|
indlaw updates
Judgments
Indraraj Dasharath Sapakale vs State of Maharashtra
[BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 02 Jul 2008]
Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 302 - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Appellant accused of offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC, 1860 - Case based on circumstantial evidence - Held, taking into consideration the medical evidence together with the circumstances at the location where dead body was found, are sufficient to rule out any possibility of death being suicidal - Merely because the prosecution has not collected the evidence regarding the ownership of the field in which the hut was located and that the hut was not locked, this does not lose the credibility of "discovery" at the instance of accused. That the articles were in concealed condition and not easily traceable by the investigation is sufficient to term the same as "discovery - No reason to interfere with the finding of guilty and the judgment of conviction and sentence - Appeal dismissed.
|
Shripati vs (1) Goroba; (2) Chandrabhagabai
[BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 01 Jul 2008]
Was it necessary to have permission from the District Court to dispose of the undivided share of minor in the ancestral property of the joint family? - Held, respondent No.2 -mother had legal right to sell minor's undivided interest in the joint family property; it is ancestral property, both respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would have equal interest in it when the sale was executed in favour of the appellant and therefore the sale is not null and void; it is only voidable in-case it is not proved that the sale was for legal necessity and for the benefit of the estate - Sale of land to the appellant for marriage of sister of respondent No.1 cannot be said to be improbable or false - Transaction is binding on the respondents and it is legal and valid inspite of non-obtaining of permission from the District Court - Appeal allowed.
|
(1) Satyanarayana Agarwal; (2) Vivek Agarwal; (3) Umah Agarwal; (4) Siddhartha Agarwal; (5) Satyanarayana Vivek Kumar (Huf); (6) Prabhu Securities Limited; (7) Bhoruka Engineering Industries Limited; (8) Pragya Enterprises; (9) Umah Agarwal (Partner of Pragya Enterprises); (10) Vivek Agarwal (Partner of Pragya Enterprises); (11).Satyanarayana Agarwal (Partner of Pragya Enterprises) vs Adjudicating Officer, Securities and Exchange Board of India
[SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 01 Jul 2008]
The Judgment was delivered by : UTPAL BHATTACHARYA (MEMBER)1. In this appeal, Shri Satyanarayana Agarwal and other promoters of Bhoruka Financial Services Limited (BFSL for short), a company listed on the Bangalore Stock Exchange (BgSE for short)
|
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, (Madurai Iv Division), Dindigul, Represented By Its Managing Director vs Padiyan
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 01 Jul 2008]
Appeal to challenge award of compensation on ground that total compensation of Rs.70, 000/- to claimant who suffered disability due to negligent driving of the bus belonging to the State Transport Corporation, was excessive - Held, bearing in mind of the fact that the respondent/claimant has suffered a disability of 25% and considering the difficulties experienced/likely to be experienced by the claimant and taking note of another important fact that the age of the claimant at the time of the accident is 60 years, Court awards a sum of Rs.43, 750/- towards disability sustained by the claimant - Compensation modified under different sub-heads and total compensation awarded was Rs.58, 750/- - Appeal allowed.
|
(1) R. Ramasubramanian; (2) Management of Sundaram Fasteners Limited, Harita, Hosur vs (1) Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore; (2) Management of Sundaram Fasteners Limited, Harita, Hosur; (3) R. Ramasubramanian
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 30 Jun 2008]
Whether claims of the workman for reinstatement, backwages and continuity of service were rightly negatived and whether Labour court was justified in granting compensation of Rs. 30, 000/- to the workman in lieu of reinstatement? - Held, it is not correct for the petitioner to contend that if the probation is not extended within the prescribed period, it will result in an automatic confirmation; it is also seen from Ex. M.8, the last extension order, the workman had signed for having received the original order, in that order, it was stated that the petitioner's performance continues to be unsatisfactory but he was given another opportunity - Considering the fact that the workman had put in 3 years of service and his and his probation was thrice extended and considering the fact that the Labour Court had only ordered Rs.30, 000/- as compensation, High Court feels that it is inadequate, therefore, a direction is issued to the Management to pay another Rs. 50, 000/- towards compensation - Petitions disposed of.
|
Waterbase Limited, Represented By Its General Manager, P.K. Ramachandran vs (1) Union of India, Represented By Secretary To Government of India Ministry of Finance, New Delhi; (2) Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Apps) Group, By Assistant Commissioner, Chennai
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 30 Jun 2008]
Whether subsequent Notification No. 196/94 rescinded the 1993 Notification and, petitioners were eligible for exemption for the goods imported by them in connection with their business? - Held, even though in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that Notification No. 196 of 1994 is not retrospective, that argument is not correct because the purpose of the said notification is to rescind the 1993 Notification; even otherwise, para. 5 of the 1994 Notification provides for a non-obstante clause by which the raw materials are liable for exemption by the said Notification; an harmonious reading of all the Notifications will show that the petitioners are entitled for exemption - Petitions allowed.
|
(1) Sony C. Varghese; (2) S. Santhanakrishnan; (3) T.P. Philip; (4) George Thomas; (5) Bn/Railway Protection Special Force, Thiruchirappalli; (6) B.S. Parthasarathy; (7) Jacob P. John; (8) M.A. Rehman; (9) P. V. Subramanian; (10) P.V. Narasimha Rao; (11) P.V. Rajendran; (12) M.A. Girinarayanan; (13) T.S. Raju; (14) E. Mohanam; (15) H. Johnson Raja Singh; (16) Ashok Singh vs (1) Union of India, Through Chairman, Railway Board Ministry of Railways, New Delhi; (2) Member Staff, Railway Board Ministry of Railways, New Delhi; (3) Secretary, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi; (4) Director General, Railway Protection Force, New Delhi; (5) Joint Secretary, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi; (6) Ajanji Kumar; (7) Athul Pattak; (8) S.E. Rattan Chand; (9) Ranvir Singh Chouhan; (10) Amiga Nath Mishra; (11) Pranav Kumar; (12) Chellanya, Represented By Joint Secretary, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi; (13) R.K. Khullar; (14) Vinod Kumar Dhaka; (15) Paramjit Mann; (16) Suresh Chandra ; (17) Nirmal Singh; (18) Shichandre Lyndoh Buam; (19) Vijay Kumar Dev; (20) Sunil Kumar Sinha; (21) Sanjay Kishore; (22) Udai Shanker Shukla; (23) Anwar Haleem; (24) Pamhal Pacherwal; (25) Darahan Singh; (26) Gopal Ohri; (27) Sanjay Sankrityayan; (28) Surat Chandra Parhi; (29) Sunil Kumar Singh; (30) Rajinder Kumar Malik; (31) Matvinder Singh; (32) Satya Narain Manday; (33) Ravindra Sharma; (34) A.T. Srivastava; (35) Rajakamal; (36) B.B. Mishra; (37) M. Venkateswaralu; (38) Birendra Kumar; (39) Rambhau P. Pawar; (40) Sarvapriya; (41) A.N. Sinha; (42) G.M. Eswara Rao; (43) Hemant Kumar; (44) Praveen Chandra Sinha; (45) Ravendranath Kesar; (46) Suresh Kumar Sini; (47) Almlendu Shekhar; (48) Naresh Kumar Virdi; (49) Ram Swaroop Meena; (50) Kanchana Charan; (51) Manaawar Khusheed; (52) M. Sabu; (53) Vijay Kumar; (54) Vikay Kumar Khartarkar; (55) Tarique Ahmed; (56) Arma Singh Thakur; (57) Renu Pushkar; (58) Surendra Nath Chaudhary
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 30 Jun 2008]
Whether direction could be issued to respondent to grant pro-forma promotion to the petitioners, Assistant Security Commissioners in the Railway Protection Force, under the RPF Group A Post Recruitment Rules 1994 with retrospective effect from the date of implementation of the IVth Pay Commission? - Held, in the light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Grewals' case as well as the interim order passed in this writ petition and in the light of the direction given by this Court in W.P. No. 6631 of 2002 dated 14.5.2002, the respondent Railways are directed to convene the DPC for the years 1986 to 1996 and after making an assessment of the case of the petitioners, grant them the presumptive promotion in respect of those years and refix their salary and seniority in the light of such an order being passed by the respondents - Relief must be given to all the petitioners since at the time of filing of the writ petition, they were very much in service - Petition allowed.
|
D. Kannan vs (1) Central Bank of India Central Office, Represented By Chairman and Managing Director, Chander Mukhi, Bombay; (2) Appellate Authority, Assistant General Manager, Chennai; (3) Disciplinary Authority / Regional Manager, Regional Office, Chennai
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 30 Jun 2008]
Whether under the order, the respondents in guise of further enquiry conducted fresh enquiry? - Held, in the guise of conducting a further enquiry, the respondent Bank had gone ahead with the fresh enquiry contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court - If the intention of the respondent Bank was only to examine a Forensic Expert who was not available at the time of the original enquiry, they could have very well informed High Court at an earlier point of time; they had not only to examine one additional witness, but also re-examined all the original four witnesses which is not permissible in law, therefore, they cannot take undue advantage of the earlier Division Bench's order - Petition allowed with costs.
|
(1) Management of Thay Mudi Estate, Mudis Group of Estate, Coimbatore; (2) K. Sakthivel vs (1) K. Sakthivel; (2) Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore (2) Management of Thay Mudi Estate, Mudis Group of Estate, Coimbatore
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 30 Jun 2008]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Whether Labour Court had rightly held that workman was eligible for re-employment as a Field Assistant? - Held, workman was absent without leave; there was no evidence to show that the petitioner was employed as a Field staff; in the absence of any records, the Labour Court cannot presume the status of the workman on the basis of his oral statement; there is also no sufficient explanation about the petitioner's absence; his having failed in the staff selection and that his undergoing training in some other estate was also not properly considered by the Labour Court - In a dispute u/s. 2A(2) of the ID Act, 1947, the question of status of the workman cannot be gone into - Petitions disposed of.
|
R. K. Kottary vs (1) Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking, Mumbai; (2) General Manager, Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking, Mumbai; (3) M. P. Lobo, Sr. Administrative Officer (Electric Supply) Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking, Mumbai
[BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 26 Jun 2008]
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Whether in terms of the Circular D/- 07-12-1992 Respondents were bound to accepted the request of the Petitioner for withdrawal of resignation and induction into the service? - Held, these are discretionary powers vested in the Competent Authority and they do give a right of consideration of the request to the applicant, but certainly do not vest an applicant with an indefeasible legal right to claim re-employment - Iit is merely a benefit which may or may not be available to the employee in the discretion of the employer and such decision cannot be faulted with if it is inconformity with rules and settled principles of law - Once a discretion is vested in the authorities and it is exercised in a manner acceptable in law, in that event, the Court will not interfere just because it was possible to take a view other than the one taken by the authorities concerned - Coming to the aspect of arbitrariness in administrative action, the onus is again on the Petitioner and he must spell out by specific allegations the circumstances on which he claims arbitrariness in the action of the authorities - Petition dismissed.
|
State of Maharashtra, Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhor, Executive Officer, Gunjawani Project Bhor, Collector, Pune vs (1) Ganesh Sakharam Kokate; (2) Punam Sakharam Kokate; (3) Sarika Mahipati Kokate; (4) Dipika Mahipati Kokate; (5) Ashok Shripati Kokate; (6) Mahesh Shripati Kokate; (7) Sunanda Suresh Gaikwad; (8) Kunda Daulata Garud; (9) Abhijeet Tukaram Kokate; (10) Yogesh Tukaram Kokate, Through Power of Attorney Holder Shripati Mauti Kokate
[BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 26 Jun 2008]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Constitution of India, 1950, art. 226 - Whether non-issuance of notice and non impleading of Corporation vitiates the trial related to acquisition of land? - Held, beneficiary Corporation was not impleaded by a correct name but still was stated to be respondent No.2 in the petition u/s. 18 of the LA Act, 1894 and secondly, no notice was given to the respondent No.2 vide order passed by the reference court, resultantly, the Corporation had not been served a notice - Local authority or the beneficiary of acquisition of the land has a right to participate in the proceedings before the Collector, reference court and even in the appeal proceedings - It could be said that remedy u/art. 226 of the Constitution would also be available to them where they wish to challenge the award in their own right and for violation of principles of natural justice - Beneficiary body is an interested person and may in law even be termed as a necessary party keeping in view the scheme of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act - Impleadment of a necessary party could be allowed at any stage of a proceedings even in an appeal as appeal is continuation of the original proceedings -All cases remanded for adjudication afresh - Appeals disposed of.
|
United India Insurance Company Limited, Paramakudi vs (1) Karunaharan; (2) C.Sethuraman
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 25 Jun 2008]
Whether in absence of documentary evidence the award of sum of Rs.26, 000/- towards loss of earning and sum of Rs.25, 000/- towards pain and sufferings to claimant who suffered 28% permanent disability was illegal? - Held, in the absence of satisfactory proof by way of relevant documentary evidence, Court grants only a sum of Rs.6, 500/- taking into account of the injury sustained and the partial and permanent disability of 28% suffered by the claimant and therefore, the award of Rs.26, 000/- by the Tribunal towards loss of income without any material is incorrect, illegal and not sustainable in the absence of legal evidence - Compensation modified under different sub-heads - Appeal partly allowed.
|
Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam-Dni) Limited, Kumbakonam vs Kalyani
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 25 Jun 2008]
Whether compensation awarded of Rs.51, 080/- with interest at 12% p.a. to the claimant for having suffered permanent disability of 30% was on higher side? - Held, she is entitled to Rs.7, 000/- towards pain and suffering; Disability Certificate which shows that there is a fracture and malunion of bones and the disability has been assessed at 30%, therefore it would be fit and proper to award Rs.30, 000/- towards permanent disability; since there is a malunion of bones, there will be a pain in the right leg associated with difficulty in walking and climbing steps. therefore she will not be in a position to work as before, therefore the loss of earning power is fixed at Rs.10, 000/- - Claimant is entitled to the modified compensation of Rs.47, 000/- with interest at 12% p.a. - Appeal disposed of.
|
C.Zophar Jothi Paul vs (1) Chief Educational Officer. Thoothukudi; (2) Director of School Education, Chennai
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 24 Jun 2008]
Right to Information Act, 2005 - Writ Petition for a direction against the second respondent to provide information sought for under RTI Act, 2005 in furtherance of the proceedings initiated by the second respondent - Direction issued - Petition disposed of.
|
Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Tirunelveli vs (1) Ganaesan; (2) Raman
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 24 Jun 2008]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Whether the second respondent/first respondent as the owner of the said load auto or the appellant/second respondent Insurance Company, should pay the compensation to the first respondent/claimant? - Held, first respondent/claimant has been engaged by the second respondent/first respondent as loadman, at the time of the accident and that the accident has taken place during the course of the employment arising out of use of Motor vehicle and that Ex.B.1 policy does not include the first respondent/claimant from claiming compensation for the injuries/disability suffered by him under the contract of employment with the second respondent/first respondent and therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the first respondent/claimant - Appeal disposed of.
|
Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli vs (1) A.V.K.Velayutharaja; (2) State, Represented By Inspector of Police, Sankarankovil Police Station
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 24 Jun 2008]
Electricity Act, 2003 - Whether the first appellate Court was having jurisdiction on 30.12.2003 to pass judgment in Criminal Appeal which was filed to challenge conviction and sentence passed against accused when Electricity Act had come into force on 10.06.2003? - Held, after passing of the Electricity Act, 2003 (i.e., from 10.06.2003), the concerned State Government should constitute Special Courts for the purpose of conducting trials with regard to offences committed u/ss. 135 to 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and further after 10.06.2003, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under the said Act, except upon a complaint as mentioned in s. 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003, therefore, virtually the first appellate Court has no jurisdiction to pass judgment in Criminal Appeal - Appeal allowed.
|
New India Assurance Company Limited, Tirunelveli vs (1) M.Bhagavathy; (2) M.Kanthan (Minor); (3) M.Vanumamalai (Minor); (4) M.Muthu Soundari (Minor); (5) M.Kombiah (Minor); (6) Sundaram; (7) S.Ramasamy Nadar
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 24 Jun 2008]
Whether insurer can be made liable to pay compensation when the insured had committed the breach of policy condition? - Held, since the owner of the vehicle had committed a breach of the policy intentionally, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for the amount claimed by the claimants; it is established satisfactorily that the driver was not having the driving license and the owner has committed breach of the policy conditions - Appeal allowed.
|
Muthulakshmi, Through Her Power Agent, P.Sakthivel vs K.Padmanabhan
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 24 Jun 2008]
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, s. 138 - Appeal against acquittal - Whether the cheques in question have been issued only for the purpose of discharging a legally enforceable debt or other liability - Held, after sale agreement, the cheques in question have lost its legal force and the amounts mentioned in the cheques have merged with sale consideration and after merger, no legally enforceable debt is in existence between the complainant and accused, and since no legally enforceable debt is in existence between them, it is needless to say that the accused has not committed offence u/s. 138 of the NI Act, 1881 - Appeal dismissed.
|
(1) Arvind G. Chaudhari, Sub-Divisional Officer Irrigation, Jalgaon; (2) Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Irrigation Division vs (1) Dhanraj Nathu Patil; (2) Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalgaon
[BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 24 Jun 2008]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act, 1977 - Whether award of Labour court given in complaint filed was illegal on the ground that necessary party-Collector who was responsible for implementation of the Employment Guarantee Scheme, was not made a party in complaint? - Held, persons working under the Employment Guarantee Scheme are not governed by the provisions of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 and the ID Act, 1947 - Employment Guarantee Scheme is not an industry and as such the Labour Court and the Industrial Court will not have jurisdiction to give reliefs - s. 11(1) of MEG Act, 1977 clearly lays down that whenever work taken up under the scheme is completed, providing alternate work is the duty of the Collector or Samiti Officer, so the Collector was the necessary party to the present petition - Petition allowed.
|
(1) N.Mohanam; (2) G.Thirunavukkarasu; (3) S.Parvathy; (4) K.Janakiraman vs (1) Director of School Education, Madras; (2) Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented By Its Secretary To Government, Education Department, Madras
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 23 Jun 2008]
Petition for direction to first respondent to dispose of petitioners' representation within specified period - Direction issued - Petition disposed of.
|
C.Sankar vs (1) Assistant Educational Officer, Kallikudi, Madurai; (2) District Elementary Educational Officer, Madurai
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 23 Jun 2008]
Petition for direction to second respondent to dispose of petitioner's representation within specified period - Direction issued - Petition disposed of.
|
(1) M.Punniyakoti; (2) S.Thirunavukkarasu; (3) M.Selvaraj vs (1) Secretary To Government of Tamil Nadu, Backward Classes Welfare Nutritious Meal Programme and Social Welfare Department, Chennai; (2) Director of Social Defence Chepauk, Chennai; (3) Evlin Baul; (4) S.Selvaraj; (5) S.Rajaram; (6) R.Leela Vanasutha; (7) G.Gurusamy; (8) A.Bala Rajalakshi; (9) A.Rathinam; (10) P.Pakirisamy; (11) Lisi Glori; (12) M.Umarani; (13) S.Venkatakrishnan; (14) Jeyabala Jeyaraj; (15) Inbavani; (16) P.Mani; (17) Rajkumar Sasariyar; (18) S.Francis; (19) R.S.Pandian
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 23 Jun 2008]
Petition to challenge seniority list - Petitioner submitted that in view of affidavit of the respondents wherein respondents agreed that applicants who were promoted to the post of Headmaster (Middle School) in the absence of statutory rules would be reverted and replaced by the eligible persons based on the existing rules, nothing remained to be decided - Petition dismissed
|
Roop Singh @ Rupa vs State of Punjab
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 20 Jun 2008]
Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 302 r/w 34, 449 r/w 34 - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Held, two circumstances highlighted by High Court while upholding the conviction of the appellant do not present a complete chain of circumstances which ruled out the possibility of any other person being the assailant and/or unerringly points to the accused appellant as being guilty of the charged offences - There was no evidence led by prosecution to show that the prints in question came into existence at the time the alleged incident took place - Appeal allowed.
|
Hari Prasad Chhapolia vs Union of India
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 20 Jun 2008]
Customs Act, 1962, s. 135(b)(1); Gold (Control) Act, 1968, ss. 85 (ii), (iii), (viii) and (ix); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 394 - Application for bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased appellant after one year - Held, period of 30 days has been statutorily fixed for making an application by the legal heirs - Need not go into the question as to whether there is scope for condonation of delay as no acceptable explanation has been offered for the delayed presentation - Appeal abated - Disposed of.
|
Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Theni vs (1) Murugan; (2) Rengaraj
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 20 Jun 2008]
Workmen's Compensation Act - Whether an action under the Workmen's Compensation Act can be properly found without establishing that the injury sustained was in the course of or out of employment? - Whether the applicant was entitled to any compensation under the W.C.Act in the absence of any proof that he was a workman under the first opposite party? - Held, without establishing the relationship of master and servant between the parties and without establishing that the accident arose out of and in the course of one's employment, the action under the Workmen's Compensation Act cannot be founded in law - First respondent/claimant has been employed by the second respondent/first respondent for the purpose of his job of plucking mangoes and carrying the same as a load man and the mere fact that the first respondent/claimant has lent services as load man, the same cannot be excluded from the definition of 'workman'; relationship of master and servant between the parties has been established so as to bring the first respondent/claimant within the category of 'workman' under the Act; the very fact that the first respondent/claimant has deposed in his evidence (cross-examination) that his job is to maintain the grove of the second respondent/first respondent, shows his relationship by contract of service between them - Appeal dismissed.
|
|