2008 SCCL.COM 467(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 2699, 2700, 2701 of 2008)
Hakam Singh with Mohinder Kaur (D) by LRs. & others and Nasib Singh & others Appellants versus State of Haryana and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 5/9/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.
Subject Index: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — order 41 — rule 27 — an application under — dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order. However, the application for acceptance of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CODE was not considered by the High Court while disposing of the appeal — matter remitted — High Court passed in the aforesaid appeals, this court sets aside the same and remits back the cases to the High Court for decision of the Appeals afresh on merits and in accordance with law along with the application for acceptance of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CODE

2008 SCCL.COM 523(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2997 of 2008)
Jagdish Singh Appellant versus Madhuri Devi Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/28/2008.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: Divorce decree — passed by trial court — challenged in appeal before High court — High Court reversed the judgment of trial court — appeal to the Supreme Court by the husband mediation at Tis Hazari Delhi — the High Court has 'virtually' reached a conclusion without recording reasons in support of such conclusion. When the Court of original jurisdiction has considered oral evidence and recorded findings after seeing the demeanour of witnesses and having applied its mind, the appellate court is enjoined to keep that fact in mind. It has to deal with the reasons recorded and conclusions arrived at by the trial court. Thereafter, it is certainly open to the appellate court to come to its own conclusion if it finds that the reasons which weighed with the trial Court or conclusions arrived at were not in consonance with law — so-called conclusions reached by the High Court, therefore, cannot be endorsed and the decree passed in favour of the wife setting aside the decree of divorce in favour of the husband cannot be upheld. The order, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside and is hereby set aside.

2008 SCCL.COM 522(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 3007 of 2008)
M.C.Agrawal HUF Appellant versus M/s. Sahara India & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/28/2008.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.
Subject Index: Suit for eviction, measure profit and mandatory injunction — plaint — amendment rejection of — application — no reason why the prayer for amendment of the plaint as prayed for by the appellant could be refused — the impugned orders are set aside and the application for amendment of the plaint is allowed.

2008 SCCL.COM 511(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2008)
Dr. Narendra K Amin Appellant versus State of Gujarat and another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/28/2008.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam and Mr. Justice Aftab Alam.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — section 439(2) — order of cancelling the bail granted to the appellant challenged — once it is found that bail was granted on untenable grounds, same can be cancelled. The stand that there was no supervening circumstance has no relevance in such a case — irrelevant materials have been taken into account and/or relevant materials have been kept out of consideration. That being so, the order of granting bail to the appellant was certainly vulnerable. The order of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. The appeal is dismissed.

2008 SCCL.COM 508(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 742, 743 of 2008)
Suneet Gupta Appellant versus Anil Triloknath Sharma & others with Swami Raote & another RespondentsRespondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/28/2008.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Mr. Justice Aftab Alam.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — section 482 — petition under — for quashing First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the appellant herein for offences punishable under Sections 468, 406 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code — the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that a civil dispute pure and simple - between the parties was sought to be converted into a criminal offence only by resorting to pressure tactics and by taking police help which was indeed abuse of process of law and has been rightly prevented by the High Court.

2008 SCCL.COM 507(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 739 of 2008)
Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) Appellant versus State of Gujarat Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/28/2008.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam and Mr. Justice Aftab Alam.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — section 439(2) — cancelling the bail in terms of section 439 (2) — the application under Section 439(2) was filed by the State of Gujarat through Investigating Officer, C.I.D. (Crime), Gandhinagar for cancellation of bail granted to the appellant by order dated 5.10.2007 — for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 365, 368, 193, 197, 201, 120B, 420, 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 25 (1)(b)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1950.

2008 SCCL.COM 491(Case No: Civil Appeal No.2979, 2989 of 2008)
Shiv Prasad with Dr. (Mrs.) Madhu Jain Appellant versus Government Of India & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/25/2008.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: University appointment — selection process — case of writ-petitioner was considered for the post of Associate Professor whereas the case of respondent No. 4 was considered for the post of Assistant Professor. It was only because there was Combined Cadre of Associate/Assistant Professor that only one of them could be appointed. And in view of horizontal reservation, it was respondent No. 4 who could be selected and recommended for appointment as Assistant Professor and writ-petitioner had no occasion to make complaint against such appointment. The post was of Open Category (OC), i.e. General and respondent No. 4 was accommodated on that post on Open Category in Women Reservation Quota — the appeal filed by Dr. Shiv Prasad (Petitioner of Writ Petition No. 802 (S/B) of 2001) deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The appeal filed by Dr. (Mrs.) Madhu Jain (respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 802 (S/B) of 2001) deserved to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. Her selection, recommendation and appointment as Assistant Professor is held legal, valid and in accordance with law and could not have been set aside by the High Court. The order of the High Court to that extent is set aside upholding the action of the University. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, however, all the parties are directed to bear their own costs.

2008 SCCL.COM 509(Case No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 413 of 2000)
Anjani Kumar Appellant versus State of Bihar and another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/24/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — section 482 — petition under — dismissal by High Court — challenged in this appeal — section 197(1) provides that when any person who is or was a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction (a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government and (b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government — certainly mala fides were involved apart from the applicability of Section 197 of the Code. It is no doubt true that at the threshold interference by exercise of Section 482 of the Code has to be in rare cases. The present case appears to be of that nature and falls under category (7) indicated in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335). The continuance of the proceedings by the prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law. The criminal proceedings in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in PS Case No.63/1993 are quashed

2008 SCCL.COM 526(Case No: Criminal Appeal No.706 of 2008)
Noorjahan Appellant versus State Rep. by D.S.P. Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/23/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 498-A — conviction under — upheld by DB of Madras High Court — appeal — challenged this appeal — the evidence is inadequate to show that she was party to any demand for dowry — there is no evidence to show that appellant was either present when the demand was made or she herself made any demand — above being the position, the prosecution has failed to establish the accusations against the appellant. Therefore, her conviction cannot be maintained and is set aside.

2008 SCCL.COM 505(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2892 of 2008)
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Appellant versus Rajni Devi & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/22/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar.
Subject Index: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — section 163-A — an application under claming compensation — appellant herein, having been issued notice, resisted the claim, inter alia, contending that although the owner of the vehicle deposited an extra amount of Rs.50 covering his personal insurance, the same would not cover the case of the pillion rider and in any event, the owner of the vehicle is not a third party within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act — the Tribunal, therefore, was not correct in taking the view that while determining the amount of compensation, the only factor which would be relevant would be merely the use of the motor vehicle — the liability under Section 163-A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a receipient. The heirs of Janakraj could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163-A of the Act. For the said purpose only the terms of the contract of insurance could be taken recourse to.

2008 SCCL.COM 494(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2893 of 2008)
Ashutosh Chaturvedi Appellant versus Prano Devi @ Parani Devi & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/22/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar.
Subject Index: Suit — application for amendment of plaint — rejected — appellant herein is the son of the original plaintiff who filed a suit for declaration of his title and confirmation of possession as also for setting aside a deed of sale executed by the respondent herein. The said suit was filed on or about 21.5.1990. A deed of sale was executed in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 on or about 8.3.1990. An application for passing an interim order was filed in the said suit whereupon an order of status quo was passed on 1.6.1990. During the pendency of the said suit, two deeds of sale were executed in favour of third parties on 8.6.1990 and 18.6.1990 — by reason of a judgment and order dated 29.8.2003, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the said application for amendment of the plaint opining that the same, if allowed, would change the nature of the suit. The High Court, by reason of the impugned judgment has affirmed the said view of the learned Trial Judge — the Court would not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to allow the amendment of the plaint.

2008 SCCL.COM 493(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2891 of 2008)
Excise Commissioner & others Appellants versus Ajith Kumar & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/22/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 1974 — interest waiver of — upto 75% on the defaulted amount of revenue due — interpretation of G.O.(P) No.88/2000/TD dated 2.6.2000 providing for waiver of interest upto 75% on the defaulted amount of revenue due — if there was a default on the part of the respondents as a licencee, interest would be charged only for the period during which licence amount was not paid. Interest cannot be charged although no amount was due. Some amount might be due but not the entire amount on which interest is being claimed.

2008 SCCL.COM 490(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2008)
P.D. Lakhani & another Appellants versus State of Punjab & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/22/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — section 195(i) — applicability of — Lakhani Rubber Udyog Ltd. Manufactures Hawai Chappel. They are registered owners of a trademark. Inter alia, on the premise that M/s. Saraswati Utpadan Pvt. Ltd., Respondent No.2 herein had been marketing inferior goods with the label 'Lakhani' illegally, a complaint was lodged by the second appellant herein to SHO, Police Station Jalandhar. He was asked to approach the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jallandhar. On or about 18.1.2005, the second appellant approached the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jallandhar with a written complaint — legality and/or validity of the said report was questioned by the appellants herein before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by filing an application under Section 482 of the Code. By reason of the impugned judgment dated 17.8.2005, the High Court dismissed the said application — section 195 contains a bar on the Magistrate to take cognizance of any offence. When a complaint is not made by the appropriate public servant, the Court will have no jurisdiction in respect thereof. Any trial held pursuant thereto would be wholly without jurisdiction. In a case of this nature, representation, if any, for all intent and purport was made before the Senior Superintendent of Police and not before the Station House Officer — the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. Appeal is allowed. However, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that another complaint petition would be maintainable at the instance of the appropriate authority.

2008 SCCL.COM 488(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6447 of 2001)
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Appellant versus Bhavani Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/22/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S.Sirpurkar.
Subject Index: Review Petition — revision petition filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for condonation of delay — dismissed by the National Commission — appeal filed for hearing special leave petitions — the respondent Bhavani was a worker in Cashew Factory No.III (Naduvathoor) owned and managed by the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Limited, Kollam and according to her she retired from service on 31.12.1995 on attaining 60 years of age. Bhavani was a member of the Employees' Provident Fund and Family Pension Scheme, 1971, and was making contribution to the Scheme. In her service records maintained by the company her date of birth was shown as 31.12.1935 and though she was eligible for pension, the same was not ordered by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, the appellant herein in all these appeals. Aggrieved by the failure and/or the refusal of the Regional Provident Fund Authorities to release pension to her, Bhavani filed an application before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as 'the District Forum') Kollom, praying for a direction upon the appellant herein to release her pensionary benefits from the date of her retirement from service i.e. 31.12.1995 — the District Forum came to a finding that since Bhavani was eligible for the benefits of the 1995 Scheme, denial of the same amounted to deficiency of service which would attract the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — the District Forum on considering the provisions of Section 2(1)(d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, observed that the definition of "consumer" therein was not exhaustive and Section 2(1)(o) exempts only such services as are rendered free of charge or under a contract of personal service.

2008 SCCL.COM 483(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2897 of 2008)
MG. Dir., Bangalore Metropolitan Tpt. Corp. Appellant versus Sarojamma & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/22/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar.
Subject Index: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — section 163-A — claim petition filed — the Tribunal estimated the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- p.m. One-third was deducted from the said amount towards his personal expenses. An appeal was preferred thereagainst by the appellant. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court while allowing the multiplier of 15 instead of 16 increased the rate of interest from 7% to 10%. Respondent No. 1 was held to be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 3,64,500/- — no finding has been arrived at by the Tribunal that the age of the claimant was 45 or below. Why the multiplier of 16 had been applied by the Tribunal was not stated. The High Court has also not laid down the legal premise upon which it had applied the multiplier of 15. It, however, appears that the learned counsel for the appellant himself stated that the correct multiplier would be 15 and not 16 which has been accepted by the High Court — no interference.

2008 SCCL.COM 481(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2898 of 2008 with Civil Appeal No. of 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.8130 of 2004))
Punjab State Electricity Board & others Appellants versus Gurmail Singh Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/22/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar.
Subject Index: Electric Supply Act, 1948 — Punjab State Electricity Board Ministerial Services (Class III) Regulations, 1985 — A scheme for grant of time bound promotion to a higher scale of pay was formulated by the Board wherefor a circular bearing No.17/90 was issued by its Finance Department on 23.4.1990. In terms of the said scheme, promotional scale was to be given to the employees upon completion of 9/16 years of regular service. The revision in the scale of pay of LDCs was directed by an order dated 3.10.1990 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The said revision of scale of pay, however, was to be granted on the basis of total number of years of service as LDC in the said cadre — Although the order of the Board cannot be said to be wholly illegal and without jurisdiction warranting interference at the hands of the High Court but, this Hon'ble Court are of the opinion that the respondents should be put at the same scale of pay from the same day which was being paid to the employees who was next below him in the post of LDC.

2008 SCCL.COM 479(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2894-2895 of 2008)
Williams Appellant versus Lourdusamy & Another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/22/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar.
Subject Index: Res-judicata — principles — applicability — section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the Court will have no jurisdiction to try a suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue had been in issue in a former suit between the same parties — a competent Court of law has dismissed the suit for specific performance of contract filed by the first respondent opining that the respondent had failed to prove the existence of an oral agreement. If the suit for specific performance of contract had not been decreed in favour of the first respondent, the question of his continuing to remain in possession in part performance of contract would not arise. Appellant herein filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. He proceeded on the basis that the first respondent was in possession.

2008 SCCL.COM 524(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 4190 of 2000)
Ahmadasahab Abdul Mulla (D) by proposed LRs Appellant versus Bibijan & other Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/21/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee.
Subject Index: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — section 100 — allowing the second appeal filed by the respondents — challenged in this appeal — they had filed the suit for specific performance of the contract on sale which was decreed by the trial court but was dismissed on the ground of limitation by the first Appellate Court and therefore the Second Appeal was filed — judgments of different High Courts have taken different views and were at variance with the decision of the Privy Council. However, in view of the decisions in Ramzan v. Hussaini (1990(1) SCC 104) and in Tarlok Singh v. Vijay Kumar Sabharwal (1996(8) SCC 367) there was no necessity to go into the larger issue as the plaintiffs were entitled to succeed in that case in altogether on different grounds — in view of the importance of the issues involved, this court feels it would be proper if this case is heard by a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges — matter referred to a larger Bench.

2008 SCCL.COM 497(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1055 of 2002)
Waheed Baig Appellants versus Bangi Lakshmamma & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/21/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam.
Subject Index: Code of Civil Procedure, section 100 — second appeal under — challenge in this appeal is by the defendant No. 1 who was the respondent No.1 in the Second appeal filed by the respondents 1, 2 & 3. The second appeal filed in terms of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure — was allowed by the High Court by the impugned judgment — the suit was filed by the plaintiffs for the specific performance of agreements of sale (Ex.A-1 and A-4) by passing a decree in favour of the plaintiffs, to convey the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs by executing a proper sale deed, and if the specific performance of the suit contract is not possible, to repay an amount of Rs.22,475.30 received by the defendant towards the sale consideration with interest thereon at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization, and to deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs — the direction given by the first appellate Court for refund of the amount paid stands restored.

2008 SCCL.COM 496(Case No: Transfer Petition (civil) 950 of 2007)
Amisha Hinduja Appellant versus Manish Hinduja Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/21/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari.
Subject Index: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — section 25 — transfer petition filed by the wife — respondent-husband states that there is a danger to the respondent's life if he goes to Raipur and prays that this case be transferred to any other place than Raipur. Per contra, counsel appearing for the wife assures that no harm shall be caused to the husband on his coming to Raipur to attend the proceedings — if any untoward incident happens, the respondent is put at liberty to approach this Court for transferring this case to a place other than Raipur — the transferor court is directed to transmit the entire record related to the aforesaid case to the transferee court forthwith.

2008 SCCL.COM 495(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 905 of 2002 with (CIVIL APPEAL NO.291 OF 2004, CIVIL APPEAL NO.3575 OF 2002, CIVIL APPEAL NO.4562 of 2002 and CIVIL APPEAL NO.906 of 2002))
Oma Ram Appellant versus State of Rajasthan & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/21/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam.
Subject Index: Constitution of India, 1950 — in all these appeals challenge is to the — judgment of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissing the writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 — challenge in the writ petitions was to the vires of certain provision of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 — (a) appropriate writ, order or direction, incorporation of Sec. 54(ka) and Sub-Sections (4) to (9) in Section 69 of the Excise Act may be declared ultra-vires and be struck down; (b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, amendment in the Excise Act, 1950 by incorporation of Section 9B may be declared ultra-vires and be struck down; (c) by a further appropriate, writ, order or direction impugned order dated 16.5.2000, passed by respondent No. 2 may be declared invalid and may be quashed and set aside; (d) Pending decision, if any further order is made or action is taken prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, the same may also be quashed and set aside."

2008 SCCL.COM 489(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 571 of 2002)
K. K. Tiwari & others Appellants versus Union of India & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/21/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Mathur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: Defence Service of Engineers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1991 — posts of Executive Engineers — diection of the Tribunal to fill the posts in proportion of 2/3rd from the Assistant Executive and 1/3 from Assistant Engineers — manifest error or perversity in the judgment of the High Court warranting interference in this appeal.

2008 SCCL.COM 485(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 687 of 2008)
Gampa Govindu Appellant versus State of Andhra Pradesh Thr. Public Prosecutor Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/21/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 326 — conviction under — When the matter was taken to the High Court in revision, the conviction and sentence under Section 326 I.P.C. have been set aside and the appellant has been convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Before this Court, a joint petition of compromise has been filed wherein it has been stated that the parties have settled their disputes; as such, they be permitted to compound the offence. prayer just and must be granted.

2008 SCCL.COM 478(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5354 of 2002)
Surjit Singh Appellant versus Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/21/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. K. Sema and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Indian Telegraph Rules — Rule 443 — telephone line — non-payment of in case of one — disconnection of other two lines — the appellant and his wife are living together at their residence in Rajouri Garden, Delhi. At that residence, there is one telephone line bearing No. 5121187 in the name of appellant Surjit Singh and there is also another telephone line bearing No. 5416493 at the same residence in the name of the appellant's wife. There is a third telephone line bearing No. 3265301 in the name of the appellant and installed at the business premises of the appellant at 1195, Chahrahat Building, Jama Masjid, Delhi — there were arrears of telephone dues in connection with line No. 5416493 which was in the name of the appellant's wife. For non-payment of the telephone dues in connection with this line, the other two lines in the name of the appellant being 5121187 at his residential premises and line No. 3265301 at his business premises were disconnected — the contention of the appellant was that the telephone lines in his own name being line No. 5121187 at his residence and line No. 3265301 at his business premises should not be disconnected on account of non-payment of dues in connection with the line in the name of his wife being line No. 5416493 — in the present case, we have to adopt the Lakshana (or Linga) rule of interpretation rather than the Shruti or Abidha (the literal) rule. In other words, Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rule has to be interpreted in a purposive sense. Hence the telephone line in the name of the person who is really paying the bills in connection with the telephone line in the name of another person who is economically dependent on the former can be disconnected for non payment of bills in connection with the telephone line in the name of the latter. Such an interpretation would effectuate the intention of Rule 443, which is that telephone bills should be paid promptly.

2008 SCCL.COM 477(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6602-6603 of 2001)
Udai Raj Singh & others Appellants versus Hari Ram & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/21/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam.
Subject Index: U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act — proceedings under — these two appeals, one against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the main Writ Petition (Civil Misc.Writ Petition No.4413/78) and the other against the order in the Review Petition (Civil Misc.Review Petition No.6816 of 1998) filed by the appellants arise from the proceedings under the U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act — the revisional order and the two orders passed by the High Court are unsustainable in law — as the matter has become very old it is expected that the revisional authority will finally dispose of the matter after hearing both the sides in accordance with law within four months from the date of the receipt of the order.

2008 SCCL.COM 476(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2871 of 2008)
Poonam Kumari Appellant versus Jai Prakash Pandey & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/21/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam.
Subject Index: Retail outlet (petrol pumps) — applications for appointment of dealer — appellant — one of the dealers — selection — One J.P. Pandey (Respondent no.1), who was also one of the applicants and whose name did not figure in the select list, filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the selection made by the DSB. There the main allegation was that even though his father had made the land available to IOC, he was not given a preference in the matter of allotment and appointment as a dealer — While declining to interfere in the matter, because of the procedural lapses noticed by learned Single Judge, this Hon'ble Court direct that instead of DSB, which is no longer in existence, in the line of what has been directed by this Court in another case, this Court direct that consideration shall be made by the Selection Committee nominated by the General Manager, IOC, Bihar State Office, Patna, who is stated to be the State Head. Let the Committee deal with the matter expeditiously. Since the matter is pending long, this Court direct the Committee to consider the matter in its proper perspective, by taking into account all the materials already on record and to be placed by the parties. Let the exercise be completed within a period of four months from today.

2008 SCCL.COM 501(Case No: Special Leave Petition (civil) 15596 of 2006Special Leave Petition (C) No.17908 of 2006, Transfer Petition No.848 of 2006 and Contempt Petition (C) No.285 of 2007)
Board for Control of Cricket in India Appellant versus Jharkhand State Cricket Association and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/16/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agarwal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi.
Subject Index: Petition — withdrawal — learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner before the High Court made a prayer for withdrawal of the Writ Petition (C) No.3071 of 2006, pending before the Jharkhad High Court. This Court permits the writ petitioner in the writ petition to withdraw the same.

2008 SCCL.COM 500(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2007)
Cantonment Executive Officer & another Appellants versus Vijay D. Wani & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/16/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: Services — removal — Bombay High Court has set aside the resolution of the Cantonment Board removing the respondent firm service — vitiated on account of the three members — of the Enquiry Committee and the orders of the 1st and 2nd Appellate authorities dated 8.7.1992 and 22.12.1994 and allowed the writ petition of the Vijay D. Wani — and directed the Cantonment Board to reinstate the petitioner (respondent herein) into service with 50% backwages and continuity of service — the very fact is that the disciplinary committee who found the respondent(herein) guilty participated in decision making process for finding the respondent(herein) guilty and to dismiss him from service is bias which is apparent & real. Consequently, the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be faulted — so far as grant of back wages is concerned, it depends upon case to case. But in the present case as the respondent was found guilty by the Cantonment Board but the order of Cantonment Board was set aside because it suffered from bias and it will be unfair to deny 50% back wages to the respondent (herein). The Division Bench also directed that more than 13 years have passed, therefore, it did not permit the respondent to proceed against the petition afresh.

2008 SCCL.COM 499(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2816 of 2008)
State of Uttar Pradesh & others Appellants versus Anand Singh Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/16/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi.
Subject Index: B.T.C. Entrance Examination — waiting list — admission — the stand of the appellant is that waiting list was prepared according to roll numbers and not as per merit. It has been stated that respondent had secured 147.64 marks, whereas Dhiraj Kumar Mishra had secured 159.34 marks. The roll number of the respondent was 366213 and that of Dhiraj Kumar Mishra 366772. As Dhiraj Kumar Mishra had secured higher marks, he had a preferential claim for admission and was rightly admitted. This being the position, learned Single Judge of the High Court was not justified in allowing the writ petition and the Division Bench should not have confirmed the same.

2008 SCCL.COM 495(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 9244 and 9239 of 2003)
Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation & others Appellants versus G. S. Uppal & others with Chakrawarti Garg and A. S. Dhir Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/16/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. V. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: Pay Scales — revision — the respondents in Civil Appeal Nos. 9244/2003 and 9248/2003, at the time of filing of the writ petitions, were working on the post of Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Sub-Divisional Engineer (SDE) and Assistant Engineer (AE) with the Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation Ltd. — the Corporation contested the claim of the respondents before the High Court by filing written statement wherein it has been pleaded that the respondents are seeking revised pay scales on the pattern of Engineers of three wings of PWD of the State Government — as the matter was under active consideration and had not been finally decided by the Finance Department, no cause of action arose to the respondents and, therefore, the writ petition being premature was liable to be dismissed on that sole ground. The main defence of the Corporation in its written statement before the High Court was that there has been a revision of pay scales of Engineers of three wings of Public Works Department only of the State Government who have to carry out more arduous duties under different conditions and constraints because of the development activities undertaken by the State under its phased programme and time-bound schedule — the plea of the appellants that the Corporation is running under losses and it cannot meet the financial burden on account of revision of scales of pay has been rejected by the High Court and, rightly so. Whatever may be the factual position, there appears to be no basis for the action of the appellants in denying the claim of revision of pay scales to the respondents.

2008 SCCL.COM 492(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2837 of 2008)
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Appellant versus Ramesh Chandra Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/16/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari.
Subject Index: Services termination industrial dispute raised — respondent a conductor in the appellant corporation — in a writ petition filed before the High Court by the respondent against the award of the Labour Court, the High Court held that the punishment of dismissal from service was not commensurate with the charges levelled against the respondent. The High Court, therefore, directed reinstatement of the respondent in service with 50% back wages. — re-instatement order of High Court upheld — award of 50% back wages set aside.

2008 SCCL.COM 487 (Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 671 of 2008)
Siddharth Jain Appellant versus State (NCT) of Delhi through Commissioner of Police Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/16/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari.
Subject Index: Prevention of Corruption Act — sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) — conviction under — appellant filed an appeal in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi along with an application for bail under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Single Judge admitted the appeal but refused to grant bail to the appellant, against which the present appeal by grant of special leave has been filed. This Court on 08.01.2008, while issuing notice, granted interim bail to the appellant — appellant deserves to be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court. By our order dated 08.01.2008, appellant was given interim bail. The said order is made absolute till the appeal is finally decided by the High Court.

2008 SCCL.COM 486(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1897 of 2003 with C.A. No.1898 of 2003 and C.A. No.5622 of 2006)
Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs Appellant versus Union of India & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/16/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi.
Subject Index: Rent Control Act, 1958 — section 14(1)(e) — whether Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is ultra vires the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India is the question which arises for determination in these appeals.

2008 SCCL.COM 515(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5543, 5544, 5545 of 2004)
Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. & others with State of Uttaranchal with Doiwala Sugar Company Ltd. & another Appellants versus Vardan Linkers & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/15/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. V. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: Molasses — sale — sale of molasses produced by these six sugar mills was controlled through the Molasses Sales Committee constituted by the State Government vide order dated 25.3.2003 — not legally possible to hold that the order dated 24.4.2004 was either arbitrary or unreasonable or mala fide. It was fully justified and in public interest. If the order dated 24.4.2004 did not suffer from an infirmity which required correction by application of principles of Administrative Law, the High Court ought not to have interfered with it. There was, apparently, no justification for invoking the principles of legitimate expectations, estoppel, acquiescence and principle of part performance to make out a contract, where none existed or to give directions to five independent sugar mills to supply huge quantifies of molasses to first respondent without any contract at an admittedly low price of Rs.127/- per quintal.

2008 SCCL.COM 482(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 662 of 2008)
T.K. Soman Appellant versus Amitha Kumari and Others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/15/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 420 — complaint under — the petition of complaint does disclose an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code; as such, the High Court was not justified in quashing the prosecution. The criminal appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

2008 SCCL.COM 480(Case No: Transfer Petition (civil) 375 of 2006)
Julita Nirmal Chandra Nayak Appellant versus Nirmal Chandra Nayak Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/15/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi.
Subject Index: Decree for divorce — petition that al disputes have been settled and demand draft of 12 lakhs as permanent alimony & jewellery order to his given to the wife Case transferred.

2008 SCCL.COM 475(Case No: Motion Case (civil) 6016 of 2007)
Padma Charan Patra Appellant versus State of Orissa Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/15/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Bail — application for relaxation of the conditions of bail enforced by order dt.12.5.2006 while granting bail to the petitioner — some of the co-accused approached the High Court and obtained bail on the same terms and conditions as was granted by this Court and subsequently they have also obtained relaxation of the first two conditions from the High Court — first two conditions relaxed.

2008 SCCL.COM 474(Case No: Civil Appeal No.2823 of 2008)
Sri Krishan Vishweshwar HEDE Appellant versus The General Manager, K.S.R.T.C. Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/15/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble CJI. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran.
Subject Index: Motor accident — compensation — contributory negligence — compensation of 50% awarded — the judgment of the Tribunal assessing the ratio of liability at 50:50 is proper and the High Court ought not to have interfered with it.

2008 SCCL.COM 472(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2786 of 2008)
Jitendra Singh Appellant versus Bhanu Kumari & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/11/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam.
Subject Index: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — section 24 — application under for transfer of Civil Cases challenged — the reasons which weighed with the High Court to direct transfer do not appear to be germane warranting an order of transfer — the purpose of Section 24 CPC is merely to confer on the Court a discretionary power. A court acting under Section 24 CPC may or may not in its judicial discretion transfer a particular case. Section 24 does not prescribe any ground for ordering the transfer of a case. In certain cases it may be ordered suo motu and it may be done for administrative reasons. But when an application for transfer is made by a party, the court is required to issue notice to the other side and hear the party before directing transfer.

2008 SCCL.COM 470(Case No: Writ Petition (civil) 580 of 2003)
Common Cause (A Regd. Society) Appellant versus Union of India and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/11/2008.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Constitution of India — article 32 — petition under — furnishes a typical illustration of how public interest litigation which was conceived and created as a judicial tool by the courts in this country for helping the poor, weaker and oppressed sections of society, who could not approach the court due to their poverty, has over the years grown and grown, and now it seems to have gone totally out of control, and has become something so strange and bizarre that those who had created it probably would be shocked to know what it has become — the petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act which claims to be engaged in espousing problems of general public importance — in the present case, the petitioner has referred to the rising number of road accidents in the country which are taking place in cities, towns and on national highways causing deaths, injuries etc. The petitioner has referred to the defects in the licensing procedure, the training of drivers, and the need for suspending licences in case of negligent driving, and driving under the influence of alcohol, which cause accidents etc. He has also referred to the inadequate infrastructure relating to roads and inadequate provisions of traffic control devices including traffic signals, traffic signs, road devices and other road safety measures. It has been stated in the petition that there should be proper and continuous coordination between various authorities which are connected with roads and control of traffic, and for this purpose the only appropriate remedy is to establish Road Safety Committees — the petitioner has alleged that the number of accidents has increased greatly over the years in India and hence he has filed this writ petition

2008 SCCL.COM 469(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 312 of 2002)
Guntur Tobaccos Ltd Appellant versus The Transmission Coprn. of A.P. & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/11/2008.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir.
Subject Index: Indian Electricity Act, 1910 — appellant herein, Guntur Power and Light Limited, hereinafter referred as "GPL", was incorporated for the purpose of running an Electrical Undertaking to supply electricity to the Guntur area of Andhra Pradesh. It was granted a licence for the aforesaid purpose — the finding arrived at by the High Court regarding the implied consent of the State Government does not require any interference — High Courts have been considered by it in ultimately coming to the conclusion that in view of Sections 4 and 6 of the 1954 Act read with the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, all the properties of the Undertaking for which licence was granted for generation of electricity, remained a part of the Undertaking unless the licence had been modified — the properties involved were mentioned and included in the licence granted to GPL and the said licence remained unchanged when on the basis of the order passed by the Government under Section 3 of the 1954 Act, all the properties of the Electricity Undertaking came to be vested in the State. Moreover, once the lease came to an end, the State Government was no longer under any obligation to act in accordance with the option given to the lessee to purchase the property

2008 SCCL.COM 468(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 4291 of 2002)
Pradip J. Mehta Appellant versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/11/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari.
Subject Index: Income Tax Act, 1961 — section 6(6) — interpretation of — a person will become an ordinarily resident only if (a) he has been residing in nine out of ten preceding years; and (b) he has been in India for at least 730 days in the previous seven years — the order passed by the High Court and the Authorities below are set aside. It is held that the High Court in the impugned judgment has erred in its interpretation of Section 6(6) of the Act and the view taken by Patna High Court, Bombay High Court and Travancore-Cochin High Court has laid down the correct law. The two questions of law referred to above are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue

2008 SCCL.COM 464(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5204-5207 of 2002)
Sudarshan Silks & Sarees Appellant versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/11/2008.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari.
Subject Index: Income Tax Act, 1961 — section 271 (1)(C) — Levy of penalty under — the Orders under appeal are set aside and that of the CIT (Appeals) and Tribunal restored. It is held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not exigible

2008 SCCL.COM 461(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2783 of 2008 with CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2784 OF 2008 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C) NO. 20212 OF 2006])
M/s. Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow Appellant versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/11/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal, P.P. Naolekar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: Income Tax Act, 1961 — section 142 (2A) — direction for special audit — the exercise of power under Section 142 (2A) of the Act leads to serious civil consequences and, therefore, even in the absence of express provision for affording an opportunity of pre-decisional hearing to an assessee and in the absence of any express provision in Section 142 (2A) barring the giving of reasonable opportunity to an assessee, the requirement of observance of principles of natural justice is to be read into the said provision — the law on the subject, clarified by this Court, will apply prospectively and it will not be open to the appellants to urge before the Appellate Authority that the extended period of limitation under Explanation 1 (iii) to Section 153 (3) of the Act was not available to the Assessing Officer because of an invalid order under Section 142 (2A) of the Act. However, it will be open to the appellants to question before the appellate authority, if so advised, the correctness of the material gathered on the basis of the audit report submitted under sub-section 2A of Section 142 of the Act

2008 SCCL.COM 455(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2785 of 2008)
North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur Appellant versus Bhagwan Das (D) By LRS Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/11/2008.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — order 6 — Rule 17 — second appeal — dismissal — on the ground that no question of law arises — by the same order, the High Court has dismissed one of the applications' filed by the appellant under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking leave to amend the written statement, on the ground that such an application cannot be entertained in the second appeal. An application preferred by the appellant for review of order dated 17th July, 2002 has been dismissed vide latter order dated 14th June, 2005 — the High Court did not examine the record of the case with the thoroughness which was expected at the time of disposal of the pending applications. On a perusal of the impugned decisions, it is clear that the High Court was not even aware of the pendency of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. seeking leave to adduce additional evidence. A perusal of the documents, which came to light pursuant to the directions given by the High Court on 3rd April, 2002, prima facie, goes to show that these are likely to widely affect the decision of the Court in one way or the other. If the stand of the appellant, which, according to them, is borne out from the documents now on record, is found to be correct, then obviously these will have material bearing on the core issue, namely, whether the decree dated 13th March, 2001 is a nullity, having been allegedly obtained by concealing material facts and playing fraud on the Court — the matter is remitted back to the High Court, which shall, after hearing the parties, take a fresh decision on the applications preferred by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 and Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. and thereafter form its opinion afresh on the merits of the second appeal.

2008 SCCL.COM 450(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 932 of 2007 with (Criminal Appeal no. 1475 of 2007))
Mahabir Appellant versus The State of Delhi Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/11/2008.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 394, 302 read with section 34 — conviction under — it is trite to say that the substantive evidence is the evidence of identification in Court. Apart from the clear provisions of Section 9 of the Evidence Act, the position in law is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court — it is no doubt true that much evidentiary value cannot be attached to the identification of the accused in Court where identifying witness is a total stranger who had just a fleeting glimpse of the person identified or who had no particular reason to remember the person concerned, if the identification is made for the first time in Court — there was no difficulty in identifying accused Jalvir and naming him in the first information report. It is of significance that in the first information report name of Jalvir was specifically noted. The plea that Jalvir's name could not have been given at the first instance, because the witness was unconscious is without any substance. As a matter of fact, the witness has categorically stated that after the information was lodged, she became unconscious. Above being the position, the conclusions of the Trial Court in holding accused Jalvir guilty does not suffer from any infirmity — the High Court was right in dismissing the appeal of accused-appellant Jalvir.

2008 SCCL.COM 438(Case No: Writ Petition (civil) 580 of 2003)
Common Cause (A Regd. Society) Appellant versus Union of India & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/11/2008.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.K. Sema.
Subject Index: Public Interest litigation — the petitioner sought for the following reliefs: (i) to issue a Writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus and/or any other writ, direction or order directing the Respondent No.1, in consultation with representatives of the Respondent Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 and also representatives of other States/UTs — to set up fully satisfactory procedures of licensing of vehicles and licensing of drivers, for ensuring that the vehicles are fully equipped with all the safety travel requirements, and also ensure that drivers of private vehicles as well as drivers of public vehicles including buses and trucks, are fully trained and are competent to drive the respective types of vehicles — whether to entertain the petition in the form of Public Interest Litigation either represented by public-spirited person; or private interest litigation in the guise of public interest litigation; or publicity interest litigation; or political interest litigation is to be examined in the facts and circumstances recited in the petition itself — if there is a buffer zone unoccupied by the legislature or executive which is detrimental to the public interest, judiciary must occupy the field to subserve public interest. Therefore, each case has to be examined on its own facts — the blanket bar of the application in the form of PIL is obviated. Subject to aforesaid, I agree with the conclusion of my learned Brother that the petition be dismissed.

2008 SCCL.COM 514(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5843 of 2006)
Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Appellant versus M/S. J.D. Orgochem Limited Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/10/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar.
Subject Index: Gatt Valuation Rules 1988 — Rule 5 — the extent of jurisdiction of the assessing officer to discard the transactional value disclosed by the importer is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 24th February, 2006 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal — respondent herein filed a bill of entry dated 27th October, 1999 for clearance of "4,5 Dinitro Crysazine". The said goods fall under Heading 2914.69 and 2914.00 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Central Excise Tariff, 1944 respectively. The unit price of the said goods was declared at US$ 13.2 per kg — allegedly the respondent had imported the same goods from the same supplier earlier @ US$ 18.7 per kg — the Deputy Commissioner of Customs in his order dated 22nd March, 2000 opined that the transactional value declared by the importer should be rejected and Rule 5 of the GATT Valuation Rules, 1988 shall be applied ordering to load the value to US$ 18.7 per kg.

2008 SCCL.COM 504(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5514 of 2001)
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority & another Appellants versus Arvind Sonekar Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/10/2008.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.
Subject Index: MRTP Commission in Restrictive Trade Practices Enquiry by which the MRTP Commission have directed the referred to the respondent — the excess amount charged from him for allotment of a plot within 6 months from the date of the order passed by the MRTP Commission. Feeling aggrieved, the Noida Authorites have come up by way of a special leave petition — the doctrine of legitimate expectation, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot at all be applicable. It is not in dispute that the plot has been allotted by the Noida authorities to implement the public policy laid down for the allotment of sites for starting nursing homes and clinics. The only question is that to implement such policy, what should be the rate at which the allotment of the plot should be made — the Noida authorities has not acted either unjustly or in an unfair manner by charging the rate of Rs. 3600/- per sq. mtrs.

2008 SCCL.COM 503(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 545 of 2007)
Mahesh s/o Janardhan Gonnade Appellant versus State of Maharashtra Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/10/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. P. Naolekar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — section 379 read with section 2(A) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 read with order 21 Rules XII to XXIX of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 — appeal under — against the judgment and order dated 09.03.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. By the judgment under challenge, the High Court has partly set aside the judgment dated 25.01.1990 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara, passed in Sessions Trial No.44/88 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code — and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default clause to suffer further six months' R.I. The appellant, however, has been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act — the evaluation of the findings recorded by the High Court do not suffer from any manifest error and improper and mis-appreciation of evidence on record — the appellant is the real culprit and he has been rightly held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

2008 SCCL.COM 502(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5707 of 2002)
Subray Thimmanna Hegde & others Appellants versus Nagaraj Thimmanna Hegde & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/10/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.K. Sema and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Second appeal — substantial question of law framed by High Court — this appeal is filed by the defendants against the judgment passed by the High Court in Second Appeal. The plaintiffs' suit was dismissed by the trial court. In appeal the First Appellate Court confirmed the decree of the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs filed Second Appeal before the High Court — the property is ancestral property and the father was acting as Manager and Karta of the family. If that is the case the question of framing the additional substantial question of law would not arise. Similarly, the substantial question of law as framed by the High Court, does not constitute the substantial question of law as contemplated under Section 100 CPC — the order of the High Court is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed. No costs. Since, the matter is pending for a quite long time, the High Court is requested to dispose of the appeal within six months.

2008 SCCL.COM 471(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2713 of 2008)
V.A. Shabeer Appellant versus P.A. Niamathulla Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/10/2008.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.P. Naolekar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar.
Subject Index: Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 — final Schedule — the candidates who contested the election from Ward No.2 of Alangad Block Panchayat held on 24th September, 2005. The appellant was declared elected. The candidate who lost the election (respondent herein) challenged the election by way of an Election Petition before the Election Tribunal mainly on two grounds. It was first contended that the officer who accepted the nomination papers of the appellant had no authority to receive the same and secondly the appellant had not made or subscribed an oath or affirmation before the Returning Officer or any other person authorized by the State Election Commission and, therefore, he was not qualified to fill a seat — this appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the appeal filed against the order of the Trial Court and declared the election of the appellant void — the Election Petition was opposed on the ground that the election petition was not maintainable and that it was filed after the expiry of the period of limitation

2008 SCCL.COM 466(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2727 of 2008)
U.P.C.U.E.F. Ltd. Appellant versus Cane Commissioner & R.C.C.S. & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/10/2008.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.
Subject Index: U.P. Cane Cooperative Service Regulations, 1975 — framed under U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 — section 122 — these regulations provide for the recruitment, emoluments, terms and conditions of service etc. of the employees, permanent as well as seasonal, of the Cooperative Cane Development Union or Ganna Sahkari Vikas Samitis established in the State of UP for purchase of sugar from its sugar growing members for supply to various sugar factories. Under the Service Regulations, 1975, "Crushing Season" was defined in Regulation 2(n) — it was incumbent upon the Cane Commissioner to serve a notice upon the appellant before effecting any change in the definition of "Crushing Season" — the orders dated 17th of May, 1993 and 14th of July, 1993 could not have been passed without giving any notice in compliance with Section 4-I read with the Third Schedule of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1956 — it is, therefore, not necessary to deal with Question No. 2 regarding power of respondent No. 1 to frame and amend regulations under Section 122 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 — the writ petition filed by the appellant is allowed to the extent indicated above. The appeal is thus allowed without any order as to costs

2008 SCCL.COM 457(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2720, 2721 of 2008)
M/s. Mauri Yeast India Pvt. Ltd. with M/s.Kothari Fermentation and Biochem Ltd. Appellants versus State of U.P. and another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/10/2008.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.
Subject Index: U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 — entry — interpretation of.

2008 SCCL.COM 456(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2800 of 2008)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Appellant versus M/s. Harcharan Dass Gupta Contruction Pvt. Ltd., Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/10/2008.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.K. Sema and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Suit — filing of written statement — negligence in filing — by the impugned order, the High Court declined to allow the defendant, the appellant herein, to file written statement as according to the High Court, despite of notice the defendant did not file written statement for three years — if the appellant is allowed to file written statement the case can be decided on its own merit after contesting the suit — the appellant is allowed to file written statement within two weeks from today. The same shall be taken on record and the suit may be disposed of on its own merit expeditiously.

2008 SCCL.COM 436(Case No: Writ Petition (civil) 265 of 2006 with Writ Petition (C) No. 269/2006, No. 598/2006, No. 29/2007, No. 35/2007, No. 53/2007, No. 336/2007, No. 313/2007, No. 335/2007, No. 231/2007, No. 425/2007, No. 428/2007 Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 112/2007 in No. 265/2006)
Ashoka Kumar Thakur Appellant versus Union of India & others Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/10/2008.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. C.J.I..
Subject Index: Reservation for admission in educational institution or Public employment — matter of challenge in various litigations — the Act 5 of 2007 is not invalid for the reason that there is no time limit prescribed for its operation, but a review can be made after a period of 10 years — 27% of seats for other backward classes is not illegal and the Parliament must be deemed to have taken into consideration all relevant circumstances when fixing the 27% reservation — few in independent India have voiced disagreement with the proposition that the disadvantaged sections of the population deserve and need "special help" — reservation is one of the many tools that are used to preserve and promote the essence of equality, so that disadvantaged groups can be brought to the forefront of civil life. It is also the duty of the State to promote positive measures to remove barriers of inequality and enable diverse communities to enjoy the freedoms and share the benefits guaranteed by the Constitution — the Constitution (Ninety-Third) Amendment Act, 2005 and the enactment of Act 5 of 2007 giving reservation to Other Backward Classes (OBCs), Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) created mixed reactions in the society. Though the reservation in favour of SC and ST is not opposed by the petitioners, the reservation of 27% in favour of Other Backward Classes/Socially and educationally backward classes is strongly opposed by various petitioners in these cases — the plea of the Petitioner that the legislation itself was intended to please a section of the community as part of the vote catching mechanism is not a legally acceptable plea and it is only to be rejected — the quantum of reservation provided under the Act 5 of 2007 is based on the detailed facts available with the Parliament. Various commissions have been in operation determining as to who shall form the SEBCs. Though a caste-wise census is not available, several other data and statistics are available — petitioners have not produced any documents to show that the backward class citizens are less than 27%, vis-à-vis, the total population of this country or that there was no requirement of 27% reservation for them. The Parliament is invested with the power of legislation and must be deemed to have taken into consideration all relevant circumstances when passing a legislation of this nature. It is futile to contend whether Parliament was not aware of the statistical details of the population of this country and, therefore, this court does not think that 27% reservation provided in the Act is illegal or on that account, the Act itself is liable to be struck down.