The Specific Relief Act, 1963  - Section 12 , Section 14 , Section 20

Specific performance of an agreement - Suit filed for - The appellant contended that he did not have the authority to enter into the agreement to sell ½ share in the house property which belonged to his wife and that he could not sell the coparcenery property - The trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance - The High Court also decreed the suit for agriculture land admeasuring 92 Kanals and 17 Marlas after relinquishing that part of the agreement which was not capable of being performed - Hence, the appeal - Whether the High Court has erred in applying the provisions of Sections 12, 14 and 20 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 - Whether the agreement in question being vague in nature was incapable of being performed - Yes - the offer of relinquishment by the respondents cannot be said to be an unambiguous one, and it will be difficult to decide as to which portion of the land is to be segregated to be retained with appellant, and which portion is to be sold - The Supreme Court held that inspite of the offer of relinquishment made by the respondents the specific performance of the agreement cannot be granted, solely on the ground that it is incapable of being performed - The appellant is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondents as earnest money with due return and compensation - Impugned order of the High Court set aside -Appeal allowed.

Found In:  Judgement

The Consumer Protection Act,1986  - Section 2

Negligence - The respondent No. 3 booked a consignment of monoblock pumps with the appellant which were damaged in accident when the goods were in transit - The Consumer fora held that the appellant as a common carrier was the insurer of the goods in transit and if the goods have been damaged, the appellant was liable to respondents No. 1 and 2 for negligence, therefore, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,60,131/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. to the respondents - Hence, the appeal - The Supreme Court opined that if the price of the monoblock pumps as awarded by the Consumer fora had received by respondent No. 3 from the respondents No. 1 and 2, the appellant was entitled to the return of the damaged 198 monoblock pumps from respondents No. 1 and in case the respondents No. 3 has disposed of the 198 monoblock pumps in the meanwhile, the appellant was entitled to the value of the 198 damaged monoblock pumps realized by the respondent No. 3 - Matter remanded to the District Forum - Appeal allowed- Direction issued.

Found In:  Judgement

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955  - Section 13 , Section 28

The Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890 and Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Petitioner-wife and respondent-husband were married two daughters born - Grievance ADJ passed decree of divorce within eight days from presentation of first and second Motions u/Section 13-B(1) of HM Act, 1955 - Petitioner-wife filed a suit for declaration seeking a declaratory decree that respondent obtained decree by fraud - Respondent-husband filed an appeal in High Court - Appeal allowed - Aggrieved respondent-wife filed review petition dismissed - SLP before Supreme Court - Short question for consideration regard to custody of two children - First daughter aged about 17 years second daughter aged about 11 years - Both living with father and in his custody - Both of them want to continue to live with their father and they do not want to go with their mother - Children forcibly taken away from father and handed over to mother affect their mental condition and it will not be desirable in the interest of their betterment and studies - Matter relating to custody of children - First paramount consideration is welfare and interest of child - Not the rights of parents - Interest and welfare of children if they continue to be in custody of father - Providing visitation rights to mother - If visitation rights for visiting her children once in a fortnight is ordered - Petitioner-wife willing to withdraw all civil and criminal cases - Both residing at Delhi - Respondent-husband directed to bring both daughters to Supreme Court Mediation Centre at 10 a.m. on Saturday of every fortnight and hand over both of them to the petitioner-wife - Mother is free to interact with them and take them out and keep them in her house for overnight stay - It is also clear - If visitation is not workable due to attitude of any party - Counsel for them free to mention - Ordered Accordingly.

Found In:  Judgement

Civil Law  - Land Revenue

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Section 174 - Default notices - Section 168 - Appellant was served with a demand notice demanding payment of Rs.45,25,538/- as non-agricultural cess and additional non-agriculture cess, for the period 1995-96 to 2001-02 - writ petition filed by the appellant contending that it is not liable to pay the non-agricultural assessment as it is a government lessee - High Court held that as lessee under the Development Authority, the appellant was liable to pay the non-agricultural assessment however, quashed the demand relating to the period 1995-96 to 1998-99 and upheld the claim for the non-agricultural assessment from the year 1999-2000 onwards - Appeal - Whether the petitioner is a `government lessee' and therefore not liable to pay the non-agricultural assessment - Whether the appellant being a tenant of the Development Authority, the demand for non-agricultural assessment could be made only on the Development Authority and not against the tenant - No - Lands leased were held by the Development Authority, and nothing produced on record to show that the lands belonged to government and that the Development Authority granted the lease in favour of appellant, acting as an agent of the state government - Liability of the appellant as tenant, to pay the land revenue, though not under a `tenancy law' in its strict sense, but is nevertheless under a statutory regulation governing the tenancy and therefore the demand by the state government directly against the appellant, can be justified by the principle underlying section 168(1)(c) - Order of the High Court upheld - Appeal dismissed.

Found In:  Judgement

Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 302 , Section 447 , Section 149 , Section 147 , Section 148

Murder, unlawful assembly, rioting with deadly weapons - conviction and sentence - Appeal - Testimony of prosecution witnesses is found convincing and trust worthy about the incident - Statements of PWs 1 to 4 and the assertion of PW-7 who conducted the autopsy on the body of deceased clearly showed that the prosecution established its charge that both the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the incident - Intention and knowledge to cause death has been amply demonstrated and proved - Prosecution established long standing land and water dispute among the deceased and the accused, the evidence of eye-witnesses are acceptable, contradictions are trivial in nature and medical evidence corroborate the assertion of prosecution witnesses - Supreme Court no interference in the order passed by the courts below - Appeal dismissed.

Found In:  Judgement

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971  - Section 12 , Section 15 , Section 2

Criminal contempt - High Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the contemnors/advocates for hurling abuses and derogatory remarks against the Jr. Div.-cum-Judicial Magistrate, I Class - High Court found all the contemnors guilty of criminal contempt and imposed simple imprisonment of six months/three months with a fine of Rs.1,000-2,000/- each - Appeals - Appellants offered unconditional apology by filing affidavits - Supreme Court accepted the unconditional apology as an exception to the general rule, tendered in the form of affidavits in terms of proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act - Appellants discharged.

Found In:  Judgement

Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 120-B , Section 409 , Section 420 , Section 467 , Section 468 , Section 471 , Section 477-A

FIR under - Against Chairman, Directors and Auditors of M/s. Satyam Computer Services Limited - Corporate scam - Fudging of company accounts and manipulation of records - Investigation entrusted to CBI - High Court enlarged A4 and A10 on bail - Imposing certain conditions -Appeals - Facts and circumstances of magnitude of scam - Bail granted in favour of - Main accused - Cancelled - A4 and A10 being external and internal auditors - Their role being paramount - High Court not justified - Granting bail - Impugned order granting bail A-4 and A-10 set aside - appeals allowed.

Found In:  Judgement

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971  - Section 2 , Section 12

Criminal contempt - Conviction and sentence - Respondent No.1/elected MLA filed Contempt Application before the High Court stating that on the direction, supervision and knowledge of the appellant Respondent No. 2 moved an application to cancel the bail granted to him on the basis of false statement - High Court - Appellant and Respondent No.2 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 2(c) and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days under Section 12 of the Act - Appeal - In respect of violence on the day of election, Respondent No. 1 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody - Analysis of affidavits of the Inspector of Police, Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Police show that there is no acceptable material that the affidavit containing wrong information filed by Respondent No. 2 for cancellation of bail and stay of bail order was made at the instance of the Commissioner of Police - Author of the affidavit, Respondent No. 2 specifically denied the allegation that the application for cancellation of bail was moved under the direction, supervision and knowledge of the appellant - Absence of specific reference about consultation with the Commissioner of Police or direction to the two officers, Assistant Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police merely because both of them attended the office of the Public Prosecutor for preparation of an application for cancellation of bail based on the affidavit of the Inspector of Police, it cannot be presumed and concluded that the appellant was responsible for giving incorrect information by Respondent No. 2 before the High Court - Impugned order of the High Court qua the appellant set aside - Appeal allowed.

Found In:  Judgement

Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 149 , Section 302 , Section 324 , The Arms Act,1959  - Section 27

Murder - Conviction - Challenged - Appellants were convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of the IPC r/w s. 27 of the Arms Act, s. 302 r/w s. 149 of the IPC and s. 324 r/w s. 149 of the IPC - Conviction was upheld by HC - Appeal - Discrepancies in prosecution witnesses - Held, evidence of injured persons about the nature of injury contradict each other - Witnesses were not able to identify the actual place of occurrence - They all had a different version about the nature of injuries and they were not consistent whether the deceased died at the spot or on the way to hospital or in the hospital - Hence, in view of their improvements with due deliberation and consultation and in the absence of credible explanation, conviction based on their testimony could not be sustained - Acquitted.

Found In:  Judgement

Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 302

Murder - Conviction - Circumstantial evidence - Challenged - Appellants were convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of IPC - Conviction was affirmed by HC - Appeal - Whether courts below erred in convicting the appellants? - Held, courts below have examined the entire evidence on record and reached the conclusion that chain of circumstances stood completed and all the circumstances pointed towards the guilt of the accused - Such findings stand fully substantiated by the depositions of the witnesses in the court - There was nothing on record to indicate that witnesses had any motive to falsely implicate the accused or that there was any motive for attributing an untruthful statement to the appellants - Conviction upheld - Appeal dismissed.

Found In:  Judgement