[Civil Appeal No. 1457 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.21276 of 2006]. The short question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents seeking a decree for declaration, partition and injunction against the appellants abated on the failure of the plaintiffs to file an application for substitution of the Legal Representatives of Virendra Kumar one of the defendants. The trial Court, when approached by the plaintiff for deletion of the name of the deceased and setting aside of the abatement, held that the suit had abated in to and accordingly dismissed the same. In an appeal filed by the plaintiffs against that order, the First Appellate Court held that the trial Court had not properly considered the issue in the light of the nature of the averments made in the plaint and the relief sought by the plaintiff. The Court accordingly set aside the judgment and order passed by the trial Court with the observation that the demise of Virendra Kumar and failure of the plaintiff to bring his legal representatives on record did not affect the maintainability of the suit. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has affirmed that order, hence the present appeal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are inclined to agree with the order of the First Appellate Court that the suit had not abated no matter for a reason different from the one that prevailed with that Court. It is common ground that Virendra Kumar-defendant was proceeded ex parte as he had not appeared to contest the suit or file a written statement.
↧
Mata Prasad Mathur (dead) by LRS. Vs. Jwala Prasad Mathur [20/02/13]
↧
Sunil Mehta Vs. State of Gujarat [20/02/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 327 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) No.374 of 2012]. The short question that falls for our determination in this appeal is whether depositions of the complainant and his witnesses recorded under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before cognizance is taken by the Magistrate would constitute evidence for the Magistrate to frame charges against the accused under Part B of Chapter XIX of the said Code. The question arises in the following backdrop: A complaint alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was filed by respondent No.2-Company before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat. The Magistrate upon examination of the complaint directed an enquiry in terms of Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. by the jurisdictional police station. The report received from the police suggested that the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature in which criminal proceedings were out of place. The Chief Judicial Magistrate was not, however, satisfied with the police enquiry and the conclusion, and hence conducted an enquiry in terms of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and issued process against the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 406 read with 114 IPC. Aggrieved, the appellants unsuccessfully questioned the summoning order before the High Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.10173 of 2010.
↧
↧
K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa [22/02/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 1794 of 2013 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4782 of 2007]. This appeal, by special leave, has been filed by the appellant-husband, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 8/11/2006 passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.797/03,setting aside the decree of divorce granted in his favour. The appellant-husband is working as Assistant Registrar in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The marriage between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife was solemnized on 25/4/1999 as per Hindu rites and customs. Unfortunately, on the very next day disputes arose between the elders on both sides which resulted in their abusing each other and hurling chappals at each other. As a consequence, on 27/4/1999, the newly married couple got separated without consummation of the marriage and started living separately. On 4/10/1999, the respondent-wife lodged a criminal complaint against the appellant-husband before the Women Protection Cell alleging inter alia that the appellant-husband is harassing her for more dowry. This complaint is very crucial to this case. We shall advert to it more in detail a little later. Escalated acrimony led to complaints and counter complaints. The respondent-wife filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, Secunderabad.
↧
State of Kerala Vs. Kandath Distilleries [22/02/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 1642 of 2013 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 9098 of 2009]. We are, in this appeal, concerned with the question whether the High Court can issue a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the State to part with its exclusive privilege, in the matter of granting licence for establishing distilleries under the Foreign Liquor (Compounding, Blending and Bottling) Rules, 1975 (for short "1975Rules") read with Section 14 of the Abkari Act (for short "the Act"). M/s Kandath Distilleries, respondent herein, claimed to have submitted an application dated 12.1.1987 before the Commissioner of Excise for a licence to establish a compounding, blending and bottling unit in the Palakkad District. Few others had also filed similar applications for licence for setting up distillery units in the State of Kerala. All of them were directed to first obtain the approval of the Government of India for the setting up of new blending and bottling units and, thereafter, to approach the State Government. This Court, however, vide its judgment dated 29.1.1997 in Writ Petition No. 322 of 1996 (Bihar Distillery and Another v. Union of India and Others) took the view that the power to permit the establishment of any industry engaged in the manufacture of portable liquors, including Indian Made Foreign Liquors (IMFLs), beer, country liquor and other intoxicating drinks is exclusively vested in the respective State Governments.
↧
State of Kerala Vs. Sneha Cheriyan [22/02/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 1643 of 2013 arising out of SLP(C) No.22332 of 2009]. We are in these cases called upon to decide whether a minimum continuous service in an academic year is a pre-requisite for raising a claim for re-appointment under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (for short ' the KER') in view of sub-rule (3) of Rule 7A of the same chapter of the KER. In the State of Kerala, the power for appointment of teachers in aided schools is conferred on Managers of such schools under Section 11 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') while the salary and other benefits are to be borne by the State Government under Section 9 of the Act. Qualified teachers who are so appointed when relieved as per Rule49 or 52 or on account of termination of vacancies shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies as per Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A of the KER. Therefore, when vacancy arises, the Manager is bound to comply with the procedure under Rule 51A and cannot deny that statutory claim. When once a valid appointment is given to the teachers and such appointments are approved ipso facto they become entitled to the benefits under Rule 51A. The Management and the teachers, it is generally known, started misusing the above statutory provisions for getting preference for future appointments by effecting appointments by creating vacancies during the academic year. Such unethical and unhealthy practices led to creation of anticipatory vacancies and multiple claimants under Rule 51A causing drain on State exchequer since the State is paying the salary.
↧
↧
Securities and Exchange Board of India Vs. M/s. Informatics Valuation and Rating Pvt. Ltd. [19/02/13]
The present appeal under Section 15Z of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 ("the SEBI Act") is directed against the impugned judgment and final order dated 9th November, 2011 passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ("the SAT"), in Appeal No. 155 of 2011, by which the appeal filed by M/s Informetics Valuation and Rating Pvt. Ltd., (the respondent herein) was allowed, and the order dated 24th June, 2011 passed by the Whole Time Member of SEBI and communication dated 21st July, 2011 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India ("the SEBI") was set aside. By the impugned order, the SAT has remanded the matter back to the appellant to consider the application of the respondent seeking registration as a Credit Rating Agency ("CRA") without requiring the respondent to produce Audited Annual Accounts of the respondent's promoters for the two years ending December, 2010. We may notice here the skeletal facts which are necessary for the determination of the limited legal issue involved in this appeal. On 11th June, 2009, the respondent submitted an application to SEBI under Regulation 3 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Credit Rating Agencies) Regulations, 1999 ("the CRA Regulations, 1999") seeking registration as a CRA.
↧
State of A.P. Vs. M/s. Star Bone Mill & Fertilizer Company [21/02/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 6690 of 2004]. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.3.2004, passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in City Civil Court Appeal No. 72 of 1989, by way of which the Civil Suit filed by the respondent against the appellants, claiming title over the suit land in dispute, has been upheld. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are: One Shri M.A. Samad, Assistant Engineer, City Improvement Board, Hyderabad, alongwith his associate, converted the land in dispute measuring 3.525 acres i.e. 17061 sq. yards, in favour of the Forest Department in 1920. The suit land was given on lease on 21.5.1943 to M/s. A. Allauddin & Sons for a fixed time period, incorporating the terms and conditions, that the lessee would not be entitled to extend the existing building in any way, or to erect any structure on the land leased. The lessee was also prohibited from transferring the suit land by any means. The said M/s. A. Allauddin & Sons, a proprietory concern, sent a letter dated 29.9.1945 in response to the eviction notice, informing the appellants that it was not possible for it to remove the factory established on the suit land, and thus, the said lessee asked the appellants to put up the said property for rent.
↧
M/s. A.S. Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India [21/02/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 1517 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.2490 of 2008]. This appeal by special leave arises out of an order dated 8thAugust, 2007, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur whereby Writ Appeal No.491 of 2007 filed by the appellant has been dismissed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No.720 of 2007 affirmed. Multiple rounds of litigation between the parties have been aptly recapitulated in the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No.720/2007and refreshed by the Division Bench of the High Court while dismissing the writ appeal filed against the same. It is in that view unnecessary for us to recount the entire factual background in which the controversy in this appeal arises except to the extent it is absolutely necessary for us to do so for the disposal of this appeal. National Highway Authority of India Ltd. (NHAI for short) invited tenders for award of a contract for collection of fee for the use of National Highways from Km. 61.00 to Km.103 on Morena-Gwalior Section of National Highway No.3. Appellant too among others made an offer which was accepted by the NHAI in terms of its letter dated 14th March, 2006 asking the appellant to submit a demand draft for a sum of Rs.2,20,00,125/-towards performance security and a bank guarantee for a similar amount to be valid for a period of 15 months for the due observance of the terms and conditions contained in the contract. Both these requirements were satisfied by the appellant with the result that a contract for collection of user fee commencing from 1st April, 2006 to 31st March, 2007 was finally allotted in its favour.
↧
Thomson Press (India) Ltd. Vs. Nanak Builders & Investors Pvt. Ltd. [21/02/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 1518 of 2013 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 24159 of 2009]. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the division bench of the High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 295 of 2008 affirming the order of the Single Judge and rejecting the petition filed by the appellant under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleadment as defendants in a suit for specific performance of contract being Suit No. 3426 of 1991filed by plaintiff-Respondent No.1. Although the case has a chequered history, the brief facts of the case can be summarized as under :- Mrs. Lakhbir Sawhney, Respondent No. 2 and son Mr. H.S. Sawhney, the predecessor of Respondent No. 3 (a) to (d) were the owners of the property known as "Ojha House" / "Sawhney Mansion", F-Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi. (These respondents shall be referred as "the Sawhneys "for the sake of convenience). M/s Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd., Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff in the Suit. The plaintiff-RespondentNo.1 filed a suit in the High Court of Delhi being Suit No. 3426 of 1991against the defendants-respondents Sawhneys' for a decree for specificperformance of agreement. The case of the plaintiff-respondent is that on 29.05.1986 the defendant-respondent entered into an agreement with the plaintiff-respondent for sale of an area measuring about 4000 sq.ft. on the1st Floor of F-26, Connaught Place, New Delhi on the consideration of Rs.50 lakhs.
↧
↧
Som Raj @ Soma Vs. State of H.P. [22/02/13]
[Criminal Appeal No.1772 of 2008]. Consequent upon an intimation to the police, by Dr. B.M. Gupta (PW5),Senior Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Indora (here in after referred to as the CHC, Indora); the statement of Nek Ram, (PW1) was recorded at the CHC, Indora, on 29.7.2000; leading to the registration of First Information Report bearing no.123 of 2000 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station, Indora. The aforesaid statement was recorded by ASI Shiv Kanya (PW12). In his statement, Nek Ram(PW1) asserted that there was a 'bhandara' (feast for devotees, during a Hindu ceremonial congregation) following a 'yagya' (Hindu ritual ceremony)at the residence of Kishan Singh (PW2) at village Khanda Saniyal on29.7.2000. Nek Ram (PW1) disclosed, that he along with his brother Sardari Lal (since deceased) had been invited to the 'bhandara' and were present at the residence of Kishan Singh (PW2). The complainant Nek Ram (PW1)affirmed, that he was helping in serving food at the 'bhandara'. Whilst he was in the kitchen at about 9.30 p.m., he (Nek Ram, PW1) was informed by his nephew Sohan (PW3) and Shamsher Singh (PW8) that the accused-appellant Som Raj alias Soma was quarrelling with his brother Sardari Lal.
↧
Ravindersingh @ Ravi Pavar Vs. State of Gujarat [22/02/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) No 3334 of 2012]. Ravindersingh @ Ravi Pavar has preferred appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3334 of 2012 before this Court against the final judgment and order dated 10.02.2012 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1281 of 2012 whereby the High Court dismissed his application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') seeking regular bail in C.R. No. 252 of 2009 registered with Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 328, 272, 273, 201, 109, 114, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) and Sections 65(a)(b)(c)(d)(e), 66(1)(b), 67-1A, 72, 75, 81 and 83 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The State of Gujarat, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29.09.2011, passed by the High Court in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 12384 and 12385 of 2011 whereby the High Court enlarged one Jayesh Hiralal Thakkar (A-2) on bail in connection with C.R. No. 161 of 2009 registered with Kagdapith Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 307, 328, 272, 273, 201, 217, 221, 109 and 114 of IPC and Sections 65(a)(b)(c)(d)(e), 66(1)(b), 68, 72, 75, 81 and 83 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and C.R. No. 252 of 2009 registered with Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad for the very same offences, has filed the other two appeals arising out of special leave petition Nos. 4026 and 4027 of 2012.
↧
M/s. Bagai Construction through its Proprietor Mr. Lalit Bagai Vs. M/s. Gupta Building Material Store [22/02/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 1787 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.35268 of 2011]. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.08.2011 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in C.M.(M) No. 707 of 2010 (Civil Revision No. 707 of 2010) whereby the learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the revision filed by the respondent herein and set aside the order dated 25.02.2010 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi. The appellant is a proprietorship concern dealing in interior decoration and construction work and Mr. Lalit Bagai is the sole proprietor of the said concern. The respondent is a partnership firm registered with the Registrar of Firms vide Registration No. 1237/93 dated 07.06.1993 and is engaged in the business of sale and supply of building materials. Admittedly, the appellant and respondent have often transacted with each other. According to the respondent, the appellant made various purchases on credit from them for which payments were made in parts and the same were credited to his account maintained by them.
↧
State of Assam Vs. Ripa Sarma [20/02/13]
[Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2671 of 2011]. We have heard Mr. Avijit Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner-State of Assam as well as Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent at length. Mr. Jayant Bhushan has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the special leave petition. The petitioner herein has challenged the order passed by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court dated 26th February, 2010 dismissing the review petition filed by the petitioner seeking review of the judgment and order dated 20th November, 2007 rendered in Writ Appeal No. 279 of 2007. The Division Bench has dismissed the review petition on the ground that in substance, the applicant seeks rehearing of Writ Appeal No. 279 of 2007 on the basis of certain facts, which were not brought to the notice of the Court at the time of hearing of the appeal. It is not disputed before us that judgment and order dated 20th November, 2007 passed in Writ Appeal No. 279 of 2007 was not challenged by way of a special leave petition before this Court. In fact, the aforesaid judgment and order is not even challenged in the present special leave petition. Therefore, the special leave petition is restricted in its challenge, to the order passed by the Division Bench dismissing the review petition on 26th February, 2010. In support of the submission that the present special leave petition is not maintainable, Mr. Bhushan has relied on three judgments of this Court. In Shanker Motiram Nale versus Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput reported in (1994) 2 SCC 753, it has been held that the special leave petition which has been filed against the order rejecting the review petition would be barred under Order 47 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
↧
↧
Ramesh Kumar Soni Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [26/02/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) No.5663 of 2011]. The short question that falls for determination in this appeal is whether the appellant could be tried by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468 and471 of the IPC notwithstanding the fact that the First Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as amended by Code of Criminal Procedure(Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act of 2007, made offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code triable only by the Court of Sessions. The Trial Court of 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur has answered that question in the negative and held that after the amendment the appellant could be tried only by the Court of Sessions. That view has been affirmed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in a criminal revision petition filed by the appellant against the order passed by the Trial Court. The factual matrix in which the controversy arises may be summarised as under: Crime No.129 of 2007 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC was registered against the appellant on 18th May, 2007, at Bheraghat Police Station. On the date of the registration of the case the offences in question were triable by a Magistrate of First Class in terms of the First Schedule of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
↧
Esha Ekta Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd Vs. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai [27/02/13]
[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.
↧
State of Orissa Vs. Sri Jagabandhu Panda [27/02/13]
[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.
↧
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. State of Maharashtra [28/02/13]
[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.
↧
↧
Mahalaxmi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Ashabhai Atmaram Patel (D) through LRS [01/03/13]
[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.
↧
K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka [01/03/13]
[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.
↧
Laxman Lal (Dead) through LRS. Vs. State of Rajasthan [01/03/13]
[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.
↧