perimeter wall

This tag is associated with 24 posts

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

Today the original applicant is not available and his wife is pursuing this litigation. By a Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995, after making references to various other earlier resolutions of the Government of Maharashtra relating to grant of Freedom Fighters’ Pension, the criteria for grant of Freedom Fighters’ Pension was specified under two different categories, namely, one under “Prisoners Freedom Fighter” and the other under the category of “Underground Freedom Fighter”. A perusal of the documents enclosed by the appellant’s husband along with his application disclose that the appellant’s husband made out a case for grant of Freedom Fighters’ Pension under the category “Underground Freedom Fighter”. Applying the broad principles laid down in the decision of this Court in Gurdial Singh (supra), it will have to be held that there was nothing more for the State to examine to honour the claim of the appellant’s husband for grant of Freedom Fighters’ Pension. The claim of the appellant’s husband cannot be held to be a fraudulent one or without any supporting material.-The respondent State is directed to grant Freedom Fighters’ Pension in favour of the appellant’s husband and since he is no more, grant the same with all arrears to the appellant by passing appropriate orders expeditiously preferably within four weeks from the date of communication of copy of this order. We hope and trust that the State Government will not indulge in any further delay in the matter of grant of pension so as to enable the appellant to avail the benefits at least during her life time. The appeal stands allowed with the above directions to the respondent State. No costs.

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5344 OF 2012 (@ SLP (C) NO. 8899 OF 2010)   Kamalbai Sinkar ….Appellant VERSUS State of Maharashtra & Ors. .…Respondents J U D G M E N T   Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises … Continue reading

Act: Constitution of India, 1950 : Articles 226 and 227-Order of Debt Recovery Tribunal-Remedy of appeal available u/s 20 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993-Exercise of jurisdiction by High Court under Articles 226/227.-Decree passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal-Direction given to Recovery Officer to proceed to realise the amount by sale of plant and machinery and mortgaged property-Order challenged by guarantor whose property was mortgaged before High Court under Article 227-High Court allowing the petition- Citation: 2001 AIR 3208,2001(1 )Suppl.SCR466 ,2001(6 )SCC569 ,2001(5 )SCALE196 ,2001(6 )JT408Held, order of Tribunal was appealable u/s. 20-High Court ought hot to have exercised jurisdiction under Article 227-The Act has been enacted with a view to provide a special procedure for recovery of debts due to bank and financial institutions-There is hierarchy of appeal provided in the Act and this fast track procedure cannot be allowed to be derailed either by taking recourse to proceedings under Articles 226 and-227 or by filing a civil suit-When there is an alternative remedy courts should refrain from exercising jurisdiction under constitutional provisions- Filing of a civil suit is expressly barred-Alternative remedy-Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993-ss.18 and 20. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5287 of 2001. From the Judgment and Order dated 6.6.2000 of the Calcutta High Court in Co. No. 1305/97. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Ms. Shobha, Ms. Anu Mehta, Mr. Saptrishi Ghosh and Mr. S.K. Mehta for the Appellant. Mr. V.J. Francis for the Respondents.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5287 of 2001 PETITIONER: PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK RESPONDENT: O.C. KRISHNAN AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/08/2001 BENCH: B.N. KIRPAL & N. SANTOSH HEGDE JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2001 Supp(1) SCR 466 The following Order of the Court was delivered : Special leave granted. In … Continue reading

how to ascertain benefit of doubt ?=“…Thus too frequent acquittals of the guilty may lead to a ferocious penal law, eventually eroding the judicial protection of the guiltless. For all these reasons it is true to say, with Viscount Simon, that “a miscarriage of justice may arise from the acquittal of the guilty no less than from the conviction of the innocent …” In short, our jurisprudential enthusiasm for presumed innocence must be moderated by the pragmatic need to make criminal justice potent and realistic. A balance has to be struck between chasing chance possibilities as good enough to set the delinquent free and chopping the logic of preponderant probability to punish marginal innocents. We have adopted these cautions in analysing the evidence and appraising the soundness of the contrary conclusions reached by the courts below. Certainly, in the last analysis reasonable doubts must operate to the advantage of the appellant…” Therefore, in such a case the paramount importance of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided. The benefit of doubt particularly in every case may not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion and thereby destroy social defence. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the acquittal in the instant case by the trial court was totally illegal, unwarranted and based on mis-appreciation of evidence for the reason that the court had given undue weightage to unimportant discrepancies and inconsistencies which resulted in miscarriage of justice. Thus, the High Court was fully justified in reversing the order of acquittal.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1340 of 2007 Ramesh Harijan …..Appellant Versus   State of U.P. …. Respondent   JUDGMENT Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.   l. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.3.2007 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in … Continue reading

The Department of Medical and Family Welfare, Government of Chhattisgarh, vide its letter dated 10th September, 2010 cancelled the admission granted to Akansha Adile and Priya Gupta in the MBBS course for the academic year 2006-07 in the Government NMDC Medical College, Jagdalpur (for short, the Jagdalpur College) with immediate effect.Accordingly, we order as follows: – 1. Though, we find no merit in the appeal preferred by the appellants and the judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity, still, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we permit the appellants to complete their MBBS course as general candidates in the Government Medical College, Jagdalpur, subject to their paying a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs each, within one week from today. 2. In the event of default of payment or failure to file proof of payment in the Registry of this Court, not only will the present appeal stand dismissed on merits, but we also direct that the exam results of the defaulting appellant will not be declared, they will not be conferred with the degree of MBBS by the Jagdalpur College and the Medical Council of India shall not register their names on the rolls maintained by it or the State Council, as the case may be. 3. For the reasons afore-stated, if their admissions are cancelled, there being no claimants for these seats, the seats will go waste and the entire expenditure incurred by the State would also be wasted. After so many years, it would be an exercise in futility to cancel their admissions, which, but for the interim orders, could be avoided. An undue advantage from the interim orders has accrued in favour of the appellants. With all the humility at our command, we request the High Courts to ensure strict adherence to the prescribed time schedule, process of selection and to the rule of merit. We reiterate what has been stated by this Court earlier, that except in very exceptional cases, the High Court may consider it appropriate to decline interim orders and hear the main petitions finally, subject to convenience of the Court. We may refer the dictum of this Court in the case of Medical Council of India v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences [(2004) 6 SCC 76, para 14] in this regard. 4. We have categorically returned a finding that all the relevant stakeholders have failed to perform their duty/obligation in accordance with law. Where the time schedules have not been complied with, and rule of merit has been defeated, there nepotism and manipulation have prevailed. The stands of various authorities are at variance with each other and none admits to fault. Thus, it is imperative for this Court to ensure proper implementation of judgments of this Court and the regulations of the Medical Council of India as well as not to overlook the arbitrary and colourable exercise of power by the concerned authorities/colleges. 5. Therefore, we hereby direct initiation of proceedings against the following under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Let notice be issued to the following, to show cause why they be not punished in accordance with law. a. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Union of India. b. Dr. S.L. Adile, Director, Medical Education. c. Dean of the Jagdalpur College. d. Dr. M.S. Banjan, Member of the Selection Committee. e. Dr. P.D. Agarwal, Member of the Selection Committee. f. Shri Padmakar Sasane, Member of the Selection Committee. g. Director General, Directorate of Health Services, Union of India. 5. Notice be issued returnable in two weeks, on which day the matter shall be listed before this Court. Registry shall maintain separate file for that purpose. 6. All concerned authorities are hereby directed to carry out the directions and orders contained in this judgment, particularly paragraphs 30 and 31 of the judgment forthwith. The directions shall be applicable for the academic year 2012-2013 itself. 54. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to all concerned authorities, forthwith, for strict compliance and adherence, without demur and default. 55. Both the appeals are disposed of with the above directions.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4318 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.27089 of 2011) Priya Gupta … Appellant Versus State of Chhatishgarh & Ors. … Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4319 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29306 of 2011) J U D … Continue reading

The cumulative effect of all the injuries was obviously known to each of the accused, i.e., all the injuries inflicted were bound to result in the death of the deceased which, in fact, they intended. Furthermore, the doctor, PW14, had opined that the deceased had died because of multiple injuries and fracture on the vital organs, due to shock and haemorrhage. In other words, even as per the medical evidence, the injuries were caused on the vital parts of the body of the deceased. 23. For these reasons, we are unable to accept the contention raised on behalf of the appellants that this is a case where the Court should exercise its discretion to alter the offence to one under Section 304 Part II or Section 326 IPC from that under Section 302 IPC. We also find the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants to be without merit that accused Gokul alone is liable to be convicted, if at all, under Section 302 IPC and all other accused should be acquitted. We reject this contention in light of the discussion above and the fact that all these accused have been specifically implicated by PW1 and PW2, the Investigating Officer, PW26 and the medical evidence. 24. Having found no substance in the pleas raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, we hereby dismiss the appeal.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2003 OF 2008 Atmaram & Ors. … Appellants Versus State of Madhya Pradesh … Respondent       J U D G M E N T Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of … Continue reading

convicted under sec.326 of I.P.C. AS The prosecution has indeed failed to establish that the deceased eventually died on account of injuries sustained by him resulting in the acquittal of accused persons under Section 302 IPC, but that part of the order passed by the Courts below does not warrant rejection of the prosecution case in toto.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 802 OF 2012 (Arising out S.L.P. (Crl.) No.2904 of 2011) Para Seenaiah & Anr. …Appellants Versus State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents With CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 804-806 OF 2012 (Arising out S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.5597-5599 of 2011) Damineni Rathnamma …Appellant … Continue reading

The custody of female child aged 9 years, likes to remain with her father , on the petition of the mother the Apex court after interviewing the child fixed 3 days day time custody on three different days as observation period to know the changes of the child when she is with her mother under special circumstances of the case and directed the High court mediation center to report the matter.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 2 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.8160 OF 2011   Meenakshi Khandelwal …. Petitioner (s) Versus Shailesh Khandelwal …. Respondent(s)     O R D E R   P. Sathasivam, J.1) By consent of both the parties, the Principal Judge, Family Court,Raipur, vide order dated 01.02.2008, … Continue reading

The SCBA has framed its Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations, Rule 4 whereof divides the Members into four separate classes, namely, :- (i) Resident Members; (ii) Non-Resident Members; iii) Associate Members; and iv) Non-Active Members. Rule 5(v)(a) provides that in terms of Rule 5, an Applicant found to be suitable to be made a Member of the Association would be made Member initially on temporary basis for a period of two years. It also provides that a person who is made such a Member, would be identified as a temporary Member who would be entitled to avail the facilities of the Association, such as library and canteen, but would not have a right to participate in general meetings, as prescribed in Rule 21 or to contest and vote at the elections, as provided in Rule 18. In the said meeting, a requisition signed by 237 Members of the SCBA to recall the Resolution dated 18th February, 2003, was taken up for consideration, but deferred on account of the fact that the elections had been declared. Moreover, in the meeting of the Executive Committee held on 10th March, 2003, it was resolved to constitute an Implementation Committee to implement the Resolution of “One Bar One Vote”, which was adopted in the General Body Meeting of 18th February, 2003. 5. The apparent differences, which have surfaced between the two groups of Members within the SCBA, resulted in Mr. B.D. Kaushik filing Suit No.100 of 2003 in the Court of Shri Sanjeev Jain, Commercial Civil Judge, Delhi, challenging the validity of the Resolution adopted by the Executive Committee of the SCBA on 18th February, 2003. While seeking a decree for a declaration that the Resolution dated 18th February, 2003, was illegal and ineffective, the Plaintiff also prayed for a decree of perpetual injunction to restrain the SCBA and the Office Bearers from implementing the said Resolution dated 18th February, 2003, in the elections of the SCBA which were proposed to be held on 25th April, 2003. A further prayer was made to restrain the SCBA from debarring any of the Members of the SCBA who had already paid their subscription from casting their votes in the elections which were scheduled to be held on 25th April, 2003. A similar Suit No.101 of 2003 was filed before the same learned Judge by Shri A.K. Manchanda, seeking the same relief as had been sought by Mr. B.D. Kaushik in his Suit No.100 of 2003. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos.3401 and 3402 of 2003 is allowed. All the Resolutions purported to have been adopted in the General Body Meeting of the SCBA held on 16th January, 2012, and the meeting of the Executive Committee are held to be invalid and are set aside. Consequently, the composition of the Office Bearers of the SCBA prior to the adoption of the alleged resolutions of 16th January, 2012, stand restored. The alleged resolution expelling the three senior members of the SCBA constituting the Implementation Committee appointed under the directions of this Court, is set aside. The Implementation Committee shall, therefore, continue with the work assigned to it for identification of the members of the SCBA eligible to vote in the elections in terms of the directions given in the judgment dated 26th September, 2011. However, if any member of the SCBA is aggrieved by the methodology adopted by the Implementation Committee for identification of such eligible members, he/she may make a representation to the Executive Committee of the SCBA within a fortnight from date and if such a representation or representations is or are received within the specified period, the Executive Committee of the SCBA will look into such objections and take a decision thereupon and, if necessary, to apply to the Court, before further steps are taken by the Implementation Committee in regard to identification of members eligible to vote at the elections. For a period of two weeks, the Implementation Committee shall not take any further steps in the matter, and shall, thereafter, resume the work of identification of members of the SCBA eligible to vote on the instructions that may be given by the Executive Committee of the SCBA in this regard. The process of identifying the members of the SCBA eligible to vote in the elections for selection of the members of the Executive Committee must be completed within four weeks from the date of individual objections received, if any, are decided finally. Thereafter, the SCBA shall set the dates for the election schedule, including publication of the list of members of the SCBA eligible to vote in the elections, so that the elections can be held once the final list is approved and published. 53. We expect all the members of the SCBA to cooperate with the Implementation Committee and the Executive Committee of the SCBA to complete the publication of the list of members of the SCBA eligible to vote in the elections within the time specified, and, thereafter, to cooperate in the conducting of the elections for the election of the Office Bearers of the SCBA. 54. I.A. No.1 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos.3401 and 3402 of 2003 is thus disposed of. Let copies of this order be made available to the President of the SCBA and the members of the Implementation Committee for immediate compliance. A copy of the operative portion of this judgment may also be put up on the web-site and Notice Board of the SCBA for general information of all of its members. All connected IAs are also disposed of by this order. 55. Having regard to the observations made hereinabove, the Contempt Petition No.45 of 2012, filed in the civil appeals by Dr. Parvin Kumar Mutreja, Advocate, and two others, is also disposed of by virtue of this order.

|REPORTABLE | IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A. NO.1 OF 2012 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3401 OF 2003 1 2 Supreme Court Bar Association & Ors. … Appellants Vs. 2 B.D. Kaushik … Respondent WITH I.A. NO.1 OF 2012 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.3402 OF 2003 AND CONT. PET. (C) NO.45 OF 2012 … Continue reading

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.300(1) – Scope of -s.300(1) is wider than Article 20(2) of the Constitution – While, Article 20(2) only states that `no one can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once’, s.300 (1) states that no one can be tried and convicted for the same offence or even for a different offence but on the same facts – In the instant case, accused was already convicted u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – He cannot be again tried or punished on the same facts under s.420 or any other provision of IPC or any other statute – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 20(2) – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.420. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1160 of 2006. From the Judgment AND Order dated 7.10.2005 of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1581 of 1999 and Criminal Revision Case No. 312 of 1999. Bina Madhavan, Vinita Sasidharan (for Lawyer’s Knit AND Co.) for the Appellant. Ramesh Allanki (for D. Mahesh Babu) for the Respondents.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1160 OF 2006Kolla Veera Raghav Rao ..AppellantversusGorantla Venkateswara Rao & Anr. ..RespondentsO R D E RHeard learned counsel for the parties.This Appeal has been filed against the impugnedjudgment and order dated 07th October, 2005 passed by theHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,192 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com