[Civil Appeal No. 1273 of 2004]. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 9.10.2003 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 15672 of 2003 by way of which the claim of the appellant for promotion has been rejected. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that: The appellant was appointed as Civil Defence Instructor in the year 1964, and was promoted as Company Commander in October 1968. He was later promoted to the post of District Commander in July 1989. He, then claimed to have become eligible for substantive promotion to the post of Battalion Commander as per the rules applicable. The case of the appellant was considered along with other eligible candidates, and vide order dated 30.1.2001, a person junior to him (Respondent No. 5), was promoted to the said post after considering his past five years' Annual Confidential Reports (hereinafter referred to as 'ACR') and other records. The appellant made repeated representations in this regard, but the same were not considered.
↧
Balbir Singh Bedi Vs. State of Punjab [11/02/13]
↧
Rajya Sabha Secretariat Vs. Subhash Baloda [11/02/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 1099 of 2013 @ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8707/2012]. This appeal raises the question with respect to the scope of judicial review in the matter of selections and appointments made by Public Authorities. A learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court has found-fault with the process of selection of Security Assistants Grade-II, conducted, in the year 2009, by the Joint Recruitment Cell of the Parliament of India (Appellant No. 3), for the Rajya Sabha Secretariat and Lok Sabha Secretariat (Appellant Nos. 1 & 2). By his judgment and order dated1.9.2011, rendered in Writ petition (C) 4835/2011 filed by the Respondents (unsuccessful candidates) he has directed the appellants to consider the claim of the Respondents for selection, by the process approved by him. The appeal there from, filed by the appellants herein, being LPA No. 839 of2011 has been dismissed by a Division bench of that High Court by its judgment and order dated 29.11.2011, which has led to the present appeal by special leave. Facts leading to this appeal:- This appeal arises on the background of following facts. Sometime in the year 2009, Appellant No. 3 issued an advertisement bearing No. 04/2009, inviting applications for various posts such as those of Research Assistants, Junior Parliamentary Reporters, Stenographers, Translators, Security Assistants Grade-II, and Junior Clerks.
↧
↧
The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Vs. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society Jaipur [12/02/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 7254 of 2003]. [Civil Appeal No. 853 of 2013]. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.7.2002 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in Civil Writ Petition No. 454 of 1993, by which the High Court has issued directions to the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (in short 'RIICO'), the appellant herein, to release the land in dispute from land acquisition in favour of respondent No.1 - housing society (hereinafter referred to as 'the society'). As both the appeals have been preferred against the common impugned judgment, for convenience, Civil Appeal No. 7254 of 2003 is taken to be the leading case. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are: That, a huge area of land admeasuring 607 Bighas and 5 Biswas situate in the revenue estate of villages Durgapura, Jhalan Chod, Sanganer and Dhol-ka-Bad in District Jaipur, including the suit land measuring about 17 Bighas and 9 Biswas in village Durgapura stood notified under Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on 18.7.1979, for a public purpose i.e. industrial development, to be executed by the RIICO.
↧
The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Vs. Diamond and Gem Development Corporation Ltd. [12/02/13]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 7252-7253 of 2003]. [Civil Appeal Nos. 8222-8223 of 2003]. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.7.2002 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 5481/1994 and 105/1997, by which the High Court has allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondent-Diamond and Gem Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company'), for quashing the order of cancellation of allotment of land and directing the appellants for providing the approach/access road. As these appeals have been preferred against the common impugned judgment, for the sake of convenience, Civil Appeal Nos. 7252-53/2003 are to be taken to be the leading case. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are: That a huge area of land admeasuring 607 Bighas and 5 Biswas situate in the revenue estate of villages Durgapura, Jhalan Chod, Sanganer and Dhol-ka-Bad in District Jaipur, stood notified under Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on 18.7.1979, for a public purpose i.e. industrial development, to be executed by the appellant Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (in short 'RIICO').
↧
Nasib Kaur Vs. Col. Surat Singh (Deceased) through LRS. [12/02/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 1276 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 29198 of 2010]. These are the appeals against the common judgment dated 11.11.2009 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in R.S.A. Nos. 2579 of 1997 and 2482of 2008 by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution. The facts very briefly are that Col. Surat Singh filed Civil Suit No.735-T on 18.04.1987 for declaration that the plaintiff was the owner and was in possession of suit land. The plaintiff's case in the suit was that while he was in joint holding of some land, he sold 2 big has and 16 biswas of land out of his share without specifying any khasra nos. to Col. Girdhar Singh and his family members (defendant nos. 1 to 4) and thereafter defendant nos. 1 to 4 sold the land in pieces to defendant nos. 5 to 8 in the suit specifying the khasra nos. and mutation nos. 1120 and 1174. As the plaintiff did not sell the land specifying the khasra nos. to Col. Girdhar Singh and his son, they had no right to sell specific pieces of land with specific khasra nos. The plaintiff's further case in the plaint was that the specific khasra nos. which had been mutated in favour of defendant nos. 3, 4 and 5 were not in accordance with the registered sale deed in favour of Col. Girdhar Singh and his family members.
↧
↧
Bhimandas Ambwani (D) through LRS. Vs. Delhi Power Company Limited [12/02/13]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 204-205 of 2004]. [Civil Appeal No. 203/2004]. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.3.2002, passed by Delhi High Court in LPA No.46 of 1983 and judgment and order dated 21.5.2002 passed in Review Application C.M. No.893 of 2002 therein by way of which the appeal filed by the respondents against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.11.1982 had been allowed. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that :- The appellant had been conferred title over the land in Khasra No.307 admeasuring 3 bighas and 3 biswas situate in the revenue estate of village Kilokri, Delhi and the Conveyance Deed for the same was registered on behalf of the President of India in favour of the appellant on 6.6.1962. A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was issued on 5.3.1963 in respect of the land admeasuring 139 bighas and 2 biswas including the aforesaid land of the appellant. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made in respect of the said land on 22.8.1963. The Land Acquisition Collector made the award under the Act on 29.11.1963. However, no award was made in respect of the land measuring 23 bighas and 7 biswas including the suit land as it had been shown to be the land of Central Government.
↧
Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of M.P. [13/02/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 1334 of 2013 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 2070 of 2012]. Appellant, a Police Constable, while he was working in the police station Rahatgarh, District Sagar along with A.S.I. Lakhan Tiwari and Head Constable Jagdish Prasad Tiwari stated to have received an amount of Rs.3,000 for not implicating certain persons involved in Crime No. 4 of2002 charged under Sections 341, 294, 323, 506(B), 34 IPC. A complaint to that effect was filed by one Kundan Rajak, a resident of Village Sothia, PS Rahatgarh. Acting on that complaint, the appellant was charge-sheeted, along with two others, vide proceedings dated 6.5.2002 by the Superintendant of Police, Sagar. The following are the charges leveled against the appellant: He demonstrated gross negligence and lack of interest in discharge of his duty by not implicating all the persons involved in the crime. He demonstrated misconduct by accepting Rs.3,000 from the complainant Kundan Rajak for lodging a report in the police station. Appellant filed a detailed reply to the charge-sheet by his letter dated NIL and denied all the allegations.
↧
Life Convict Bengal @ Khoka @ Prasanta Sen Vs. B.K. Srivastava [13/02/13]
[Contempt Petition (C) No. 363 of 2011 in Writ Petition (CRL.) No. 279 of 2004]. The petitioner - a life convict has filed this contempt petition against the respondents - the State of West Bengal and its officers for disobeying the order dated 24.11.2010 passed by this Court by not complying with the same within the prescribed period of eight weeks and failure to release him in accordance with the statute. Brief facts: Prior to the above contempt petition, the petitioner filed a writ of Habeas Corpus being W.P. (Crl.) No. 279 of 2004 - for his immediate release in which it was stated that as per his calculation, he has undergone total sentence of imprisonment for a period of 22 years 2 months and 16 days including earned remission. According to him, even as per the stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavits, he had undergone sentence for a period of 20 years 1 month and 17 days including remission and setoff as on 31.12.2004. In other words, according to the petitioner, he has already undergone full sentence of 20 years with remission. By order dated 24.11.2010, this Court disposed of W.P. (Crl.) Nos. 20and 279 of 2004 with the following directions: "In the light of the decision of this Court in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Jagdish, 2010 (4) SCC 216 and considering the relief prayed in both the writ petitions, we dispose of the writ petitions by the following directions:
↧
Awani Kumar Upadhyay Vs. The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad [13/02/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 1340-1341 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 18859-18860 of 2012]. These appeals arise from the judgment and final orders dated01.03.2012 and 23.04.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Second Appeal No. 1444 of 2000 and Civil Misc. Modification Application No. 122702 of 2012 in Second Appeal No. 1444 of 2000respectively, whereby the High Court, while allowing the second appeal, passed severe strictures against the appellant-herein and forwarded a copy of its judgment to Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court to consider as to whether disciplinary proceedings are warranted against him? The case of the appellant, in brief, is as under: The appellant, who is a Member of the U.P. Higher Judicial Service, is posted as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Moradabad and, according to him, he is having unblemished service career and has successfully completed 30 years of service. The High Court, while allowing the Second Appeal No. 1444 of 2000 titled U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow and Another vs. Lajja Ram, passed severe strictures against the appellant herein in the judgment which, according to him, are ultimately going to affect permanently not only his reputation but also his entire service career.
↧
↧
State of Rajasthan Vs. Babu Meena [13/02/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 570 of 2007]. State of Rajasthan, aggrieved by the order of the High Court refusing to grant leave against the judgment of acquittal, is before us with the leave of the Court. Prosecution started on the basis of a first information report lodged by PW-4, Prem Singh, inter alia alleging that on 20th of April, 2005 his daughter Kirti Chauhan, aged about 16 years left the house and her where about are not known. The informant suspected that his elder daughter Jitendra had allured her. He further disclosed that Jitendra had solemnized inter-caste marriage with Babu Meena, the accused herein and was staying in Udaipur, Rajasthan. Accordingly, informant prayed that search be made to recover his daughter. On the basis of the aforesaid information, a case under Section 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. During the course of investigation, the statements of informant Prem Singh, his wife Pushpa (PW-5) and their daughter Kirti Chauhan (PW-3) were recorded. During the course of investigation, it surfaced that Kirti Chauhan received a telephone call from her sister Jitendra and her husband, the accused herein, who enquired about her marriage. Kirti replied that her marriage was going to be held soon on which her sister counseled her that the boy with whom her marriage is going to be solemnized is a vagabond and asked her not to marry him.
↧
Rohtash Kumar Vs. State of Haryana through Home Secretary, Government of Haryana, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh [14/02/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 306 of 2013 arising out of Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No.9359 of 2010]. In this appeal, by special leave, judgment and order dated 13/9/2010of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing Criminal Misc. No.M-2063 of2009 filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code ("the Code") is challenged. In the petition before the High Court, the prayer was for issuing directions to respondents 1 to 4 for registration of FIR under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code ("the IPC") against respondents 5 to 9, who were policemen attached to Police Station Bawal, District Rewari (Haryana), at the relevant time, for committing the murder of Sunil, son of the appellant in a fake encounter in the night intervening12/10/2008 and 13/10/2008 at Rewari Road, Narnaul and for further direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation ("CBI") to investigate the said FIR. Brief facts of the case need to be stated: According to the appellant, in the night intervening 12/10/2008 and13/10/2008, his son - Sunil was killed in a fake encounter by the officials of Police Station Bawal, District Rewari. It is alleged that on13/10/2008, the SHO of Police Station City Narnaul came to the appellant and asked him to accompany him to identify an injured person suspecting him to be his son at Civil Hospital, Narnaul.
↧
Surender Kaushik Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [14/02/13]
[Criminal Appeal No.305 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) No. 9276 of 2012]. The present appeal, by special leave, is directed against the order dated 12.10.2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 15077 of 2012 wherein the High Court has declined to quash the FIR No. 442 of 2012 registered at P.S. Civil Lines, Meerut, that has given rise to Crime No. 491 of 2012 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC"). At the very outset, it is requisite to be stated that the appellants had invoked the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashment of the FIR on two counts, namely, first, that no prima facie case existed for putting the criminal law into motion and, second, when on the similar and identical cause of action and allegations, FIR No. 425 of 2012 corresponding to Crime No. 475 of 2012 had already been registered, a second FIR could not have been lodged and entertained. The High Court, by the impugned order, has opined that it cannot be held that no prima facie case is disclosed and, thereafter, proceeded to issue certain directions in relation to surrender before the concerned court and grant of interim bail in view of the decision rendered by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Amrawati and another v. State of UP[1] and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others.
↧
Rajiv Kapoor Vs. Karan Pal Singh [21/01/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 605 of 2013 @ Special Leave Petition (C.) No.24200 of 2012]. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Contempt Petition No. 1239 of 2012 dated 10.07.2012. The order passed by the High Court reads as under: "After hearing both the parties, I agree with the submissions made by Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate that the said order is prospective in nature. But fact remains that the judicial order is in favour of the petitioner i.e. the retirement will be subject to outcome of the pending proposal before the State Government. When, it is so, then the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the Government Order dated 03.07.2012 by virtue of the order dated 30.01.2012, passed by this Court, in Writ Petition No.50(S/B) of 2012. Now the opposite parties have no option except to implement the order dated 30.01.2012, passed by the writ court. In view of above, the petitioner is directed to join his duties within a period of one week and the opposite party no.2, i.e. Director, U.P. Rajya Beej Pramanikaran Sanstha, Rajkiya Udyan Parisar, Kariyappa Marg, Alambagh, Lucknow shall allow him to resume his duties and the services of the petitioner will be counted for all purposes.
↧
↧
Lt. Cdr. Malkiat Singh Khela (Retd.) Vs. Union of India [22/01/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 713 of 2013 @ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9608 of 2009]. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay in W.P. No. 307 of 1998, dated 22.07.2008, whereby and where under the High Court has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant. The facts in brief are: The appellant is retired personnel of Indian Navy. He had joined the Indian Navy as Aviation Cadet in October 1971. He was commissioned as Sub-Lieutenant in the Executive Branch (Pilot) on 02.06.1973, thereafter he was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant Commander. It has come on record that the appellant had allowed his family friends from Afghanistan to stay in his official residential accommodation from 10.01.1989 to 21.01.1989. This, according to the respondents, was in violation of an order of the Western Naval Command orders, 1986. In view of the said violation, the appellant was tried by a Court Martial in the year 1989. After the inquiry, the Court Martial has held that the appellant is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 68 of the Navy Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short) and, accordingly, has passed an order imposing punishment of forfeiture of 36 months of seniority in the rank of Lieutenant Commander and severe reprimand, as prescribed under Section 81(1)(f) and (l) of the Act.
↧
State of Haryana Vs. M/s. Polar Industries Ltd. [23/01/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 705 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 25464 of 2011]. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in C.W.P. No. 2545 of 1997 dated31.03.2010. The State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 13-B of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 ("the Act" for short), has promulgated an exemption scheme, inter alia, granting certain exemptions to the industries which are set up in the specified areas in the State of Haryana. For the purpose of granting exemption from payment of sales tax under Section 13-B of the Act, the legislature has incorporated Rule 28-Bproviding conditions for availing exemption from payment of sales tax to eligible industrial units. We will advert to these provisions once over again after noticing the facts of the case in nutshell. The respondent company is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing electrical motors, fans, etc. The industry was granted Eligibility Certificate on 25.1.1993 and was granted Sales Tax Exemption Certificate in the prescribed form on 28.01.1994. The exemption that was granted was for the period 20.04.1991 to 19.04.1996 and the same was subject to a ceiling of Rs.2,22,50,000/-. The Eligibility Certificate provides certain conditions which require to be complied by the respondent company in order to take benefit of the exemption granted. Clause 3 of the Certificate provides that the unit shall remain in production for a period of not less than six years after availing the benefits.
↧
Shishpal Singh Vs. State of Haryana [28/01/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 188 of 2013 Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No.9515 of 2012]. Vide Order dated 05.12.2012, while issuing notice, this Court has ordered that: "In the meanwhile, it is directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested till further orders. "In the facts and circumstances of the case and having gone through the records of the case, we are of the opinion that the order dated05.12.2012 be made absolute and is made absolute with a further direction that the appellant will join the investigation as and when required by the police and will not tamper with evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner. The Criminal Appeal is allowed accordingly.
↧
Mohammad Bin Beerankutti Vs. State of Karnataka [29/01/13]
[Criminal Appeal No.1935 of 2011]. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal appeal No. 569/2009 with Criminal Referred Case No. 03 of 2009 dated 06.09.2010. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court while answering the reference has confirmed the conviction and death sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur in Sessions Case No. 127 of 2007. The facts in extenso need not be noticed by us as the same have been comprehensively noted by the courts below. The background of the facts goes to explain the genesis of the incident that took place on 18.06.2007, when Vyjananthi ("the deceased" for short) was standing alone waiting for the bus near the Kadur check post in order to go to Chikmagalur. On the day of the incident, the appellant- Mohammad Bin Beerankutti, the driver of the taxi, with an ulterior motive to rob the deceased of her gold ornaments and other belongings induced the deceased to board the taxi for her journey to Chikmagalur. On the way to Chikmagalur, the appellant with the said motive had deliberately stopped the vehicle, and after killing the deceased committed robbery. Subsequently, to screen the offence and cause disappearance of the evidence the appellant had thrown the dead body of the deceased in the valley of Charmadi Ghat. The FIR was registered pursuant to the missing complaint lodged by PW-2, the daughter of the deceased.
↧
↧
State of Rajasthan Vs. Nathi Singh [29/01/13]
[Criminal Appeal No.644 of 2008]. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.119 of 2004 of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur, dated24.11.2005, whereby and where under the High Court has allowed the appeal of the respondent-Nathi Singh. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have carefully perused the records and analysed the evidence on record and in our considered view, the High Court and the trial court haven to committed any error which would call for our interference. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. Mr. Abhishek, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would inform us, that, since the accused did not get bail from this Court, he must have served out the sentence that was imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court for the offences punishable under Sections 365and 384 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("the IPC" for short). In view of the above, in our opinion, nothing survives in this appeal for our consideration and decision. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of as having become infructuous.
↧
Gopal Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand [08/02/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) No. 9897 of 2012]. In this appeal preferred by Special Leave, the appellant calls in question the legal substantiality of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.3.2012 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 2001 whereby the learned Single Judge has set aside the conviction under Sections 307 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC") but maintained the conviction and sentence under Section 324 of the IPC passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Almora in Sessions Trial No. 24 of 1994. The facts which are essential to be stated for adjudication of this appeal are that an FIR was lodged by Prem Singh, PW-2, alleging that about 9.00 p.m. on 20.10.1992, on hearing a gunshot sound and simultaneously the cry of his brother, Gopal Singh, PW-1, that he was being assaulted and his life was in danger, he rushed to the shop of Gopal Singh and found that accused Gopal Singh and his brother Puran Singh were beating him with hands, fists and stones. He saw Har Singh, the father of the assailants, standing outside the shop along with two unknown persons.
↧
Pankaj Garg Vs. Meenu Garg [12/02/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 2013 @ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.2500 of 2012]. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1374 of 2010, dated 21.02.2012. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has reversed the findings and the conclusions reached by the learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate, in the order dated 19.02.2008, as well as by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, in the order dated 06.07.2010. The facts in nutshell are: The appellant and the respondent no.1 are husband and wife. The respondent no.1 has lodged a complaint against the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("the IPC" for short). The learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate, after analyzing the evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that the complaint and the evidence adduced by the parties does not constitute the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of the IPC. Accordingly, it has dismissed the complaint by order dated 19.02.2008. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Complainant had filed a Revision Petition before the learned District and Sessions Judge. The said Petition was dismissed by the Revisional Court confirming the findings of the Trial Court by order dated 06.07.2010.
↧