evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
[2011) 4 S.C.R. 174

AFJAL IMAM

STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2843 of 2011)

APRIL 01, 2011

[J.M. PANCHAL AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.]

Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 - ss. 27, 25 (4), 23(3), 21(3) and 21 (4) - Election of appellant as Mayor of Municipal C Corporation - Appellant nominated seven Municipal Councillors to the Empowered Standing Committee - Entitlement of the appellant as well as the members of the Empowered Standing Committee to exercise all the powers as the Mayor and the members of the Empowered Standing D Committee as provided in the Act - Held: Entitled - Judgment containing the reasons to follow separately - s. 27 is to be read down harmoniously with ss. 25(4), 23(3), 21 (3) and 21 (4)

- Direction issued to respondent no. 3-District Magistrate Patna, Bihar to administer the oath of secrecy u/s. 24 to the E seven Municipal Councillors.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2843 of 2011.

From the Judgment & Order dated 8.7.2010 of the High F Court of Judicature of Patna in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9981 of 2010.

S.B.K. Mangalam, Rajesh Anand, Ashutosh Pande, Madhumita Singh, Abhay Kumar for the Appellant.

Santosh Mishra, Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Chandan Kumar, Santosh Kumar TrijJathi, Neeraj Shekhar for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered

AFJAL IMAM v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 175

ORDER A

1. Leave Granted.

2. Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Writ Petition bearing No.CWJC 9981/2010 dated 8th July, 2010 is set B

asic;!~ The said writ petition filed by the appellant herein stands allowed in part. Section 27 of the Bihar Municipal Act 2007 shall be read down harmoniously with Sections 25 (4), 23 (3), 21 (3) and 21 (4) of the said Act. The respondent no.3, the District Magistrate Patna, Bihar is directed to administer the C oath of secrecy under Section 24 of the Act to the seven Municipal Councillors nominated by the appellant to the Empowered Standing Committee. The appellant as well as the members of the Empowered Standing Committee shall be entitled to exercise all the powers as the Mayor and the D members of the Empowered Standing Committee as provided in te Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, in accordance with law.

3. Judgment containing the reasons to follow separately.

N.J.

Appeal allowed.· E
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 222

GURMUKH SINGH

JASWANT KAUR (Civil Appeal No. 5140 of 2004)

APRIL 04, 2011

[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

Suit - Suit for recovery - Execution of pronote and receipt by the respondent in favour of the appellant - Failure C of the respondent to repay the amount - Suit filed by the appellant for recovery of the amount - Rejected by all. three the courts below on the finding that the documents were not duly stamped and that the stamps affixed on the pronote were removed from another document - Interference with - Held: D Findings of the courts below are findings of fact and cannot be interfered with - The pronote in question cannot be taken into consideration - Indian Stamps Act, 1899.

CIVl'l APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.

E 5140 of 2004.

From the Judgment & Order dated 11.8.2003 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 1069 of 2002.

F A.V. Palli, Rekha Palli for the Appellant.

K.G. Bhagat, Manju Bhagat, Dr. Manohar Singh Bakshi, Vineet Bhagat, Debasis Misra for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11.8.2003 in R.S.A.

No.1069 of 2002 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. 222

GURMUKH SINGH v. JASWANT KAUR 223

[MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.]

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the A record.

3. The plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,31,000/-. He claimed that the defendant had executed a pronote and receipt dated 2.5.1994 whereby the defendant had 8 borrowed a suni of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same along with interest @ 2% per annum on demand. Since the defendant had not paid the aforesaid amount, the suit was filed.

4. The defendant-respondent contested the suit and

C . denied the execution of the pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff. She alleged that the aforesaid pronote and receipt were forged and fictitious documents.

5. The trial court on the basis of evidence found that the 0 pronote and receipt were executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. However, the trial court rejected the plaintiffs claim by holding that the said documents were not duly stamped as required under the provisions of Indian Stamps Act. It was

ound by the trial court that the stamps which were affixed on E the pronote were removed from another document and affixed on the said pronote. ··

6. The first appellate court and the High Court have agreed With the view of the trial court. Thus all the three courts below decided against the appellant.

7. The findings of the courts below are findings of fact and we cannot interfere with the same in this appeal. The finding is that the stamps which have been affixed were removed from other documents, anc:J. hence, it has rightly been said that such G a pronote cannot be taken into consideration~

8. Thus there is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed.

No costs. •

N.J.

Appeal dismissed.
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 236

MIS. KUNJ ALUMINIUM PRIVATE LIMITED

MIS. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NV

(Civil Appeal No. 2915 of 2011)

APRIL 4, 2011

[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

Judgment/Order - Non-reasoned order - Letters Patent appeal - Division Bench of High Court did not give any C reason for dismissing appeal against the order of the Single Judge - Justification - Held: Not justified - The order of Division Bench was too cryptive - There should have been at least a brief discussion of facts and some reasons - Even an order of affirrnance must give some reasons, even if brief o - Matter remanded to Division Bench of High Court for consideration afresh.

Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai KshetriyaGramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and Ors.

E JT (2009) 4 SC 519 - relied on.

Case Law Reference:

JT (2009) 4 SC 519 relied on Para 5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.

F 2915 of 2011.

From the Judgment & Order dated 30.11.2009 of the High Court of Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No. 613 of 2009.

Mrigang Dutta (for Rajiv Mehta) for the Appellant.

Sudhir Chandra, N. Mahabir, Sheetal Vohra (for R.

Chandrachud) for the Respondent.

The Judgment of (he Court was delivered by H 236

KUNJ ALUMINIUM PRIVATE LTD. v. KONINKLIJKE 237

PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NV

MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 30.11.2009 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.613 of 2009. Without going into the B merits of the controversy we find that the impugned judgment of the Division Bench dated 30.11.2009 gives no reasons.

4. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench only states:

"5. We have heard Mr. Arvind Nigam, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant at length. We have also perused the documents on records as well as the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.

6. We are of the considered view that the impugned order suffers from no legal infirmity which warrants interference by way of appeal."

5. In our opinion this was not the way to dispose off an E appeal. The impugned order is too cryptive. There should have been at least a brief discussion of facts and some reasons. It has been held by this Court that even an order of affirmance must give some reasons, even 'if brief vide Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin F Bank vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney & Ors. JT 2009(4) SC 519.

Hence we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Division Bench for a fresh hearing in accordance with law, expeditiously. (

6. Appeal is allowed. No costs.

B.B.B.

Appeal allowed.
[2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 107

ORJSSA PRIVATE MEDICAL & DENTAL COLLEGES A

ASSOCIATION, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN

CHAIRMAN, ORISSA JOINT ENTRANCE EXAMINATION-

2011 AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 9690 of 2011) B

NOVEMBER 11, 2011

[H.L. DATTU AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.]

Education/Educational Institutions:

Medical and Dental Colleges - Orissa Joint Entrance Examination-2011(0JEE-11) - Chairman, OJEE-11 directed

to conduct further counseling for the 624 OJEE-11 qualified candidates in the waiting list to fill up the eight seats, that are D still vacant in the Private Medical College/Colleges, which are the members of the appellant Association on or before 24.11.2011, subject to the rules and regulations applicable for admissions - The appellant shall also furnish the list of candidates admitted to the appropriate authority on or before 30.11.2011.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9690 of 2011.

From the Judgment & Order dated 07.09.2011 of the High F Court of Judicature for Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Appeal No. 429 of 2011.

L. Nageswara Rao, Amitabh Bagchi, S.K. Das (for Ajay Choudhary) for the Appellant.

G Milind Kumar for the Respondents.

The Order of the Court was delivered by

107 H

108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

ORDER

H. L. DATTU, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant - Orissa Private Medical and Dental Colleges Association in this appeal is impugning the Judgment B and Order passed by Orissa High Court in W.A. No. 429 of

2011 dated 07.09.2011.

3. Fcir the purpose of disposal of this appeal, we need not notice in detail the facts and issues raised in this appeal, since C the submission made by the learned counsel at the time of hearing lie in a narrow compass.

4. Sri. L. Nageshwara Rao, learned senior counsel, submits that in view of the Reply Affidavit filed by Chairman, Orissa Joint Entrance Examination - 2011 (for short, "OJEE- D 11 ") - Respondent No. 1, a direction may be issued to them to conduct further counseling from among 624 OJEE-11 qualified candidates, who are in the waiting list to fill up eight vacant seats in the Private Medical Colleges, which are

E members of the appellant Association.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent OJEE-11 does not object to the reasonable request made by the learned senior counsel for the appellant.

6. In the result, we order that Respondent No. 1 will conduct F further counseling for the 624 OJEE-11 qualified candidates in the waiting list to fill up the eight seats, that are still vacant in the Private Medical College/Colleges, which are the members of the appellant Association on or before 24.11.2011, subject to the rules and regulations applicable for admissions. The . G appellant shall also furnish the list of candidates admitted to the appropriate authority on or before 30.11.2011 . • t 1"

7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

H D.G.

Appeal disposed of.
[2011) 5 S.C.R. 769

BHANU VALVE

STATE (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3192 of 2011)

APRIL 18, 2011

[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860 - s. 376 - Accused raped his own daughter regularly for five years after his wife left him, and fathered a child from his daughter - Conviction by courts C below - On appeal, held: There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the daughter as also the courts. below - The act of the accused was most 'barbaric and heinous, and cannot be condoned by any means - Thus, order passed by the courts below upheld.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Criminal) No. 3192 of 2011.

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2010 of the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Criminal Appeal No. 48 of E 2009.

Garvesh Kabra for the Petitioner.

The following order of the Court was delivered

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Delay condoned.

This petition has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Barnaby High Court dated 27.07.2010 by which the High Court has upheld the conviction of the petitioner by the trial court. 769

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2011) 5 S.C.R.

A The facts in detail have been set out in the impugned

judgment, and hence we are not repeating the same here. The High Court and the trial court have discussed the evidence in great detail, and we entirely agree with the view they have taken.

This is one of the most barbaric and heinous cases we have come across in our judicial career. The petitioner has been found guilty of raping his own daughter regularly for five years after his wife left him, and has produced a child from her.

C This kind of unheard behaviour cannot be condoned by any means. The daughter-PW-1 (prosecutrix) has given her evidence in this case, and we see no reason to disbelieve her.

The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.

N.J.

Special Leave Petition dismissed.
(2011) 6 S.C.R. 757

. RAM PRAKASH SHARMA A

" , • ~· •• < • .. • ·. •.,:·. v. -eABULAL H~LA (0) BY LRS. & OTHERS ' ... "·

 I.A. N0.3 OF 2011 ... _,._ : ; .

'CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5310 OF 2010 B

MAY 12, 2011

[MARKANOEY KAT JU ANO GYAN SUOHA MISRA, JJ.]

Rent Control and Eviction:

Eviction matters - Time granted to tenant to vacate the tenanted premises - Premises not vacated within the time granted - Held: In such a case, the tenant should be evicted

by the policeforce, if he does not vacate the premises on his 0 own ;;.. ::(~1int::cal1li!e an application well in advance to seek . extenslo"tii;>ffi"?:~:t<)vacate the premises . . .. <:·".~.·:~··"· ..

Cl\/H.;':APPELLATE JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 3 of 2011 .,

Civil Appeal No. 5310 of 2010.

From the Judgment & Order dated 5.9.2008 of the High Cout of Judicature Jabalpur, Bench at Gwalior in Second

Appeal No. 285 of 2005.

Madhurima Bora (for Balaji Srinivasan) for the appellant.

Rishi Maheshwari (for Shally Bhasin Maheshwari) for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered

... 758

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2011) 6 S.C.R.

ORDER

Taken on Board.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

B In the facts and circumstances of the case, time to vacate the premises in question is extended till 31st August, 2011 and if the tenants do not vacate on or before the said date, they will be evicted by police force.

C We further make it clear that when this Court allows the petition/appeal of the landlord or dismisses the petition/appeal of the tenant and grant some time to vacate the premises in question and if the tenant does not vacate within the time granted, the tenant shall be evicted by police force. This is a general direction we are passing because we are coming D across several cases where the tenants are not vacating the premises in question despite granting time by this Court or despite furnishing an undertaking to this Court with a result that the landlord has to initiate contempt 1roceedings or any other proceedings. Hence, we give a general direction that when E tenant's petition/appeal is dismissed and he is given time to vacate then on the expiry of that time, he will be evicted by police force if he does not vacate of his own.

If any extension of time to vacate is desired, that F application should be filed well in advance.

The Interlocutory Application is allowed accordingly.

N.J.

Interlocutory Application allowed.
[2011] 6 S.C.R. 820

AMAR NATH ROY AND ORS.

ARUN KUMAR KEDIA AND ANR.

Contempt Petition (C) No. 139 of 2011

IN Civil Appeal No. 2663 of 2004

MAY 13, 2011

[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

C Rent control and eviction:

Eviction order - Tenant's appeal dismissed by Supreme Court - Tenant granted nine months time from the date of dismissal of appeal to vacate the tenanted premises - Tenant D did not vacate the tenanted premises even after the period I

granted - Contempt petition - Supreme Court disposed of the contempt petition directing eviction of tenant by police force

- Contempt of Court.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition E No. 139 of 2011.

Civil Appeal No. 2663 of 2004.

F From the Judgment & Order dated 12.3.2004 of the High Court Calcutta in F.A.No. 23 of 2000.

Jaideep Gupta, Sarad Kumar Singhania for the Appellant

G Ramesh Singh (for O.P. Khaitan & Co) for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered

H 820

AMAR NATH ROY AND ORS. v. ARUN KUMAR

KEDIA AND ANR.

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In this cas~. the tenant's appeal being Civil Appeal No. 2663 of 2004 was dismissed by this Court by our order dated November 04, 2009 and we gave the tenant nine months' time B from that date to vacate the premises in question. Review Petition filed by the tenant was also dismissed on March 25, 2010.

We are informed that the tenant has not vacated the c premises in question. Hence, this contempt petition.

Accordingly, we direct that the tenant-Anderson Wright & Co. shall be evicted from 7, Red Cross Place, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata-700 001 forthwith by police force.

The Contempt Petition is disposed of.

D.G.

Contempt Petition disposed of.
(2011] 8 S.C.R. 723

SWADESI JAGARAN MANCH v.

STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.

(Transferred case no(s) 11 of 2002)

JULY 4, 2011 B

[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.]

Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955: r.441 - Prohibition on sale and manufacture of common salt - Writ petition no. 80 of 2006 wherein constitutionality of r. 44 was C under challenge was disposed of and six months time was granted to Central Government to review position regarding universal iodisation - Transferred petitions 9212009, 1521 2009, 16812009, 18512009 and 21812009 allowed in terms of judgment in Writ petition no. 80 of 2006 - Writ petition no. 1751

2006 and Transfer case 1112002 de/inked from writ petition D no. 80 of 2006 since dispute therein did not relate to challenge to r. 441 - In view of that, pending matters to be listed for further orders after six months.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transferred Case No. 11 of 2002 etc.

Under Article 139A of the Constitution of India.

WITH

TC (C) No. 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 of 2011 And

WP (C) No. 80, 175 of 2006.

Dr. Aurobindo Ghose, Balraj Dewan, Vishwajit Singh, Himanshu Munshi for the Appellants.

Naresh Kaushik, Sadhana Sandhu, D.S. Mahra, Sushma

Suri, 8.8. Singh for the Respondents.

The following order of the Court was delivered

ORDER Transfer Petition (C) Nos.92/2009, 152/2009, 168/2009,

723 H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2011] 8 S.C.R.

A 185/2009 and 218/2009 are allowed and the following writ petitions are transferred from the respective High Court to this Court:

(1) WP(C) No.4204/2006 on the file of the Madras High Court (2) WP(C) No.341/2006 on the file of the Bombay High Court (3) WP(C) No.13082/2006 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh High Court (4) WP(C) No.13354/2006 on the file of the Karnataka High Court (5) PIL No. 61/2006 on the file of the Bombay High Court

2. Judgment is pronounced in WP(C) No.80 of 2006 and the aforesaid five transferred cases, allowing them in terms of D the Judgement.

3. Writ Petition (Civil) No.175/2006 and Transfer Case (Civil) No.11/2002 are delinked from the aforesaid cases which are disposed of, as they do not relate to challenge to Rule 44-

1 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955. Transfer Case E (Civil) No.11/2002 seeks quashing of a notification dated

15.10.2001 issued by the Director of Health Services, Orissa prohibiting sale and manufacture of common salt other than iodised salt for human consumption, issued in exercise of power under the relevant state Rules. Writ Petition (Civil) F No.175/2006 is filed seeking a direction to the central

government to frame a uniform policy for the control of goitre and a direction regarding imposing ban on the manufacture of non-iodised salt all over the country.

4. While disposing of Writ Petition (Civil) No.80/2006, we G have granted six months time to review the position regarding universal iodisation. In view of the above, list these two matters for further orders, after six months.

D.G.

Writ Petition (c) No. 175 of 2006 and

H Transfer case (c) No. 11 of 2002 are pending.