|
Updated On : Sunday, May 20, 2012
|
|
|
| May 11,2012
|
-
2012 STPL(Web) 311 SC
Civil Appeal No. 684 of 2004 with Civil Appeal No. 1270 of 2004
whether or not the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was justified in declaring Clause (d), Article 45 of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short, ‘1899 Act’) which was brought in by the Indian Stamp (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2002 (for short, ‘M.P. 2002 Act’) as unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. ….. By making a provision like this, the State Government has sought to collect stamp duty on such indirect and inappropriate mode of transfer by providing that power of attorney given to a person other than kith or kin, without consideration, authorizing such person to sell immovable property situated in Madhya Pradesh will attract stamp duty at two per cent on the market value of the property which is subject matter of power of attorney. In effect, by bringing in this law, the Madhya Pradesh State Legislature has sought to levy stamp duty on such ostensible document, the real intention of which is the transfer of immovable property.
|
|
| May 11,2012
|
Beach Resort - Violation of the CRZ and other irregularities
2012 STPL(Web) 310 SC
Civil Appeal Nos. of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.5967-5968 of 2012)
Suffice it to say that allegations and counter-allegations made by the parties against each other in regard to the violation of the CRZ and other irregularities in the matter of establishment and/or running of resorts and ‘home stay’ and grant of permits to tourists visiting the islands can also be examined by the Expert Committee and action, if any, considered appropriate by it recommended in the Report to be submitted to this Court. While doing so, the Committee shall also examine whether any official of the Lakshadweep Administration has wilfully or otherwise neglected the discharge of his duties whether the same related to violation of CRZ norms or any other act of omission or commission. The Committee may examine whether there is any criminal element in any such neglect or act of omission or commission on the part of any of the officials in the Lakshadweep Administration.
|
|
| May 11,2012
|
Post office - Demand quashed
2012 STPL(Web) 309 SC
Civil Appeal No. 2606 of 2006 with Civil Appeal No. 2607 of 2006
Thus it is apparent that due to a wrong intimation given by the Postal Authority, the Company affixed the postal stamp of Rs.1/- per bill, treating it as ‘book post’ and the staff of the Postal Department without any objection cleared and delivered to the respective addressees. ….. The failure on the part of the Postal Authority to ensure correct postage as per Clause 30(iv) is also not in dispute. The mistake having been committed by the Postal Authority and there being failure on the part of office of the Postal Authority to check the postal articles and postage for recovering the amount from the addressee, it is not open for the Postal Authority to pass on such liability on the sender-company or to recover the same from the Company. The demand notice being not proper was rightly held to be illegal by the learned Single Judge. The question thus raised in this case is answered in negative and against the respondents.
|
|
| May 08,2012
|
Land Acquisition - Solatium - Interest
2012 STPL(Web) 308 SC
Civil Appeal No. 4322 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8643 of 2009)
The sole issue involved herein is as to whether the appellants are entitled for interest over the amount of solatium granted to them. ….. In view of the above, the submissions of the appellants are worth acceptance. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to make the payment of interest on the solatium as per the law laid down in Gurpreet Singh (Supra) within a period of three months from today.
|
|
| May 08,2012
|
Arbitration - Appointment of arbitrator
2012 STPL(Web) 307 SC
Arbitration Petition No.6 of 2009
In my opinion, the aforesaid facts and circumstances are sufficient to show that the bonafide disputes have arisen between the parties, which are within the scope and ambit of the arbitration clause and need to be resolved through arbitration. ….. I hereby appoint Hon. Mr. Justice S.N. Variava, Former Judge of this Court, as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon all the disputes and differences that have arisen between the parties, on such terms and conditions as the learned Sole Arbitrator deems fit and proper.
|
|
| May 08,2012
|
Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - Impartiality
2012 STPL(Web) 306 SC
Arbitration Petition No.19 of 2011
This Court would have the power to appoint a person other than the named arbitrator, upon examination of the relevant facts, which would tend to indicate that the named arbitrator is not likely to be impartial. In this case, the petitioner had clearly pleaded that the named arbitrator is a direct subordinate of the CMD and employee of the respondent. CMD is the controlling authority of all the employees, who have been dealing with the subject matter in the present dispute and also controlling authority of the named arbitrator. ….. In exercise of my powers under Sections 11(4) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Para 2 of the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of India Scheme, 1996, I hereby appoint Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok C. Agarwal, Retired Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, r/o No. 20, Usha Kiran, 2nd Pasta Lane, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005, as the sole arbitrator, to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the parties, on such terms and conditions as the learned sole arbitrator deems fit and proper.
|
|
| May 11,2012
|
Service Law - Judicial Magistrate - Removal
2012 STPL(Web) 305 SC
Civil Appeal No. 4553 of 2012 (Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) No. 1430 of 2011)
In the said writ petition the first respondent had challenged the decision of the Full Court recommending his removal from service as a Railway Judicial Magistrate. ….. In the present case, the recommendation of the Standing Committee to dismiss the first respondent from service was based on the findings in the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer pursuant to the departmental enquiry; his reply to the show cause notice; his ACR and other materials placed before it. The recommendation of the Standing Committee was approved and ratified by the Full Court. There is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that the evaluation made, firstly by the Standing Committee and then by the Full Court, was so arbitrary, capricious or so irrational so as to shock the conscience of the Division Bench to justify its interference with the unanimous opinion of the Full Court. ….. we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench and uphold the validity of Notification dated 19th June 2006, dismissing the first respondent from judicial service.
|
|
| May 11,2012
|
Government Contracts - Blacklisting of contractor upheld
2012 STPL(Web) 304 SC
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 23059 of 2011
By a letter dated 24-01-2011 the petitioner company expressed its inability to confirm its acceptance on the ground that its bid was found not commercially viable on a second look. ….. We cannot say the reasoning adopted by the 2nd respondent either irrational or perverse. The dereliction, such as the one indulged in by the petitioner, if not handled firmly, is likely to result in recurrence of such activity not only on the part of the petitioner, but others also, who deal with public bodies, such as the 2nd respondent giving scope for unwholesome practices. No doubt, the fact that the petitioner is blacklisted (for some period) by the 2nd respondent is likely to have some adverse effect on its business prospects
|
|
| May 08,2012
|
Education - Medical - Cancelation of admission
2012 STPL(Web) 303 SC
Civil Appeal No. 4318 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.27089 of 2011) with Civil Appeal No. 4319 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29306 of 2011)
The admission of the appellants was cancelled by the State Government which, even under the Rules, is the final competent authority for such purposes. In the present case, the mischief played by the concerned persons came to the notice of the Central Government which directed cancellation of the seats and required the State Government to act in accordance with law. ….. We have categorically returned a finding that all the relevant stakeholders have failed to perform their duty/obligation in accordance with law. Where the time schedules have not been complied with, and rule of merit has been defeated, there nepotism and manipulation have prevailed. The stands of various authorities are at variance with each other and none admits to fault. Thus, it is imperative for this Court to ensure proper implementation of judgments of this Court and the regulations of the Medical Council of India as well as not to overlook the arbitrary and colourable exercise of power by the concerned authorities/colleges. ….. Therefore, we hereby direct initiation of proceedings against the following under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
|
|
| May 08,2012
|
MRTP - Recalling of order
2012 STPL(Web) 302 SC
Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 16116-16117 of 2010
MRTP Commission allowed the Review Application and recalled the order dated 13.09.2007 insofar as it directed the respondents to handover possession of the plot to the petitioners. ….. submitted that the order dated 13.09.2007 of the MRTP Commission directing the respondents to handover physical possession of the allotted plot to the petitioners was a consent order as it was passed on the consent of the two advocates appearing for the respondents ….. the order dated 13.09.2007 of the MRTP Commission on its plain reading was only an interim order and the MRTP Commission could modify or revoke the interim order directing the respondents to handover physical possession of the plot to the petitioners if it thought that such a direction could only be considered at the time of finally deciding the complaint. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the order dated 04.03.2009 of the MRTP Commission recalling the direction to handover physical possession of the allotted plot to the petitioner saying that this direction can be considered at the stage of final adjudication of the complaint.
|
|
| May 08,2012
|
Specific Performance - Injunction set aside - Damages
2012 STPL(Web) 301 SC
Civil Appeal Nos. 4313-4314 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 34627-34628 OF 2010) with Civil Appeal No. 4315 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 34839 of 2010)
The Additional City Civil Judge heard the parties and by order dated 24.04.2010 allowed the application for temporary injunction and restrained Liberty Agencies and its partners including A.C. Thirumalaraj from leasing, sub-leasing, alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property in any manner pending disposal of the suit. ….. The High Court lost sight of the fact that if the temporary injunction restraining Liberty Agencies and its partners from allowing, leasing, sub-leasing or encumbering the suit schedule property was not granted, and the respondent no.1 ultimately succeeded in the suit, it would be entitled to damages claimed and proved before the court. In other words, the respondent no.1 will not suffer irreparable injury.
|
|
| May 11,2012
|
Wakf
2012 STPL(Web) 300 SC
Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.31288-31290 of 2011 With SLP(C) Nos.32129-32131 of 2011, SLP(C) No.32636 of 2011, SLP(C) No.35196 of 2011 and SLP(C) No.35198 of 2011
Broadly speaking, the grievance of the Petitioners in these Special Leave Petitions is with regard to the vesting of powers of management and supervision of Muslim Wakf estates in Maharashtra in the Charity Commissioner by virtue of the impugned order of the High Court. ….. In the present case, the difference between Trusts and Wakfs appear to have been overlooked and the High Court has passed orders without taking into consideration the fact that the Charity Commissioner would not ordinarily have any jurisdiction to manage the Wakf properties. …… Accordingly, at this stage, we direct that in relation to Wakf properties, as distinct from Trusts created by Muslims, all concerned, including the Charity Commissioner, Mumbai, shall not permit any of the persons in management of such Wakf properties to either encumber or alienate any of the properties under their management, till a decision is rendered in the pending Special Leave Petitions.
|
|
|
|