training programme on Computer Applied Technology. He was sent on deputation on various occasions in 1997, 1998 and yet again in 2000. Indisputably, remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports throughout had been "Outstanding" or "Very good". He, however, in two years i.e. 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 obtained only "Good" remark in his Annual Confidential Report. The effect of such a downgrading falls for our consideration. The Union of India issued a Office Memorandum on 8.2.2002 wherein the Bench mark for promotion was directed to be "Very Good" in terms of clause 3.2 thereof. Thu, 25 Apr 2013 06:07:20 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3465 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3465 [Review Petition (C) Nos.106 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 7944 of 2010]. [Review Petition (C) Nos.107, 108 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 7944 of 2010]. All the above review petitions are taken on board. On going through the grounds raised in the review petitions and in view of the reasons stated in Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka & Others 2010 (13) SCC 1, the review petitioners have not made out a case for reviewing our earlier order, consequently, all the review petitions are dismissed. Thu, 25 Apr 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3439 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3439 [Review Petition (C) No. 739 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 7944 of 2010]. This review petition has been filed by the Union of India, Ministry of Mines, seeking review of the judgment and order dated 13.09.2010 passed in Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka & Others, 2010 (13) SCC 1 (Civil Appeal No. 7944 of 2010 and Civil Appeal Nos. 7945-54 and 7955-61 of 2010). In Sandur (supra), this Court had interpreted various provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short "the MMDR Act") and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (in short "the MC Rules") framed there under. It is the grievance of the petitioner herein that this review is instituted since the Ministry of Mines, Government of India, could not put forth its view on the interpretation of the provisions of the MMDR Act in Sandur (supra) for the reason that the copy of the special leave petition was not served upon the review petitioner which is a necessary and relevant party to the subject-matter in issue/dispute and the review petitioner did not get an opportunity of being heard. Thu, 25 Apr 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3438 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3438 [Civil Appeal No.3958 of 2013 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31353 of 2009]. Delay condoned in application for restoration of special leave petition qua respondent Nos. 1 and 3. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the special leave petition is restored qua respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Leave granted. The impugned order has been passed by the High Court assuming that the appeal before the High Court was a Second Appeal. This is patent from the judgment itself which mentions that the decision is rendered in Second Appeal No.339 of 2009. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that, in fact, the Court was seized only of the First Appeal. This submission of the learned counsel is borne out from the grounds of appeal submitted before the High Court which mention First Appeal No.339 of 2009. A perusal of the judgment passed by the High Court shows that none of the submissions made by the appellants before the High Court have been considered. Furthermore, the judgment does not indicate the reasons for the conclusions recorded in the judgment. In view of the above, the judgment of the High Court is not sustainable. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the High Court for a decision on merits after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the parties. Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3455 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3455 [Criminal Appeal No. 1108 of 2006]. The case of the prosecution depicts a macabre chain of events that occurred in the intervening night of 28th and 29th June, 2001 which eventually led to the massacre of five persons, namely, Purshottam, Ram Kumar Dhaka, Kalu Lal Mali and Lokendra Sharma, all residents of village Railgaon, and Heera Lal Meghwal, resident of Rampuria, Kota. The extermination of five lives had its genesis in an incident that had occurred sometime prior to the date of occurrence where Kishan Chand, son of Ram Narayan, Sarpanch of the village, was murdered and the father nurtured deep rooted suspicion that the deceased persons had not only masterminded a well thought out plan but also executed the same and the seeds of the unquenched anger gradually got inflamed and took the shape of revenge ultimately resulting in the extinction of the life-spark of five persons. From the uncurtaining of the gruesome events, it is manifest that on the date of the occurrence, the night slowly and intensely developed into real darkness of revenge that reigned with avenge. Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3436 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3436 [Civil Appeal No.3937 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 8987 of 2008]. This is an appeal for setting aside order dated 16.05.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court whereby she dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellants and upheld the decree passed by 1stAdditional District Judge, Jamui (hereinafter described as 'the lower appellate Court') in Title Appeal No. 20 of 1989/07 of 1999. The respondents filed suit for grant of a declaration that by virtue of the sale deed executed in their favour by Bhuneshwar Tanti, son of Dukhan Tanti, they have become owner of the suit property, but a cloud has been created on their rights by the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 13 of 1977 filed by Smt. Pariya Devi (predecessor of the appellants herein). Smt. Pariya Devi contested the suit on several grounds including the one that the sale deed was illegal and was not binding on her because the same had been executed in violation of the order of temporary injunction passed on 06.05.1971 in Suit No. 49 of 1970. Mon, 22 Apr 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3437 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3437 [Criminal Appeal No. 223 of 2008]. In these two appeals assail is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature, Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 1568 of 1996 whereby the High Court concurred with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, in Sessions Trial No. 97 of 1995, except in respect of one Gorelal, Appellant No. 2 before the High Court and Accused No. 2 before the trial court, wherein the present appellants along with Gorelal stood convicted for offences under Section 302 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code and other offences and sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1000/- , in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The factual score, as depicted, is that on 29.9.1995, deceased Dhruv @ Daulat along with Ashok Kumar, PW-5, Dheeraj, PW-6, Naresh, PW-7, and Leeladhar, PW-12, was returning home about 11.00 p.m. after attending a wrestling event which was organised at "Kher Mata" (temple) in Makronia, a village in the district of Sagar. As Ashok Kumar, PW-5, complained of pain in the stomach, all of them went to the shop of Gorelal for purchasing medicine and when they reached the shop, all the accused persons coming from the house of Chhotelal surrounded deceased Daulat and started assaulting him and despite the beseeching and imploring by the companions the accused persons continued the assault, as a result of which the deceased fell unconscious. Sat, 20 Apr 2013 07:05:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3413 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3413 [Civil Appeal No. 4509 of 2007]. [Civil Appeal No. 4510 of 2007]. Being aggrieved by a common judgment delivered in First Appeal Nos.492, 493 and 499 of 2002, dated 24th August, 2005 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, these appeals have been filed by the original plaintiffs, who had filed the suits for specific performance. As the facts involved in all these three appeals are similar in nature, all these appeals are being decided by this common judgment. For the purpose of clarity, we are referring to all the parties by their description as it was before the trial court. The Developer of the property, original Defendant No.1 is now respondent No. 2 in all the appeals whereas respondent no.1 is a subsequent buyer of the property in question. M/s. O.P. Co-operative Housing Society (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society') was the owner of the land which was being developed by the Developer. The Developer had entered into an agreement to develop the property i.e. land owned by the Society and thereafter to sell the flats constructed on the land in question to the intending purchasers in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 17th April, 1992. Sat, 20 Apr 2013 07:02:50 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3412 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3412 [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 562 of 2009]. What should be the appropriate contours of this Court's jurisdiction while dealing with allegations of systematic plunder of natural resources by a handful of opportunists seeking to achieve immediate gains? This is the core question that arises in the present proceeding in the context of mining of Iron Ore and allied minerals in the State of Karnataka. Over exploitation, if not indiscriminate and rampant mining, in the State of Karnataka, particularly in the District of Bellary, had been purportedly engaging the attention of the State Government from time to time. In the year 2006, Justice U.L. Bhat Committee was appointed to go into the issues which exercise, however, did not yield any tangible result. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Lokayukta of the State and a Report dated 18.12.2008 was submitted which, prima facie, indicated indiscriminate mining of unbelievable proportions in the Bellary district of the State. It is in these circumstances, that the petitioner- Samaj Parivartana Samudaya had instituted the present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution complaining of little or no corrective action on the part of the State; seeking this Court's intervention in the matter and specifically praying for the reliefs noted here in below. To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing immediate steps be initiated by both the Respondent States and the Union of India to stop all mining and other related activities in forest areas of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka which are in violation of the orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 12.12.1996 in W.P (C) No 202 of 1995 and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Sat, 20 Apr 2013 06:58:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3411 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3411 [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 180 of 2011]. Orissa Mining Corporation (OMC), a State of Orissa Undertaking, has approached this Court seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order passed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) dated 24.8.2010rejecting the Stage-II forest clearance for diversion of 660.749 hectares of forest land for mining of bauxite ore in Lanjigarh Bauxite Mines in Kalahandi and Rayagada Districts of Orissa and also for other consequential reliefs. OMC urged that the above order passed by the MOEF has the effect of neutralizing two orders of this Court passed in I.A. Nos. 1324 and 1474 in Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 with I.A. Nos. 2081-2082 (arising out of Writ Petition No. 549 of 2007) dated 23.11.2007 reported in (2008) 2 SCC222 [hereinafter referred to as 'Vedanta case'] and the order passed by this Court in I.A. No. 2134 of 2007 in Writ Petition No. 202 of 1995 on08.08.2008 reported in (2008) 9 SCC 711 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Sterlite case']. In order to examine the issues raised in this writ petition, it is necessary to examine the facts at some length. FACTS: M/s. Sterlite (parent company of Vedanta) filed an application on19.3.2003 before MOEF for environmental clearance for the purpose of starting an Alumina Refinery Project (ARP) in Lanjigarh Tehsil of District Kalahandi, stating that no forest land was involved within an area of 10kms. The 4th respondent - Vedanta, in the meanwhile, had also filed an application on 6.3.2004 before this Court seeking clearance for the proposal for use of 723.343 ha of land (including 58.943 ha of reserve forest land) in Lanjigarh Tehsil of District Kalahandi for setting up an Alumina Refinery. Sat, 20 Apr 2013 06:54:20 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3410 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3410 [Criminal Appeal No. 603-604 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) Nos. 2014-2015 of 2009]. These appeals are directed against the common final judgment and order dated 03.11.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 4-SB of 1997 and Criminal Revision No.416 of 1997, whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondents herein by reducing the sentence awarded to them to the period already undergone and dismissed the revision preferred by the appellant herein. Brief facts: According to the prosecution, on 25.04.1994, Dr. P. Aggarwal, Medical Officer, C.H.C. Ladwa, sent a ruqa to the Police Station informing that Mehma Singh, Piara Singh and Hazara Singh have been admitted to the hospital after allegedly having received injuries in a fight. Mehma Singh was serious and had been referred to the L.N.J.P. Hospital, Kurukshetra. After receipt of the said ruqa, on 26.04.1994, Raj Pal Singh, S.I., In-charge Police Station, Babain, went to the hospital and recorded the statements of the injured. Hazara Singh, in his statement, alleged that he was a resident of village Kassithal and was an agriculturist. That about 6/7 years back, he had purchased 6 kanals of disputed agricultural land in village Rampura from one Sat Pal, possession of which was delivered to him. He along with his family members harvested wheat crop from that land and had kept it in their adjoining field. Sat, 20 Apr 2013 06:50:40 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3409 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3409 [Civil Appeal No. 3914 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No.12497 of 2008]. The defendants (appellants herein) have assailed the common order dated 28.12.2007 passed by a learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, whereby the Revision Petitions filed by the plaintiff-respondent(M/s Future Builders Coop Society) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been allowed and the order passed by the trial court allowing amendment in the written statement has been set aside. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The plaintiff-respondent M/s. Future Builders Co-op. Housing Society (in short "the plaintiff Society") filed a suit against the defendant-appellants for declaration of title in respect of the property mentioned in the schedule of the plaint (in short "the suit property") and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with possession. The case of the plaintiff-Society is that the Society is a registered Society under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act with the object to acquire or purchase land for the benefit of its members and render it fit for habitation. The Society was founded by several promoters including the first defendant-S. Malla Reddy (appellant herein). Sat, 20 Apr 2013 06:46:10 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3408 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3408 [Civil Appeal Nos. 3908-3909 of 2013 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 20848-20849 of 2011]. These appeals are directed against the judgment and orders dated28.5.2010 and 18.4.2011 passed in Second Appeal No.113 of 2001 and CMRSNo.215947/2010 by the High Court of Allahabad in allowing the second appeal by answering the substantial questions of law framed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and rejecting the CMRS No.215947/2010 in the aforesaid second appeal urging relevant facts and legal contentions in support of the appellant-defendant's case. The brief facts are stated for the purpose of appreciating the factual and rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties, in view to find out as to whether the impugned judgment and orders under challenge in these appeals are required to be set aside by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction. The ranking of the parties is referred to in the judgment as has been assigned before the 1st Additional Civil Judge, Bareilly for the sake of convenience. The first defendant (appellant herein) is a statutory body created under the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 for development of colonies, residential plots, commercial plots and complexes in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The first defendant on 4.3.1977 published in the local newspapers for auction of nine shops and a plot earmarked for Cinema Hall measuring 3441.94 sq. meters in Izzat Nagar, Scheme No.1, Block C and D in Bareilly District specifying the date of auction and furnishing necessary information. Sat, 20 Apr 2013 06:42:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3407 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3407 [Civil Appeal No. 3917 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 10064 of 2012]. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14th February, 2012 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 130 of2012 whereby the order dated 3rd December, 2011 passed by the learned Judge of City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Goregaon, Mumbai was set aside and the plaintiffs (respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein) were permitted to amend the plaint. The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs are allegedly the members of the appellant - a Co-operative Housing Society (defendant No. 1in the suit) (in short "the Society") which had entered into a development agreement in the month of November 2006 with Respondent No. 4 M/s. Universal Builders (in short "the Developer") in respect of the development of the Society's property. The plaintiffs challenged the re-development in the Co-operative Court at Mumbai but failed. The Co-operative Appellate Court also refused to grant any relief to them. They thereafter filed a suit in the City Civil Court at Mumbai inter alia challenging amalgamation of plots bearing CTS Nos. 978 and 979 (both owned by the appellant-Society), praying for directions to Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai as regards demolition of fully/partially constructed buildings of appellant-Society on the amalgamated plot, seeking injunction restraining the Society and the Developer from utilizing the entire available balance TDR/FSI of the plot and praying for directions that the entire amount received/receivable by the Society by selling its balance FSI/TDR be kept in fixed deposit to be utilized for reconstruction of the existing buildings etc. Sat, 20 Apr 2013 06:38:20 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3406 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3406 [Criminal Appeal Nos. 2083-2084 of 2008]. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated05.03.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipurin Criminal Death Reference No. 1 of 2007 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 91 and92 of 2008 whereby the High Court disposed of the appeals filed by the appellant herein against the order of conviction and sentence dated13.12.2007 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track),Serial No. 1, Jaipur, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) by commuting the sentence of death to imprisonment for life. Brief facts: It is an unfortunate incident of killing of five persons who were residing at Bharti Colony, Kunda, Tehsil Aamer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. On 27.10.2006, at 10.30 p.m., one Zafar (PW-1)-the informant, who was also residing at the above said place, while on his way back home found the appellant herein talking to one Satish (PW-4) that he had finished Seema Bhabhi (sister-in-law) and also killed the three children and Munna Mawali. On hearing this, PW-1 went towards their house and found that Munna Mawali was lying in a pool of blood on the Chabutra outside his room and his nephew Kalu was lying dead inside the room and the bodies of Seema-the wife of Munna, Isha-son of Lalu Chacha and Sonu-son of Munna were lying in pool of blood in the other room. Sat, 20 Apr 2013 06:35:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3405 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3405 [Criminal Appeal No. 926 of 2009]. This appeal has been filed against the final judgment and order dated17.10.2006 passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1556 of 2003, whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and confirmed the order dated 29.08.2003 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. IV),Madurai at Periakulam in S.C. No. 390 of 2002. Brief facts: The case on hand relates to the death of a woman in her house over a land dispute by the appellant-accused, claiming the plea of insanity under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC'). Parvathi @Kili (the deceased), her husband Parasivam Chettiar (PW-6) and their granddaughters viz., Chellakili (PW-1) and Parmala (PW-2) were living together at Ammapatti village. The deceased was the paternal aunt of the appellant-accused. There was a dispute between the family of the appellant-accused and the deceased over a portion of land belonging to one Chinnamanur Pillayar Kovil, which was taken on lease by PW-6 through one Chinnamanur Karuvaya Pillai. The family of the appellant-accused claimed that the said land was only leased out to them. Sat, 20 Apr 2013 06:31:50 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3404 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3404 [Criminal Appeal No. 1039 of 2008]. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 13.4.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 3443 of 2000 by way of which, the High Court has affirmed the impugned judgment and order dated 15.12.2000 of the Sessions Court passed in Sessions Trial No. 3 of 2000, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentencing her to undergo imprisonment for life. As per the prosecution case, the appellant is alleged to have poured kerosene oil on her daughter in law Santoshi and set her on fire. On hearing hue and cry of the deceased, her neighbour Ram Singh took her daughter in law to the hospital. In the hospital, two dying declarations were recorded, one by the Investigating Officer and another by Shri Ved Priya Arya, Naib Tehsildar-cum-Magistrate (PW.8). The dying declaration was recorded by the said Magistrate on 26.6.1999 after getting a certificate from Dr. P.K. Pathak that she was fit to make the statement. In her dying declaration, she had clearly stated that she had married to Satish on 4.5.1999 and she was pregnant. She was not sent to her parental house because her in laws were demanding ring and money. Her mother in law sprinkled kerosene oil on her and burnt her. She was subjected to cruelty for dowry. Sat, 20 Apr 2013 06:12:40 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3435 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3435 [Civil Appeal No. 3902 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 23215 of 2007]. This appeal is filed by the appellants who are owners of the property questioning the correctness of the impugned judgment dated 04.07.2007 passed in SA No.1812 of 1988 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad wherein it has set aside the judgment and decree dated 10.08.1988 passed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Mainpuri in Civil Appeal No. 45 of 1987 arising out of judgment and decree passed by Munsif, Shikohabad dated 09.02.1987 in Original Suit No. 32 of 1984, urging various facts and legal contentions and prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and decree. The property in question was leased out by lease deed dated 1.12.1960 by one Mansa Ram, father of the appellants in favour of M/s Caltex India Ltd. the demised property measures 120 x 100 feet situated on Agra Kanpur Road, Shikohabad. The said property was leased out in favour of M/s Caltex India Ltd. for the purpose of installing, erecting and maintaining on the said piece of land road ways and path ways and underground petrol, high speed oil tanks and delivery pumps etc. and to erect shelter for attendants and other buildings of permanent or temporary nature as well as other constructions and carrying on with trade in petro and petroleum product with a right to carry on the said trade through its local dealers or agents and to use the property so demised at all times and for all purposes for an initial period of 20 years from 1.07.1960 renewable and determinable as provided in the lease deed on the monthly rent of Rs.50/-. Sat, 20 Apr 2013 06:07:20 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3403 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3403 [Criminal Appeal No. 1954 of 2009-12]. This appeal is filed by the appellant questioning the correctness of the judgment dated 29th May, 2009 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 314 of 2004 in confirming the judgment dated 9th March, 2004 of the sessions judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 196 of 1992 wherein this appellant along with the others were convicted under Section 3(1)(c)of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and was sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment. For the purpose of considering the rival legal contentions urged in this appeal and with a view to find out whether this Court is required to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court, the necessary facts are briefly stated hereunder: On 6th March, 1990, Bhoormal Jain, Superintendent of Police CID Zone, Jodhpur lodged an FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 3/9 of the Act read with Section 120-B IPC with the Special Police Station Rajasthan, Jaipur numbered as FIR No.1/1990 against the accused Mohd. Ishfaq who was found roaming in suspicious circumstances in the Air Force Area and was arrested on 07.03.1990. On interrogation, he stated that the appellant Safi Mohd. used to supply secret information to the Pakistani Intelligence and had handed over Rs.6500/- to him for working for Pak Intelligence Agency. Sat, 20 Apr 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3402 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3402 [Civil Appeal No.2147 of 2010]. This judgment will dispose of a group of appeals, details of which are given hereunder, as they raise only one question of law : Proceedings before the Bombay High Court :- Writ Petition No.2139 of 2007 titled as Mahant Pal Singh vs. Union of India dismissed in limine by the Division Bench on 7th September, 2009. Civil Appeal No.3933 of 2013 @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.4619 of 2011 titled as M.P.Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. has been filed challenging the aforesaid order of the Division Bench. Writ Petition No.2652 of 2007 titled as Jatya Pal Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. was dismissed in limine by the Division Bench on 8th September, 2009 in view of the order dated 7th September, 2009 passed in Writ Petition No.2139 of 2007. The aforesaid order has been impugned by the appellants (writ petitioners in the High Court) Jatya Pal Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. in C.A.No.2147 of 2010. Proceedings in the Delhi High Court :- Ten writ petitions were filed by the former employees of the Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL). The common question of law raised in all the appeals relates to the very maintainability of the writ petitions. VSNL had raised a preliminary objection that a writ petition would not be maintainable against it as it is neither a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India nor is it performing any public function. The learned Single Judge accepted the aforesaid preliminary objection and dismissed the writ petitions by judgment and order dated 29th August, 2011. Letters Patent Appeal No.924 of 2011 challenging the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Division Bench on 14th November, 2011. LPA Nos. 930 of 2011 and 931 of 2011 were dismissed by the common order dated 15th November, 2011. Sat, 20 Apr 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3401 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3401 [Civil Appeal Nos. 3895-3896 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 33612-33613 of 2009]. The plaintiff-appellant assailed the common judgment and order dated 11.05.2009 passed in RSA Nos.122/2008 and 123/2008 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed both the appeals and affirmed the order passed by the lower appellate court. The facts leading to these appeals may be summarized thus:- The plaintiff (appellant herein) filed a suit being Title Suit No. 80/1985 on 23.04.1985 for declaration that the gift deed dated 28.02.1985 registered on 22.03.1985 alleged to have been executed by defendant No.1 Sarup Singh (since deceased) in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3, Pritam Singh and Surjan Singh, in respect of the suit land is illegal, void, ineffective and is to be set aside. A decree for permanent injunction was also sought for restraining defendant No.1 Sarup Singh (now deceased) from alienating the land fully described in the schedule of the plaint. The plaintiff filed the said suit with the averments that he is the adopted son of Sarup Singh alias Sarupa (now deceased) (defendant No.1 in the original suit). The plaintiff's case is that Sarup Singh and his wife Prem Kaur (now both deceased) had no child and were issueless. Thu, 18 Apr 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3394 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3394 [Civil Appeal No.7552 of 2002]. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and decree dated April 3, 2001 passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal No.114/1991. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench allowed the appeal preferred by Punjab National Bank (respondent no. 1before this Court), set aside the judgment and decree dated December 12,1990, passed by a learned single judge of the High Court in Suit No.780/1983 filed by the appellant-plaintiff under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The claim of the appellant-plaintiff is based on a purported bill of exchange dated February 15, 1983 for a sum of Rs. 1 crore only. The bill of exchange was drawn by two persons namely, Raghunath Dutta and Amit Dutta (respondent nos. 3 & 4 respectively) as partners in the firm Metropolitan Construction (respondent no. 2). The bill of exchange was accepted by M/s Lgee Enterprises (not made a party to the suit) and was further shown to be accepted by Punjab National Bank (respondent no. 1). It was then shown to be endorsed by respondent no. 2 in favour of the appellant-plaintiff and was delivered to it, who, thus, claims to have become the endorsee and the holder of the bill of exchange in question. The bill of exchange was presented for payment, but respondent no. 1 refused to make payment, thereby dishonoring the bill. Thu, 18 Apr 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3393 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3393 [Criminal Appeal No. 1156 of 2010]. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 4.11.2006 in Criminal Appeal No.1228 of 1992 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, by way of which it reversed the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, Seoni, Madhya Pradesh dated 16.7.1992 in Sessions Trial No.82 of 1990, by which the appellant stood acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 376 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that :- The appellant is younger brother of the brother-in-law of the prosecutrix- Diplesh. The appellant came to the house of the prosecutrix on 13.6.1990. Her parents and elder brother left for the market leaving the prosecutrix and her younger brother in the house. The appellant found the prosecutrix alone as her brother was merely a child and raped her. The prosecutrix fainted and on regaining her consciousness, the prosecutrix narrated the incident to her father who lodged the FIR with the police on the same day. The appellant was arrested on 15.6.1990 and after investigation, the prosecution filed charge sheet against the appellant under Sections 376 and 450 IPC. Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:22:40 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3425 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3425 [Criminal Appeal No.677 of 2006]. This appeal by special leave, at the instance of the State of Uttar Pradesh is directed against the judgment and order dated December 21, 2001 passed by the Allahabad High Court in a batch of criminal appeals. By the impugned judgment the High Court allowed all the appeals (that had come to it from a common judgment and order passed by the trial court) and acquitted all the 14 accused (respondents in the present appeal) all of whom were found guilty of rioting and arson and committing murder of three people by the trial court and 8 of whom were awarded the death penalty while the remaining 6 were given the punishment of life imprisonment. The case of the prosecution is based on the oral statement made by one Brij Pal Singh (PW.1) at Kayamganj police station before the Inspector In-charge of that police station. Brij Pal Singh stated that he was a resident of Mauza Ballu Baheta, police station Kayamganj and there was old enmity and litigations between the Harijans and the Brahmins living in his village. On account of the enmity, the accused, namely, Rajeshwar (accused no.1), Ramveer (accused no.2), Rajveer (accused no.3), Patiram @ Patanga (accused no.4), Rajesh @ Tillu (accused no.5), Omveer (accused no.6), Ved Ram (accused no.7), Ram Sevak (accused no.8), Ram Sanehi (accused no.9), Ram Baran (accused no.10), Dayashankar (accused no.11), Radhey (accused no.12), Ram Prakash (accused no.13) and Ramua Jatav (accused no.14) along with four-five unknown accused (whom he could identify by face), armed with country made guns, rifles and kattas, came and surrounded their mohalla. Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:17:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3390 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3390 [Criminal Appeal No. 683 of 2005]. [Criminal Appeal No. 1064 of 2005]. These three appeals arise from a common judgment and order passed by the Karnataka High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court disposed of two appeals, which came to it from a common judgment and order passed by the trial court. The High Court allowed the appeals insofar as Smt. Nagavva (accused no. 2) and Doddappa Ningappa Ugarkhod (accused no. 13) are concerned and acquitted them of all the charges. In regard to the rest of the accused (the present appellants before this Court) the appeals were dismissed and their conviction and the sentences given to them by the trial court was confirmed by the High Court. Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2007 (that was the last among the three appeals to come to this Court) is at the instance of Sataveer Basappa Hariyal (accused no.1: He died on November 10, 2009 during the pendency of the appeal), Honnappa Shiddappa Banni (accused no. 3), Beerappa Shiddappa Huggi (accused no. 9) and Yallappa Kenchappa Vibhuti (accused no. 16). Criminal Appeal No. 1064 of 2005 has been filed by Beerappa Demasheppa Deshanur (accused no. 5) and Maruti Demasheppa Deshanur (accused no. 6). All the six appellants in these two appeals are convicted under section 302 read with section 149 and some other ancillary sections of the Penal Code. Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:12:50 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3389 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3389 [Civil Appeal No. of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No.22609 of 2012]. In this appeal, the appellant challenges the final judgment and order dated 20th April, 2012 passed by the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No. 22/2012. In the said order, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 8th December, 2011, wherein the Single Judge held that "the information sought by the appellant herein is the third party information wherein third party may plead a privacy defence and the proper question would be as to whether divulging of such an information is in the public interest or not." Thus, the matter has been remitted back to Chief Information Commissioner to consider the issue after following the procedure under Section 11 of the Right to Information Act. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: The appellant filed an application to Central Public Information Officer (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPIO') under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'RTI Act') on 7th October, 2009 seeking the copies of all note sheets and correspondence pages of file relating to one Ms. Jyoti Balasundram, Member/CESTAT. The Under Secretary, who is the CPIO denied the information by impugned letter dated 15th October, 2009 on the ground that the information sought attracts Clause 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which reads as follows:- Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:07:20 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3388 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3388 [Civil Appeal No. 3882 of 2013 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.27595 of 2010]. [Civil Appeal No. 3888 of 2013 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.27655 of 2010]. All these appeals relate to the demand of entertainment tax raised by the Government of Madhya Pradesh under the Madhya Pradesh Entertainment Duty and Advertisements Tax Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1936 Act") on DTH (direct to home) broadcast provided by the appellants to their respective customers on payment of subscriptions. The appellants in all the appeals challenged the demand by the State Government by filing writ petitions before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the demand by the State Government by the judgment and order dated August 20, 2010. That judgment was rendered in a batch of three writ petitions, taking Writ Petition No. 10148 of 2009, filed on behalf of Tata Sky Limited (appellant in the appeal arising from SLP (C) No.2752 of 2011) as the lead case. The rest of the writ petitions were dismissed following the judgment dated August 20, 2010. For the sake of convenience, we too have taken the facts from civil appeal arising out of special leave petition (civil) No.27595 of 2010. Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3387 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3387 [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.28609/2011]. [T.C.(C) No. 90 of 2012]. This special leave petition was filed by the Union of India against the judgment and order passed by the Bombay High Court by which the Government was directed to release 800 seats from the Government quota in favour of the writ petitioners (a group of private tour operators) under the Government's PTO Policy for hajj 2011. Though the special leave petition was on a very limited issue, this Court by order dated February 17, 2012 decided to treat the case as a public interest litigation and to examine some of the major issues concerning the Hajj Policy of the Government of India. In the past two years this Court has passed orders on a number of issues concerning the Government Hajj Policy. By order dated May 8, 2012, the Court dealt with the issues of Hajj Subsidy and the Goodwill Hajj Delegation and passed necessary directions in that regard. The directions on those issues are reiterated and confirmed and directed to be followed strictly. By the same order, the Court also approved the Government's PTO Policy for Hajj 2012. By order dated July 23, 2012, the Court dealt with the quota of pilgrims that the Central Government kept reserved for allotment at its discretion and made directions in that regard. Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3386 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3386 [Criminal Appeal No.595 of 2013 Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No.8490 of 2012]. By the impugned judgment dated 31.01.2012 passed in CriminalMisc.No.M-17586 of 2011, the High Court has granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to the respondent in Complaint Case No.38/1 dated 30.07.2010, under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1984and Sections 323, 354, 388 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860registered with P.S. Model Town, Panipat (Haryana). We find that Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1984 provides that nothing in Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act. This Court has also held in Vilas Pandurang Pawar & ANR. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2012(8) SCALE, 577 that Section 18 of the Act creates a specific bar to the grant of anticipatory bail to a person against whom any offence is registered under the provisions of the aforesaid Act and, therefore no Court shall entertain an application for anticipatory bail unless it, prima facie, finds that an offence under the Act is not made out. Tue, 16 Apr 2013 06:24:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3424 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3424 [Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 2013 Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No.7550 of 2012]. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has quashed the order dated 30.06.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Bandikui, District Dausa and directed the Sessions Judge to decide the Revision Petition filed against the order dated 19.05.2012 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa in connection with F.I.R.No.561 of 2011. The main grievance of the appellant is that before the impugned order was passed by the High Court quashing the order passed by the Sessions Judge in his favour, no hearing was granted to the appellant, though he was impleaded as respondent in the Criminal Revision Petition before the High Court. Considering the fact that the appellant was not given a hearing by the High Court before it passed the impugned order, we set aside the impugned order dated 26.07.2012 of the High Court passed in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.737 of 2012 and remand the matter back to the High Court for its fresh hearing and disposal. Tue, 16 Apr 2013 06:20:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3423 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3423 [Civil Appeal No. 3883 of 2013 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.27519 of 2008]. This appeal was filed against interim order, dated 2nd July, 2008, in Appeal From Order No.418 of 2008 in Notice of Motion No.82 of 2007 in Short Cause Suit No.45 of 2007. By the aforesaid order, the High Court had granted a limited injunction that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit the appellant shall not dispossess or interfere with the possession of respondent No.1 except by due process of law. Subsequent to the passing of the aforesaid order, the appellant has settled the entire dispute with respondent No.1, who has already vacated the suit premises and has occupied another space, under the subsequent independent arrangement between the parties. In the application (I.A. NO.5/2013 in SLP(C) NO.27519/2008) filed on behalf of appellant for seeking permission to file additional documents, it has been brought to our notice that the aforesaid suit in which the interim order had been passed was actually dismissed on 28th June, 2012. Since the suit in which the interim order had been passed has been dismissed, obviously, the impugned order also cannot be sustained. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. Tue, 16 Apr 2013 06:16:40 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3400 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3400 [Civil Appeal Nos.3884-3886 of 2013 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 33744-33746 of 2012]. The original prayer made by the respondent No.1 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun was that the proceedings in Original Suit No. 74 of 2009 and Original Suit No.263 of 2009 should be consolidated and tried together. This prayer was rejected by the Family Court by its judgment and order dated 27th January, 2012. Consequently, respondent No.1 filed appeal before the High Court. The High Court noticed the fact that the appellant - husband has filed two suits. In one suit, he is seeking divorce from the wife. In the other suit, he is seeking permanent injunction as well as temporary injunction, restraining the wife from entering the matrimonial home of the couple. It is also noticed by the High Court that in the second suit, ex parte ad interim order of injunction had been granted in favour of the husband. The aforesaid suit is still pending. Instead of deciding the issue on merits, the High Court admitted the appeal and stayed the operation of the ex parte ad interim order of injunction as well as hearing of both the suits until the appeal is heard and decided. In our opinion, the aforesaid order cannot be sustained. Tue, 16 Apr 2013 06:12:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3399 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3399 [I.A. No. 100 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 337 of 1995]. [IA No.3452 in WP(C) No.202 of 1995]. We have been called upon to decide the necessity of a second home for Asiatic Lion (Panthera leo persica), an endangered species, for its long term survival and to protect the species from extinction as issue rooted one co-centrism, which supports the protection of all wildlife forms, not just those which are of instrumental value to humans but those which have intrinsic worth.FACTS:2. The Wildlife Institute of India (for short 'WII'), an autonomous institution under the Ministry of Environment and Forests (for short 'MoEF'), Government of India, through its wildlife Biologists had done considerable research at the Gir Forest in the State of Gujarat since 1986. All those studies were geared to provide data which would help for the better management of the Gir forest and enhance the prospects for the long term conservation of lions at Gir, a single habitat of Asiatic lion in the world. The data collected by the Wildlife Biologists highlighted the necessity of a second natural habitat for its long term conservation. Few of the scientists had identified the Asiatic lions as a prime candidate for a re-introduction project to ensure its long term survival. In October1993, a Population and Habitat Analysis Workshop was held at Baroda, Gujarat. Tue, 16 Apr 2013 06:08:10 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3385 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3385 [Civil Appeal No.3861 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No.20277 of 2007]. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated9th March, 2007 passed by the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur in DB Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 332 of 1998 whereby the Division Bench upheld the judgment dated 13th February, 1998 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Jaipur dismissing the appellant's petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). The facts of the case are as follows: The appellant and respondent are married to each other. The appellant preferred a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Act before the Judge, Family Court, Jaipur and brought on record the following facts: The appellant and the respondent were married according to Hindu rites on 30th October, 1990 at Jaipur. For the first few days the respondent stayed at her matrimonial home and behaved well with family members of the appellant. However, upon her return from her parental house, after a few days of the marriage, her behaviour suddenly changed. Appellant claimed to be the only son of the family having two small sisters and old father to look after. Tue, 16 Apr 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3384 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3384 [Civil Appeal No. 7263 of 2012 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9259/2012]. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the Judgment dated 2nd February, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in A.P.O.T No.237 of 2010. The Division Bench while dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant held that the Principal Secretary, Food and Supplies Department is not an appellate authority with respect to an order passed under Paragraph 11 of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 and thereby affirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The relevant facts of the case are as follows: One Purushottam Das Jhunjhunwala was issued with a Kerosene Dealer licence in the year 1997 and was carrying on his business in the name of M/s Lachmi Narayan Bhomroj, as a sole proprietor. Upon his death, his heirs were temporarily allowed to carry on kerosene business under the same name as per the provisions of West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968(hereinafter referred to as the 'Control Order'). Tue, 16 Apr 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3383 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3383 [Civil Appeal No. 3840/2013 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 38061 of 2012]. This petition for Special Leave seeks to challenge the order dated 5.12.2012 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Bench at Indore) allowing the application filed by the first respondent under Order 6 Rule 16 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) being I.A No. 7248/2012 for striking off certain pleadings from the Recrimination Petition filed by the Appellant herein. Facts leading to this petition are this wise:- The General Elections to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly were notified by the Election Commission of India on 14.10.2008 and were held on 27.11.2008. The appellant herein contested the election from 201-Dhar (General) Constituency. She was declared elected on 9.12.2008 defeating the first respondent by one vote. The respondent No. 1 filed Election Petition bearing No. 11 of 2009 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Bench at Indore), challenging the election of the appellant on the ground of improper reception, refusal and rejection of votes under the provisions of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (R.P. Act, 1951 in short). Mon, 15 Apr 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3379 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3379 [Civil Appeal Nos. 3838-3839 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 31536-31537 of 2009]. These appeals have been filed against the final judgment and order dated 09.10.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No. 26181 of 2006 and order dated 06.11.2009 in Civil Misc. Review Petition No. 286203 of 2009. By judgment dated 09.10.2009, the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the contesting respondents herein and quashed the order dated 18.01.2006 passed by the Territory Manager(Retail), Meerut, BPCL terminating the dealership licence of the outlet of respondent No.1-Firm and directed restoration of their dealership. Review petition filed by the appellant herein against the said order was also dismissed on 06.11.2009 by the High Court. Brief facts: The appellant - Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (in short "BPCL")is a Government of India Undertaking under the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas and is engaged in refining, distributing and selling petroleum products such as Motor Spirit(MS/Petrol), High Speed Diesel (HSD), Kerosene, Liquified Petroleum Gas(LPG) etc., all over the country. Respondent No.1-Firm is a licensed dealer of the BPCL, selling petroleum products from its Retail Outlet (RO)at Court Road, Saharanpur, U.P. Originally, the Dealership Licence was granted, vide agreement dated 24.07.1975. Mon, 15 Apr 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3378 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3378 [Writ Petition (Criminal) D. No. 16039 of 2011]. [Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 146 of 2011]. Human life is perhaps the most precious gift of the nature, which many describe as the Almighty. This is the reason why it is argued that if you cannot give life, you do not have the right to take it. Many believe that capital punishment should not be imposed irrespective of the nature and magnitude of the crime. Others think that death penalty operates as a strong deterrent against heinous crimes and there is nothing wrong in legislative prescription of the same as one of the punishments. The debate on this issue became more intense in the second part of the 20th century and those belonging to the first school of thought succeeded in convincing the governments of about 140 countries to abolish death penalty. In India, death was prescribed as one of the punishments in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the same was retained after independence. However, keeping in view the old adage that man should be merciful to all living creatures, the framers of the Constitution enacted Articles 72 and161 under which the President or the Governor, as the case may be, can grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remission of punishment or suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence and as will be seen hereinafter, the President has exercised power under Article72 in large number of cases for commutation of death sentence into life imprisonment except when the accused was found guilty of committing gruesome and/or socially abhorrent crime. Sat, 13 Apr 2013 06:40:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3374 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3374 [Criminal Appeal No.120 of 2012]. The sole appellant is the accused who was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 376, Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and 10 years rigorous imprisonment for committing rape and murder of one Devi (real name disguised). According to the prosecution, a telephonic intimation was received in the police station regarding the dead body of Devi resident of Mangalore within the jurisdiction of Shahzadpur police station, Ambala, lying in the fields of one Prithi Pal. On reaching the spot PW-14, SHO recorded the statement of PW-10 Sumitra Devi the mother of the deceased. It was learnt through her that she had two daughters that the elder one was married while the younger one who went to the fields on 18.2.2005 at 6.30 p.m. to ease her did not return and their intensive search was in vain. In her statement she mentioned the name of the appellant who was stated to have been found at the place of search and on being asked, he pleaded ignorance about the victim. It was her further statement that only on the next day morning in day light they were able to trace the body of the victim whose neck was wrapped with a blue shawl owned by her. The complainant PW-10 raised suspicion about the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the offence in view of his past misbehavior towards her elder daughter on which occasion he was reprimanded before the local Panchayat and was forced to tender an apology. As it was a case of circumstantial evidence, the trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence of prosecution witnesses and after taking into account the stand of the appellant in his 313 Cr.P.C. statement noted the circumstances in paragraph 17 of the judgment. Sat, 13 Apr 2013 06:32:10 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3434 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3434 [Criminal Appeal No. 878-879 of 2011]. [Criminal Appeal No. 884 of 2011]. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 3.12.2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1009-SB of 2000, 1031-SB of 2000 and 1080-SB of 2010, by way of which the High Court has affirmed the judgment and order dated 25.09.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab in Sessions Case No. 15T/98/22.12.95, by way of which the learned trial court has convicted the appellants along with others, namely, Ranjit Singh and Smt. Jasbir Kaur for the offences punishable under Section(s) 376(2)(g) and 366 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC'), and awarded sentence of 10 years to each of them and fine of Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 3,000/- respectively, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for one year and six months ?respectively. The facts and circumstances leading to filing of these appeals are that, one Manjit Kaur (PW-1), who was a student of class X had gone along with 15-16 other girls from her school to attend sport meet at Fatehgarh Sahib. Sat, 13 Apr 2013 06:28:40 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3381 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3381 [Civil Appeal Nos. 3279-3287 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 24704-24712 of 2007]. All these matters involve a common question relating to claims for enhancement of compensation in respect of lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as "the 1894 Act", in several States, such as, Punjab, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and the Union Territory of Chandigarh. In some of the Special Leave Petitions, leave has already been granted and they have been listed as Civil Appeals. Leave is also granted in all other Special Leave Petitions which are being heard together in this batch of matters. For the sake of convenience, we have taken up the batch matters State-wise. The major number of cases are from the States of Punjab and Haryana and, accordingly, it was decided to take up the said matters first. We have, therefore, heard the matters relating to the State of Haryana before the other matters and for the said purpose, we have also selected some specific matters, the decision wherein would also govern the rest. Since in the State of Haryana, the lands acquired were from different districts, such as Faridabad, Ambala, Fatehabad, Hisar, Sonepat and Kurukshetra and under different Notifications published under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, we took up the individual cases of Ashrafi and Others vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Others, being SLP(C) Nos.24704-24712 of 2007, relating to the Notification dated 2nd August, 2009, and Sailak Ram (D) Tr. LRs. & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., being SLP(C) No.28686 of 2010, relating to the Notification dated 7th September, 1992, in respect of the lands situated in Faridabad. Sat, 13 Apr 2013 06:25:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3377 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3377 [Civil Appeal No. 629 of 2004]. [Civil Appeal No. 630 of 2004]. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 6.9.2002, passed by the High Court of Allahabad in CMWP No.25785 of 2002, by way of which, the High Court has dismissed the writ petition of the appellants, affirming the judgment and decree of the Small Causes Court dated 20.4.2001, which stood affirmed by the Revisional Court, vide judgment and decree dated 13.5.2002. Civil Appeal No.630 of 2004 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.2.2003, in Review Application No.206905 of 2002 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dismissing the review petition. In the aforesaid judgments, the courts below have held, that the relationship of a landlord and tenant did not exist between respondent nos.1 and 2 and the appellants. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: The dispute pertains to the ownership of shop no.53/11 (old number) corresponding to its new number, i.e. 53/8, Nayayaganj, Kanpur Nagar. Janki Bibi (Ist) daughter of Har Dayal, was married to one Durga Prasad, son of Dina Nath. Radhey Shyam was the adopted son of Durga Prasad, whose son Shyam Sunder was married to Janki Bibi (2nd). Sat, 13 Apr 2013 06:21:10 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3376 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3376 [Criminal Appeal No.1354 of 2012]. The appellant Ram Deo Prasad has been awarded death penalty for raping and inflicting injuries to a four year old child causing her death. The prosecution case is based on the statement of one Mohd. KamruddinMian made before Sub-Inspector, Birendra Kumar Pandey of Siwan Town P.S. on December 21, 2004 at 8:15 a.m. at the Sadar Hospital, Siwan. Mohd.Kamruddin stated that on the previous night after finishing their meal at about 8:30 p.m. his family had gone to sleep at his house in village Badka Gaon, P.S. Pachrukhi District Siwan. His four year old daughter Laila Khatoon was sleeping by the side of her grandmother on the outer verandah of the house and on the other side of the straw bed, the girl's mother was sleeping with her infant child. In the middle of the night, the Informant who was sleeping in an inside room came out to relieve himself and found Laila Khatoon missing from the side of her grandmother. A search started for the girl and then his neighbour, Suman Kumar Sah (PW.2) told them that just a little while ago he had seen the appellant swiftly running away towards east, carrying a girl child in his arms who was crying. As informed by Suman Sah, he (the Informant) and the villagers assembled there proceeded towards east in search (of the child). Sat, 13 Apr 2013 06:16:50 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3372 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3372 [Criminal Appeal No.1702 of 2008]. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated April 30,2008 passed by the Uttarakhand High Court in Government Appeal No.1174 of2001 (Old No.303 of 1991). By the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the Government Appeal, set aside the judgment of acquittal rendered by thetrial court, and finding the appellant guilty of the offence of murder convicted him under section 302 of the Penal Code and gave him the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. The case of the prosecution is based on a written report dated July26, 1988 submitted at Police Station Dehradun by one Vijay Singh s/o Puran Singh Rana (hereinafter referred to as "the informant"). In the written report it was stated that the informant's elder brother, namely, Kishan Singh Rana (the deceased) was a peon in the Bank of India, Rajpur Road Branch, Dehradun. He had given a pair of pants and some cloth for stitching to Rajendra Singh tailor (the appellant), whose shop is on the road just near their house. The appellant did not return the stitched clothes even after several days and on the evening prior to the date of occurrence, there was a quarrel between the informant's brother and the appellant on that issue. On July 26, 1988 (the date of occurrence) the informant's brother had gone to the bank as usual on his motor cycle. He returned from the bank at about 1.00 p.m. and as he reached in front of the appellant's shop, he got down from the motor cycle as the road was broken at that point. Sat, 13 Apr 2013 06:12:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3371 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3371 [Criminal Appeal No.700 of 2006]. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated October 16, 2003 passed by the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2002 with criminal reference No.27 of 2002. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal and affirmed the judgment and order passed by the trial court by which the appellant was convicted under section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. According to the prosecution case, on August 6, 1997, at about 8:30P.M. one Gani Shah (the deceased) was returning to his house after offering the 'Isha' (late evening) prayers at the local mosque in village Magray-pora of tehsil Anantnag. The appellant intercepted him in the lane, at as pot just outside the kitchen of the house of the deceased and taking aim at him fired several shots from the gun, which he was carrying. Gani Shah, hit by the gunshots fell down dead on the spot. His wife and son and some neighbours who gathered at the place of occurrence lifted him physically and took him inside the house. It is further the case of the prosecution that the appellant wanted to marry the younger daughter of Gani Shah, namely, Lovely. But the proposal for marriage sent by him was rejected both by Gani Shah and Lovely and it was in retribution of the rejection of his marriage proposal that he killed Gani Shah. Sat, 13 Apr 2013 06:07:20 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3370 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3370 [Civil Appeal No.3265 of 2013 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1343 of 2009]. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, hereinafter referred to as "NOIDA", in these special leave petitions filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 20th of June, 2008 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41065 of 2003 (Sarvpriya Sahakari Avas Samiti Limited v. State of U.P. through Special Secretary & Anr.) and order dated 15th of July, 2010 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 67362 of 2005 (Shivalik Sahakari Avas Samiti through Secretary v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary & Ors.). By those orders NOIDA has been directed to give benefit of Government Order dated22nd of October, 2002 to each of the writ petitioners, respondent no. 1herein i.e. Sarvpriya Sahakari Avas Samiti Limited, hereinafter referred to as "Sarvpriya" and Shivalik Sahakari Avas Samiti, hereinafter referred to as "Shivalik". Leave granted. As direction given in both the appeals is identical and facts are similar, both have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the purpose of these appeals we have taken the facts from the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 1343 of 2009. Sarvpriyais a registered Housing Cooperative Society and its claim is that most of its members are from the Indian Army, Border Security Force, Air Force, Central Reserve Police Force, Delhi Police and other Government Departments. The object of the Sarvpriya is to provide residential accommodation to its members. Sat, 13 Apr 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3369 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3369 [Criminal Appeal No. 1279 of 2008]. These Criminal Appeals are directed against the Judgment and Order dated 05.06.2006 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No 716-DB of 2004. The Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused for offences punishable under Sections 302, 376(2)(g), 148, 201,404 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code with different sentences of imprisonment which will be referred to in the later portion of the judgment to run concurrently and fine imposed upon them. The same is under challenge in these appeals by the appellants urging various grounds. However, the High Court acquitted the appellants of the charges framed under Sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellants have prayed for allowing the appeals by setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and to acquit them from all the charges urging various facts and grounds in support of the questions of law framed in these appeals. For proper appreciation of rival factual and legal submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties the relevant facts in relation to the prosecution case are briefly stated as under: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3368 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3368 [Criminal Appeal No(S). 376 of 2010]. This appeal is directed against the judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dated 16.7.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.301/1994. According to the prosecution on 28.9.19992 at 12.30 p.m., the prosecutrix P.W.2 was proceeding to the field for cutting grass. On the way, the appellant who was roasting Maize/Bhutta in the field of PyareLal, blocked P.W.2 and asked her to go alongwith him into the field of sugarcane. When P.W.2 refused, the appellant caught hold of her by hand and forcibly took her to the sugarcane field, throw her down, gagged her mouth with the saree of P.W.2 and forcibly had intercourse with her by threatening her life at knife point. According to her by virtue of the said act of the appellant, white liquid started oozing out from her private parts, that she went to the boundary wall (Mound) where a well is situated and where Ram Singh Dada (P.W.4) was cutting grass. P.W.2 informed Ram Singh Dada as to what happened, who in turn passed on the information to her Kakaji Hari Prasad. Thereafter, her Kakaji Hari Prasad took P.W. 2 to home, where she narrated the whole incident. She stated to have informed her sister Chain Bai as well as her Kaki and Shanta Bai. She thereafter reported the matter to the Vilkis Ganj Police Station and after registering the report reached back home. She identified the report as Exhibit P2. Fri, 12 Apr 2013 06:16:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3433 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3433 [Criminal Appeal No(S). 1962 of 2010]. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.1395/1994 by which the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 376 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years apart from a fine amount of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to under one months' additional rigorous imprisonment was confirmed. According to the prosecution on 11.4.1991 the victim P.W.4, an agricultural labourer was in the field of Moti Singh Darbar and loading the wheat on the vehicle. After the field work, she was proceeding to her village which was 11/2 miles away. The appellant was following P.W.4 who was proceeding along with minor girl Manju, aged 10 years in his motorcycle. On the way, P.W.4 suffered thorn bite in her foot and while she was removing the thorn, Manju left her and proceeded towards her home. Taking advantage of the lonliness of P.W.4, the appellant stated to have grabbed her hand against her will, took her near the bushes at Kauve near the drain and had forcible sexual intercourse for about 1/2 an hour. According to the victim P.W.4, sexual intercourse was carried out by the appellant near the drain and again after taking her to his house under the threat of knife point and performed the same evil act in the house also. Fri, 12 Apr 2013 06:12:40 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3432 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3432 [Civil Appeal No. 1499 of 2004]. This appeal has been preferred by defendant No.3 against the judgment dated 20th January, 2003 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in R.F.A.No.319 of 1998. By the impugned judgment and decree the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of trial court and decreed the suit declaring that defendant Nos.1,2,3 and 4 are entitled to 11/50thshare each and the plaintiff, defendant Nos. 5,6,7,8 and 9 are entitled to1/50th share each in the suit schedule properties. The facts of the case are as follows: The plaintiff-respondent No.4 filed a suit for partition and separate possession of 1/10th share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and also sought for an enquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 C.P.C. to ascertain the mesne profits. She is the second daughter of late Shri Kunnaiah whereas defendant Nos.1,2,3 and 4, including the appellant herein are the sons and defendant Nos.5,6,7 and 8 are the daughters of late Shri Kunnaiah. Defendant No.9 is the son of the first daughter of late Shri Kunnaiah. Plaintiff claimed that the suit schedule properties are self-acquired properties of late Shri Kunnaiah and, therefore, she is entitled for 1/10thshare in the suit schedule properties. Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 filed a joint written statement claiming1/5th share in the suit schedule properties, as according to them the suits chedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties. The appellant-defendant No.3 filed a separate written statement claiming the right over total 32 acres 55 cents of lands. Fri, 12 Apr 2013 06:07:20 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3373 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3373 [Civil Appeal Nos. 2888 & 4459 of 2005]. [Civil Appeal Nos. 2885-2887 of 2005]. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.6.2003 by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in C.C.C.A. Nos.34 and 33 of 1991 and C.C.C.A. No. 92 of 1993, by way of which the appeals filed by the respondents against the common judgment and decree dated 22.3.1991, in O.S. No.30 of 1984 and O.S. No.135 of 1984, passed by the court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, have been partly allowed, by modifying the said judgment and order of the trial court. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that: The appellant/plaintiff was carrying on business prior to 1.1.1978 in the appurtenant land as a tenant, and had made an offer to purchase the said premises, alongwith two other premises belonging to the landlady Ms. Anjum Jehan - respondent No.1/defendant No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'Res.No.1'). The parties entered into an agreement dated 15.10.1977, for the sale of land admeasuring 1200 square yards situated at Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, for a total consideration of Rs.1,70,070/-. Out of which a sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid as earnest money. Fri, 12 Apr 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3367 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3367 [Civil Appeal Nos. 7605-7606 of 2004]. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 12.12.2003 passed by the High Court of Madras in Second Appeal Nos. 1536-1537 of 1991, by way of which the common judgment and decree passed by the First Additional District Judge in A.S. No. 198 of 1983 and A.S. No. 43 of 1988 were set aside, and the suit O.S. No. 58 of 1982, was dismissed, holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff, father of the appellant herein, is not maintainable. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that: The suit property i.e. House No. 9/39, Savaripadayatchi Street, Nellithope, Pondicherry, originally belonged to the deceased appellant/great grandfather Vengadachala Naicker, son of Ayyamperumal Naicker. He donated the above-mentioned suit property on 13.12.1896 in favour of his minor grandsons Radja Row and Kichnadji Row, both sons of Ponnusamy Naicker, and the said donation deed was registered on 18.1.1897. In the deed, it was provided that the donees/grandsons would only have a life estate, and that after their death, only their male legal heirs shall be entitled to the suit property, with the right of alienation. Fri, 12 Apr 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3366 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3366 [Writ Petition (Civil) No.232 of 2012]. We are, in this case, concerned with the fate of Saba and Farha, Craniopagus Twins (CTs) and their survival, unless subjected to surgical separation. Saba and Farha, CTs, both female, are minors, togetherness, of course, will not bring joy to them or to their parents, to the family members or the people at large who happen to see them or heard about them. The doors of this Court have been knocked by a good Samaritan and since this Court has a fundamental duty to look after the interest of minor children, especially when they are CTs, fighting for their lives. We spent sleepless nights to find out a solution. Seldom society cares or knows the mental and psychological trauma, in such situations, Judges undergo, especially, when they are called upon to decide an issue touching human life, either to save or take away. We are in this case concerned with lives of two minor girls, placed in an unfortunate, calamitous and infelicitous situation. CTs are conjoined twins who are fused at the cramium. Medical science says that at least 25% of the CTs may survive and can be considered for a surgical separation, especially due to advances in medicine, including brain imaging, neuro-anaesthesia and neuro surgical techniques, but risk is always there. Fri, 12 Apr 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3365 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3365 [Civil Appeal No. 2840 of 2007]. This civil appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madras, Bench at Madurai in A.S.No.237 of 1993, dated 22.01.2007. During the pendency of the lis, another Bench of this Court vide earlier orders dated 09.03.2011 had thought it fit to refer the matter to a Mediator for adjudication and decision in view of the fact that both the learned counsel for the parties had agreed for an amicable settlement of the dispute between themselves. In compliance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the learned Mediator has mediated the dispute between the parties and thereafter has sent his report, dated 31.03.2012 which was received by this Court on 09.04.2012. Both the parties have arrived at a settlement amicably before the learned Mediator. The report of the learned Mediator is taken on record and the same would form part of the decree. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties before the learned Mediator; we dispose of this civil appeal, in the terms as suggested by the learned Mediator in his report. Thu, 11 Apr 2013 06:18:40 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3422 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3422 [Civil Appeal No. 2681 of 2007]. Learned counsel for the appellant has brought to our notice that the Central Government, in spite of our earlier order and directions, have not complied with the same fully. The learned senior counsel for the appellant, Shri Colin Gonsalves, in his Memo/Report filed on 08.04.2013, has stated the following issues that are left to be considered and implemented by the respondents-herein: Out of 9,797 shelters, 9,517 have been handed over to the families of the victims affected by the Tsunami which hit the Andaman & Nicobar Islands in the year 2004. The remaining 280 shelters are held back for the purpose of verification of the beneficiaries. It is stated by Shri Gonsalves, that direction may be issued to the respondents to complete the verification of the beneficiaries and thereafter hand-over the remaining 280 shelters to them. Shri Attri, learned senior counsel appearing for the Union of India, would submit that they will comply with the above said grievance of the appellant within six months' time from today. Therefore, we direct the respondents to hand over the remaining shelters to the beneficiaries after completion of verification within six months' time for today. The second issue is with regard to allotment of 24 shelters at Laxminagar and to provide basic amenities such as water, electricity etc. In the earlier affidavit filed by the Union of India, it had stated that the allotment of 24 shelters could not be made because of the non-availability of approach road. Thu, 11 Apr 2013 06:15:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3421 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3421 [Criminal Appeal No. 1226 of 2011]. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.9.2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 243-DB of 2002, by way of which the High Court has affirmed the judgment and order dated 4.3.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind in Sessions Case No. 37 of 2001, by way of which the appellant no. 1 has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and awarded the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of making payment, to further undergo imprisonment for two years. Further he has been convicted under Section 506 IPC and awarded the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The other co-accused, namely, Manoj, Satish @ Sitta and Kuldeep have been convicted separately under sections 376, 506, 366 and 363 IPC. Kuldeep Singh alone has been found guilty under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC, and has been awarded sentence of life imprisonment. Out of these four convicts, Kuldeep Singh and Manoj did not prefer any appeal against the High Court's judgment, while appellant nos.1 and 2 preferred the present appeal. Appellant no.2 had died during the pendency of this appeal in jail, therefore, we are concerned only with the case of appellant no.1 i. e. Lillu @ Rajesh. Thu, 11 Apr 2013 06:11:10 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3382 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3382 [Civil Appeal No...... of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No.34394 of 2011]. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15th September 2011 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack dismissing the Writ Petition (C) No.16450 of 2010 filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 25th February, 2009 directing that the appellant shall be under deemed suspension with effect from 14th February, 2003. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant, who was working as a Soil Conservation Officer (Class I) with the Government of Orissa, was placed under suspension by order dated 12th June, 1998 in contemplation of a disciplinary inquiry as envisaged under Rule 12(1)(a) of the Orissa Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1962 (in short "OCS (CCA) Rules"). However, the suspension was revoked during the pendency of the enquiry proceeding on 20th July, 1999. In his report, dated 30th March, 2000, the enquiry officer exonerated the appellant of all the charges. However, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and issued a show cause notice to the appellant dated 4th February, 2002 proposing the punishment of dismissal. The appellant submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 4th March, 2002. By an order dated 14th February, 2003, the disciplinary authority passed an order imposing the punishment of removal on the appellant. It was also directed that the period of suspension from 13th June, 1998 to 20th July, 1999 is treated as such. Thu, 11 Apr 2013 06:07:50 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3364 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3364 [Civil Appeal No ........ of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No.9126 of 2010]. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th July, 2009 rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.1041 of 2007 by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 31st January, 2007 in Special Civil Application No.2115 of 1997. On 11th May, 2010, this Court issued notice limited to the question of award of punishment. In the High Court, before the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel for the appellant made only one submission that looking to the allegations and the charges proved against the appellant and the penalty of removal imposed upon the appellant is disproportionate to the misconduct. However, in the Letters Patent Appeal, a draft amendment was moved by the appellant seeking to challenge the order of removal from service on the ground that the acts committed by the appellant did not constitute misconduct. The application for amendment was rejected. We may very briefly notice the relevant facts for deciding the limited issue as to whether the punishment imposed on the appellant is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct. Thu, 11 Apr 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3363 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3363 [Civil Appeal Nos. 2970-2975 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) Nos.9181-9186 of 2011]. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and final order dated 8th December, 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition Nos. 58206 of 2005 and in connected Writ Petition Nos. 58214, 59016, 59018, 59035 and 59758 of 2005, whereby the High Court has allowed all the Writ Petitions and set aside the Circular No. 17 of 2009 dated 30th November, 2009 and Circular dated 12th July, 2010 in so far as they make a provision to exclude the employees from consideration for promotion, who are otherwise eligible to be considered for promotion and are within the zone of consideration, on the basis that they have either obtained the 'D' rating in the annual performance report or have been penalized for any misconduct in the preceding 5 years. Background:- Before we take up for consideration, the issues involved, it would be appropriate to briefly notice the background leading to the present litigation. Thu, 11 Apr 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3362 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3362 [Criminal Appeal No. 1073 of 2008]. The appellants Sunil Kundu, Bablu Kundu, Nageshwar Sah and Hira LalYadav ('A1-Sunil', 'A2-Bablu', 'A3-Nageshwar' and 'A4-Hiralal', for convenience) were tried for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code(for short, 'the IPC') and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short 'the Arms Act'). The Sessions Court by its judgment and order dated 15-17/09/2004 acquitted them of charges under Section 201 read with Section 34of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. They were, however, convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each. They carried appeals to the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi. The High Court confirmed their conviction and sentence. Hence, these appeals by special leave. This case is a glaring example of how cause of justice can be defeated by inefficient, lackadaisical and incompetent investigating agency. As we go ahead, the reasons for these observations would be clear. Wed, 10 Apr 2013 06:55:20 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3355 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3355 [Civil Appeal No.3256 of 2013 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13655 of 2009]. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.398 of 2009, dated 11.02.2009. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has rejected the Writ Petition filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'delinquent employee'), who was compulsorily retired from service. The Disciplinary authority had passed an order dismissing the delinquent employee from service. On a Review Petition filed by the delinquent employee, the Reviewing Authority had modified the punishment from dismissal of the delinquent employee from service to compulsory retirement from service. They further imposed certain other punishments. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed, the delinquent employee had approached the Writ Court for appropriate relief. The Writ Court, by a non-speaking order, dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the delinquent employee. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the delinquent employee is before this Court. To say the least, the judgment and order do not contain any reasons whatsoever for dismissal of the Writ Petition. In our opinion, an order which does not contain reasons is no order in the eye of law and requires to be set aside. Wed, 10 Apr 2013 06:31:50 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3420 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3420 [Special Leave Petition (CRL) No.7679 of 2012]. We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate is right in issuing the summons to the petitioners who were named in the FIR, but not in the charge-sheet. The order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in A.U.P. No.572 of 2011 dated 18.04.2011 was challenged by the petitioners before the High Court, without any success, against this special leave petition has been preferred. We notice that cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate vide its order dated 8.4.2011 against the petitioners for offences under Section302/34 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Magistrate was not justified in invoking Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) since the petitioners were not charge-sheeted by the police after conducting the investigation. Learned counsel pointed out that so far as those persons against whom charge-sheet has not been filed they can be arrayed as accused persons in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. only when some evidence or materials are brought on record in the course of trial. Learned counsel also referred to the Judgment of this Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others (2009) 16 SCC 785 and submitted that an identical question came up for consideration before the two Judge Bench of this Court and in view of the conflicting views expressed by two Judge Bench in Mohd. Wed, 10 Apr 2013 06:27:10 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3354 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3354 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4616 of 2010]. This special leave petition has been preferred against the order dated 11.09.2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Review PetitionNo.79 of 2009 in LPA No.1233 of 2006. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the special leave petition is not maintainable since the main judgment rendered by the High Court on 5.11.2008 in LPA No.1233 of 2006 was not challenged. Mr. Sanjiv Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed considerable reliance on the judgment of this Court in Eastern Coalfields Limited v. Dugal Kumar (2008) 14 SCC 295 and submitted that the said judgment would apply to the facts of this case and the SLP is perfectly maintainable, even though the petitioner had not challenged the original order passed by the High Court on 5.11.2008. Learned counsel submitted that on dismissal of the review petition, the earlier order stood merged, in the order passed in the review petition, consequently, the SLP is perfectly maintainable. Considerable reliance was placed on paragraphs 21 and 22 of the above Judgment, which read as under: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 06:24:40 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3353 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3353 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9711 2013 @ (Cc No.2702 of 2013)]. In view of the Judgment pronounced by this Court on 11.3.2013 in Civil Appeal No. 2326 of 2013 @ SLP(C) No.12960 of 2008 entitled State of U.P. v. Hari Ram this special leave petition is dismissed. Wed, 10 Apr 2013 06:20:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3352 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3352 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10587 of 2013] @ (Cc No.4517 of 2013)]. In view of the Judgment pronounced by this Court on 11.3.2013 in Civil Appeal No. 2326 of 2013 @ SLP(C) No.12960 of 2008 State of U.P. Vs. Hari Ram these special leave petitions are dismissed. Wed, 10 Apr 2013 06:16:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3351 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3351 [Civil Appeal No. 2948 of 2013 arising out of The Special Leave Petition (C) No.27031 of 2011]. Since these two appeals arose out of the common judgment and order dated 11.07.2011 passed in Writ Appeal Nos. 1812 of 2006 and 1865 of2006, the same have been heard and disposed of by this common judgment. By the impugned judgment and order, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the order dated 200f 2006 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 52603 of2003 and 54201 of 2003 and the order dated 03.12.2002 passed by the Education Appellate Tribunal in EAT No.16 of 1996. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: Respondent No.1 T.D. Viswanath, in Civil Appeal arising out SLP(C) No. 27130 of 2011 (in short respondent no.1) alleged to have been appointed as a Lecturer in Sri Basaveswara Junior College (in short, 'the college') run by Sri Basaveswara Education Society (in short, 'the Society'). According to the said respondent No.1, since the date of appointment i.e. 28.06.1990 he continuously worked as a Lecturer in the College run by the Society. Wed, 10 Apr 2013 06:12:10 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3350 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3350 [Civil Appeal No. 2944 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 14541 of 2010]. These appeals are directed against the orders dated 2.12.2009 passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 7748 of 2002 and 21407 of 2002 whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein were disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 4 - Meerut Development Authority to press its resolution dated 17.09.1997 if the said Authority is not in need of the land so acquired and the orders dated 9.4.2010 whereby the review applications filed against the orders dated 2.12.2009 in the said writ petitions were rejected. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The appellants filed the aforementioned writ petitions seeking the following reliefs: Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to accept the proposal for withdrawing from acquisition in view of the resolution dated 17.9.97 submitted by the Meerut Development Authority at the earliest within a period to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. Wed, 10 Apr 2013 06:07:50 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3349 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3349 [Criminal Appeal No. 1794 of 2008]. The present appeal has been filed under Section 379 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 read with Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 against the judgment and order dated 27th August, 2008 passed by the Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1992 reversing the order of acquittal dated 31st October, 1990 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1988 and convicting the appellants under Sections 147/149/449/436/302/395/396 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment and fine under different sections of IPC. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant No. 4 Ram Lal is stated to have died on 23rd May, 2011. Therefore, the appeal stands abated so far as he is concerned. The case of the prosecution in brief is that Harjit Kaur (PW-1), a resident of House No. RZ-1/295, Geetanjali Park, West Sagarpur, New Delhi, apprehensive of harm to her family because of riots which followed the assassination of late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on 31st October, 1984, had sent both her daughters and a son to her father Govind Singh's house at BE-7, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. Wed, 10 Apr 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3348 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3348 [Criminal Appeal No. 1564 of 2008]. This appeal has been filed against the final judgment and order dated04.07.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 72-SB of 1994 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant herein and confirmed the order dated05.02.1994 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1993 convicting him under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'the Act')and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of 10years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default, to further undergo RI for a period of two years. Brief facts: According to the prosecution, on 23.08.1991 at about 1.30 p.m.,S.I/SHO Dalbir Singh (PW-6), who was then posted at P.S. Ellenabad was present at Chowki of Mamera Khurd along with Head Constable Jagdish Rai (PW-1) and Constables Pratap Singh and Jang Singh and one Rameshwar (PW-3).The accused-appellant came there and on seeing the police party, he sneaked into the field of Narma crop. He was apprehended on suspicion by Dalbir Singh (PW-6). At that time, the appellant was carrying a tin in his hand and on suspecting that he was carrying narcotic substance, Dalbir Singh (PW-6) sent a V.T. Message to DSP Ram Gobind (PW-5) who reached the scene at about 2 p.m. Dalbir Singh (PW-6) presented the appellant before DSP Ram Gobind (PW-5) along with Exh. PB for conducting the search of the tin carried by him in terms of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. Wed, 10 Apr 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3347 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3347 [Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 149 of 2012]. [Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 5 of 2013]. Amitbhai Anil chandra Shah has filed the present Writ Petition being No. 149 of 2012 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India owing to the filing of fresh FIR being No. RC-3(S)/2011/Mumbai dated 29.04.2011 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and charge sheet dated 04.09.2012arraying him as an accused in view of the directions given by this Court to the Police Authorities of the Gujarat State to handover the case relatingto the death of Tulsiram Prajapati - a material witness to the killings of Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausarbi to the CBI in Narmada Bai vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2011) 5 SCC 79. In Narmada Bai (supra), this Court, taking note of the fact that the charge sheet has been filed by the State of Gujarat after a gap of 3 1/2 years and also considering the nature and gravity of the crime, rejected the investigation conducted/concluded by the State Police and directed the State police authorities to handover the case to the CBI. After investigation, the CBI filed a fresh FIR dated 29.04.2011 against various police officials of the States of Gujarat and Rajasthan and others for acting in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy to screen themselves from legal consequences of their crime by causing the disappearance of human witness, i.e., Tulsiram Prajapati, by murdering him on 28.12.2006 and showing it off as a fake encounter. Though the said FIR did not specifically name any person, in the charge sheet dated 04.09.2012 filed in the said FIR before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Danta District, Banaskantha, Gujarat, the petitioner herein was arrayed as A-1.Further, due to lack of jurisdiction, the charge sheet was presented before the 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (First Class), (CBI Court No.1), Ahmedabad, Gujarat. Tue, 09 Apr 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3343 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3343 [Civil Appeal No. 2908 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14808 of 2012]. The plaintiffs-petitioners, aggrieved by the order dated 9th February, 2012 passed by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.7653 of 2011, affirming the order dated 6th July, 2011 passed by the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai, in R.A.E Suit No.173/256 of 2010 whereby it has stayed the proceedings in R.A.E. No.173/256 of 2010 till the decision in R.A.E. Suit No.1103/1976 of 2004 and R.A.E. Suit No.1104/1977 of 2004, have preferred this Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The plaintiffs claim to be the owner of the building known as " Hanoo Manor" situate at Dadyseth 2nd Cross Lane in Chawpatty area of the city of Mumbai. According to the plaintiffs, in one of the flats of the said building admeasuring 1856.75 sq.ft. situate on the second floor, defendant's father, Rustom Dady Burjor (since deceased)was inducted as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.355/-. The plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction from the tenanted premises against the defendant being R.A.E. Suit No.1103/1976 of 2004(hereinafter to be referred to as the "First Suit") before the Small Causes Court on 6th November, 2004 on the ground of bona fide requirement for self occupation and acquisition of alternate accommodation by the defendant. Sat, 06 Apr 2013 06:07:20 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3338 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3338 [Criminal Appeal No. 539 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) No. 6354 of 2012]. The present Appeal by Special Leave is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.12.2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 466 of 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad whereby the Division Bench, while maintaining the conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act") read with Section 34, I.P.C. since the accused-appellant was convicted along with another accused, namely, Mohd. Shafi-Ul-Haq, recorded by the Principal Special Judge for S.P.E. and A.C.B. Cases-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in C.C. No. 11 of 1995, reduced the sentence to that of simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 7 and to one year under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act instead of one year and two years respectively as imposed by the learned Special Judge with the further stipulation that both the sentences shall be concurrent. The facts in a nutshell are that on 4.1.1994, PW-2, Mohd. Shareef, a driver in the Cuddapah Transport Company, Hyderabad was driving a lorry bearing No. AP 04-T-372 in Hyderabad near Tadbund and was proceeding towards Musheerabad locality via Santoshnagar cross-road, the places situated in between Hyderabad-Secunderabad twin cities. When the said lorry reached Santoshnagar cross-road, the accused- appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") along with the other accused stopped the vehicle on the pretext that the lorry had entered the 'No Entry Zone'. Sat, 06 Apr 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3337 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3337 [Civil Appeal No. 8660 of 2009]. This appeal has been preferred by the complainant-appellant against the order and judgment dated 29th January, 2009 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'National Commission') in Original Petition No. 234 of 1997 whereby the National Commission quantified the compensation payable by the respondents as Rs. 5,00,000/- and directed respondent No.1 to pay a consolidated sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the appellant and to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in the account of the Consumer Legal Aid of the National Commission. The appellant is aggrieved by the said order and judgment with respect to the total amount of compensation granted. She has also challenged that part of the order whereby Rs.2,50,000/- out of the total compensation amount has been ordered to be deposited in the account of Consumer Legal Aid of the National Commission. The facts that lead the complainant to move before the National Commission are as follows: Prashant, son of the appellant born in May 1989 suffered from febrile convulsions during fever at the age of six months. He was taken to nearby Doctor who after examining him informed that the children can get such kind of fits during fever. He was treated by giving paracetamol tablet. Even after that Prashant had high fever he suffered convulsions for which he was treated by one Dr. Ashok Panagariya, Consultant Neurologist and Associate Professor of Neurology SMS Medical College Hospital, Jaipur and at All India Medical Sciences, New Delhi. Sat, 06 Apr 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3336 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3336 [Civil Appeal Nos. 2159-2160 of 2012]. The facts which are essential to be stated for adjudication of the present batch of appeals are that the appellant-company is engaged in manufacturing of two-wheelers and three-wheelers and it has factories at Akurdi (Pune District) and Waluj (Aurangabad District). The respondents, who were engaged as Welders, Fitters, Turners, Mechanics, Grinders, Helpers, etc., initiated an action against the appellant- company under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short "the 1971 Act") before the Industrial Court, Aurangabad, seeking a declaration that there has been unfair labour practices under items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the 1971 Act on the foundation that though they were engaged in the year 1990, yet in every year, they were offered employment for seven months each year and after the expiry of the said period, their services used to be terminated and the said practice continued till they filed the complaints in 1997, 1998 and 1999. Seventeen of them also filed a separate complaint in the year 2003 for providing work to them as they were kept outside the factory premises without work. It was alleged that because of this unfair labour practice, none of them could complete 240 days in employment in any corresponding year to make them eligible to earn the status and privilege of permanent employees. Fri, 05 Apr 2013 06:16:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3342 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3342 [Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2008]. The accused-appellant had entered into wedlock with Nagamani, the deceased, on 30.4.1998 and for some time, they lived in marital bliss at Hindupur. After four months, the needs of life compelled the couple toshift to Srikalahasti where the father of the deceased was working. The experience of life not being satisfactory hardly after eight months, at the insistence of the wife, they shifted back to Hindupur. The shifting to Hindupur did not bring satisfaction as expected and hence, eventually, they shifted to Madanapalle town where the accused was working prior to the marriage. As the prosecution story further unfurls, at the time of occurrence, i.e., on 17.10.2000, the accused was staying in the rented portion of the house belonging to Dhanalakshmi, PW-1. The other portion was occupied by one Imamvalli, father of S. Syed Basha, PW-5. Imamvalli was staying with his children and his wife was away at Quwait and the proximity of stay, as alleged by the prosecution, gradually developed to an illicit intimacy between him and the deceased. Twelve days prior to the incident, the deceased was found in the company of Imamvalli in an auto-rickshaw by the accused, who dragged him out from the auto-rickshaw and assaulted him. Fri, 05 Apr 2013 06:12:20 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3341 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3341 [Criminal Appeal Nos.532-533 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) Nos. 5099-5100 of 2012]. In these appeals, the appellant, original accused No. 1, has called in question the legal propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No. 950 of 2009 whereby the Division Bench has allowed the appeal of the State and converted the conviction under Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') recorded by the learned trial Judge to that of an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and further the defensibility of the decision of dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 1075 of 2009 wherein the appellant had assailed the judgment and conviction and order of sentence dated 5.3.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Sessions case No. 166 of 1998. The factual score which led to the trial of the appellant along with two others is that three days prior to the date of occurrence, i.e., 21.5.1998. Fri, 05 Apr 2013 06:07:50 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3340 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3340 [Civil Appeal Nos. 361-362 of 2005]. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and final order dated 24.11.2003 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in APO Nos. 346 and 347, by way of which the High Court rejected the claim of the appellant to maintain the Company Petition filed under Sections 397 & 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1956'). Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that: Shri S.K. Roy (Respondent No. 2) issued and allotted 30,000 shares of the Respondent No. 1 company to himself and his relatives, and being the majority share holder therein, hence acquired control over the respondent-company. Shri Ajit Kumar Chatterjee (3.66% shares) and Shri Arghya Kusum Chatterjee (1.01% shares) filed Company Petition No. 222 of 1991 under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act 1956, before the High Court of Calcutta with the consent of M/s Bhagwati Developers Pvt. Ltd. (4.78% shares) (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') and Shri R.L. Gaggar (7.61% shares), alleging mis-management and oppression. Respondent No. 2 contested the said Company Petition by raising the preliminary issue of maintainability, stating that the valid shares held by the petitioners and consenting parties therein, were valued at less than 10 per cent of the total shareholding, and thus, the petition itself was not maintainable. Fri, 05 Apr 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3335 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3335 [Civil Appeal No.2906 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 19003 of 2009]. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the land measuring 5300 sq. mtrs. comprised in Survey No.72, Penkarpada, Mira Road, within the municipal limits of Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Corporation'). In the Development plan prepared under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, 'the 1966 Act'), which was sanctioned on 14.5.1997 and was enforced on 15.7.1997, a portion of the land belonging to respondent No.1 (2500 sq. mtrs.) was shown as reserved for extension of Royal College of Arts, Science and Commerce run by the Royal Society of Bombay (for short, 'the Society'). In December, 2005 the Corporation made an application to the District Collector for initiation of the acquisition proceedings. The latter asked the Corporation to submit detailed proposal for facilitating the acquisition. Thereupon, the Competent Authority prepared a detailed plan, which was submitted to the Collector on 26.7.2006. In the meanwhile, the Society filed Writ Petition No.4341/2005 for issue of a direction to the State Government and the Corporation to expedite the acquisition proceedings. Fri, 05 Apr 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3334 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3334 [Civil Appeal Nos. 2802-2804 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30581-30583 of 2012]. In response to an advertisement issued by the Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education (for short, 'the Board'), which was published in the newspaper "Amar Ujala" dated 5.5.2011, the appellants and the private respondents submitted applications for the posts of Physiotherapist. All of them appeared in the written test held on 25.9.2011. The appellants were declared successful and they became entitled to be appointed against the advertised posts. The private respondents, who failed to clear the test filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1625/2011 for quashing the advertisement and the process of selection. They pleaded that the advertisement and the test conducted by the Board were ultra vires the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Medical Health and Family Welfare Department Physiotherapist and Occupational Therapist Service Rules, 1998 (hereinafter described as 'the Special Rules'). In the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents, it was averred that the selection was made in accordance with the Uttarakhand Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group "C" Posts (Outside the purview of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter described as, 'the General Rules'). Thu, 04 Apr 2013 07:10:20 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3339 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3339 [Criminal Appeal No. 1548 of 2007]. The question before us is whether the conviction of Kulwant Singh (appellant No.1), his father Gurtehal Singh (appellant no. 2) and his mother Harminder Kaur (appellant no.3) for offences punishable under Section 304-B and Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) ought to be sustained. In our opinion, there is sufficient evidence on record to sustain their conviction. The facts: Rachhpal Kaur (deceased) married Kulwant Singh on 18th November 1984. It appears from the record that even though she brought sufficient dowry, she was harassed and maltreated by her husband and in-laws for bringing insufficient dowry. The harassment and maltreatment continued resulting in the intervention by the Panchayat on or about 13th September 1988 to sort out the problem so that the couple could live a normal married life. Unfortunately, the efforts of the Panchayat did not yield any positive result and about a month later on 14th October 1988 Rachhpal Kaur died under suspicious circumstances. The record indicates that Rachhpal Kaur was taken to the Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh after rigor mortis had set in and there was froth coming from her mouth and nose. Thu, 04 Apr 2013 06:41:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3333 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3333 [Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 2013 arising out of Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No.1359 of 2013]. In this appeal, by special leave, the appellant has challenged judgment and order dated 23/01/2013 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by him challenging order of detention dated 16/4/2012 issued by the detaining authority i.e. the Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security), Government of Maharashtra, Home Department under the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short, "the said Act"). The order of detention directed his detention with a view to preventing him in future from smuggling goods. From the grounds of detention, it appears to be the case of detaining authority that on 12/8/2011, the appellant Abdul Nasar Adam Ismail ("detenu" for convenience) arrived from Dubai by Air India flight No.AI- 984. He was carrying one trolley hand bag. After he was cleared through green channel, he was stopped by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs on duty. When his personal search was conducted, it was noticed that he had concealed two packets in his undergarments near his groin area and two packets under the knee caps worn on calves. Thu, 04 Apr 2013 06:36:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3331 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3331 [Criminal Appeal No.88 of 2007]. The appellants viz. A1-Subal Ghorai, A2-Bishnupada Ghorai, A3-Ranjit Samanta (since deceased), A4-Sunil Senapati, A5 Pulin Sat @ Samanta, A6 - Sudarshan Ghorai, A7-Nemai Ghorai, A8-Biswanath Ghorai, A9-Joydeb Ghori @ Bhatu, A10-Tarapada Samanta, A11-Bistu Samanta, A12-Bhanu Samanta, A13- Uttam Samanta @ Bhalu, A14-Sambhu Jana, A15-Dipu Samanta @ Dipak, A16-Subal Samanta (since deceased), A17-Dulal Samanta (since deceased), A18-Nentu Dhara (since deceased), A19-Rakhal Dhara, A20-Batul Dhara, A21-Kengal Senapati, A22-Nikhil Senapati, A23-Sibu Pramanik, A24-Dhiren Shee @ Singh (since deceased), A26-Niranjan Das, A28-Sambhu Samanta, A29-Probodh Jana, A35-Satrughna Patra and A36-Duryadhan Patra ("appellants accused") along with 7 other accused viz. A25-Subal Shee @ Singh, A27-Tapan Pramanik, A30- Padmalochan Das, A31-Dima Pramanik, A32-Manick Pramanik, A33-Sankar Das and A34-Bhakti Bhusan Maity were tried by the 4th Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Midnapore in Sessions Trial Case No.XXIII of May, 1989, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, Section 324 read with Section 149 and Section 436 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code ("the IPC"). It must be mentioned here that the charge-sheet mentioned the names of 39 persons but learned Additional Sessions Judge commenced the sessions trial in respect of 36 persons because out of 39 persons, 3 persons were held to be juveniles. Thu, 04 Apr 2013 06:32:40 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3330 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3330 [Contempt Petition (Civil) No.320 of 2009 in Criminal Appeal No.926 of 2006]. This petition is filed under Article 129 of the Constitution of India read with Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 and rule 3(C) of the Rules to regulate proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 making the prayer to punish respondent No.1 for withdrawing a very large sum of money from his bank account in a Swiss bank in violation of this Court's orders dated September 4, 2006 and December 14, 2006. As a matter of fact, by an earlier order passed by the Court on April 1, 2010, in course of the proceedings of the case, respondent No.1 has actually been held guilty of contempt of court; it is a brief order, wherein Paragraphs 6 & 7, the Court observed and held as follows: "6. For the allegations made in the contempt petition, a notice had been issued to the contemnor. In the notices it was specifically mentioned that the charge against him is that he has violated the order of this Court dated 4.9.2006. In fact, the respondent No.1-contemnor has filed his reply thereto. However, from a perusal of the reply filed by the contemnor it is clear that he has not denied the allegation of the petitioner that he has withdrawn money by flouting the order of this Court dated 4.9.2006. From the above discussion, we are satisfied that there is sufficient material on the record to suggest that contemnor- respondent No. 1 has committed contempt of Court. Therefore, we hold the contemnor guilty of Contempt of Court". Thu, 04 Apr 2013 06:27:50 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3329 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3329 [Civil Appeal Nos.2768-2769 of 2013 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.719-720 of 2011]. One of these two appeals is directed against the main judgment and order, dated March 23, 2005 passed by a division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in writ petition No.3478 of 2004. By this judgment, the High Court, allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents, set aside the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and restored and confirmed the order of the appellant's dismissal from service. Against the judgment passed in the writ petition, the appellant filed a review petition(Miscellaneous Petition No.12798 of 2005) which was dismissed by order dated April 13, 2010. The other appeal is filed against the order dismissing the review petition. The appellant was working as a driver at Fire Station Sanathnagar under the Fire Service Department. He was dismissed from service following an ex-parte enquiry on charges of unauthorized absence. The order of dismissal was passed on January 12, 1994 but dismissal from service was made retrospective, with effect from December 29, 1992. The case of the appellant was that on account of ill health and family issues, he had submitted an application for voluntary retirement from service with effect from December 1, 1992 under rule 43(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Thu, 04 Apr 2013 06:24:40 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3328 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3328 [Civil Appeal No.2760 of 2013 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.16961 of 2008]. [Civil Appeal No.2761 of 2013 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.17546 of 2008]. All the appeals are at the instance of a Regional Rural Bank, namely, Rushikulya Gramya Bank, and the matter relates to promotion from one scale to another. Out of the eight appeals, six relate to promotion from Junior Management Scale-I to Middle Management Scale-II and in the remaining two appeals (arising from SLP (Civil) No.17974 of 2008 and SLP(civil) No.18898 of 2008), the matter relates to promotion from Clerk to Junior Management Scale-I. The short question that arises in these appeals is whether it is open to the management of the Bank to lay down a benchmark, besides the criteria fixed by the rules for grant of promotion on seniority-cum-merit basis. The appellant - bank issued a circular No.024/2004-05, dated June 23, 2004 notifying the vacancies inter alia in the seventeen posts of Middle Management Scale-II and eight posts of Junior Management Scale-I. The circular stated that the process of promotion shall be conducted as per the promotion rules of the Government of India. For promotion to the post of Middle Management Scale-II, the zone of consideration was four times the number of vacancies and for promotion to the post of Junior Management Scale - I, all eligible candidates were permitted to take the exam. Thu, 04 Apr 2013 06:20:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3327 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3327 [Civil Appeal No.2771 of 2013 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.3104 of 2011]. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated January 29, 2010 passed by a division bench of the Calcutta High court in an intra- court appeal against the judgment of a learned single Judge of that court. By the impugned judgment, the division bench has carved out an exception in favour of the respondent, Port Trust of Calcutta (hereinafter, "Port Trust") from a notification issued by the Central Government under section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter "the Act") and held that the notification "would not in any way affect the right of the Port Trust to assign the work of laying and linkage of railway tracks as one time measure of (sic. to) RITES, another Central Government Organization". The controversy in this case centres around a notification dated July 7, 2005 issued by the Central Government under section 10(1) of the Act. The notification was issued after due consultation with the Central Advisory Central Labour Board with regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour and other relevant factors enumerated in sub-section 2 of section 10 and it prohibited the employment of contract labour "in the works of sleeper renewal of railway Tracks, repairing, restoration and laying and linkage of tracks in the establishment of Kolkata Port Trust, Kolkata" with effect from the date of publication of the notification in the official gazette. Thu, 04 Apr 2013 06:16:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3326 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3326 [Civil Appeal No.2772 of 2013 arising of SLP (Civil) No.17295 of 2011]. The Public Service Commission Uttaranchal issued an advertisement dated February 26, 2006 for appointment to the posts of Veterinary Doctor in the department of Animal Husbandry. One of the conditions essential for making an application was that the applicant should be duly registered with Uttaranchal Veterinary Council. The aforesaid condition was challenged before the Uttarakhand High Court in Writ Petition(S/B) No.98 of 2006. The High Court passed a very brief order on the case. It held without any deliberation or discussion that the impugned condition offended Article 16 of the Constitution of India and, though, declining to interfere with the 2006 advertisement on the ground that it was issued four years ago, it directed the State Government by order dated December 3, 2010 to ensure that in future anyone registered with the Veterinary Council of any of the States in the country should be eligible for appointment in Uttarakhand. The relevant portion of the High Court order is as under:- "This is in breach of constitutional mandate contained in Article 16 of the Constitution of India. In the event registration as a Veterinary Surgeon is considered to be the minimum eligible qualification, henceforth the State Government would ensure that persons registered as Veterinary Surgeons are entitled to respond to advertisements for recruitment of Veterinary Surgeons and shall not insist for the candidates to be registered as Veterinary Surgeons of the State of Uttarakhand". Thu, 04 Apr 2013 06:12:50 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3325 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3325 [Criminal Appeal No. 352 of 2006]. The question for our consideration is whether the High Court erred in not taking into account the statement and testimony of H.L. that the respondent had raped her on several occasions and thereby acquitting him. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error of law in not considering the evidence put forward by the prosecutrix (who was less than 16 years when she was raped) and ignoring the settled position in law that if the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is credible, a conviction can be based thereon without the need for any further corroboration. The facts: On 12th March 1990, PW-3 Sardara Singh, a resident of Village Farmana, lodged a complaint with PW-1 ASI Mehar Singh of Police Station Kharkhoda to the effect that his granddaughter H.L. aged about 14-15 years and staying with him had been missing since 8.00 p.m. on 27th February 1990. According to the complainant, H.L. had left the house for answering the call of nature but did not come back. Efforts were made to trace her out, including at the residence of relatives and at her parental home in Nainital but without success. The complaint of Sardara Singh further stated that he suspected that Mohinder Singh and Satte had enticed her away. Thu, 04 Apr 2013 06:07:20 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3324 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3324 [Civil Appeal No.2770 of 2013 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.355 of 2010]. [SLP (Civil) No.15 of 2010]. The appellant-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, is a Public Sector Oil Company. In appeal against a decree of eviction, it claims the right to another innings under section 5(2) of the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The facts which provide the context for judging the appellant's claim are brief and simple. The predecessor of the appellant, namely, Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited came in occupation of a piece of land situated at Kurla, Taluka-South Salsette, District Bombay suburban, now included in Greater Bombay, admeasuring an area of 19,188 square feet, bearing Hissa No.1 (part) of Survey No.305 of Kurla (the suit premises) on the basis of a registered deed of lease dated September 22, 1955. The lease was for a period of 25 years beginning from March 1, 1955 and further gave to the lessee [vide. Clause 3 (d)] the unilateral right of renewal for an additional period of twenty five years by giving a notice in writing two months prior to the expiration of its term. Thu, 04 Apr 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3323 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3323 [Civil Appeal No. 4646 of 2009]. [Civil Appeal No. 4647 of 2009]. A two-Judge Bench (S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.) proceeded to hear these appeals on two common questions, namely, (1) Whether multiplier specified in the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the 1988 Act") should be scrupulously applied in all cases? and (2) Whether for determination of the multiplicand, the 1988 Act provides for any criterion, particularly as regards determination of future prospect. In the course of hearing few decisions of this Court, General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors[1]., Sarla Dixit (Smt.) and Anr. v. Balwant Yadav and Ors[2]., U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. V. Trilok Chandra and Ors.[3], Kaushnuma Begum (Smt.) and Ors. V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.[4], United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan & Ors.[5], Jyoti Kaul & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Anr.[6], Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India & Anr.[7], New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) & Ors.[8], were cited. The attention of the Bench was also invited to Sections 163A and 166 of the 1988 Act. The Bench was of the opinion that the question, whether the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule should be taken to be guide for calculation of amount of compensation payable in a case falling under Section 166 of the 1988 Act needed to be decided by a larger Bench. Thu, 04 Apr 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3322 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3322 [Civil Appeal No.2557 of 2013]. [Civil Appeal No.2576 of 2013]. Whether the acquisition of the appellants' land is vitiated due to violation of Sections 5-A and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') and whether the State Government resorted to discrimination in the matter of release of the acquired land are the questions which arise for consideration in these appeals filed against order dated 27.1.2012 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. By notification dated 13.11.1981 issued under Section 4(1), the State Government proposed the acquisition of 1005.30 acres land of three villages, namely, Mullahera, Dundahera and Daulatpur Nasirabad (Carterpur)for the development of Sectors 21, 22, 23 and 23A of Gurgaon. The appellants, whose land measuring 52.74 acres situated in village Daulatpur Nasirabad (Carterpur) was included in the notification, filed objections under Section 5-A(1). The Land Acquisition Collector submitted report under Section 5-A(2) and recommended the acquisition of 702.37 acres land. As regards the appellants' land, the Land Acquisition Collector opined that Stud Farm cannot be allowed to remain in the residential zone and, therefore, the entire land may be acquired except the portion on which residential building had been constructed. Wed, 03 Apr 2013 06:12:10 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3316 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3316 [Civil Appeal No.2759 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 25991 of 2008]. This appeal is directed against order dated 14.1.2008 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, 'the National Commission') whereby rejection of the appellant's claim for compensation by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, 'the State Commission') was upheld. In July, 1997, Shri P.D. Chourasia (the appellant's father) took insurance cover under 'Janta Gramin Vyaktigat Durghatna Policy' for Rs.7,00,000/- in the name of the appellant. The policy covered death, permanent total disablement, loss of two limbs or two eyes, one limb and one eye directly caused by accident. While he was playing outside his house on 22.10.1999, the appellant fell down and sustained injuries in the right portion of his head and the right eye. He was initially treated in the Government hospital and then in the private hospital. Dr. Jaishri Gopinath, Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital at Supela, Bhilai issued medical certificate dated 22.11.1999 mentioning therein that on account of injury caused to his right eye, the appellant suffered total loss of vision in the right eye and severe loss of hearing in both ears. Similar certificates were issued by Dr. K.K. Mishra and Dr. A.K. Verma with little variation in the degree of disability. In October and November, 2004, the appellant underwent further medical tests and a surgery was performed to check further deterioration of his eyes. Wed, 03 Apr 2013 06:07:20 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3315 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3315 [Civil Appeal Nos. 2776-2783 OF 2013 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 28116-28123 of 2010]. The relevant facts very briefly are that the appellant- company applied and obtained 'No Objection Certificate' on 01.08.1994 from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (for short 'the TNPCB') for setting up a copper smelter plant (for short 'the plant') in Melavittan village, Tuticorin. On 16.01.1995, the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, granted environmental clearance to the setting up of the plant of the appellants at Tuticorin subject to certain conditions including those laid down by the TNPCB and the Government of Tamil Nadu. On 17.05.1995, the Government of Tamil Nadu granted clearance subject to certain conditions and requested the TNPCB to issue consent to the proposed plant of the appellants. Accordingly, on 22.05.1995, the TNPCB granted its consent under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)Act, 1981 (for short 'the Air Act') and under Section 25 of the Water(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short 'the Water Act')to the appellants to establish the plant in the SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Melavittan village, Tuticorin Taluk. The environmental clearance granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, and the consent orders under the Air Act and the Water Act granted by the TNPCB were challenged before the Madras High Court in W.P. Nos.15501, 15502 and 15503 of 1996 by the National Trust for Clean Environment. Wed, 03 Apr 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3314 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3314 [Civil Appeal No.4465 of 2005]. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 8.3.2004, passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.8573 of 2003 by way of which the High Court has set aside the order dated 3.4.2003 passed by the General Court Martial (hereinafter referred to as 'GCM'), that had awarded the punishment of dismissal from service and 7 years rigorous imprisonment (hereinafter referred to as 'RI') to the respondent. The High Court held that, under the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the JJ Act') the respondent could not be tried by GCM for the charges related to the period when he was juvenile and therefore, the GCM proceedings stood vitiated in entirety. However, the High Court has given liberty to the appellant to hold a fresh GCM, on the charges related to offences committed by the respondent after he attained the age of 18 years. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:- The respondent was enrolled in the Army on 15.12.2000, and was posted to 77 Medium Regiment. He absented himself without leave from 26.2.2002 to 8.3.2002 i.e. (11 days). The respondent, while on Sentry duty on 17/18.3.2002 at the Ammunition Dump of the said Regiment, committed theft of 30 Grenades Hand No.36 High Explosive and 160 rounds of 5.56 MM INSAS. Wed, 03 Apr 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3313 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3313 [Civil Appeal No. 7141 of 2005]. These two appeals arise out of the common judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court at Bangalore dated 29.3.2005 in Writ Appeal No.4947 of 2002. Though the issue lies in a narrow compass as to the power of writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution to correct certain errors which is quite apparent on the face of the record though not specifically challenged by a party, in order to appreciate the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.8.2002 which sought to remedy the manifest injustice by setting aside a notification passed under Section 48 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 27.6.2000 without any specific challenge to the said Notification. By the impugned judgment the Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge on the sole ground that there was no specific challenge to the Notification dated 27.6.2000. To appreciate the points raised, it is necessary to refer to the basic facts in a brief account. There was a preliminary Notification dated 21.9.1967 under the provisions of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 (Mysore Act V of 1945) which is analogous to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Tue, 02 Apr 2013 06:11:50 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3380 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3380 [Criminal Appeal No. 1605 of 2007]. These are appeals against the judgment dated 25-11-2002 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1207 of 2002. The facts very briefly are that the respondent was married to Vijaya Bala. Vijaya Bala died on 27-06-1994 by consuming poison and committing suicide at her residential apartment in Soverign Shelter Apartments, Hyderabad. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the respondent under Sections 306 and 498A, IPC. The Trial Court, however, found that the deceased Vijaya Bala had left a suicide note (Ext.P1) addressed to the police to the effect that no one was responsible for the death of the deceased and there was no pressure either from her parents, husband (respondent), children or friends and relatives and that the decision to commit suicide was taken by her on her own will and the suicide note was also signed by the deceased. The Trial Court, after considering the contents of Ext. P1 and after considering all other evidence, held that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent had abetted the deceased to commit suicide and accordingly acquitted the respondent of the charges under Sections 498A and 306, IPC. Tue, 02 Apr 2013 06:07:10 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3332 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3332 [Civil Appeal No.2733 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 9934 of 2009]. [Civil Appeal No.2735 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 8756 of 2009]. The question which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether reservation of the parcels of land owned by the respondents in the Regional plans/Development plans prepared under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, 'the 1966 Act') will be deemed to have lapsed because the same were not acquired or no steps were commenced in that respect within six months of the service of notice under Section127 of that Act. For the sake of convenience, we shall first notice the facts from the record of the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 9934/2009. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are the owners in possession of the land comprised in Gat Nos. 44/1/2 and 44/1/4, CTS No. 2141 measuring about 2hectares and 40 ares situated at Shrirampur Taluka, Shrirampur (Maharashtra). Tue, 02 Apr 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3312 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3312 [Civil Appeal Nos. 2706-2716 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 20539-20549 of 2009]. What is the true import of section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970? How does it interplay with clauses (j) and (ja) of section 2(1)? Does the product for which the appellant claims patent qualify as a "new product" which comes by through an invention that has a feature that involves technical advance over the existing knowledge and that makes the invention "not obvious" to a person skilled in the art? In case the appellant's product satisfies the tests and thus qualifies as "invention" within the meaning of clauses (j) and (ja) of section 2(1), can its patentability still be questioned and denied on the ground that section 3(d) puts it out of the category of "invention"? On the answer to these questions depends whether the appellant is entitled to get the patent for the beta crystalline form of a chemical compound called Imatinib Mesylate which is a therapeutic drug for chronic myeloid leukemia and certain kinds of tumours and is marketed under the names "Glivec" or "Gleevec". These questions were debated at the bar intensely and at great length. The debate took place within a very broad framework. The Court was urged to strike a balance between the need to promote research and development in science and technology and to keep private monopoly (called an 'aberration' under our Constitutional scheme) at the minimum. Arguments were made about India's obligation to faithfully comply with its commitments under international treaties and counter arguments were made to protect India's status as "the pharmacy of the world". Tue, 02 Apr 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3311 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3311 [Civil Appeal No. 2677 of 2013 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27910 of 2012]. Aggrieved by the order dated 22nd March, 2012 passed by the Calcutta High Court in C.O. No. 602 of 2012, the petitioner-decree-holder preferred this appeal. The High Court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India had refused to interfere with the order passed by the District Judge, Purba, Medinipur in Civil Revision No.1 of 2011, condoning the delay in filing the RevisionPetition. Although the Courts have always exercised discretion infavour of the person seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal or revision, but in the facts and circumstances of this case, whether theDistrict Judge was justified in condoning the delay occurred in filing the revision petition? The facts of the case lie in the narrow compass. The plaintiff- appellant filed a suit in the year 1967 being Title Suit No.483 of 1967 for declaration of title in respect of the suit property and also for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the Respondent-State from interfering with the possession of the suit property. The suit was contested by the Respondent- State of West Bengal by filing written statement. The Trial court passed a contested decree in favour of the appellant in respect of the suit property in terms of judgment and decree dated 7.8.1969. Fri, 29 Mar 2013 06:12:10 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3310 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3310 [Civil Appeal No. 2678 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No.22430 Of 2010]. The appellant - Dayanand Anglo Vedic (DAV) College Trust and Management Society has challenged the order dated 24.2.2010 passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.1053 of 2010. By the said order, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition and refused to interfere with the order dated 26.10.2009passed by respondent No.2 (The Principal Secretary and Competent Authority, Minority Development Department, Government of Maharashtra)withdrawing the linguistic minority status of the appellant institution which was earlier granted by order dated 11.7.2008. The withdrawal of the recommendation for the appellant-Society as linguistic minority institution was on the ground that the earlier order granting recommendation was under the mistake that the trustees of the appellant were residing in the State of Maharashtra. The brief facts leading to this appeal are thus: The appellant-Society was formed in the year 1885; and it was originally got registered under the Societies' Registration Act, 1860 at Lahore & subsequently in the year 1948 in the State of Punjab. Since then, the appellant is said to have established a large number of schools and colleges all over India and is running such institutions all over the country. The aims and objects of the appellant-Society as stated are to establish educational institutions to encourage the study of Hindi, classical Sanskrit and Vedas and also to provide instructions in English and other languages, Arts, science including Medicine, Engineering etc. Fri, 29 Mar 2013 06:07:20 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3309 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3309 [Criminal Appeal No. 488 of 2013 arising out of SLP (CRI.) No.3086 of 2010]. Since these seven appeals arose out of the common order passed by the Delhi High Court in seven Criminal Miscellaneous Cases filed by the respondents, the same have been heard and disposed of by this common judgment. The aforesaid seven Criminal Miscellaneous Cases were filed in the High Court challenging the order dated 27th September, 2008 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi whereby he had summoned the respondents to face trial under Sections 415, 409, 34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on a complaint filed by the appellant. These Criminal Miscellaneous Cases were filed separately in the High Court on behalf of the Company, namely, India Infoline Limited, and by the Managing Director, Company Secretary and other Directors of the said Company. The appellant had filed a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate alleging commission of offences under the aforementioned Sections of IPC. The brief facts of the case as set out in the complaint are as follows: The complainant opened a Demat Account with respondent No. 1 Company, namely, India Infoline Limited in 2007 and placed orders from time to time for purchase of shares and also made payments against its running account with the Company. Fri, 29 Mar 2013 06:03:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3308 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3308 [Criminal Appeal No. 1779 of 2009]. This appeal has been filed against the final judgment and order dated15.05.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 575-DB of 2001 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants herein and confirmed the judgment on conviction and sentence dated 27.09.2001 and 28.09.2001respectively, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, Haryana in Sessions Case No. 39 of 1998/2001 holding the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for one year for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and a fine of Rs.500/- each and RI for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default, to undergo RI for one year and both the sentences to run concurrently. Brief facts: The case of the prosecution is that the deceased - Kailash was married to Rakesh, resident of Gohana, Sonepat about 8 years prior to the date of the incident. Out of the wedlock, four children were born to them. At the time of marriage, adequate dowry was given by the parents of the deceased. However, being unsatisfied with the dowry, Kailash has been subjected to harassment and cruelty in her matrimonial home by Rakesh (A-1)and Smt. Ram Piari, (A-2) mother-in-law. Fri, 29 Mar 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3307 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3307 [Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2008]. [Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2008]. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated02.03.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpurin D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 2002, whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein and confirmed the order dated31.01.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer, Rajasthan in Sessions Case No. 28 of 1998 by which the appellants herein were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 364 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each. Brief facts: This is a case of kidnapping and murder of a 7 year old child out of enmity. On 16.04.1998, Leeladhar (PW-1) lodged a report at Police Station, Barmer stating that on 15.04.1998 his son Kamlesh aged about 7 years left for the school in the morning but did not return home till evening at 7.00 p.m. In pursuance of the said report, the police made a search. On19.04.1998, on information by Hansraj (PW-8), Khet Singh (PW-9) and Bheemaram (PW-11) that a dead body of a boy was found lying on the hill of Sujeshwar in mutilated condition, the police along with one Leeladhar (PW-1) went to the spot. They found that some parts of the dead body were eaten by the animals. From the clothes, shoes, socks and school bag, PW-1identified the dead body as that of his son. Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:08:40 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3306 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3306 [Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2010-12]. This appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the common judgment dated 22nd May, 2003 passed in Crl. A. Nos. 241, 247, 271 and 318 of1998 in affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act urging various facts and legal contentions. The appellant herein was the appellant in Crl.A.No.318 of 1998 before the High Court. The impugned judgment passed in the said case is under challenge in this appeal. The brief facts in relation to the prosecution case are stated hereunder to appreciate the rival legal contentions that are urged on behalf of the parties with a view to find out as to whether this Court is required to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact recorded in affirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant. The deceased Shailendra Kumar was murdered on 16.07.1996 at about3.30 p.m. by the appellant Umesh Singh and other persons, namely, Awadhesh Singh, Sudhir Singh, Jaddu Singh, Nawal Singh, Binda Singh @ Bindeshwari Singh by shooting him with a revolver and rifle with a criminal intention for unlawful purpose in furtherance of common intention along with other accused and to have in their possession of fire arms with an intention to use it for an unlawful purpose to commit murder of Shailendra Kumar along with accused nos.5 & 6 and another accused Moti Singh who is dead. Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:05:10 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3305 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3305 [Civil Appeal No. 2673 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 24686 of 2007]. The questions that arise for consideration in this appeal, by special leave are, whether respondent No. 1 has forfeited its right to appoint the arbitrator having not done so after the demand was made and till the appellant had moved the court under Section 11(6) and, if the answer is in the affirmative, whether the appointment of the arbitrator by respondent No. 1 in the course of the proceedings under Section 11(6) is of any legal consequence and the Chief Justice of the High Court ought to have exercised the jurisdiction and appointed an arbitrator? The above questions arise from these facts: On 01.11.1998, an agreement for kerosene/LDO dealership was entered into between the first respondent - Indian Oil Corporation (for short, "the Corporation") and the appellant - Deep Trading Company (for short, "the dealer") for the retail sales supply of kerosene and light diesel oil in the area specified in the schedule. In the course of dealership agreement allegedly some violations were committed by the dealer. Following the show cause notice dated04.03.2004, the Corporation on 12.03.2004 suspended the sales and supplies of all the products to the dealer with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the action of the Corporation, the dealer filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "1996 Act") before the District Judge, Etawah seeking an order of injunction against the Corporation from stopping the supply of Kerosene/LDO. On 25.03.2004, the District Judge, Etawah passed a restraint order against the Corporation. Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3304 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3304 [Civil Appeal Nos. 2735-2736 of 2005]. These appeals are directed against the common judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 18.12.2002passed in CRP No.1411/1996 (C) and CRP No.833/1996(H). CRP No.1411/1996 (C)was preferred by one Appukuttan Nair along with the appellant (s) here in challenging the decision of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram dated 28.10.1995 in RCA No.133/1991 by which the eviction ordered by the Rent Control Court in its order dated 02.7.1991 in RCP No.140/1985 was confirmed. CRP. No.833 of 1996 (H) was preferred by the respondents herein challenging the order of the Appellate Authority(LR), Attingal in AA No.37/91 dated 13.11.1995 by which the order of the Land Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram dated 19.02.1991 in OA No.78/1988 filed by the predecessor of the appellant (s), namely, Appukkuttan Nair under Section 80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for the purchase of his Kudikidappu right in respect of survey No.1536/A of Vanchiyoor Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk was reversed. By the common order of the Division Bench, the eviction ordered by the Authorities under the Kerala Rent Control Act, 1963 and Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 was confirmed and the order of the appellate authority dated 13.11.1995 in AA 37/1991 was set aside. Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:07:50 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3303 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3303 [Civil Appeal Nos. 6918-6919 of 2011]. Being aggrieved by the Judgment delivered in Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 3937 of 2005 and Cross Objection No. 9-C of 2005 dated 21st May,2010 by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, these appeals have been filed by original defendant No.1. The facts giving rise to the appeals in a nutshell are as under: Rao Gajraj Singh and his wife Sumitra Devi were occupiers of the suit property. The property appears to have been constructed somewhere in 1935and as per the municipal record, it belonged to Rao Gajraj Singh. A document was executed by Rao Gajraj Singh to the effect that upon death of himself or his wife, the suit property would be inherited by the survivor. The said writing was attested by Rao Devender Singh, the son of Rao Gajraj Singh's real sister. Rao Gajraj Singh expired on 29th March, 1981 and thereafter Sumitra Devi, who had eight children, started residing at Ranchi with the appellant. Somewhere in 1980s, Sumitra Devi got constructed some shops in the suit premises and the said shops were given on rent. On 1st June, 1989, Sumitra Devi executed a Will whereby she bequeathed the suit property to one of her sons, namely, Narinder Singh Rao (the present appellant and original defendant No.1) and she expired on 6th June, 1989. After the death of Sumitra Devi, her four children, one of them being the present respondent No.1, filed a suit for declaration claiming their right in the suit property. Subsequently, the plaint was amended so as to make it a suit for partition. According to the case of the said children, the Will was not genuine and therefore, the said Will could not have been acted upon and as Sumitra Devi was survived by eight children, the suit property would be inherited by all the children. Thus, each child had1/8th share in the suit property. Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3302 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3302 [Civil Appeal Nos. 2683-2685 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30847-30849 of 2012]. Through the instant common judgment, we propose to dispose of the following matters which came to be filed in this Court assailing the order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay(hereinafter referred to as 'the High Court') in Appeal Nos.489 of 2011,413 of 2011 and 573 of 2011: Margaret Almeida & Ors. vs. Bombay Catholic Co-operative Housing Society & Ors., Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30847-30849 of 2012),(ii) Priti Mungrey & Ors. v. The Bombay Catholic Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.30867- 30869 of 2012), and (iii) Anthony D'Sa v. The Bombay Catholic Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Civil Appeals & Ors. (arising out of SLP (C) Nos.28256-28257 of 2012). During the Course of hearing, Civil Appeals (arising out of Special LeavePetition no. 30847-30849 of 2012) were treated as the lead case. We will, therefore, mainly rely on the pleadings thereof, for narrating the factual controversy. Reference will be made to pleadings in the other connected matters only for recording submissions based thereon, advanced during the course of hearing. Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3301 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3301 [Civil Appeal No.2648 of 2013 arising out of SLP © No.18231 of 2011]. The appellant is the widow of the original applicant, S. Ramakrishna, who was allotted a site bearing No.7119 measuring 6 meters x 9 meters in Vijayanagar, 4th Stage, 2nd Phase, Mysore, by the Mysore Urban Development Authority, under general category. The allottee made part payment of the consideration amount, however, the payment was not made within the stipulated time. The husband, however, passed away on 25th May, 1994, as a result of which the appellant made an application for allotment of the plot in her name. This application was accepted on 5th March,1998 and the plot was allotted in the name of the appellant. The total price of the site was fixed at Rs.10,000/- . The appellant deposited Rs.1157/- along with the application and Rs.1500/- within the stipulated fifteen days of receipt of the allotment letter. She was to pay Rs.7343/- within ninety days from the date of the issuance of the grant certificate. By mistake, being illiterate, she deposited only Rs.5000/-, leaving a sum of Rs.2343/- unpaid. The Mysore Urban Development Authority issued a notice on 19th January, 2005 indicating that the total price of the site is Rs.10,000/-, out of which the allottee had paid only Rs.7657/-, thus leaving a balance, to be paid, of Rs.2343/-. Tue, 26 Mar 2013 06:08:10 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3319 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3319 [Civil Appeal No. 2649 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 30685 of 2012]. The husband of the respondent No. 1, late Gurnam Singh Dhillon, had applied for grant of freedom fighter pension on the basis that he had participated in the freedom struggle and had joined the Indian National Army or Azad Hind Fauj (for short "the INA") during 1941-42 in Singapore. His claim for pension was based on the scheme, namely, Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (for brevity "the 1980 Scheme"). Prior to the said Scheme, the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972 (for short "the 1972 Scheme) was in vogue from 15.8.1972. The benefit of the 1972 Scheme was extended to certain categories of freedom fighters and their family members and the said Scheme was liberalized in the year 1980. Under the said liberalized scheme, anyone who had participated in the INA and in the Indian Independence League (IIL) was also treated to have participated in the National Liberation Movement. Under the said Scheme, a person, claiming pension on the grounds of being in custody in connection with the freedom movement, could be considered for grant of pension on production of imprisonment/ detention certificate from the concerned jail authorities, District Magistrate or the State Government indicating the period of sentence awarded, date of admission, date of release and various other factors. Tue, 26 Mar 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3300 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3300 [Criminal Appeal No. 418 of 2011]. [Criminal Appeal No. 409 of 2011]. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 2.8.2007, passed by a Special Judge of the Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'TADA') in the Bombay Blast Case No. 1/93, acquitting the respondent of all the charges. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: As the facts of this case and all legal issues involved herein have been elaborately dealt in the connected appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 1728 of 2007 [Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra thr. CBI], it may be pertinent to mention only the relevant facts and charges against the respondent. Bombay Blast took place on 12.3.1993 in which 257 persons lost their lives and 713 were injured. In addition thereto, there had been loss of property worth several crores. The Bombay police investigated the matter at initial stage but subsequently it was entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (herein after referred to as 'CBI') and on conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against a large number of accused persons. Out of the accused persons against whom chargesheet was filed, 40 accused could not be put to trial as they have been absconding. Thus, the Designated Court under TADA framed charges against 138 accused persons. Tue, 26 Mar 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3298 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3298 [Criminal Appeal No. 1728 of 2007]. [Criminal Appeal No. 609-610 of 2008]. This appeal and the connected matters have been directed against thefinal orders and judgments of conviction and sentence passed on variousdates by the Presiding Officer of the Designated Court under Terrorist andDisruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short 'the TADA') forBombay Bomb Blast Case, Greater Bombay in BBC No. 1 of 1993. These appealshave been filed under Section 19 of the TADA by the accused against theirconviction and sentence and by the CBI for confirmation of the deathsentence and against the acquittal of some of the accused persons. Brief facts:The case of the prosecution is as follows: Babri Masjid at Ayodhya was demolished on 06.12.1992. After itsdemolition, violence broke out throughout the country. In order to takerevenge of the said demolition, Tiger Memon (AA) and Dawood Ibrahim, aresident of Dubai, formulated a conspiracy to commit a terrorist act in thecity of Bombay. In pursuance of the said object, Dawood Ibrahim agreed tosend arms and ammunitions from abroad. Tiger Memon, in association withhis men, particularly, the accused persons, received those arms andammunitions through sea-coasts of Bombay. In continuation of the saidconspiracy, Tiger Memon sent some of the accused persons to Dubai and fromthere to Pakistan for training and handling in arms and ammunitions. Mon, 25 Mar 2013 06:12:10 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3296 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3296 [Criminal Appeal No. 1178 of 2007]. [Criminal Appeal No. 1179 of 2007]. [Criminal Appeal No. 419 of 2011]. Mr. Jaspal Singh, learned senior counsel appeared for the appellants(A-3, A-4 and A-8) and Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Satyakam, learned counsel for the respondent (CBI). The present appeals are directed against the final judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.09.2006 and 27.07.2007 respectively whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life by the Designated Court under TADA for the Bombay Bomb Blast Case, Greater Bombay in B.B.C. No.1/1993.Charges: A common charge of conspiracy was framed against all the co-conspirators including the appellants. The relevant portion of the said charge is reproduced hereunder: "During the period from December, 1992 to April, 1993 at various places in Bombay, District Raigad and District Thane in India and outside India in Dubai (U.A.E.) and Pakistan, entered into a criminal conspiracy and/or were members of the said criminal conspiracy whose object was to commit terrorist acts in India and that you all agreed to commit following illegal acts, namely, to commit terrorist acts an intent to overawe the Government as by law established, to strike terror in the people, to alienate sections of the people and to adversely affect the harmony amongst different sections of the people. Mon, 25 Mar 2013 06:07:50 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3295 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3295 [Criminal Appeal No. 1438 of 2007]. [Criminal Appeal No. 912 of 2007]. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.5.2007, passed by Special Judge of the Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'TADA') for the Bombay Blast, Greater Bombay, in the Bombay Blast Case No. 1/1993, convicting the appellant under Section 5 TADA, and awarding the punishment of 5 years RI, along a fine of Rs.25,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 6 months. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: As the facts of this case and all legal issues involved herein have been elaborately dealt in the connected appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 1728 of 2007 [Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra thr. CBI], it may be pertinent to mention only the relevant facts and charges against the appellant (A-20). Bombay Blast took place on 12.3.1993 in which 257 persons lost their lives and 713 were injured. In addition thereto there had been loss of property worth several crores. The Bombay police investigated the matter at initial stage but subsequently it was entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as 'CBI') and on conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against a large number of accused persons. Mon, 25 Mar 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3294 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3294 [Criminal Appeal No. 555 of 2012]. [Criminal Appeal No. 1129-1130 of 2007]. This appeal has been preferred against the judgments and orders dated 29.11.2006 and 6.6.2007 passed by a Special Judge of the Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the `TADA') in the Bombay Blast Case No. 1/1993, by which the appellant (A-41) has been convicted under Sections 3(3), 5 and 6 TADA, as well as under Sections 3 and 7 read Section 25(1-A) (1-B) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Arms Act'), Section 4(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1908), and Section 9-B(1) (b) of the Explosives Act, 1884 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1884'). Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: As all the main factual and legal issues involved in this appeal have already been discussed by us and determined in the main connected appeal i.e. Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra thr. CBI (Criminal Appeal No.1728 of 2007), there is thus, no occasion for us to repeat the same. The Bombay Blasts occurred on 12.3.1993, in which 257 persons lost their lives and 713 were injured. In addition thereto, there was loss of property worth several crores. The Bombay police investigated the said matter at the initial stage, but subsequently the investigation of the same was entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the 'CBI'), and then upon conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against a large number of accused persons. Mon, 25 Mar 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3293 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3293 [Criminal Appeal No. 1060 of 2007]. The above said appeals are directed against the final judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.11.2006 and 31.07.2007respectively by the Designated Court under TADA for the Bombay Bomb Blast Case, Greater Bombay in B.B.C. No.1/1993. Charges: A common charge of conspiracy was framed against all the co-conspirators including the appellants. The relevant portion of the said charge is reproduced hereunder: "During the period from December, 1992 to April, 1993 at various places in Bombay, District Raigad and District Thane in India and outside India in Dubai (U.A.E.) Pakistan, entered into a criminal conspiracy and/or were members of the said criminal conspiracy whose object was to commit terrorist acts in India and that you all agreed to commit following illegal acts, namely, to commit terrorist acts with an intent to overawe the Government as by law established, to strike terror in the people, to alienate sections of the people and to adversely affect the harmony amongst different sections of the people, i.e. Hindus and Muslims by using bombs, dynamites, hand grenades and other explosive substances like RDX or inflammable substances or fire- arms like AK-56 rifles, carbines, pistols and other lethal weapons, in such a manner as to cause or as likely to cause death of or injuries to any person or persons, loss of or damage to and disruption of supplies of services essential to the life of the community, and to achieve the objectives of the conspiracy, you all agreed to smuggle fire-arms, ammunition, detonators, hand grenades and high explosives like RDX into India and to distribute the same amongst yourselves and your men of confidence for the purpose of committing terrorist acts and for the said purpose to conceal and store all these arms, ammunition and explosives at such safe places and amongst yourselves and with your men of confidence till its use for committing terrorist acts and achieving the objects of criminal conspiracy and to dispose off the same as need arises. Fri, 22 Mar 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3291 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3291 [Civil Appeal No. 2634 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No.12406 of 2011]. [Civil Appeal No. 2635 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No.18102 of 2012]. [Civil Appeal No. 2636 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No.20706 of 2011]. Leave granted" the rules of the game the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced "[1]" changing the rules of the game after the game was played is clearly impermissible"[2]. The above, and statements to the similar effect have petrified into a rule of law in the context of employment under the State or its instrumentalities. Whether such principle of law is immutable, what are those 'rules of the game' which cannot be changed after the game is either commenced or played, in our opinion requires an authoritative pronouncement by a larger Bench of this Court. Such a question arises in the case in hand in the background of the following facts:- The respondent High Court undertook the recruitment process for filling up of 13 posts of Translators by issuing a notification dated 17thSeptember, 2009. It appears that under the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002, "eligible candidates" are required to appear for a Written Examination consisting of two papers of translation from English to Hindi and vice versa carrying 100 marks each followed by a Personal Interview for 50 marks. Thu, 21 Mar 2013 07:14:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3292 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3292 [Civil Appeal Nos. 5063-5065 of 2005]. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 2.7.2004 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No. 257 of 1982 and Regular Second Appeal No. 608 of 1982 and Cross Objection No. 14-C of 1982 by which the High Court has affirmed the judgment of the first appellate court as well as the trial court so far as the nature of the rights of the appellant in the suit property are concerned. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that: One Dr. Hira Singh had acquired a huge property in his life time. He executed various deeds creating certain rights in favour of his sole son Dr. Shivdev Singh Grewal and two daughters, namely, Smt. Dayawant Kaur and Dr. Shivdev Kaur including the Will dated 16.9.1944, creating certain rights in favour of the appellant. Dr. Hira Singh died on 11.4.1945. Shri Shivdev Singh Grewal and Smt. Dayawant Kaur died leaving behind their children. Dr. Shivdev Kaur claimed certain rights on the basis of the Will dated 16.9.1944, and for the same she filed Suit No. 161/399/74 on 4.10.1974 against her nephew for mandatory injunction seeking his eviction from the suit premises claiming absolute right/ownership over the same in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1956'). Thu, 21 Mar 2013 07:10:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3290 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3290 [Criminal Appeal No. 1551 of 2007]. This is an appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the judgment dated 08.06.2005 of the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench, in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2004. The facts very briefly are that on 09.10.1998, Ashutosh took out his cows for grazing but did not return home till dusk and his cousin, Kripesh, along with others searched for Ashutosh but could not find him. On the next day (10.10.1998) at about 8.30 a.m., he again went out looking for Ashutosh and found his dead body with injuries lying in a jungle at NaliaTilla. Kripesh then lodged an FIR at the Panisagar Police Station and the police registered a case and held an inquest over the dead body of the deceased. In course of the investigation, the police apprehended Pranajit, who was working as a labourer under Ashutosh and Kripesh, from District Cachar and brought him to Dharamnagar and during interrogation Pranajit disclosed that Ashutosh had been killed by the two appellants. The statement of Pranajit was also recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') and on completion of the investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellants. At the trial, the prosecution examined a total of 19 witnesses. Kripesh, the informant, was examined as PW-1, Patal, the elder brother of Pranajit, was examined as PW-2 and he stated that PW-13 had disclosed to him that the appellants assaulted the deceased by an axe and a lathi. Thu, 21 Mar 2013 06:42:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3318 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3318 [Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 2008]. These are appeals against the judgment dated 06.09.2007 of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.641, 551 and 552 of 2006. The facts very briefly are that on 25.01.2004 at 22:45 hours, Dhanaprabhu (hereafter referred to as the 'informant') lodged a First Information Report in Police Station K.4, Anna Nagar. In this First Information Report, the informant stated: his father and he had been running a plastic company in the name of 'Economic Plastic Industries' and his younger brother, Ravi, is also in the said business. There was previous enmity between Ravi and one Elumalai and on 25.01.2004 at around 5.30 p.m. Elumalai telephoned to the wife of Ravi, Vijayalakshmi, and threatened her saying 'Ask your husband to behave or else, things will be different' and Vijayalakshmi informed this to her husband Ravi. On the same day, at around 10.00 p.m., the informant, Ravi and his friend Gubendiran were on their way to Naduvankarai Pillaiyar Kovil Street, through the Naduvankarai Bridge. While crossing the Seema Matriculation School at around 10.15 in the night, they saw Elumalai, and Ravi asked Elumalai as to why he telephoned to his wife and threatened her, and at once Elumalai and Prakash retaliated and took out knives from their hips and hacked Ravi on his head. Ravi's head got cut and smashed and Ravi fell down in a pool of blood. Thu, 21 Mar 2013 06:38:10 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3317 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3317 [Civil Appeal Nos.2600-2601 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 3307-3308 of 2012]. The impugned order herein dated 17.10.2011 was passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court (hereinafter referred to as, the High Court),whereby, it dismissed, by a common order, FAO (OS) no. 516 of 2009 and FAO(OS) no. 517 of 2009. Both the aforesaid intra-court appeals had been filed by Sushil K. Chakravarty (hereinafter referred to as, Sushil K.C.)through his legal heirs Arun K. Chakravarty (hereinafter referred to as, Arun K.C.) and Sunil K. Chakravarty (hereinafter referred to as, Sunil K.C.) in respect of agricultural land measuring 8 big has and 5 bis was with a farm house built thereon along with tube well, electricity connection etc. falling within the revenue estate of village Chhatarpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. This property has also been described as Maharani Rosary. It would be relevant to mention, that the instant impugned order arises out of two suits, one filed by M/s. Tej Properties Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as, Tej Properties), bearing CS (OS) no. 2501 of 1997, against Sushil K.C. and the other filed by Sushil K.C., bearing CS (OS) no. 1348 of 1996,against Tej Properties. Thu, 21 Mar 2013 06:34:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3287 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3287 [Civil Appeal No.6162 of 2005]. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.6.2005 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, passed in Appeal No.478 of 2005 in Notice of Motion No.503 of 2004 in Suit No.1924 of 1988. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are: That the appellant had purchased five Tata Diesel Vehicles from the respondent No.1 for a sum of Rs.9,58,913/- which was to be paid in 8 installments through respondent No.2 as per repayment schedule. The appellant alleges that eight Bills of Exchange were drawn by the respondent no.1 upon the respondent no.2 - banker of the appellant and by way of which the entire amount was paid. Respondent no.1 filed Suit No.1924 of 1988 on 2.6.1988 against the appellant as well as the banker for recovery of sum of Rs.5,66,000/- along with interest. Summons were served upon the appellant and he entered appearance through advocate to contest the suit. However, subsequently under the impression that the entire amount had already been paid, he did not file the written statement. The High Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 12.11.2003 under the provisions of Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') without considering any issue involved therein or taking note of the pleadings in the plaint itself. Thu, 21 Mar 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3299 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3299 [Criminal Appeal No. 613 of 2007]. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 04-12-2006 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1822 of 2006. The facts very briefly are that Anitha @ Rinkudevi got married to the appellant No. 1 in the year 2002. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are the father and mother respectively of appellant No. 1. On 18-05- 2004, Rinkudevi poured kerosene over her body and died out of burns. Her brother Munnakumar lodged a complaint on 21-05-2004 before the Assistant Police Commissioner, 'J' Division, Ahmedabad City in which he alleged that Rinkudevi had written to him that the appellants were harassing her since two years after the marriage for not bringing dowry such as table, chair, sofa set, bed, scooter, colour T.V. and along with the complaint he produced xerox copy of a letter dated 16-02-2004 said to have been written by Rinkudevi. In the complaint, Munnakumar further alleged that the appellants were using slangs against Rinkudevi and used to beat her and were giving physical and mental harassment to her for not bringing dowry and instigated her to commit suicide by sprinkling kerosene on her body. Thu, 21 Mar 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3289 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3289 [Civil Appeal No. 2668 of 2005]. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 25.8.2004, passed in Special Civil Application No.5759 of 1999, by way of which the challenge to punishment order of compulsory retirement of the appellant has been turned down. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are: That the appellant had joined the Gujarat State Judicial Service in 1978, and was promoted subsequently as Civil Judge (Senior Division) in 1992. She was posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate (Rural) in Ahmedabad. In December 1991, she was trying one Gautam Ghanshyam Jani in CBI Case No.5 of 1991 for the offence of misappropriation and embezzlement of public money. The accused filed a complaint with the CBI on 19.8.1993, against the appellant alleging that she had demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 17.8.1993 as illegal gratification, to pass order in his favour, through one C.B. Gajjar, Advocate. As it was not possible for the complainant to pay the said amount, the appellant had agreed to accept the same in installments, and in order to facilitate the said complainant's efforts to arrange the said amount in part, she had even granted adjournment. The said complaint filed with the CBI was referred to the High Court and in pursuance thereof, a preliminary enquiry was conducted against the appellant in which statements of various persons including C.B. Gajjar and G.G. Jani were recorded. The Court then suspended the appellant vide order dated 21.1.1994, and directed a regular enquiry appointing Shri M.C. Patel, Additional Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad as the Enquiry Officer. Tue, 19 Mar 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3283 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3283 [Criminal Appeal No. 459 of 2013 @Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1593 of 2007]. Yogendra Nath Arora (hereinafter referred to as "the Accused") was earlier employed as Deputy General Manager in U.P. Industrial Consultants, an undertaking of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Consequent upon reorganization of the State of Uttar Pradesh, he was taken on deputation on23rd January, 2003 and posted as Deputy General Manager of the State Industrial Development Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "SIDCUL"),a Government undertaking of the State of Uttarakhand. While working as the Deputy General Manager of SIDCUL, a trap was laid on 30th of June, 2004and he was arrested while accepting an illegal gratification of Rs.30,000/-. This led to lodging of Criminal Case No. 168 of 2004 at Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun under Section 7 read with Section 13(1)(d) and13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The accused was repatriated on the same day to his parent organization by the State Government of Uttarakhand. It also granted sanction for his prosecution on 23rd of August, 2004 and the charge sheet was submitted on 25th of August, 2004 in the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption-II, Nainital. Accused prayed for discharge, inter alia contending that the materials on record are not sufficient for framing of the charge and further, in the absence of valid sanction from the competent authority, as required under Section 19(1)(c) of the Act, the trial cannot legally proceed. Tue, 19 Mar 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3282 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3282 [Writ Petition (CRL.) No. 50 of 2012]. The gravamen of grievance of the petitioners in this petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India pertains to procrastination in trial, gradual corrosion of their social reputation, deprivation of respectable livelihood because of order of suspension passed against the petitioner No. 1 during which he was getting a meager subsistence allowance and has reached the age of superannuation without being considered for promotion, extreme suffering of emotional and mental stress and strain, and denial of speedy trial that has impaired their Fundamental Right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. The asseverations pertaining to long delay in trial have been made on the constitutional backdrop leading to the prayer for quashment of the proceedings of Special Case No. 4 of 1993 pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay. Before we proceed to state the factual score, it is necessary to mention that this is not the first time that the petitioners have approached this Court. They, along with others, had assailed the order of the High Court of Bombay declining to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners and others on the ground of delay in investigation and filing of charge sheet in three special leave petitions which were converted to three criminal appeals, namely, Criminal Appeal Nos. 176 of 2001, 177 of 2001 and 178 of 2001. Mon, 18 Mar 2013 06:12:20 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3281 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3281 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11800 of 2013 arising out of C.C. No. 1297 of 2012]. The question that is raised for consideration in this case is whether a compromise entered into by husband and wife under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), agreeing for a consolidated amount towards permanent alimony, thereby giving up any future claim for maintenance, accepted by the Court in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), would preclude the wife from claiming maintenance in a suit filed under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short "the Act'). The marriage between the petitioner (husband) and respondent (wife)took place on 24.5.1987. Alleging that the petitioner is not maintaining his wife, respondent filed an application under Section 125 CrPC for grant of maintenance before the 1st Additional JMFC at Gulbarga, being Misc. Case No. 234 of 1992. While the matter was pending, an application was preferred by the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC on 3.9.1994 stating that the parties had arrived at a compromise, by which the respondent had agreed to receive an amount of Rs.8,000/- towards permanent alimony and that she would not make any claim for maintenance in future or enhancement of maintenance. Mon, 18 Mar 2013 06:07:10 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3280 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3280 [Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 2013 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 7708 of 2012]. The appellant, along with two others, were charge sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 341, 294, 307 read with Section 34 IPC for conspiring to murder of one Atul Mishra on 27.8.1993 in Rewa at Allahabad Road, near Kalewa Hotel. For the said purpose, the appellant accused gave a country made pistol to the accused Raj Kumar Singh and exhorted him to shoot Atul Mishra. Raj Kumar Singh fired at Atul Mishrawith the said country made pistol and he succumbed to his injuries. The trial Court convicted him under Sections 341, 307 read with Section 34 IPC, but acquitted him of the charges under Section 294 IPC. For the offence under Section 341 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and for the offence under Section 307 IPC, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year along with a fine ofRs.500/-. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC, but the conviction as well as the sentence awarded for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC was maintained, against which this appeal has been preferred. Mon, 18 Mar 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3279 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3279 [Civil Appeal No. 2554 of 2013 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8629 of 2013] @ (Cc No.3593 of 2013]. Delay condoned. Leave granted. Judgment pronounced by this Court on 11.3.2013 in Civil Appeal No.2326 of 2013 @ SLP(C) No.12960 of 2008 would govern this appeal also. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Mon, 18 Mar 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3278 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3278 [Criminal Appeal No. 1149 of 2008]. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi passed in Criminal Appeal No.58 of 1999 dated 14.11.2006 wherein it has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in S.T.No.168 of 1994/172 of 1995. By the said judgment, the appellant herein was convicted under Section 376, I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. The prosecution case in nutshell is stated hereunder for the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contentions urged in this appeal. The prosecutrix in this case has made a statement before the police at Ghatsila police station, stating that she has narrated the incident which took place on 14.2.1993 at 11.00 a.m. in the house of the appellant. She stated that she was working as a nurse in the Nursing Home of Dr. Prabir Bhagat at Moubhandar in the jurisdiction of Ghatsila, East Singhbhum District. The house of the appellant Rajesh, who appears to be a classmate of prosecutrix, is situated near the Nursing Home in which the prosecutrix was working as a nurse. Sat, 16 Mar 2013 06:07:20 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3277 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3277 [Civil Appeal No. 2537 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.1933 of 2011]. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated27.04.2010 passed by the Gauhati High Court at Gauhati in Writ Petition (C)No. 744 of 2010 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein and set aside the order dated 21.08.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Gauhati in O.A. No. 251 of 2007. Brief facts: Anil Kumar Sarkar, the respondent herein, joined the Northern Railways as a Junior Clerk on 04.11.1977. He was promoted to various posts and while he was working as senior AFA/T-1 in the office of the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer of Northeast Frontier (N.F.) Railway at Maligaon, a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) on 26.02.2002 and 27.02.2002 to consider eligible Group 'B' officers of the Accounts Department for their substantive promotion to Group 'A' (Jr. Scale) of Indian Railways Accounts Service (IRAS) against the vacancies for various Zonal Railways/Production Units. In the said DPC, the respondent's name was also considered against the vacancies in N.F. Railway for the year 2001-2002 and accordingly, his name was placed in the extended select panel. It was alleged by the appellants herein that during the year 1994-95,while the respondent was working as Assistant Accounts Officer in the Central Stores Accounts (Bills) in the office of the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer (Open Line), N.F. Railway, Maligaon, he committed gross misconduct in the matter of checking and passing the bills of various firms involved in manufacturing and supplying of cast iron sleeper plates to N.F. Railways. Sat, 16 Mar 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3276 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3276 [Criminal Appeal No. 447 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) No. 6462 of 2012]. The important question that falls for determination in the instant appeal is about the ambit and scope of the inherent powers of the High Court's under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "the Code") in quashing of the criminal proceedings in non-compoundable offences relating to matrimonial disputes. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated04.07.2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in M.CR.C. No. 2877 of 2012, whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellants herein under Section 482 of the Code for quashing of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 4166 of 2011 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Class I, Indore. Brief facts: The marriage of Jitendra Raghuvanshi (Appellant No. 1 herein) and Babita Raghuvanshi, respondent-wife, was solemnized on 22.02.2002 as per Hindu rites and rituals. After the marriage, the parties were residing together as husband and wife at District Baitul, M.P. On 05.03.2003, an FIR being No. 172 of 2003 was registered at P.S. Sarni, Dist. Baitul for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC') at the instance of Babita Raghuvanshi - respondent-wife owing to the harassment and torture meted out to her in the matrimonial home by her husband and his relatives. Sat, 16 Mar 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3275 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3275 [Review Petition (C) No(S). 362-363 Of 2013 In Civil Appeal No(S). 8814-8815 Of 2012]. The original appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.8814-8815/2012 have filed the present review petitions seeking review of our judgment dated 02.01.2013. We bestowed our serious consideration to the various grounds raised in the review petition. On a detailed reading of the grounds, it is quite apparent that the provocation for filing these review petitions is mainly the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Mr. Justice Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.) v. Janekere C. Krishna & Ors. dated 11.01.2013 in Civil Appeal Nos.197-199 of 2013 @ SLP (C) Nos.15658-15660 of 2012 which related to appointment of Upa-Lokayukta under Section 3 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. In the said judgment, the judgment under review reported as State of Gujarat v. Hon.ble Mr. Justice R.A. Mehta (Retd.) - 2013 (1) SCALE 7 was also noted and the clear distinction as between Section 3 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and Section 3(1) of Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986 was spelt out. By referring to the above later decision in the forefront, the sum and substance of the grounds raised for review herein is three-fold, namely, there is divergence of views taken by this Court in the impugned judgment and in the later judgment as regards the interpretation of language of Section 3 in both the legislations,the role of the constitutional authorities involved in the consultation process and; regarding primacy of the opinion of the Chief Justice vis-à- vis the Chief Minister of the concerned State. Fri, 15 Mar 2013 07:34:10 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3274 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3274 [Criminal Appeal No.___ 445 _____ of 2013 arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 9707 of 2012]. On 11.7.2006 there were seven bomb blasts in seven different first class compartments of local trains of Mumbai Suburban Railways. These bomb blasts resulted in the death of 187 persons. Severe injuries on account of the said bomb blasts were caused to 829 persons. These blasts led to the registration of following seven criminal reports: (i). CR No.77 of 2006 at Mumbai Central Police Station. (ii). CR No.78 of 2006 at Mumbai Central Police Station. (iii). CR No.86 of 2006 at Bandra Railway Police Station. (iv). CR No.87 of 2006 at Bandra Railway Police Station. (v). CR No.41 of 2006 at Andheri Railway Police Station. (vi). CR No.59 of 2006 at Vasai Road Railway Police Station. (vii). CR No.156 of 2006 at Borivli Railway Police Station. In all these cases investigation was transferred to the Anti Terrorists Squad, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the ATS"), wherein the matter was registered as CR No.5 of 2006. In all 13 accused were arrested in connection with the bomb blasts of 11.7.2006. The accused-respondents herein are the accused in the controversy. Fri, 15 Mar 2013 07:30:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3266 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3266 [Civil Appeal No.477 of 2007]. This order will dispose of Civil appeal No. 477 of 2007 and Civil Appeal No. 479 of 2007, as both arise from the same accident. In view of the order that we propose to make, we shall notice the facts only from Civil appeal No. 479 of 2007. Puran Singh, deceased had taken an insurance policy on 29th June, 1994 in respect of his vehicle bearing registration No. UP-01-1489 for the period 29.6.1994 to 28.6.1995. The relevant clause in the policy on the basis of which the Insurance Company denies its liability is as under :- "Subject to the limits of liability as laid down in the Schedule here to the company will indemnify the insured against all sums including claimant's cost and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of death to any person caused by or arising out of the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the motor vehicle." The other relevant condition of the policy relied upon by the insurer is as under :- "IMT 12 Legal liability to passengers excluding liability for accidents to employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of their employment. In consideration of an additional premium of Rs.... and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 11-1(c) but subject otherwise to the terms exceptions conditions and limitations of this Policy the company will indemnify the insured against liability at Law for compensation (including Legal costs of any claimant) for death of or bodily injury to any person other than a person excluding under Section 11-1(b) being carried in or entering or mounting or alighting from the Motor Vehicle but such indemnity arising out of one cause. Fri, 15 Mar 2013 07:07:50 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3375 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3375 [Criminal Appeal Nos. 1447-1448 of 2007]. These are appeals against the judgment dated 16th March, 2007 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 334-DB/1997 and Criminal Appeal No.246 of 1997. The facts very briefly are that a First Information Report was lodged by Sombir (the complainant) on 14th July, 1992 alleging therein, inter alia, that his sister Rajwanti was married to the appellant and after one or two months of the marriage she came home and told her mother that her in-laws were demanding dowry in the shape of a flour machine, electric motor with equipment to chop the fodder and these articles were given in December 1991, when his sister Rajwanti gave birth to male child and the in-laws of Rajwanti became happy. But thereafter Rajwanti came after sometime and told that her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law and husband(appellant) were demanding a fridge, cooler and TV, but the mother and father of Rajwanti said that if this demand is met the demands will go on increasing and Rajwanti left for her in-laws' house on 19th June, 1992. Fri, 15 Mar 2013 07:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3273 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3273 [Civil Appeal No. 2521 of 013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 7420 of 2012]. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellants, who have been working as Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) in the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) since July, 1999, are entitled to be paid salary in the pay scale prescribed for that post. On being selected by the West Bengal Public Service Commission, the appellants were appointed as Assistant Child Development Project Officer (ACDPO) in 1986-87. After about 12 years, the competent authority issued order dated 7.7.1999 with the concurrence of the Finance Department of the Government whereby the petitioners were temporarily transferred to ICDS projects to act as CDPOs in their existing pay scales. The appellants made representation dated 15.2.2011 with the prayer that they may either be promoted to the post of CDPO or be given pay scale of that post by asserting that they had been discharging the duties of the post of CDPO. After about 2 years, the appellants filed O.A. No.330/2003 before the State Administrative Tribunal, West Bengal (for short, 'the Tribunal')and prayed for issue of a direction to the respondents to pay them salary and allowances in the scale of Rs.5500-11200 attached to the post of CDPO from the date they were working as acting CDPO, i.e., 7.7.1999. Fri, 15 Mar 2013 07:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3272 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3272 [Criminal Appeal No (S). 1431 of 2007]. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 11th December, 2006 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 544 of 2003. The facts briefly are that an FIR was lodged by Gynaneshwar Jaiswal on 4.4.1999 at 2.15 p.m. in Mangalhat Police Station, Hyderabad. In the FIR it was stated by the informant that his daughter Meenakshi Jaiswal was married to the appellant on 22.2.1996 and at the time of marriage he gave sufficient gold jewellery, silver items, furniture, electrophinic gadgets etc., worth above Rs.2,50,000/- but ever since her marriage, she was subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband Vipin Jaiswal, her husband's parents Prem Kumar Jaiswal and Yashoda Bai and her husband's sister Supriya and her husband and they all brutally assaulted her on innumerable occasions for not getting sufficient dowry. It was further stated in the FIR that on 2.4.1999 the informant received a call from the appellant and he went to the house of the appellant along with his relatives to find out what had happened as well as to give invitation for a function at his place but they all abused him and the appellant physically assaulted and pushed him out from the house but fearing the safety of his daughter and her welfare, he did not report the matter to the police. Fri, 15 Mar 2013 06:56:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3271 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3271 [Civil Appeal No. 9024 of 2012]. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal filed against the order of the Allahabad High Court is whether the respondent, who had sought voluntary retirement from service and was paid gratuity by the appellant under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, 'the 1972Act') along with Contributory Provident Fund is entitled to pension. The appellant's predecessor, i.e., Allahabad Bank Ltd. Was established in 1865. Its employees were given pensioner benefits w.e.f.14.3.1890. After 22 years, the Board of Directors of the appellant's predecessor passed Resolution dated 2.3.1912 vide which the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund was extended to the employees. The appellant's predecessor was nationalized in 1969 along with 13 other commercial banks through the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)Ordinance, 1970, which was repealed by the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (for short, 'the 1970 Act').Section 12(2) of that Act reads as under: "Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (1), every officer or other employee of an existing bank shall become, on the commencement of this Act, an officer or other employee, as the case may be, of the corresponding new bank and shall hold his office or service in that bank on the same terms and conditions and with the same rights to pension, gratuity and other matters as would have been admissible to him if the undertaking of the existing bank had not been transferred to and vested in the corresponding new bank and continue to do so unless and until his employment in the corresponding new bank is terminated or until his remuneration, terms or conditions are duly altered by the corresponding new bank." Fri, 15 Mar 2013 06:52:20 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3270 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3270 [Civil Appeal Nos. 2525-2516 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.5752-53 of 2008]. Application of an erroneous "Model Answer Key" for evaluation of answer scripts of candidates appearing in a competitive examination is bound to lead to erroneous results and an equally erroneous inter-se merit list of such candidates. That is precisely what appears to have happened in the present appeals which arise out of a common judgment delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Patna whereby the High Court has directed the Bihar Staff Selection Commission to conduct a fresh examination and re- draw the merit list on that basis. For those who have already been appointed on the basis of the earlier examination, a fresh examination has been directed by the High Court before they are finally ousted from the posts held by them. The appellants who happen to be the beneficiaries of the erroneous evaluation of the answer scripts have assailed the order passed by the High Court in these appeals which arise in the following backdrop: By an advertisement dated 14th August 2006, applications were invited by the Bihar State Staff Selection Commission from eligible candidates for appointment against 2268 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) out of which 1057 posts were in the open merit category. Fri, 15 Mar 2013 06:48:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3263 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3263 [Criminal Appeal No. 982 of 2007]. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 7th April, 2006 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 1225 of 2004 by which the High Court has maintained the judgment of the XIIIth Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 671 of 2003 convicting the appellants under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. On 12th February, 2007, this Court dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal qua petitions Nos. 1 and 3 and issued notice confined to appellant nos. 2 and 4 and on 18th October, 2007, this Court had also granted bail to the said two appellants. Hence this appeal is confined to the appeal of appellant Nos. 2 and 4. The facts very briefly are that Madhuri got married to appellant No. 1 at Jabalpur on 10th June, 2003 and she came to the house of her parents on 5th August, 2003. In the house of her parents, she committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling on 17th August, 2003. The father of the deceased lodged a report with the Police on 17th August, 2003, saying that he had brought his daughter to the house on 5th August, 2003 and she was not sent back to her in- laws' house on account of the illness of his wife and she committed suicide. The Police investigated the case and filed a charge sheet against the appellants under Section 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court convicted the appellants and the High Court has maintained the conviction. Fri, 15 Mar 2013 06:41:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3269 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3269 [Civil Appeal No. 2511 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 35627 of 2011]. The spinal issue that has spiralled to this Court is whether the Company Judge under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short "the 1956 Act") has jurisdiction at the instance of the Official Liquidator to set aside the auction or sale held by the Recovery Officer under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for brevity "the RDB Act") or whether the Official Liquidator is required to follow the route as engrafted under the RDB Act by filing an appeal assailing the auction and the resultant confirmation of sale. Regard being had to the controversy involved which is in the realm of pure question of law, it is not necessary to exposit the facts in detail. Hence, the necessitous facts are adumbrated herein. The respondent, Allahabad Bank, a secured creditor with whom certain properties were mortgaged, filed Original Application No. 153 of 1999 under Section 9 of the RDB Act for recovery of a sum of Rs.39,93,47,701/- with interest from the company, namely, M/s. Rajindra Pipes Limited, which was decreed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur (DRT) vide its order dated 7.3.2000. The Debt Recovery Certificate being DRC No. 164 of 2000 was issued for recovery of the aforesaid amount which was subsequently transferred to the DRT at Allahabad. Be it noted, Company Petition No. 113 of 1997 was filed before the learned Company Judge in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad who, vide order dated 26.7.2000, had passed an order for winding up of the company, as a consequence of which the Official Liquidator had taken over the possession of the assets of the company on 24.7.2002. Fri, 15 Mar 2013 06:37:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3265 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3265 [Civil Appeal No. 2323 of 2013 (@ Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4669/2012]. Both these appeals raise the question as to whether the employees who are appointed on a co-terminus basis have any right to continue in service after the cessation of the engagement of the person with whose engagement their services were made co-terminus. Facts leading to these appeals are this wise:- The Pondicherry Khadi and Village Industries Board (Board for short) is a statutory body corporate constituted under Section 3 of the Pondicherry Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1980 (Board Act for short). The board is running various Khadi spinning/weaving/silk centers which provide employment opportunities to a large number of persons, particularly women. It runs several Khadi Bhandars for the sale of Khadiand Village Industries goods produced by the board. The board has 219sanctioned posts at various levels as approved by the Government of Puducherry. It has framed Recruitment Rules/Standing Orders with respect to each of these posts. Government of India had issued Office Memorandum dated18.5.1998, wherein after referring to the principles laid down by this Court in Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. Vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and Ors. reported in 1996 (6) SCC 216 (which recognises the recruitment through the employment exchanges as thep rinciple mode of recruitment), it was directed that all vacancies arising under the Central Government Offices/establishments (including quasi-government institutions and statutory organizations) irrespective of the nature and duration (other than those filled through UPSC), are not only to be notified, but also to be filled through the Employment Exchange alone. Fri, 15 Mar 2013 06:34:40 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3264 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3264 [Criminal Appeal No. 673 of 2008]. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.08.2005 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 1992 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court partly allowed the appeal and confirmed the judgment dated 02.04.1992 passed by the IInd Additional Session Judge, Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh in Session Case No. 157/1989 against the appellants herein under Sections 148, 302 read with 149, 452 and 325 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'). Brief facts: As per the prosecution, on 09.09.1989, at about 12 noon, two cows belonging to Badri (since deceased) entered into the field of Ramjilal and Badri (accused), who is having the same name as that of the deceased and damaged the crops standing in the field which resulted into an altercation between them. During altercation, Badri (since deceased) inflicted a lathi blow on the head of accused-Badri and, thereafter, he ran away from the spot. Thereafter, the appellants herein along with Ramjilal, Badri, Roshan and Brijmohan carrying luhangi (lethal weapon) and lathis in their hands reached the house of Badri (since deceased). It is the further case of the prosecution that Chintu Mahte (Appellant No. 2 herein) dragged him from his house and Ramswaroop (Appellant No. 1 herein) gave a luhangi blow on the left rib of the deceased. Fri, 15 Mar 2013 06:30:10 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3262 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3262 [Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Civil Appeal No. 647 of 2005]. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 19.7.2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Appeal No. 676 of 1993, which had set aside the judgment of the trial court, wherein the suit filed by the respondent for specific performance has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 9.11.1992 in O.S. No. 117 of 1983. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are: That the respondent/plaintiff filed two suits O.S. No. 117 of 1983 and O.S. No. 257 of 1984, seeking specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell entered into with the appellant. As per the averments made by the respondent/plaintiff, late Garre Venkata Ramakotaiah, father of the defendant Garre Mallikharjuna, had leased out the plaint scheduled properties on 29.4.1980, by way of lease deed dated 20.4.1980. The respondent/plaintiff on the basis of the lease deed, had claimed to be in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said properties. The defendant having filed the written statement, died pendentelite, thus his wife, son and daughter had been substituted as his legal representatives. They defended the suit contending that the plaint was based on false and fabricated document. Further, they claimed that the agreement to sell, alleged to have been executed by the father of the defendant, was a fabricated document and that the signature of defendant shown therein as an attesting witness, had also been forged. Thus, the suit may be dismissed. Fri, 15 Mar 2013 06:26:50 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3261 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3261 [Civil Appeal Nos. 2178-2179 of 2004]. [Civil Appeal Nos. 2184-2185 of 2004]. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 16.7.2003 passed by the High Court of Madras in A.S. No. 1104 of 1987 and Transferred A.S. No. 1120 of 2001, wherein it has set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court which had decreed the suit of the appellant and dismissed the suit of the respondent No.1. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are: The contesting parties are the son and the daughter of late B.P. Sandy. Though late B.P. Sandy had several children, considering his old age, he decided to transfer/settle his two houses bearing nos.22 and 23, Peria Palli Street, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai-28 in favour of his youngest son and daughter (the contesting parties herein) respectively. Therefore, the father of the parties executed two registered settlement deeds on 27.8.1981 bearing nos. 1690/81 and 1691/81 at the office of Sub-Registrar, Mylapore, Chennai, transferring House No. 23 in the name of his daughter (Respondent No. 1) and House No. 22 in the name of his son (Appellant). Fri, 15 Mar 2013 06:22:20 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3260 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3260 [Criminal Appeal No. 512 of 2007]. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 11th September, 2006 of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 805 of 2006. The facts very briefly are: The appellant was married to Rajbee on 21st April, 1997. She committed suicide on 29th March, 1998. A case was registered and investigated by the Police Inspector [Anti-Dowry Cell] and charge sheet was filed against the appellant and the mother of the appellant for offences under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34 IPC as well as Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 of IPC. The prosecution case was that at the time of marriage of the appellant with Rajbee(the deceased), '1,000/- cash and one tola of gold was given to the appellant and thereafter the appellant harassed the deceased further for more dowry of '10,000/- and the deceased informed about this harassment to her mother. Thereafter, the mother of the deceased was able to give '2000/- towards the demand but was unable to pay the balance amount of '8000/-. The deceased came along with the appellant to her mother's place and when the appellant was told that her family does not have any capacity to meet the balance demand of '8000/-, the deceased went back to her matrimonial house weeping and saying that her life would not be safe. She came back again to her mother's place during the Holi festival and complained of harassment and once again asked for the balance amount of '8000/-, but the same was not paid to her by her mother and within fifteen days of this incident, the deceased committed suicide. Fri, 15 Mar 2013 06:14:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3268 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3268 [Civil Appeal No. 5517 of 2005]. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-landlord against the judgment & order dated 6th August, 1999 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal No. 8110/1996 whereby the Division Bench rejected the prayer for interest on amount of compensation w.e.f. 1stMarch, 1974 and thereby affirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge but held that the appellant-landlord is entitled for interest w.e.f.1st March, 1984. The appellant was the owner of the land bearing R.S. No. 16/1, measuring 7 acres 21 guntas in village-Examba, Taluka Chikodi, Karnataka. The land in question was vested with the State for grant in favour of the tenant w.e.f. 1st March, 1974 under Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 as amended by Act No.1 of 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The Tehsildar, Chikodi under Section 48A(7) and Section 53 heard the appellant-landlord and the tenant and determined the quantum of amount payable at Rs. 17,244/- vide order dated 28.2.1983. It was held that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- is to be paid as first installment within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the order and the balance in 19 equated annual installments with interest @ 5 1/2% as indicated therein. Fri, 15 Mar 2013 06:10:50 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3267 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3267 [Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 15 of 2012]. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter for short "the NDPS Act") by an order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa, Haryana dated 27.7.1990. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lakh only), in default, to suffer further RI for a period of 3 years. The said order has been confirmed in appeal. The petitioner, on the date of the filing of the present writ petition, had undergone custody for a period of more than 7 years. He contends that taking into account the remissions which would have been due to him under different Government Notifications/ Orders issued from time to time he would have been entitled to be released from prison. However, by virtue of the provisions of Section 32A of the NDPS Act, the benefit of such remissions have been denied to him resulting in his continued custody. Consequently, by means of this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, he has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 32A of the NDPS Act, inter-alia, on the ground that the said provision violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 14, 20(1) and 21 of the Constitution. Fri, 15 Mar 2013 06:07:10 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3259 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3259 [Civil Appeal No. 2326 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 12960/2008]. [Civil Appeal No. 2327 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 10625/2006]. We are, in these batch of cases, called upon to decide the question whether the deemed vesting of surplus land under Section 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 [for short 'the Act'] would amount to taking de facto possession depriving the land holders of the benefit of the saving Clause under Section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 [for short 'the Repeal Act']. FACTS: Hari Ram, respondent herein, had filed a statement on 28.9.1976 giving details of the vacant land he was holding in excess of ceiling limit prescribed under the Act, as provided under Section 6 of the Act. The competent authority under the Act surveyed the land and the respondent was served with a draft statement under Section 8(3) of the Act on 13.5.1981, calling for objection to the draft statement within thirty days. No objection was preferred by the respondent and it was found that he was holding excess land measuring 52,513.30 sq. meters and an order to that effect was passed by the competent authority under Section 8(4) of the Act, vide his proceeding dated 29.6.1981. Fri, 15 Mar 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3258 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3258 [Civil Appeal No. 2316 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 192 of 2012]. The inter se seniority between the appellants and respondent no. 1 in the Senior Branch cadre of Orissa Superior Judicial Service is the subject matter of this appeal. In the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1 before the High Court, the principal question under consideration was whether the service rendered by him (writ petitioner) in the Fast Track Court as Additional District Judge is to be taken into account while fixing his seniority after regularization of his service in the Senior Branch cadre under the Orissa Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963 (for short, "1963 Rules"). The High Court in the impugned judgment dated 15.11.2011 has answered the above question in favour of the writ petitioner, allowed the writ petition and directed the Orissa High Court on administrative side to treat the period of service rendered by the writ petitioner in the Fast Track Court for the purpose of seniority from the date of his joining the post i.e., 26.04.2002 and re-fix his seniority in light of the judgment. The appellants, direct recruits, who were respondent nos. 3 and 4 in the writ petition, have challenged the above judgment principally on the ground that it is not consistent with the 1963 Rules, Orissa Judicial Service (Special Schemes) Rules, 2001 and Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007. Fri, 15 Mar 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3257 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3257 [Criminal Appeal No.433 of 2013 (@Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 3475 of 2008]. The petitioner Gambhirsinh R. Dekare, at the relevant point of time was serving as Taluka Mamlatdar and an Executive Magistrate in Vadodara Taluka in the State of Gujarat. A Gujarati daily newspaper "Sandesh" is published from different places i.e., Surat, Valsad, Bharuch, Vadodara and other cities of India. Navinbhai Chauhan is the ResidentEditor of Vadodara edition of "Sandesh" whereas Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patelis the Editor of "Sandesh". The newspaper published a news item in its Vadodara issue dated 28.09.1999 that the petitioner "is in love and keeping illicit relations with the wife of a doctor at Ajwa Road with the following headlines: "Mamlatdar Shri Gambhirsinh Dhakre is caught red handed by the youngsters - Mamlatdar is indulged in illicit relations with the wife of Doctor who is residing at Ajwa Road - attempts to conceal the matter - why the Government is not taking any action against the Mamlatdar?" According to the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant"), the allegation published in the newspaper is false and defamatory. Accordingly, he filed complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara. The complainant alleged that the news items are printed in the newspaper "as per the instructions and directions of the accused persons". In paragraph 3 of the complaint the complainant alleged as under: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:50:20 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3249 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3249 [Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 2007]. Appellant No. 1, Goudappa (Accused No.3), Appellant No.2, Chhannappa@ Ajjappa (Accused No.4) and Appellant No. 3, Mahadevappa (Accused No.5)aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, have preferred this appeal with the leave of the court. Altogether five brothers namely, Basappa, Vipakshappa, Goudappa, Channappa @ Ajjappa and Mahadevappa were put on trial for offence under Section 143, 148, 452, 341, 302, 427, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court acquitted accused no. 1, Basappa and accused no. 2 Vipakshappa of all the charges. Accused no. 3, Goudappa and accused no. 4, Channappa @ Ajjappa were, however, held guilty under Section 304, Part II read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Accused no. 5, Mahadevappa has been convicted under Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. They have, however, been acquitted of all other charges. State of Karnataka, aggrieved by the order of acquittal of the aforesaid two accused and conviction of other three only under Section 304, Part II, instead under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and those convicted and sentenced also preferred separate appeals before the High Court. Both the appeals were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:46:10 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3248 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3248 [Civil Appeal No. 1494 of 2008]. [Civil Appeal No. 1526 of 2008]. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 6th July, 2007 delivered by the High Court of Rajasthan in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.43 of 2006, the afore-stated two appeals have been filed. One appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan whereas the other appeal has been filed by Hindustan Zinc Limited, who had been leased land situated in districts Bhilwara, Rajsamand and Udaipur by the State of Rajasthan for extraction of lead and zinc there from. As both the appeals arise from a common judgment, at the request of the learned counsel, both the appeals were heard together. So far as the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan, viz. Civil Appeal No. 1494 of 2008is concerned, it mainly challenges the impugned judgment on the ground that by virtue of methodology directed to be employed in the said judgment, the State would suffer substantial loss as the lessee company, viz. Hindustan Zinc Limited would be paying much less royalty than what it is supposed to pay. Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:42:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3247 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3247 [Civil Appeal Nos. 2250-2251 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14172-14173 of 2010]. The principal question of law raised for our consideration is whether, to maintain an election petition, it is imperative for an election petitioner to file an affidavit in terms of Order VI Rule 15(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in support of the averments made in the election petition in addition to an affidavit (in a case where resort to corrupt practices have been alleged against the returned candidate) as required by the proviso to Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. In our opinion, there is no such mandate in the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and a reading of P.A. Mohammed Riyas v. M.K. Raghavan & Ors., (2012) 5 SCC 511 which suggests to the contrary, does not lay down correct law to this limited extent. Another question that has arisen is that if an affidavit filed in support of the allegations of corrupt practices of a returned candidate is not in the statutory Form No. 25 prescribed by the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, whether the election petition is liable to be summarily dismissed. In our opinion, as long as there is substantial compliance with the statutory form, there is no reason to summarily dismiss an election petition on this ground. However, an opportunity must be given to the election petitioner to cure the defect. Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:16:10 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3246 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3246 [Civil Appeal No. 5644 of 2003]. These appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the judgment dated 13th November, 2002 passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in a Public Interest Litigation (Civil Writ PetitionNo.837 of 2001) whereby the High Court held that the consumer has the fundamental right to know whether the food products, cosmetics and drugs available for human consumption are of non-vegetarian or vegetarian origin and ordered as follows: "In so far as cosmetics are concerned, the same must be treated at par with articles/packages of food for the purpose of disclosure of their ingredients. Till such time the requisite amendments are carried out, we direct as under:- Where a cosmetic or a drug other than life saving drug, as the case may be, contains ingredients of non- vegetarian origin, the package shall carry label bearing the following symbol in red colour on the principal display panel just close a proximity to name or brand name of the drug or cosmetic. Where a cosmetic or a drug other than life saving drug, as the case may be, contains ingredients wholly of vegetarian origin, the package shall bear the following symbol in green colour on the principal display panel just close in proximity to name or brand name of the drug or cosmetic. Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3245 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3245 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.3910 of 2008]. Both the petitions are filed by two cousin (sisters) against the decision of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune Region, Pune, (for short "Scrutiny Committee") in Case No.ICSC/MPSC/Pune-01/2006 decided on 30th July, 2007 and in Case No. TCSC/SER/PUNE/19/2006 decided on 26th March, 2009, whereby the claim of the petitioners belonging to 'Thakar, Scheduled Tribe' was rejected. Both the petitioners moved the High Court of Judicature at Bombay by way of separate writ petitions being Writ Petition No.6674 of 2007 and Writ Petition No.5231 of 2009, which were dismissed by orders, dated 8th January, 2008 and 4th November, 2009 respectively. Both the petitioners are relying on common facts in support of their claim. They are also relying on the Certificate issued to Dilip Pandurang Pawar, recognizing his caste to be "Thakar Scheduled Tribe". For the purposes of this order, we shall make a reference to the facts as pleaded by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6674 of 2007. A perusal of the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee in the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.6674 of 2007 would show that she had relied upon the following documents in support of her claim: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3244 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3244 [Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 2007]. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 28.07.2006 of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 397 of 1988. The facts very briefly are that Madhabi Patra @ Khendi got married to Joydeb Patra, the Appellant No. 1 herein. Through the marriage she got a daughter. She again became pregnant and when she was carrying the pregnancy for nine months, a ceremonial function called 'Sadh' was arranged on 18th Baisak, 1393 B.S. After taking food, Madhabi fell ill and her condition deteriorated quickly and she died late in the night. According to the prosecution, Madhabi (the deceased) had died because poison was administered to her with the food by the appellants. Accordingly, after investigation, a charge- sheet was filed and the Appellant No. 1 and his father, brother (appellant No. 2), sister (appellant No. 3) and mother (appellant No. 4) were tried and convicted under Section 302/34, I.P.C. The accused persons filed Criminal Appeal No. 397 of 1988 before the High Court of Calcutta but by the impugned judgment, the High Court maintained the conviction of the appellants. We are told that the father of the Appellant No. 1 died when the appeal was pending before the High Court and appellant No. 3 died during the pendency of the appeal before this Court. Thu, 07 Mar 2013 06:16:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3256 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3256 [Civil Appeal Nos. 2208-2209 OF 2013 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 7441-7442/2008]. The appellant-State of Uttar Pradesh has preferred these appeals against the common judgment and order dated 5.9.2007 passed in two writ petitions bearing Nos. 1049(S/B)/2007 and 1040(S/B)/2007 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow was pleased to dismiss both the writ petitions filed by the appellant/State of U.P. herein. The aforesaid two writ petitions were filed by the appellant/State of U.P. represented by the Department of Forensic Science and the Department of Home assailing the judgment and order of the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (for short 'the Tribunal') and seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the judgment and order dated 10.4.2007 passed by the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal was pleased to direct the State of U.P. to consider the case of the respondents for promotion on the post of Assistant Director and grant them all consequential benefits if found suitable. Thu, 07 Mar 2013 06:12:40 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3232 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3232 [Criminal Appeal No. 397 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P (CRL.) No.9343 of 2012]. The appellant was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act (1 of 1077). He was found guilty by the Trial Court and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years besides a fine of rupees one lakh. In default of payment a further sentence of one year simple imprisonment was also awarded. The co-accused in the case was, however, acquitted by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the conviction and the sentence awarded to him, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.1345 of 2003 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The High Court reappraised the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the charge framed against the appellant had been rightly held to be proved by the Trial Court. The conviction recorded against the appellant was accordingly affirmed but the sentence awarded to him reduced from seven years to five years but with an enhanced fine of rupees two lakhs in default of payment whereof the appellant was to undergo a further imprisonment of two years. When the special leave petition filed by the appellant against the above judgment and order came up for preliminary hearing before this Court on 26th November, 2012, we issued notice to the respondent limited to the question of quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant. Thu, 07 Mar 2013 06:07:10 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3231 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3231 [Civil Appeal No. 2206 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.16139 of 2010]. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 16th May, 2008 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack whereby Writ Petition No.14044 of 2006 filed by the respondent-company has been allowed, an inter- departmental communication in the form of a letter dated 19th September, 2006 addressed by the Director of Mines to Joint Secretary to Government of Orissa quashed and by writ of mandamus the State Government directed to execute a mining lease for an area measuring 1519.980 hectares in favour of the respondent-company. By Notification No.647/91 dated 23rd August, 1991, the Government of Orissa de-reserved and threw open Iron/Manganese Ore areas spreading over 282.46 square miles in five blocks located in Keonjhar and Sundergarh districts in the State. Applications were then invited from interested private parties in terms of Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 for grant of prospecting licenses and mining leases in respect of the said blocks. The exercise was, it appears, intended to boost the economy of the State by ensuring optimum utilisation of its mineral reserves and in the process generating employment opportunities for the predominantly tribal population inhabiting the two districts of the State. The invitation to apply for leases and to set up steel plants was open to all leading steel manufacturers. Thu, 07 Mar 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3230 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3230 [SLP (C) No. 31892 of 2012]. [SLP (C) No.33452 of 2012]. These Special Leave Petitions have been filed against orders passed by the Aurangabad Bench and the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court involving common issues. The matters relating to the Aurangabad Bench arise out of a common order dated 4th October, 2012, in regard to admissions to the various institutions teaching the Indian form of medicines such as Ayurvedic, Unani, Siddha, etc. for the academic year 2011-12. Special Leave Petition (C) No. 35051 of 2012 has been filed by the Umar Bin Khattab Welfare Trust against the judgment of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court against an order dated 29th December, 2010, regarding admissions for the self-same period. The other Special Leave Petitions relate to the common orders dated 13th July, 2012 and 2nd August, 2012 passed by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court regarding admissions for the year 2011-12. Yet, another Special Leave Petition regarding admissions for the year 2012-13, has been filed by the Backward Class Youth Relief Committee and Another against the order dated 9thAugust, 2012, passed by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. The common issue involved in all the Special Leave Petitions is in regard to the refusal by the Government of India, in its Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy, hereinafter referred to as "AYUSH", to grant permission to the colleges to admit students for the academic year 2011-12, for the BAMS/ Post Graduate courses. Thu, 07 Mar 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3229 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3229 [Civil Appeal Nos.1393-1394 of 2003]. The appellant contractor filed these Civil Appeals questioning the common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka dated 29th August 2002 in Misc. First Appeal No. 4377 of 2000 (AA) along with cross Objection No.34/2001 wherein the appeal of the National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd (hereinafter referred to as 'NBCC') was partly allowed and award passed by the Arbitrator was modified in regard to claims1(a), (b), (c) and 2(a), (c), (e), (f) and (g). The High Court set aside the award of Rs. 8,16,412/- in regard to claim Nos.1(a),(b), (c) and 2(a),(c), (e), (f) and (g). Also, the rejection of claims under 1(d) and 1(e) is upheld and award of Rs.13,050/- and 10,204/- against claims 2(c) and (d)are also upheld. Cross objection filed by the contractor regarding grant of certain items of claims made by him is dismissed and consequently it is held that the contractor will be entitled to Rs.9,01,871.53 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 28.12.1987 till the date of deposit of payment by NBCC. Also, the amount paid by the NBCC in pursuance of the interim order passed by the High Court will be adjusted to the amounts payable and if excess has been received by the contractor, then he shall repay the same within three months to NBCC. This Order of the High Court is under challenge in these appeals urging various facts and legal contentions. For the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contention surged on behalf of the parties the brief facts are stated hereunder. Wed, 06 Mar 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3223 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3223 [Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 113 of 2012]. The main prayer sought for in this Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, is as under: "A) Issue necessary directions to the Director, CBI, New Delhi-Respondent No.4 for conducting fair and impartial investigation into the matter so as to find out the real culprits involved in the murder case to meet the ends of justice; "Shri Siddharth Luthra, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for some of the respondents in the Writ Petition would seek for modification in grant of the aforesaid prayer and submit that instead of this Court directing the Director, CBI, New Delhi to conduct the investigation into the complaint filed by the petitioner, the same could be conducted by the State Criminal Investigation Department (for short 'the C.I.D.'), headed by a police officer of the rank of Director General of Police (for short 'the D.G.P.). Though Shri Nagendra Rai, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has some reservations on the aforesaid submission made by Shri Luthra, we are of the considered opinion that the same appears to be very reasonable and, if the complaint filed by the petitioner is transferred to the State C.I.D. headed/monitored by a police officer of the rank of D.G.P., it should satisfy the interest of the petitioner. Tue, 05 Mar 2013 06:34:50 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3288 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3288 [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 349 of 2006]. Indian society's discrimination towards female child still exists due to various reasons which has its roots in the social behaviour and prejudices against the female child and, due to the evils of the dowry system, still prevailing in the society, in spite of its prohibition under the Dowry Prohibition Act. The decline in the female child ratio all over the country leads to an irresistible conclusion that the practice of eliminating female foetus by the use of pre-natal diagnostic techniques is widely prevalent in this country. Complaints are many, where at least few of the medical professionals do perform Sex Selective Abortion having full knowledge that the sole reason for abortion is because it is a female foetus. The provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 are also being consciously violated and misused. The Parliament wanted to prevent the same and enacted the Pre- Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition on Sex- Selection) Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act') which has its roots in Article 15(2) of the Constitution of India. The Act is welfare legislation. Tue, 05 Mar 2013 06:28:10 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3222 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3222 [Civil Appeal No. 6392 of 2003]. The compulsory acquisition of the land admeasuring 4 bigha and 2 biswa comprised in Khasra no. 1013 at Dungarpur (Rajasthan) is the subject matter of this appeal by special leave. The appellants were unsuccessful in challenging the acquisition of the above land in the High Court. They failed before the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench. The two questions that arise for consideration are: (i) Whether preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short, "1953 Act") issued on 01.05.1980 has lapsed since declaration under Section 6 of that Act was made on 19.03.1987 after the expiry of two years from the commencement of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1981 (for short, "1981 Amendment Act"). (ii) Whether invocation of power of urgency and dispensation of inquiry under Section 5-A after 7 years of issuance of preliminary notification under Section 4 of the 1953 Act are legally sustainable? The above two questions arise from these facts: on 01.05.1980,the state government issued a preliminary notification under Section 4that the subject land was needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose, namely, construction of bus stand. Tue, 05 Mar 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3221 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3221 [Criminal Appeal No. 373 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) No. 3962 of 2012]. The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") by the learned Special Judge, Bangalore, and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer a further rigorous imprisonment for two months on the first score and four years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- and on failure to pay fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months on the second count, with the stipulation that both the sentences shall be concurrent. In appeal, the High Court of Karnataka by the impugned judgment, confirmed the conviction, but reduced the sentence to two years' rigorous imprisonment from four years as far as the imposition of sentence for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act is concerned and maintained the sentence in respect of the offence under Section 7 of the Act. Sat, 02 Mar 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3217 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3217 [Civil Appeal Nos. 2050-2053 of 2013 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 126-129 of 2012]. These appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat disposing of six special civil applications of which we are concerned with the appeals preferred against Special Civil Application Nos. 7088 of 2010, 10084 of 2009, 11925 of 2009and 7087 of 2010. The learned single Judge, in exercise of his powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India quashed the orders dated 14.08.2008 and 08.09.2009 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 292/1993and Special Civil Suit No. 681/1992 respectfully by the Learned Civil Judge(SD) of Ahmadabad (Rural) and remanded the matter to the court, after reviving the interim order dated 28.05.1993 passed in Civil Suit No.292/1993. Civil Suit No. 292 of 1993 was preferred by respondent No.4 -Chandrakant Atmaram Patel and respondent nos. 1 to 5 herein (purchasers)against respondent no. 6 - Bai Saraswati and the appellant herein - Mahalaxmi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (for short 'Mahalaxmi Society')for a declaration that sale deeds dated 5.6.1992 and 8.6.1992 were illegal and also for an order of permanent injunction restraining the Mahalaxmi Society from dealing with the lands and also for other consequential reliefs. Chandrakant Atmaram Patel, plaintiff no. 1, plaintiff no. 2 are the heirs of the deceased Baldev prasad (respondent nos. 5/1 and 5/2herein), the plaintiff no. 3 are heirs of Manilal Bechardas (respondent nos. 3/1 and 3/2 herein), plaintiff no. 4 is Ashabai Patel (since deceased)and now through Legal Representatives - respondent nos. 1/1/A to 1/1/D) and plaintiff no. 5 are heirs of Amrutlal Patel (respondent nos. 2/1, 2/2, 2/3and 7 herein), along with the plaint filed an application for temporary injunction, which was allowed vide order dated 28.5.1993. Sat, 02 Mar 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3216 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3216 [Original Suit No. 1 of 2006]. Original Suit No. 1 of 2006 Two riparian states - Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra - of the inter- state Godavari river are principal parties in the suit filed under Article 131 of the Constitution of India read with Order XXIII Rules 1,2 and 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. The suit has been filed by Andhra Pradesh (Plaintiff) complaining violations by Maharashtra (1st Defendant) of the agreements dated 06.10.1975 and 19.12.1975 which were endorsed in the report dated 27.11.1979 containing decision and final order (hereafter to be referred as "award") and further report dated 07.07.1980 (hereafter to be referred as "further award) given by the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal (for short, 'Tribunal'). The violations alleged by Andhra Pradesh against Maharashtra are in respect of construction of Babhali barrage into their reservoir/water spread area of Pochampad project. The other four riparian states of the inter-state Godavari river - Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Orissa have been impleaded as 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendant respectively. Union of India is 2nd defendant in the suit. The Godavari river is the largest river in Peninsular India and the second largest in the Indian Union. It originates in the Sahayadri hill ranges at an altitude of 3500 ft. near Triambakeshwar in Nasik District of Maharashtra and flows for a total length of about 1465 Km. (910 miles) through Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh before joining the Bay of Bengal. Fri, 01 Mar 2013 06:32:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3215 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3215 [Civil Appeal No. 1967 of 2013 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 20635 of 2011]. This appeal at the instance of State of Orissa is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.10.2010, whereby the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court refused to interfere with the order passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.97/2009. The facts of the case in brief are as under: The respondent was appointed pursuant to the advertisement dated 5.4.1984 on the post of Ore Dressing Engineer in Class-1 Junior Grade of the State Services in the pay scale of Rs.850-1450. The respondent in response to the appointment letter dated 2.11.1984 joined in the said service on 14.11.1984. Between 18.6.1996 and 19.6.2001 he was deployed in Steel and Mines Department on certain terms and conditions, but he was to draw the salary from the Directorate of Geology. He was again deployed as officer on Special Duty in Steel and Mines Department between 10.9.2003 to 8.9.2006 on certain terms and conditions and he was also drawing the salary and other service benefits from the Directorate of Geology. The post of Ore Dressing Engineer in the office of the Directorate of Geology was temporarily upgraded on 1.9.2008 as OSD-cum-Deputy Director in the scale of Rs.9350-14550/- and he was allowed to continue in the upgraded post. Fri, 01 Mar 2013 06:04:30 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3214 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3214 [Civil Appeal No. 7934 of 2012 arising out of SLP (C) No. 33471 of 2011]. In last five decades, the provisions contained in various municipal laws for planned development of the areas to which such laws are applicable have been violated with impunity in all the cities, big or small, and those entrusted with the task of ensuring implementation of the master plan, etc., have miserably failed to perform their duties. It is highly regrettable that this is so despite the fact that this Court has, keeping in view the imperatives of preserving the ecology and environment of the area and protecting the rights of the citizens, repeatedly cautioned the concerned authorities against arbitrary regularization of illegal constructions by way of compounding and otherwise. In Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa (2004) 8 SCC 733, this Court examined the correctness of an order passed by the Orissa High Court negating the appellant's right to be heard in a petition filed by the builder who had raised the building in violation of the sanctioned plan. Fri, 01 Mar 2013 06:00:00 +0530 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3213 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=3213