[Criminal Appeal No. 219 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) No. 8971 of 2012]. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated25.09.2012 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application No. 2755 of 2012 whereby the High Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant herein. Brief facts: The vehicle of the appellant, Eicher Truck, was seized by the police, which was found to be transporting 28 buffalo calves. The First Information Report (in short "FIR") was registered against the appellant on02.08.2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC"), Sections 184, 177 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "M.V. Act"), Sections 5, 6, 8 and 10 of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Principal Act") and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The appellant filed an application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 9 of 2012 under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "the Code") for the release of his Eicher truck before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gandhinagar, Gujarat. Vide order dated24.08.2012, the Judicial Magistrate rejected the said application on the ground that as per the provisions of Section 6B(3) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as "the Amendment Act"), the vehicle shall not be released before the expiry of six months from the date of its seizure.
↧
Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai Vs. State of Gujarat [01/02/13]
↧
State of U.P. Vs. Zila Parishad Ghaziabad [01/02/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 8137 of 2003]. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 2.5.2003, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 749 of 2003, by way of which the High Court has allowed the writ petition quashing the order of the State Government by which the Public Distribution System (hereinafter called as 'PDS') through the Gram Panchayats had been withdrawn. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are: The PDS was formulated for urban/rural consumers with the objective of monitoring the supplies of food grains and other essential commodities, of securing their equitable distribution and availability at the fair price, and of stabilising the prices of the essential commodities in the open market. With these objectives in mind, various schemes were prepared to help the beneficiaries, such as Annapurna Anna Yojana, Antyodaya Ann Yojana, BPL, etc. In order to achieve the aforesaid objectives, the Government of India, in exercise of its power under Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'EC Act'), issued Notification dated 9.6.1978 delegating the power to the State Governments to pass orders specifying certain conditions pertaining to the PDS.
↧
↧
M. Manohar Reddy Vs. Union of India [04/02/13]
[Writ Petition (Civil) No.174 of 2012]. The two petitioners, who are advocates of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, have filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, purportedly in public interest. This writ petition seeks a writ in the nature of quo warranto, quashing the appointment of respondent No.3 as a judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh to cancel his enrolment as an advocate. The quashing of the appointment of respondentNo.3 as a judge of the High Court is sought on the ground that the consultation process leading to his appointment was vitiated as both the High Court and the Supreme Court Collegia as well as the Central Government failed to consider two essential facts; one, at the time of his appointment, a criminal trial was pending in which respondent No.3 was not only an accused but a proclaimed offender and the other that even at the time of his enrolment as an advocate he had concealed the criminal proceedings and in the relevant column of the application for enrolment with the Bar Council, he falsely stated that there was no pending proceeding against him.
↧
R. Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [04/02/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 1774 of 2010]. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.12.2009 delivered by the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 2006, by way of which it has affirmed the judgment and order of the Sessions Court, Kottayam dated 3.1.2006, passed in Sessions Case No. 145 of 2005. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are: As per the case of the prosecution, the appellant at the relevant time had been working as the Deputy Superintendent of Police at Malappuram, and his wife was living at Palluruthy, and was using a vehicle which was driven by Praveen (deceased). He was also related to the appellant. Praveen developed an illicit relationship with the appellant's wife, and the appellant was informed of this development by his Manager, Aji. The appellant reached Palluruthy, and made enquiries about the situation from Praveen and others, and his relatives tried to resolve the aforesaid matter. In the presence of other relatives, the matter was then amicably settled. Praveen (deceased), was asked not to come to appellant's house thereafter, and thus Praveen left and began working in a shop at Ettumanoor, as a driver.
↧
Sunder @ Sundararajan Vs. State by Inspector of Police [05/02/13]
[Criminal Appeal Nos.300-301 of 2011]. On 27.7.2007 Suresh aged 7 years, who lived with his mother Maheshwari (PW1) at Karkudal village in Vridhachalam Taluk, left his residence in the morning as usual, at about 8 a.m. to attend his school at Vridhachalam. Suresh was a class II student at Sakthi Matriculation School at Vridhachalam. Each morning, he along with other students from the same village, would leave for school, in a school van at about 8.00 a.m. The same school van would bring them back in the afternoon at about 4.30 p.m. On 27.7.2009, Suresh did not return home. Maheshwari (PW1) his mother got worried and made inquiries. She inquired from Kamali (PW2), and from another student from the same village, who used to travel to school in the same van with Suresh. Kamali (PW2) told Maheshwari (PW1) that a man was waiting alongside a motorcycle when the school van returned to Karkudal village on 27.7.2009. The man informed Suresh that his mother and grandmother were not well. According to Kamali (PW2), the man told Suresh, that he had been asked by Maheshwari (PW1) to bring Suresh to the hospital. Based on the aforesaid assertions, Suresh had accompanied the man on his motorcycle.
↧
↧
University of Rajasthan Vs. Prem Lata Agarwal [05/02/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 919 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 35974 of 2011]. The controversy that arises for consideration in this batch of appeals is whether the respondents, who were appointed to the teaching post, namely, Assistant Professors/Lecturers in different subjects and continued as such for more than two decades, would be entitled to get the benefit of pension under the University Pension Regulations, 1990 (for short "the Regulations") framed by the University of Rajasthan which came into force with effect from 1.1.1990, regard being had to the language employed in Regulation 2 that deals with the scope and application of the Regulations read with Regulations 22 and 23 that stipulates the conditions of qualifying service and the period that is to be counted towards pension in addition to the fact that the University had accepted the contribution to the Pension Fund as defined in Regulation 3(5), despite the stand and stance put forth by the University that the respondents were not regularly appointed to the posts in question in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 3(3) of the Rajasthan Universities' Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 (for brevity "the Act") and, hence, are not entitled to the benefit provided under the Regulations.
↧
Lucknow Development Authority Vs. Shyam Kapoor [05/02/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 936 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No.19556 of 2012]. Shyam Kapoor, the respondent herein, preferred a complaint before the District Consumer Forum IInd, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the 'District Forum'), asserting that he had deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- with the Lucknow Development Authority, i.e., the appellant herein, on1.12.1982. The aforesaid deposit had been made for allotment of a 6,000sq. ft. plot in the 'A' category under the Gomti Nagar Residential Scheme(hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme'). It was alleged, that the Lucknow Development Authority had neither allotted any plot to the respondent-complainant, nor returned the deposit tendered by him. The appellant herein, however, issued a press notice in 1991 requiring persons similarly situated as the respondent-complainant, to deposit an additional amount by January 1992, so as to be eligible for consideration, for such allotment. On account of the fact, that the deposit of the differential amount was imperative for future consideration, the respondent-complainant deposited a further amount of Rs.15,000/- on 30.1.1992. Still, no plot was allotted to the respondent-complainant. On 30.10.1996, Shyam Kapoor, addressed a communication to the Lucknow Development Authority, requiring it to furnish him with details in the matter of allotment of plots. Since the Lucknow Development Authority did not respond to the aforesaid communication, Shyam Kapoor preferred the complaint referred to hereinabove.
↧
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Dyamavva [05/02/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 937 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No.1138 of 2012]. Yalgurdappa B. Goudar was employed as a Pump Operator in the Mechanical Engineering Department, and posted in the Old Power House, of the Mormugao Port Trust, Mormugao (for short, 'the Port Trust'). While discharging his duties in his aforesaid capacity during the course of the second shift on 19.4.2003, while pillion riding on a motorcycle bearing registration mo.GA 02 L 8479, he was hit by a tipper bearing registrationno.TM 07 V 4548. Consequent upon the injury suffered by Yalgurdappa B. Goudar in the said accident, Yalgurdappa B. Goudar died on the spot. The aforesaid tipper was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company, i.e., the appellant herein. The most important factual aspect in the present controversy is, that Dayamavva Yalgurdappa the widow, and the dependants of Yalgurdappa B. Goudar, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 on 30.5.2003. Through the aforesaid claim petition, the widow and the children of the deceased Yalgurdappa B. Goudar sought compensation on account of the motor accident in the course whereof, the husband/father of the claimants had lost his life.
↧
State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Sat Pal [05/02/13]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 938-939 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 31591-31592 of 2012]. The Public Works Department of the State of Jammu & Kashmir conducted a process of selection, for recruitment against the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II. Sat Pal, the respondent herein participated in the aforesaid process of selection. He was successful, inasmuch as, he figured in the final merit/select list of scheduled caste candidates, prepared at the culmination of the selection process. Having learnt that some scheduled cast candidates above him in the merit/select list had not joined in spite of having been offered appointment, Sat Pal addressed are presentation to the appellants seeking appointment against an available vacancy. In his representation, he mentioned the name of Trilok Nath as one of the selected candidates, who had been offered appointment, but had not joined. In his representation, he also pointed out, that in the merit/select list pertaining for scheduled caste candidates, his name figured immediately after the name of the said Trilok Nath. Since the representation filed by the respondent remained undecided, he approached the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu (here in after referred to as, the High Court) by filing SWP no. 1156 of 2009. Before the High Court, the respondent Sat Pal reiterated the factual position asserted by him in his representation.
↧
↧
State of Kerala Vs. President, Parent Teacher Association SNVUP [06/02/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 958 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No.9162 of 2011]. We are in this appeal concerned with the question whether the High Court was justified in directing the Secretary, General Education Department of the State of Kerala to get the verification of the actual students' strength in all the aided schools in the State with the assistance of the police and to take appropriate action. The Assistant Educational Officer (AEO), Valappad had fixed the staff strength of S.N.V.U.P. School, Thalikulam for the year 2008-09 based on the visit report of High School Association (SS), GHS Kodakara as per Rule 12of Chapter XXIII of Kerala Education Rules (KER). Later, based on a complaint regarding bogus admissions and irregular fixation of staff for the year 2008-09 by the AEO, the Super Check Cell, Malabar Region, Kozhikode made a surprise visit in the school on 17.09.2008 and physically verified the strength of the students and noticed undue shortage of attendance on that day. The strength verified by the Super Check Cell was not sufficient for allowing the divisions and posts sanctioned by the AEO. The Head Master of the School, however, stated in writing that the shortfall of attendance on the day of inspection was due to "Badar Day" of Muslim community and due to distribution of rice consequent to that. In order to confirm the genuineness of the facts stated by the Head Master, the Cell again visited the school on 16.12.2008.
↧
Gurvail Singh @ Gala Vs. State of Punjab [07/02/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 1055 of 2006]. This criminal appeal arises out of the judgment dated 22.9.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 890-DB of 2005 and Murder Reference No. 10 of 2005. The High Court dismissed the appeal of the accused persons and also reference was confirmed. The appellants, along with two others, were tried for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for murder of one Kulwant Singh, his two sons - Gurwinder Singh and Davinder Singh and his wife - Sarabjit Kaur on 21.8.2000 at about 1.30 am and were convicted for murder and awarded death sentence. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows: Balwant Singh and Jaswant Singh are two sons of Sharam Singh (PW 1).Both Balwant Singh and Jaswant Singh died prior to the date of the incident on 21.8.2000. Sharam Singh's third son Kulwant Singh had two sons - Gurwinder Singh and Davinder Singh. Sarabjit Kaur was his wife. PW1(Sharam Singh) had 8 acres of land at Village Bhittewad, District Amritsar, which was mutated in his name. In the family partition, that 8 acres of land was divided into four shares, i.e. PW1 gave 2 acres of land each to his sons and wife and 2 acres of land was retained by him. 2nd appellant Jaj Singh and his brother Satnam Singh - accused and his mother Amarjit Kaur - accused, were pressurising on PW1 to get the land transferred in their names in the Revenue record. PW1 wanted them to spend the money for mutation, which was not done.
↧
Lakshmi alias Bhagyalakshmi Vs. E. Jayaram (D) by LRS [07/02/13]
[Civil Appeal No.1004 of 2013 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.1185 of 2006]. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.08.2005 passed by a single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in M.F.A. No. 524 of 2003, whereby the Learned Single Judge set aside the order passed by the VII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore and held that defendant-respondent is entitled to initiate action for ejectment of the plaintiff-appellants from the suit property. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The plaintiffs who are the present appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff-appellants case was that Plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner of the suit property consisting of a building which was purchased from Defendant No.1 on a consideration of Rs.6,000/- However, sale deed could not be registered as the registration was suspended by the Government and the defendant-respondents could not get clearance from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority. The plaintiff-appellant's further case was that although the sale deed was not registered, the entire sale consideration was paid to Defendant No.1 by the plaintiff who was put in possession of the suit property. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that Plaintiff No.1leased out the suit property in favour of Defendant No.2 who is residing in the same suit property for the last 17 years.
↧
M/s. Kalinga Mining Corporation Vs. Union of India [07/02/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 1013 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No.23141 of 2007]. By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of both the aforesaid appeals. The Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 23141 of 2007 has been filed challenging the order dated 31st August, 2007 rejecting the preliminary issue raised by the appellant in OJC No.3662 of 2002. The Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5130 of 2009 has been filed challenging the final order dated 24th November, 2008 in OJC No. 3662 of 2002 upholding the order dated 27th September, 2001. CIVIL APPEAL NO.1013 OF 2013 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23141 of 2007]. We may notice here briefly the facts as noticed by the High Court. On 27th October, 1953, the appellant M/s. Kalinga Mining Corporation applied to the Government of Orissa for a prospecting licence. This was granted by the State Government on 15th September, 1961 in respect of an area of 480 acres in Kalaparbat Hill range of Keonjhar district subject to compliance of lease stipulations. The appellant applied for the grant of mining lease also for iron manganese ore over 420 acres in Kalaparbat Hill range of Keonjhar district. As the same was not considered by the State Government, the appellant filed a revision before the Central Government.
↧
↧
Sudish Prasad Vs. Babui Jonhia alias Manorma Devi [07/02/13]
[Civil Appeal No.1012 of 2013 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.15996 of 2007]. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in LPA No. 58/1993, the defendant-appellant preferred this appeal before this Court. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench allowed the appeal holding that the plaintiff-respondent became the absolute owner of the suit properties. The plaintiff - Respondent No.1 filed Title Suit No.12/3 of 1965/71 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Siwan for declaration of title over the suit property. The case of the plaintiff, inter-alia, is that Sukai Mahto is last male holder of the properties described in Schedule 1, 2, and 3 of the plaint. He died leaving behind his widow Mst. Parbatia and one daughter that is the plaintiff of this suit. Mst. Parbatia after the death of Sukai Mahto remarried in Sagai Form with Mahadeo Mahto son Ramsharan Mahto. Hurdung @ Bacha Mahto who is defendant No.12 in this suit was born out of the wedlock Mahadeo through Parbatia after he remarried. Mahadeo Mahto died about 12 to 16 years ago. Mst. Dhanwatia was the first wife of Mahadeo Mahto.
↧
Vijay Vs. Laxman [07/02/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 261 2013 arising out of SLP (CRL.) 6761/2010]. This appeal by special leave which was heard at length at the admission stage itself is directed against the judgment and order dated29.1.2010 passed by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore, in Criminal Revision No. 926/2009, whereby the conviction and sentence of one year along with a fine of Rupees One Lakh and Twenty Thousand imposed on the appellant for commission of an offence under Section 138 of The Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 1988 ( For short the 'N.I. Act' )has been set aside and the criminal revision was allowed. The complainant-appellant, therefore, has assailed the judgment and order of the High Court which reversed the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and set aside the order of conviction and sentence of the respondent. In order to appreciate the merit of this appeal, the essential factual details as per the version of the complainant-appellant is that the respondent-accused (since acquitted) had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,15,000/-from the complainant-appellant for his personal requirement which was given to him as the relationship between the two was cordial.
↧
The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Brijesh Reddy [08/02/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 1051 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 25851 2005]. This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 27.07.2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.F.A. No.947 of 2003 whereby the High Court allowed the first appeal filed by the respondents herein and remitted the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal. Brief facts: On 28.09.1965, a notification was issued by the State Government proposing to acquire several lands including the suit land being Survey No.23/10 of Ejipura measuring 22 guntas for formation of Koramangala Layout. The original khatedars, who were notified were one Papaiah, Thimaiah, PatelNarayan Reddy, Smt. Rathnamma, Smt. Perumakka (Defendant No.3 in the suit), Munivenkatappa and Chickaabbaiah, the husband of 3rd defendant. After holding an enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 07.09.1969. Thereafter, 10 guntas of land held by Smt. Rathnamma was taken possession on 28.11.1969 and the remaining 12 guntas held by defendant No.3was taken possession on 22.07.1978 and then handed over the entire land to the Engineering Section. The layout was formed, sites were allotted to the intending purchasers.
↧
Atmaram S/o. Raysingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra [08/02/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 985 of 2004]. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 03.12.2003 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 1991 by which the High Court has maintained the conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- for each of the aforesaid two offences by the Sessions Court. The facts very briefly are that a written report was lodged by Gorsing Shewa Pawar (hereinafter referred to as 'the informant') on17.07.1988 in the Police Station, Pusad (Rural). In this report, the informant stated that the appellant got married for the second time to his daughter Purnabai with the consent of his first wife with a hope to get as on from Purnabai and he treated her well for the first 2 to 2 1/2 years but when she delivered a female child, the appellant and his family members started beating and harassing Purnabai and also did not provide her with meals and on 16.07.1988, the informant received a message that Purnabai died by drowning in the well at Bhandari.
↧
↧
Stephanie Joan Becker Vs. State [08/02/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 1053 of 2013 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 29505 of 2012]. The rejection of the applications filed by the appellant under Sections 7 and 26 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter for short the "Guardians Act") by the learned Trial Court vide its order dated17.09.2010 in Guardianship Case No. 2 of 2010 and the affirmation of the said order made by the High Court of Delhi by its order dated 09.07.2012 in FAO No. 425 of 2010 has been put to challenge in the present appeal. By the application filed under Section 7 of the Guardians Act, the appellant had sought for an order of the Court appointing her as the guardian of one female orphan child Tina aged about 10 years whereas by the second application filed under Section 26 of the Guardians Act the appellant had sought permission of the Court to take the child Tina out of the country for the purpose of adoption. The rejection of the aforesaid two applications by the learned Trial Court as well as by the High Court is on a sole and solitary ground, namely, that the appellant, being a single prospective adoptive parent, was aged about 53 years at the relevant point of time whereas for a single adoptive parent the maximum permissible age as prescribed by the Government of India Guidelines in force was 45.
↧
Ponnappan Vs. State of Kerala [08/02/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 1090 of 2013 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 23384 of 2012]. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of judicature of Kerala at Ernakulam in L.A.A.No.569 of2011, dated 12th March, 2012. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has awarded a compensation in a sum of Rs. 77,000/- per Acre for the lands acquired by the respondents. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that apart from the sum awarded by the High Court an enhancement of a total sum of Rs.1,48,000/- required to be granted. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. We direct an enhancement of a total compensation in a sum of Rs.1,48,000/- with all other statutory benefits to the appellant over and above the amount already awarded by the High Court. We make it clear that this order shall not be taken as a precedent in any other case.
↧
Raj Kumar Luthra Vs. State of Punjab [08/02/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 283 of 2013 @ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.4625 of 2009]. This appeal is directed against an interim order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Misc. No.10716-Mof 2009 (O & M), dated 23rd April, 2009, whereby the High Court has issued notice and the appellants were directed to appear before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur and deposit an amount of Rs.15 lakhs. This Court, vide order dated 24th July, 2009, while issuing notice, has passed the following order :"In the meanwhile, subject to the petitioners' depositing the amount of Rs.15 lakhs within four weeks' from today, the operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed. However, the amount so deposited shall not be disbursed without the leave of this Court. The petitioners shall not be arrested till the next date. "In the facts and circumstances of the case and having heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis, we are of the considered opinion that the order dated 24th July, 2009 passed by this Court be made absolute and is made absolute. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Liberty is also reserved to the appellants to request for disposal of the application filed by him under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, pending before the High Court.
↧