//
archives

travel

This tag is associated with 89 posts

The appellant was awarded the work relating to the construction of residential and non-residential building at Central Excavation Training Institute (CETI) vide work order dated 25.2.1987 for an amount of Rs.68,91,589/-. Appellant submits that for want of final drawings and delay in the supply of cement and other construction materials, including supply of water, the work was delayed, but completed on 1.4.1989 and handed over the buildings to the respondent. We are of the view that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the amount awarded in respect of the water charges which comes to Rs.1,68,890.25. Going by the general terms and conditions of the contract, in our view, the department was bound to supply water, so found by the arbitrator, in our view, rightly. Therefore, that part of the award of the Arbitrator, with regard to the water charges, is upheld. However, the High Court, in our view, rightly denied the claim with regard to plaster of paris, therefore, not interfered with. Appeals are disposed of accordingly, subject to the above modification of the judgment of the High Court. However, there will be no order as to costs.

Non-Reportable   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6262 OF 2012 @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.24337 of 2009 NAND CONTR. & ENGR. THR G.D. AHUJA … Appellant(s) Versus NORTHERN COAL FIELD LTD. & ANR. … Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6263 OF 2012 @ Special Leave Petition (C) … Continue reading

question of granting anticipatory bail.= the appellant visited the police station on 23.03.2012, 20.07.2012, 24.07.2012 and 27.07.2012, it is brought to our notice that at the relevant period, viz., 07.04.2012, 01.05.2012 and 18.06.2012, he neither visited the police station nor contacted Mr. Narender Khatri, Inspector – Investigation, Punjabi Bagh Police Station. The last three dates are relevant since after getting the interim protection granted by this Court on 23.03.2012, the appellant did not care either to visit the police station or to the Investigation Officer concerned. The claim of his visit on later dates, particularly, in the month of July, 2012 have no relevance. Considering his conduct, not amenable for investigation and, moreover, declaring him as an absconder, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail.= We make it clear that while upholding the rejection of the anticipatory bail, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. We also clarify that after surrender, the appellant is free to move bail application before the Court concerned which may be disposed of in accordance with law. 16) With the above observation, the appeal is dismissed and the interim protection granted by this Court on 23.03.2012 stands vacated. The appellant is directed to surrender within a period of one week from today.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 2 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1331 OF 2012 3 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1961 of 2012 Lavesh …. Appellant(s) Versus State (NCT of Delhi) …. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T P. Sathasivam, J. 1) Leave granted. 2) This appeal … Continue reading

In view of the aforesaid judgments of the Constitution Benches, we hold that Article 254(2) of the Constitution is not available to the appellants for seeking a declaration that the Market Act would prevail over the Control Order and that transactions involving the purchase of sugarcane by the factories operating in the market areas would be governed by the provisions contained in the Market Act. As a corollary, we hold that the High Court did not commit any error by quashing the notices issued by appellant – Market Committees to the respondents requiring them to take licence under the Market Act and pay market fee on the purchase of sugarcane from Cane Growers/Cane Growers Cooperative Societies.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6186 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.19092 of 2006) Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Narsinghpur … Appellant(s) versus M/s. Shiv Shakti Khansari Udyog and others … Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL NO.6187 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.3414 of 2007) CIVIL APPEAL NO.6188 … Continue reading

As far as the land meant for the Children’s amusement park is concerned, the same was hardly put to the full use. In as much as this entire parcel of land of about 7 acres was not utilized, and since it was an open parcel of land, there was nothing wrong in the State Government deciding to retain it as an open parcel of land, and to change the land-use thereof from commercial to a regional park. The notification cannot be faulted on that count either. 27. In the circumstances, we do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High Court. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Parties will bear their own costs.

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 6105 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP No. 16416 OF 2011) Mangal Amusement Park (P) Ltd. & Anr. … Appellants Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Others … Respondents J U D G E M E N T H.L. Gokhale J. Leave … Continue reading

materials on record do not show that Shri P. Chidambaram had abused his position as a Minister of Finance or conspired or colluded with A. Raja so as to fix low entry fee by non- visiting spectrum charges fixed in the year 2001. No materials are also made available even for a prima facie conclusion that Shri P. Chidambaram had deliberately allowed dilution of equity of the two companies, i.e. Swan and Unitech. No materials is also available even prima facie to conclude that Shri P. Chidambaram had abused his official position, or used any corrupt or illegal means for obtaining any pecuniary advantage for himself or any other persons, including Shri A. Raja. 54. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that no case is made out to interfere with the order dated 4.2.2012 in C.C. No. 01 (A) / 11 passed by Special Judge CBI (04) (2G Spectrum Cases), New Delhi or to grant reliefs prayed for in I.A. No. 34 of 2012. Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1688 of 2012 is, therefore, not entertained, so also I.A. No. 34 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No.10660 of 2010 and they are accordingly stand rejected. …………………………J. (G.S. Singhvi)

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No.1688 of 2012 and I.A. No. 34 of 2012 In CIVIL APPEAL No. 10660 of 2010 Subramanian Swamy ? Petitioner/ Appellant(s) Versus A. Raja ? Respondent O R D E R K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Common questions arise for consideration in … Continue reading

No provision of any statute or any rules framed thereunder has been shown to us, which permits rounding-off of eligibility criteria prescribed for the qualifying examination for admission to the PG course in M.SC (Nursing). When eligibility criteria is prescribed in a qualifying examination, it must be strictly adhered to. Any dilution or tampering with it will work injustice on other candidates. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in holding that learned Single Judge was right in rounding-off of 54.71% to 55% so as to make respondent 1 eligible for admission to PG course. Such rounding-off is impermissible. 11. We make it clear that this order merely settles the question of law and shall not have any adverse impact, in any manner, on the service of respondent 1. 12. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5992 OF 2012 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8442 of 2011) THE REGISTRAR, RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, BANGALORE … APPELLANT VS. G. HEMLATHA AND OTHERS … RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT (SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. … Continue reading

“13-B.Divorce by mutual consent – (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the district Court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment)Act, 1976, on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.. It is quite clear from the materials on record that although the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 26.3.2011, within 3 months of the marriage the petitioner filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for a decree of nullity of the marriage. Thereafter, they have not been able to live together and lived separately for more than 1 year. In effect, there appears to be no marital ties between the parties at all. It is only the provisions of Section 13-B(2) of the aforesaid Act which is keeping the formal ties of marriage between the parties subsisting in name only. At least the condition indicated in Section 13-B for grant of a decree of dissolution of marriage by the mutual consent is present in the instant case. It is only on account of the statutory cooling period of six months that the parties have to wait for a decree of dissolution of marriage to be passed. 13. In the above circumstances, in our view, this is one of those cases where we may invoke and exercise the powers vested in the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. The marriage is subsisting by a tenuous thread on account of the statutory cooling off period, out of which four months have already expired. When it has not been possible for the parties to live together and to discharge their marital obligations towards each other for more than one year, we see no reason to continue the agony of the parties for another two months. 14. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and also convert the pending proceedings under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Additional District Judge-01, West Delhi, into one under Section 13-B of the aforesaid Act and by invoking our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, we grant a decree of mutual divorce to the parties and direct that the marriage between the parties shall stand dissolved by mutual consent. The proceedings before the Additional District Judge-01, West Delhi, being HMA No.204 of 2012, is withdrawn to this Court on consent of the parties and disposed of by this order. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and also convert the pending proceedings under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Additional District Judge-01, West Delhi, into one under Section 13-B of the aforesaid Act and by invoking our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, we grant a decree of mutual divorce to the parties and direct that the marriage between the parties shall stand dissolved by mutual consent. The proceedings before the Additional District Judge-01, West Delhi, being HMA No.204 of 2012, is withdrawn to this Court on consent of the parties and disposed of by this order.

|REPORTABLE | IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5946 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.21084 of 2012)   1 Devinder Singh Narula … Appellant   Vs.     2 Meenakshi Nangia … Respondent     J U D G M E N T   ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted. … Continue reading

Whether M/s. Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd., and five other companies (hereinafter described as the appellants), who are said to have purchased the suit property, i.e. 21, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi in violation of the order of injunction passed by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court are entitled to be impleaded as parties to Suit No.425/1993 filed by respondent No.1 – M/s. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. is one of the two questions which arises for consideration in these appeals filed against judgment dated 20.2.2009 of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The other question which needs consideration is whether the Delhi High Court was justified in appointing a receiver with a direction to take possession of the suit property despite the fact that the Calcutta High Court had already appointed a receiver at the instance of M/s. Bhagwati Developers Pvt. Ltd. (for short, ‘Bhagwati Developers’).In the result, the appeals are dismissed. For their contumacious conduct of suppressing facts from the Calcutta High Court and thereby prolonging the litigation, the appellants and Bhagwati Developers are saddled with cost of Rs.5 lakhs each. The amount of cost shall be deposited by them with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within a period of three months. 44. Since the proceedings pending before the Delhi High Court were stayed by this Court, we request the High Court to make an endeavour to dispose of the pending suit as early as possible.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5918 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11501 of 2009) Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. and others … Appellants versus Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. and others … Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL NO.5917 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) … Continue reading

Bail: Allegations against respondent no.1 that he had huge amount of unaccounted money, that documents recovered from his premises contained instructions issued by him for transfer of various amounts to different persons from the bank accounts held by him outside India and the said monies were the proceeds of crime and by depositing the same in his bank accounts, respondent no.1 had attempted to project the same as untainted money – Further allegation that the said amount ran into billions of dollars; that respondent no.1 had obtained at least three passports in his name by submitting false documents, making false statements and by suppressing the fact that he already had a passport; that Income Tax Department had for the Assessment Years 2001-02 to 2007-08 assessed his total income as Rs.110,412,68,85303/- – Investigations also revealed that he sold a diamond from the collection of Nizam of Hyderabad and routed the proceeds through his account in Bank in Switzerland to a Bank in United Kingdom – High Court allowed bail application of respondent no.1 – On appeal, held: There was no attempt on part of respondent no.1 to disclose the source of the large sums of money handled by him – The allegations may not ultimately be established, but the burden of proof that the said monies were not the proceeds of crime and were not tainted shifted to respondent no.1 u/s.24 of PML Act – The amount lying in the Swiss bank was not explained by respondent no.1 – He was also not able to establish that the sum of Rs.110,412,68,85303/- were neither proceeds of crime nor tainted property – Manner in which he procured three different passports in his name after his original passport was directed to be deposited in court also lend support to apprehension that if released on bail, he may abscond – Bail granted to Respondent no.1 cancelled – Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.4 – FEMA – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439. Bail – Application for cancellation of bail, and appeal against order granting bail – Distinction between. State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21: 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 454 – relied on. Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI, Bombay (II) (1994) 5 SCC 410: 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 263; Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra (2001) 5 SCC 453: 2001 (2) SCR 878 – referred to. Case Law Reference: 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 263 referred to Para 17 2001 (2) SCR 878 referred to Para 17 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 454 relied on Para 27 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1883 of 2011. From the Judgment & Order dated 12.8.2011 of the High Court of Bombay i Criminal Bail Appliction No. 994 of 2011. A. Mariarputham, Rajiv Nanda, Revati Mohite, T.A. Khan, Anirudh Sharma, Anando Mukherjee, Harsh Parekh and B. Krishna Prasad for the Appellant. Ishwari Prasad A. Bagaria, Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, Santosh Paul, Uma Ishwari Bagaria, Arti Singh, Arvind Gupta, Mohita Bagati, Kamal Nijhawan and Asha Gopalan Nair for the Respondents.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1883 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.6114 OF 2011) Union of India … Appellant Vs. Hassan Ali Khan & Anr. … Respondents O R D E R ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The Special Leave Petition out of which this … Continue reading

the Court would not normally interfere with the policy decision and in matters challenging the award of contract by the State or public authorities. In view of the above, the appellant has failed to establish that the same was contrary to public interest and beyond the pale of discrimination or unreasonable. We are satisfied that to have the best of the equipment for the vehicles, which ply on road carrying passengers, the 2nd respondent thought it fit that the criteria for applying for tender for procuring tyres should be at a high standard and thought it fit that only those manufacturers who satisfy the eligibility criteria should be permitted to participate in the tender. As noted in various decisions, the Government and their undertakings must have a free hand in setting terms of the tender and only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias, the Courts would interfere. The Courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical. In the case on hand, we have already noted that taking into account various aspects including the safety of the passengers and public interest, the CMG consisting of experienced persons, revised the tender conditions. We are satisfied that the said Committee had discussed the subject in detail and for specifying these two conditions regarding pre-qualification criteria and the evaluation criteria. On perusal of all the materials, we are satisfied that the impugned conditions do not, in any way, could be classified as arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 2 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5898 OF 2012 3 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25802 of 2008   M/s Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. …. Appellant (s) Versus The State of Karnataka & Ors. …. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T P. … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 1,937,068 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

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

Join 1,874 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com