advocatemmmohan
just another law knowledge bank
Aftab Alam
Whether suit filed by appellant was barred in terms of Order XXIII Rule 3-A CPC – Held: A compromise forming the basis of the decree can only be questioned before the same court that recorded the compromise and a fresh suit for setting aside a compromise decree is expressly barred under Order XXIII Rule 3-A – However, in the instant case, the compromise decree alleged to be fraudulent was passed not by a civil court but by a revenue court in a suit u/s.176 of the Land Reforms Act – Revenue courts are neither equipped nor competent to effectively adjudicate on allegations of fraud that has overtones of criminality and the courts really skilled and experienced to try such issues are the courts constituted under the CPC – Further, under s.9 of CPC, the civil court has inherent jurisdiction to try all types of civil disputes unless its jurisdiction is barred expressly or by necessary implication, by any statutory provision and conferred on any other tribunal or authority – Nothing in Order XXIII Rule 3-A bars the institution of a suit before the civil court even in regard to decrees or orders passed in suits and/or proceedings under different statutes before a court, tribunal or authority of limited and restricted jurisdiction – In the facts of the case, provision of Order XXIII not a bar against the suit filed by the appellant – Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 – ss. 176, 178, 182, 331 and 341 and Schedule II. = HORIL … APPELLANT VERSUS KESHAV & ANR. … RESPONDENTS = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/helddis.aspx
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XXIII, r.3-A – Suit – Maintainability – Appellant filed suit seeking declaration that decree passed by the Assistant Collector, Class-I, in a suit u/ss.176, 178 and 182 of the Land Reforms Act was fraudulent, inoperative and not binding upon him – Allegation that decree passed by Assistant Collector was … Continue reading
The trial court further observed that since the accused denied the very occurrence, no reliance could be placed on the alleged injuries suffered by them, insofar as the trial of S.C. No. 84/1993 is concerned.- Nonetheless, we have gone through the records to see the individual culpability of the seven appellants but we find that the judgment of the High Court is faultless and the conviction of the seven appellants has been arrived at correctly and on a proper appreciation of the prosecution evidence. 20. We, thus, find no merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed. The bail bond of Gangappa Ningappa Ugarkhod, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 683 of 2005, is cancelled and he is order to surrender within 4 weeks, failing which the trial court is directed to take coercive steps to take him in custody and to make him serve out the remaining sentence.
Page 1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.683 OF 2005 GANGAPPA NINGAPPA UGARKOHOD … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA … RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1064 OF 2005 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.47 OF 2007 J U D G M E N T Aftab Alam, J. 1. These three appeals arise … Continue reading
contempt petition = At first sight the conduct of the respondent may indeed appear contumacious but, a careful scrutiny of the material facts makes it clear that respondent No.1 cannot really be held guilty of contempt.= we find it difficult to hold with any conviction that on the date the interim order of injunction was passed against the contemnor, there was, in fact, no money in his account with the PICTET& CIE, Geneva. However, one thing is clear from the decision of the Swiss Court; that is, on November 30, 1995, a sum of $2,81,00,000 was credited to the contemnor’s personal account from the amount deposited by the petitioner in the account of Karsan. We would like to see the bank statement of the contemnor’s Account No. 91925 held with PICTET & CIE Bank from November 30, 1995 till the date of the closure of the account on July 25, 2006 to see the inflow and outflow of money from that account. a copy of the bank statement certified by Pictet and Cie bank, Geneva. From the bank statement it appears that the entire amount in account No.91925 was withdrawn by June 21, 2006 and on that date, the balance had become nil. The bank has also issued a certificate dated September 13, 2010 stating that account No.91925 was closed in their books on July 25, 2006. = In the case in hand on taking into account all the circumstances as discussed above, we are of the view that it would not be wholly reasonable to hold that the respondent withdrew large amounts from his account with Pictet in violation of this Court’s orders. For the reasons discussed above, we hold that the respondent cannot be held guilty of contempt. 44. Coming back to the order, dated April 1, 2010 by which this Court held that the respondent had withdrawn money from his account with Pictet by flouting the orders of this Court, it is to be noted that that order is founded on the premise that the respondent had not denied the allegation made by the petitioner against him. It is, however, to be noted that the respondent in his reply to the contempt petition filed on March 3, 2010 had stated in paragraph 2 (XIV) as under: “The Respondent takes liberty for reiterating that he has not withdrawn any amount in spite of (sic.) the order passed by this Hon’ble Court.” 45. The order dated April 1, 2010, was, thus, clearly based on an erroneous premise of fact. It is, accordingly, recalled. 46. For the reasons discussed above, we find no merit in the contempt petition. It is dismissed.
Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.320 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.926 OF 2006 NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD. … PETITIONER/ APPELLANT VERSUS TUNCAY ALANKUS & ANR. …RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T Aftab Alam, J. 1. This petition is filed under Article 129 of … Continue reading
a notification dated July 7, 2005 issued by the Central Government under section 10(1) of the Act. The notification was issued after due consultation with the Central Advisory Central Labour Board with regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour and other relevant factors enumerated in sub-section 2 of section 10 and it prohibited the employment of contract labour “in the works of sleeper renewal of railway Tracks, repairing, restoration and laying and linkage of tracks in the establishment of Kolkata Port Trust, Kolkata” with effect from the date of publication of the notification in the official gazette.= the division bench has carved out an exception in favour of the respondent, Port Trust of Calcutta (hereinafter, “Port Trust”) from a notification issued by the Central Government under section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter “the Act”) and held that the notification “would not in any way affect the right of the Port Trust to assign the work of laying and linkage of railway tracks as one time measure of (sic. to) RITES, another Central Government Organization”. Whether the work of laying and linking of tracks is of perennial nature and whether workers engaged through contractors are employed by the Port trust for that work are pure questions of fact that were investigated by the statutory committee constituted under section 5 of the Act and are covered by the recommendations made both by the Committee and by the Advisory Board. It was, therefore, quite wrong for the division bench of the High Court to completely nullify that part of the notification in a highly casual and off- hand manner and simply on the ipse dixit of the respondent; more so as the division bench did not otherwise find any illegality in the notification in question. In light of the discussion made above, we see no justification for the division bench of the High Court to carve out the exception and to rationalize the assignment of the contract to RITES merely on the ground that it is another Central Government organization. The High Court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. 19. We are, therefore, unable to sustain the impugned order passed by the division bench. The order of the division bench of the High Court is set aside and the order of the learned single Judge is restored.
Page 1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2771 OF 2013 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.3104 OF 2011) BALESHWAR RAJBANSHI & ORS. … APPELLANTS VERSUS BD. OF TRUSTEES FOR PORT TRUST OF CALCUTTA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T Aftab Alam, J. 1. Leave … Continue reading
The Public Service Commission Uttaranchal issued an advertisement dated February 26, 2006 for appointment to the posts of Veterinary Doctor in the department of Animal Husbandry. One of the conditions essential for making an application was that the applicant should be duly registered with Uttaranchal Veterinary Council. 3. The aforesaid condition was challenged before the Uttarakhand High Court in Writ Petition(S/B) No.98 of 2006. The High Court passed a very= “….This is in breach of constitutional mandate contained in Article 16 of the Constitution of India. In the event registration as a Veterinary Surgeon is considered to be the minimum eligible qualification, henceforth the State Government would ensure that persons registered as Veterinary Surgeons are entitled to respond to advertisements for recruitment of Veterinary Surgeons and shall not insist for the candidates to be registered as Veterinary Surgeons of the State of Uttarakhand.”- We are of the view that the issue before the High Court was quite serious and merited consideration in greater detail. We are unable to sustain the very brief order passed by the High Court on this serious issue. We, accordingly, set aside the order and remit the matter to the High Court to hear the parties afresh and to pass appropriate orders after taking into consideration not only the provisions of the Constitution but also the relevant statutory provisions. 5. Needless to say that since the order of the High Court is set aside, it will be open to the State Public Service Commission to adhere to the previous terms as long as the High Court does not take a contrary view in the matter. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.
Page 1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2772 OF 2013 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.17295 OF 2011] State of Uttarakhand through Secretary … Appellant Versus Kumari Amita Singh & Ors. … Respondents J U D G M E N T Aftab Alam, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The … Continue reading
service matter – Respondent No.4, Rajeswar Panda filed an appeal before the Director, Higher Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, stating that he was appointed as a lecturer in History in Sushree Devi Women’s College, Aul, Kendrapara after due selection but he was not allowed to discharge his duties because the Governing Body of the College tried to accommodate the appellant in his place. The appeal was disposed of by the Director by an ex parte order vide office order No.2A-9-07-III: 30092 dated July 23, 2008 holding that the action of the General Body in prohibiting the applicant (respondent No.4 in the present appeal) from discharging his duties was invalid and illegal and requested the Secretary of the Governing Body to forthwith allow respondent No.4 to perform his duties as a lecturer in the college.We are of the view that the matter has not been satisfactorily dealt with and at the same time there are materials to suggest that respondent No.4 was able to obtain the ex parte order from the Director on the basis of a document, the genuineness of which is doubtful. We, therefore, deem it just and proper to set aside all the previous orders passed both by the High Court and the Director and remit the case to the Director to consider the matter afresh after hearing respondent No.4, the Governing Body of the College and the appellant and pass a fresh order on his appeal in accordance with law. We are informed that different proceedings/cases arising from the earlier orders passed by the Director are pending before the High Court and/or in other courts. As we have set aside all the earlier orders, any proceedings arising therefrom pending before any court shall also stand abated. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above but with no order as to costs.
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5670 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.32029 of 2010) Jayanti Kumari Nayak … Appellant Versus State of Orissa & Ors. … Respondents J U D G M E N T Aftab Alam, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Respondent No.4, Rajeswar Panda … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 