evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
ST ANNY FELIX PINTO

MIS. JANGID BUILDERS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. ~

JANUARY 15, 2001

[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 : Section I 38.

Conviction under Section 138-lmposition of Sentence of imprisonment c and fine-Suspension of sentence by High Court-While granting suspension of sentence Court directed that part of fine shall be remitted in Court within a reasonable time-Petition against said direction-Held direction given was advisable and in .the interest of justice-Held direction was not unjust- Held impugned order calls for no interference.

D CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 2001.

From the Judgment and Order dated 31.08.2000 in CRL. RA 238/2000 of the High Court of Bombay.

E Shivaj i M. Jadhav for the appearing parties.

The following Judgment of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

F When a person was convicted under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to imprisonment and fine he moved the superior court for suspension of the sentence. The High Court while entertaining his revision granted suspension of the sentence by imposing a condition that part of the fine shall be remitted in court within a specified time.

G It is against tre said direction that this petition has been filed. In our view the High Court has done it correctly and in the interest of justice. We feel that while suspending the sentence for the offence under Sec. 138 of the

),.

Negotiable Instruments Act it is advisable that the Court imposes a condition that the fine part is remitted within a certain period. If the fine amount is heavy, the Court can direct atleast a portion thereof to be remitted as the

H convicted person wants the sentence to be suspended during the pendency

STANNY FELIX PINTO v. MIS. JANGlD BUlLDERS PVT. LTD. 391

of the appeal. In this case the grievance of the appellant is that he is required A by the High Court to remit a huge amount of Rupees four lacs as a condition to suspend the sentence. When considering the total amount of fine imposed by the trial court (twenty lacs of Rupees) there is nothing unjust or unconscionable in imposing such a condition. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. As such no notice need be issued to the B respondent. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

T.N.A.

Appeal dismissed.
VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION THROUGH PRESIDENT

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH CABINET

SECRETARY AND ORS.

AUGUST 3, 2001

[DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., R.C. LAHOTI AND

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.]

Educational Institutions-Ragging-Guidelines laid down and directions issued by Supreme Court to curb menance of ragging-Wide publicity would C be given to said guidelines.

Vishwa Jagriti Mission through President v. Central Government through Cabinet Secretary and Ors., [2001 J 3 SCR 540, referred to.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 656 of D 1998.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).

Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Lalita Kohli, Ms.

Kavita Wadia for Maninder Singh, Ajay Sharma, B.V. Bairam Das, Ms.

Sushma Suri, Sidharth Bhatnagar, Gaurab K. Banerjee and Prashant Kumar E for the appearing parties.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition, which was filed in public interest highlighting the menace prevailing in the educational institutions of the country in the matter of ragging of fresh students has F achieved its purpose through the order of the Court dated 4th May, 2001. He submits that nothing further is required to be done in so far as this petition is concerned except that the respondents be directed to give wide publicity to the suggested guide-lines of the Court as contained in that order.

The learned Additional Solicitor General, who appears for the G respondents, submits that the needful shall be done. We record the statement and dispose of the writ petition as settled in terms of the order of the Court dated 4th May, 2001, which is made absolute.

R.P.

Petition disposed of.

297 H
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.

MUMBAI SHRAMIK SANGHA AND ORS . ....

APRIL 25, 2001

[S.P. BHARUCHA, V.N. KHARE, N. SANTOSH HEGDE, Y.K.

SABHARWAL AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.]

Judicial discipline-Judgment given by a Constitution Bench*-Bench of two Judges doubted the correctness of judgment of Constitution Bench- C Consequential reference-Held-Decision of Constitution Bench binds a Bench of two Judges-Judicial discipline obliges them to follow it- Accordingly matter should be heard and decided by a Bench of two Judges.

*Gammon (India) Ltd. v. Union of India, [1974] 3 SCR 665, referred D to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6213 of 1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30/31.1.97 and 21.2.97 of the Bombay E High Court in W.P. No. 436of1991.

T.R. Andharujina, P.N. Misra, P.H. Parekh, Sameer Parekh, Birender Saraf, Ms. Indoo P. Verma, Colin Gonsalves, Bharat Sangal, Ms. Aparna Bhat, Ms. Asha Pathak, Biswajit S., C.K. Ganguli, Brij Bhushan, K.C. Kaushik and C. Radhakrishna for Arvind Kr. Sharma for the appearing parties.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

ORDER

The order of reference to a Constitution Bench is dated 13th January, G 1998. Two learned judges of this Court have doubted the correctness of the scope attributed to Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 in the Constitution Bench judgment in Gammon (India) Ltd. v. Union of India, [1974] 3 SCR 665. This is how the matter comes before us.

H We are of the view that a decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. v. MUMBAI SHRAMIK SANGHA 209

binds a bench of two learned judges of this Court and that judicial discipline A obliges them to follow it, regardless of their doubts about its correctness. At the most, they could have ordered that the matter be heard by a Bench of three learned judges.

Accordingly, this matter shall now be heard and decided by a Bench of two learned judges.

T.N.A.

Matter is still pending.
BIRENDERA KUMAR DUBEY AND ANR.

A v.

GIRJA NANDAN DUBEY AND ORS.

AUGUST 31, 200 I

[ SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] B

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 :

Ss. JOO and JOI-Second appeal-High Court deciding second appeal on facts without framing substantial question of law, and setting aside judgment C and decree of first appellate court-Held, High Court can entertain second appeal only when a substantial question of law arises from the judgment of the first appellate court-Second appeal restored to file of High Court-High Court would consider whether any substantial question of law arises from judgment and decree of first appellate court and, if so, to frame the question D and dispose of that question.

Panchugopal Barua and Ors. v. Umesh Chandra Goswami and Ors., [1997] 4 SCC 713; Kshitesh Chandra Parkait v. Santosh Kumar Parkait and Ors., (1997] 5 SCC 438; The Tehsildar and Ors. v. G. V Gopalakrishnappa and Ors., (disposed of on 25.9.2000) and Dyamappa H Gondar v. Ganeshappa E S. Sudambi and Anr., [2001] Vol. 6 SCC 768.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6060 of 2001.

From the Judgment and Order dated 16.5.2000 of the Patna High Court F in S.A. No. 353 of I 993.

Atul K.Sinha and Devendra Singh for the Appellants.

S.K. Sinha for the Respondents.

G The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Heard the learned counsel for the parties

Delay is condoned.

473 H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Leave is granted.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Patna in Second Appeal No. 353/1993 dated May 16, 2000. By the impugned judgment, the High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court and restored that of the Trial Court.

A perusal of the judgment shows that the High Coutt has not framed any substantial question of law before proceeding to dispose of the Second Appeal. This Court has in Panchugopal Barua and Ors., v. Umesh Chandra Goswami and Ors., [1997] 4 SCC 713; Kshitesh Chandra Parkait v. Santosh C Kumar Parkait and Ors., [1997] 5 SCC 438; The Tehsildar and Ors. v. G. V.

Gopalakrishnappa and Ors. disposed of on 25.9.2000 and Dyamappa H.

Gondar v. Ganeshappa S. Sudambi and Anr., disposed of on 28.9.2000, held that having regard to the provisions of Sections 100 and IOI C.P.C., the High Court can entertain the Second Appeal only when a substantial question of law arises from the judgment of the first Appellate Court. As the High Comt D has not framed such a question but decided the Second Appeal on fact and reversed the first Appellate Court's judgment and decree, we have no option except to set aside the judgment and decree under appeai and remand the case to the High Court for fresh disposal according to law.

The judgment and decree, under appeal, are set aside, the Second Appeal E is restored to the file of the High Court. The High Court will now consider whether any substantial question of law arises from the judgment of the first Appellate Court and if so, to frame the question and dispose of the appeal on that question. The appeal is accordingly aliowed. There shali be no order as to costs.

F R.P.

Appeal allowed.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

A v.

MANISHA DWIVEDI AND ANR.

AUGUST 31, 2001

[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] B

Constitution of India, 1950 ~

Article 136---Petition for special leave to appeal-Filed against interlocutory order passed in a writ petition pending before High Court- C Held, Supreme Court will not normally exercise its Jurisdiction under Article 136 in respect of an interlocutory order except in spe.cial circumstances to prevent manifest injustice or abuse of the process of Court-No speciai circumstances warranting interference found-Besides there is unexplained delay of more than one year in filing the petition-Petition dismissed-- D lnterlocutmJ' order.

Delay/Latches :

Petition for special leave to file appeal in Supreme Court-There being delay of more than one year in filing 1he petition-Petition not entertained.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 11293-11294 of 2001.

From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.99 and 12.1.2001 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 35983 of 1999.

WITH

I.A. Nos. 4 and 5 of 200 !.

A vadh Behari Rohatgi, Ashok K. Srivastava and Prakash K. Singh for the Peritioners.

Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Manik Karttnjawala, R.N. Karanjawala, Ms. Nandini Gore, Ankur Chawla and Hrishikesh Baruah for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A The special leave petitions are filed against the order of the High Court dated 2.9.1999 and 12.1.2001 (in fact it is found to be 12.1.2001). Notice was issued on the appeal leave petitions on 10.7.2001. The respondents filed IAs. for revoking the notice on the allegation that correct facts were not

brought to the notice of the Court.

B Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

We are not inclined to consider these special leave petitions on merits for two reasons; first, notice was ordered on the basis, gathered from the documents filed in the special leave petitions, that the impugned order was passed on 12.1.2001; ifthat were to be correct there was no dealy in filing C the special petitions and it was accordingly so observed. Now, it turns out that the impugned order was passed on 12.1.2000 and not on 12.1.2001 and on the material on record we are satisfied that it is not a case of typographical error. Thus, there is a delay of more than a year which remains unexplained and, therefore, the special leave petitions cannot be entertained. Secondly, D the impugned order is only an interlocutory order and the Writ Petition is still pending. This Court will not normally execrise its jursidiction under Article 136 of the Constitution in respect of an interlocutory order except in special circumstances to prevent manifest injustice or abuse of the process of the Court. We do not find any special circumstances warranting our intereferece in this case.

E Interlocutory applications are allowed and the special leave petitions are dismissed accordingly.

R.P.

Petitions dismissed and IA 's allowed.