| February 24,2010 | Land Acquisition - Compensation - Awarding higher than from claim |
Sagunthala (Dead) Vs. Special Tehsildar (L.A.) Civil Appeal No(s). 6240-6243 of 2001 With Civil Appeal Nos. 6244-6248 of 2001 and Civil Appeal No. 495-504 of 2002 The High Court held that the Reference Court had given no reason at all for awarding compensation higher than what had been claimed ..... As such we observe that the Reference Court rightly fixed the amount of compensation to be Rs. 1,75,000/- and we are inclined to uphold the said finding. As far as the question of grant of higher compensation than what is claimed by the claimants goes, the Reference Court has observed, and in our opinion rightly so, that even before the representation before the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants had stated that in event of their being not satisfied with the award, they reserve the right to go before the Civil Court for determination of just and reasonable compensation |
2010 STPL(Web) 142 SC | |
| February 24,2010 | Municipality - Construction Plan |
Indore Municipal Corporation Vs. Hemalata Civil Appeal No.5031 of 2005 He held that the two inspection reports by the officers of the Municipal Corporation and Town and Country Planning Department established that there were no violations and the construction was in accordance with the sanctioned plan and there was no justification to issue such show-cause notice or pass an order directing demolition. The appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation was dismissed by a Division Bench by the impugned judgment dated 22.11.2004 ..... Therefore, neither the land coverage percentage is exceeded, nor the permitted FAR is exceeded, nor the sanctioned construction area is exceeded. The third ground also therefore does not have any merit. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench considered these aspects and rightly rejected the contention of the appellants |
2010 STPL(Web) 141 SC | |
| February 23,2010 | Contempt - Sentence and fine set aside |
Sahdeo @ Sahdeo Singh Vs. State of U.P. Criminal Appeal No. 527, 531 of 2002 we reach the inescapable conclusion that contempt proceedings had been concluded without ensuring the compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Rules 1952. The appellants had never been informed as what were the charges against them. The relevant documents on the basis of which the High Court had taken a prima facie view while initiating the contempt proceedings suo motu, had not been made available to them. The notice itself was not only defective, but inaccurate and totally mis-leading. The facts and circumstances of the case warrant reversal of the aforesaid judgment and order |
2010 STPL(Web) 140 SC | |
| February 18,2010 | Contempt - Cost set aside |
P.K. Singh Vs. S.N. Kanungo Civil Appeal No. 6551 of 2002 After reaching the conclusion that the violation is neither willful nor deliberate, the High Court should have at once dropped the contempt proceedings and could not have accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the appellant nor could have imposed cost on the appellant ..... For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment is set aside. The cost, if any, recovered from the appellant be refunded to him |
2010 STPL(Web) 139 SC | |
| February 18,2010 | Murder - Conviction by High Court upheld |
Abdul Mannan Vs. State of Assam Criminal Appeal No.946 of 2002 In the impugned judgment, the High Court observed that this was not a case where two views were possible and the court below has taken the one view. According to the High Court, on careful scrutiny of the evidence, no other view point is possible. The High Court was left with no option but to set aside the judgment of the Trial Court. In our view, the High Court was fully justified in setting aside the acquittal so far as the appellant herein and Abdul Salam and Abdul Subhan are concerned ..... the respondent-State would take all necessary steps to arrest the appellant and lodge him in jail to serve out the remaining period of sentence |
2010 STPL(Web) 138 SC | |
| February 23,2010 | (A) Murder - Acquittal by High Court Upheld (B) Constitutional Law - Scope of interference under Art. 136 |
State of U.P. Vs. Guru Charan Criminal Appeal Nos. 297-298 of 2002 Upon this thorough examination of the entire witness, the High Court has concluded that the evidence of Nathu Singh (P.W.2) is falsified by the evidence of Dr. Ram Babu (P.W.6). Consequently, Nathu Singh (PW 2) has also been held to be unreliable witness ..... According to the prosecution witnesses, the driver, Virendra, sustained injuries in the same incident and by the same assailants. He was also an eye witness. He was alleged to have taken Vijay Kumar (P.W.1) to the police station. Yet he has not been examined by the prosecution ..... The scope of interference in Article 136 in an appeal against acquittal is rather limited. The position with regard to circumstances in which the appellate court would interfere with an acquittal has been recently restated by this court |
2010 STPL(Web) 137 SC | |
| February 19,2010 | Dealership Cancellation |
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Super Highway Services Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.104 of 2009 whether the dealership of the Respondent No.1 had been validly terminated ..... A check was conducted at the outlet of the Respondent No.1 Company, where a sample of High Speed Diesel (HSD) failed the Marker Test, which indicated that the same had been contaminated ..... The cancellation of dealership agreement of a party is a serious business and cannot be taken lightly. In order to justify the action taken to terminate such an agreement, the concerned authority has to act fairly and in complete adherence to the rules/guidelines framed for the said purpose. The non-service of notice to the aggrieved person before termination of his dealership agreement also offends the well- established principle that no person should be condemned unheard |
