|
indlaw updates
Judgments
C. V. Gupthan S/o Vasudevan vs (1) Union of India represented by General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai; (2) Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Trivandrum
[CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 31 Jan 2012]
|
(1) P. Vasantha; (2) M.Manikantan; (3) M. Jayalekshmi vs (1) Southern Railway represented by its General Manager Southern railway, Chennai; (2) Chief Accounts Officer, Office of the Financial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer, Chennai; (3) S. Kamalamma; (4) Bindhu; (5) Padmakumar @ Binu; (6) Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Southern Railway, Bangalore
[CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 30 Jan 2012]
|
(1) Kannan; (2) Murugayee and others vs Selvamuthukani @ Selvamuthu
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 30 Jan 2012]
Criminal - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 494 and 109 - Bigamy - Conviction - Sustainability - Appellants were convicted on the private complaint filed by respondent u/s. 494 r/w s. 109 of IPC - Trial court convicted appellants - Appellants preferred appeal, wherein, Appellate Court confirmed conviction but reduced sentence - Respondent challenged order before HC - HC, held that A1 was guilty of marrying second time during subsistence of his first marriage and other accused were guilty of abetting the same offence - HC further held that reduction of sentence done by lower appellate court was unsustainable - HC reduced sentence but did not modify fine imposed - Aggrieved instant appeal - Appellant contended that divorce decree was passed on 20-02-1991 and appeal filed by respondent was allowed on 10-02-1992, on that day marriage between appellant and respondent had been revived but decree was set aside which other appellants were not aware - Whether Trial Court was justified in convicting appellants - Held, evidence of respondent established beyond doubt that A1 married A4 but question was whether fact that decree of divorce was set aside was known to other accused - Evidence of witnesses did not conclusively establish fact that decree of divorce was set aside was known to other accused therefore benefit of doubt should be given to other accused - Hence, impugned order was set aside to the extent of convicting and sentencing A3, A4 and A5 - Appeals disposed of.
|
Samir Toppo vs Union of India and others
[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT, 30 Jan 2012]
|
Hazara Singh and another (through LRs) vs Nazar Singh and another (through LRs)
[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, 27 Jan 2012]
|
Mohd. Asif vs State of Maharashtra and others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 27 Jan 2012]
Service - Appointment under reserved category - Entitlement - Appellant belonging to 'Behna' caste was appointed as Assistant Teacher in category reserved for Scheduled Caste (SC) by 2nd respondent Municipal Council - On complaint, Scrutiny Committee conducted an inquiry and concluded that appellant failed to submit proof/evidence to show that he belonged to 'Behna' caste - Appellant challenged Committee order before HC - However, Municipal Council of respondent no. 2, during pendency of writ petition before HC, passed resolution dt. 8-9-2006 approving Standing Committee's Resolution dt. 27-6-2006 treating appellant's appointment in open category, which was based on Government Resolution dt. 7-12-2001 - Appellant withdrew writ petition thereafter - Director of Municipal Administration initiated new recruitment process stating that appellant also could apply afresh - Appellant filed writ petition challenging order of Director of Municipal Administration - HC dismissed writ petition by impugned order - Whether HC order was proper - Held, appellant raised an alternative contention based on a Government Resolution dated 3-6-2004 which, according to Additional Government Pleader, was only applicable to candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes - HC accepted Additional Government Pleader's contention and dismissed writ petition without considering Municipal Council's Resolution dated 8-9-2006 approving Standing Committee's Resolution dated 27-6-2006 by which appellant was treated as a open category candidate and also the Government Resolution dated 7-12-2001 based on which the said Resolutions were passed - Hence, HC failed to properly consider appellant's claims and contentions and impugned judgment was vitiated by non-application of mind and hence was set aside - Appeal allowed.
|
Chameleon Resources Limited vs Tata Tea Limited
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 25 Jan 2012]
|
(1) Shaukat Ali Khan; (2) Saira Khatoon; (3) Akbar Mahffoz Alam @ Bholu; (4) Fasiuddin Khan; (5) Ejaz Ahmad Khan @ Md. Ejaz Khan vs State of Jharkhand and another
[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT, 25 Jan 2012]
|
Paramjit and another vs State of Punjab and others
[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, 25 Jan 2012]
|
(1) Urmilla Datta; (2) Dibyasingha Mohanty vs (1) Dr. Manoranjan Panda; (2) Madhusmita Panda; (3) Biplab B. Bahali; (4) Chiranjibi Mohapatra
[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 25 Jan 2012]
|
Dr. Joanathan Samuel Shaw vs State of Jharkhand and others
[JHARKHAND HIGH COURT, 24 Jan 2012]
|
Ganga Devi vs Ravi Atal and another
[PATNA HIGH COURT, 24 Jan 2012]
|
Pushpa Rani vs Sunita Rani
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 24 Jan 2012]
|
Najibur Rahman @ Mujibur Rehman and another vs State and others
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 23 Jan 2012]
|
HDFC vs Gautam Kumar Nag and others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 20 Jan 2012]
Civil Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, O. 38 - Indian Contract Act, 1872, s. 139 - Realisation of amount - Summary suit - Equitable Mortgage - Triable - Sustainability - Respondents signed as guarantors for loan received by borrower - Borrower defaulted payment of loan - Petitioner after issuing notice filed suit for realisation of amount u/O. 38 of C.P.C - Respondents filed leave to defend petition contending that as borrower had created an equitable mortgage by depositing title deeds they should be absolved of liability in terms of s. 139 of Act - Trial Court dismissed and passed judgment and decree in favour of petitioner - Respondent approached HC, HC allowed appeal stating that trial Judge fell into error in holding that s. 139 of Act had no application to facts of case, but it held that their plea gave rise to triable issue - Whether Judgment of HC was sustainable - Held, It is well established that liability of guarantor is equal to and co-extensive with borrower and guarantor cannot avoid his liability simply on basis of promissory note or an equitable mortgage created by borrower in favour of lender - Reliance on s. 139 of Act is evidently futile and of no avail - Judgment of HC unsustainable - Appeal allowed.
|
Horil vs Keshav and Another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 20 Jan 2012]
Land & Property - Civil Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, O. 23 r. 3-A - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, ss. 176, 178 and 182 - Suit - Maintainability - Jurisdiction - Validity - Defendants instituted suit before Collector in which appellants' father was made as one of the party - Compromise petition was filed with fake signature of appellants' father and on that basis a compromise decree was passed - Appellant filed suit before Trial Court seeking declaration that decree passed by Collector u/ss. 176, 178 and 182 of the 1950 Act was fraudulent obtained, inoperative and that no notice was served upon his father and his alleged signature on compromise petition was faked as he died much earlier and was not alive when decree was passed - Defendants questioned maintainability of suit contending that suit was related to agricultural lands and hence it was beyond jurisdiction and competence of civil court and should only be tried by revenue authorities - Trial Court upheld defendants' objection holding that suit was not maintainable before a civil court - On appeal, District Judge set aside Trial Court order holding that decree passed by Collector was fraudulent, compromise petition and did not involve any adjudication of rights or interests on agricultural lands - Further, defendants objected maintainability of the suit in Trial Court contending that it was barred under O. 23 r. 3-A of CPC - Trial Court dismissed objection and held suit was maintainable - Aggrieved by orders of Trial Court, defendants filed writ petition that allowed by HC under O. 23 r. 3-A of CPC - Hence instant appeal - Whether HC was justified in allowing the writ under O. 23 r. 3-A of CPC - Held, HC was right in holding that appellants' suit was hit by provisions of O. 23 r. 3-A of CPC, but compromise decree which was alleged to be fraudulent and which was sought to be declared as nullity was passed not by civil court but by revenue court in a suit u/s. 176 of the 1950 Act - Further, Revenue Courts were neither equipped nor competent to effectively adjudicate on allegations of fraud that had overtones of criminality and courts are really skilled and experienced to try such issues were constituted under CPC - Hence, provision of O. 23 r. 3-A should not act as bar against suit filed by appellant - Impugned order of HC was set aside - Appeal allowed.
|
Kishor Kanji Patel vs State of Gujarat and others
[GUJARAT HIGH COURT, 20 Jan 2012]
|
B. Chandramathi vs N. Prakash
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 20 Jan 2012]
|
State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Deputy Commissioner (CT) Chennai (North) Division, Chennai vs Tvl Gupta Iron and Steel Company, Chennai
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 19 Jan 2012]
|
J. Samuel and others vs Gattu Mahesh and others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 16 Jan 2012]
Civil Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure 1908, O. 6, r. 17 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Amendment of plaint - Permissibility - - Petitioners land was put for sale and sealed tenders were received, respondents being highest bidders their tenders were accepted - Contract for sale of property was entered with a condition that after disputes over land were settled, balance amount should be paid and sale deed would be executed - Respondents issued notice to petitioners stating that disputes were resolved, hence execute sale deed - Petitioners evaded, respondents filed suit for specific performance - After detailed trial and final arguments, respondents filed amendment petition for amendment of plaint with a plea of typographical error - Trial Court dismissed application, respondents aggrieved by order approached HC filing revision petition - Revision was allowed - Hence, instant appeal - Whether HC was right in allowing application for amendment of plaint which was filed after conclusion of trial and reserving matter for orders - Respondent sought amendment and inclusion of averment in plaint due to 'type mistake' which happened in spite of due diligence - Held, Claim of typographical error/mistake was baseless and could not be accepted - Had person who prepared plaint, signed and verified plaint showed some attention, that omission could have been noticed and rectified there itself - It should not be construed that due diligence was adhered to and in any event, omission of mandatory requirement running into 3 to 4 sentences could not be a typographical error as claimed - Appeal allowed.
|
State of Jammu and Kashmir vs Vinod Kumar Verma and another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 16 Jan 2012]
Service - Practice & Procedure - Seniority - Promotion - Contempt - Respondent was appointed as Sectional Officer on ad hoc basis, later he was adjusted in Seva Hydel project - On 10-03-1989 combined tentative seniority list of sectional officers was issued ignoring respondent and showing Junior Engineers as senior to respondent - Aggrieved respondent filed Writ petition for inclusion of their names in seniority list - DB passed orders in similar case directing petitioner to include name of respondent in seniority list of Junior Engineers with all consequential relief of promotions etc - HC in light of orders passed by DB directed respondent to accord consideration to respondents cases - Petitioner rejected respondents representation on ground that Junior Engineer's cadre had been closed - Aggrieved respondents filed contempt petition - Petitioner then filed compliance report which was not in consonance with directions issued by HC and directed to file compliance report by including the names in seniority list - Petitioner filed APLPA which was dismissed and appeal before DB also was dismissed as not maintainable - Aggrieved petitioner filed instant appeal - Held, in view of main contempt petition itself pending on file of Single Judge of HC, reserving legal question about maintainability of appeal to be considered in an appropriate case, it was felt that ends of justice would not be met by asking HC to dispose main contempt petition on merits - Appeal disposed of.
|
Sorabkhan Gadakhan Pathan vs Virochan Nagar Gram Panchayat and others
[GUJARAT HIGH COURT, 16 Jan 2012]
|
Madhu vs State of Kerala
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 13 Jan 2012]
Criminal - Practice & Procedure - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 302 and 392 r/w. sec 34 - Smothered to death - Theft - Circumstantial Evidence - Sustainability - Appellant along with another accused was convicted for offence punishable u/ss. 302, 392 r/w. sec 34 of IPC - Prosecutions case was that appellant and another accused with an intention to commit robbery had smothered deceased to death and then drowned her - Prosecutions case was based on circumstantial evidence and recovery of ornaments from appellant and another accused - Trial court believed version of witnesses and story of prosecution and convicted appellant - Medical report suggested that all injuries suffered were superficial in nature and cause of death was shown due to drowning - Appellant appealed in HC, HC maintained conviction but modified orders passed by Trial court that sentences would run concurrently - Aggrieved, instant appeal - Appellant contended that there was large number of discrepancies in evidence deposed by witnesses which were contradictory to each other - Respondent contended that appellant with motive to commit robbery smothered deceased first and then drowned her after robbing gold ornaments - Whether reliance by Trial court and HC on circumstantial evidence to convict appellant and another accused is sustainable - Held, that only circumstantial evidence of a very high order can satisfy test of proof in criminal prosecution which must establish a complete unbroken chain of events leading to determination that inference being drawn from evidence is only inescapable conclusion - In present case there is large discrepancies in evidence deposed by witnesses which cannot be relied upon - Further doctor had affirmed that death of deceased had been caused by drowning - Prosecution had totally failed to establish that deceased was smothered first and thereafter drowned by appellant and another accused - Evidence produced by prosecution does not in any way establish guilt of accused - Evidence produced to establish presence of accused near place of occurrence at or about time of commission of crime is also irrelevant - Appeal allowed.
|
Amar Taxi Service vs Commissioner of Police and others
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 13 Jan 2012]
|
(1) K. Ramanathan; (2) P. Thangaraj vs (1) Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Administrative Branch, Chennai; (2) Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Thanjavur District
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 12 Jan 2012]
|
|