LawforAll

▼
Sunday, November 18, 2018

whether any case is made out on facts and in law for interfering in the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant (Accused No. 2) by the High Court. = The seizure of the spirit from the house in question was held illegal and was, therefore, held to be an offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. 14. Section 55(1) of the Abkari Act provides that for any offence other than an offence falling under clause (d) or clause (e), shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to ten years and with fine, which shall not be less than Rs.One Lakh. 15. So far as the appellant’s case is concerned, it falls under clause (a), therefore, it is governed by Section 55 (1) of the Abkari Act. 16. From a mere reading of Section 55 (1), it is clear that insofar as the jail sentence is concerned, 5 it may vary and extend up to 10 years depending upon the facts of each case, but insofar as the fine amount is concerned, the Court has to impose the minimum amount of Rs. one lakh. 17. It is, therefore, mandatory for the Court to impose a fine while awarding jail sentence and secondly, it cannot be less than Rs. one lakh. However, the Court has discretion to impose fine more than Rs. one lakh depending upon the facts of each case. 18. It is not in dispute that the appellant has already undergone jail sentence of around 1 year and 3 months till date and he still continues to remain in jail. In other words, the appellant out of total jail sentence of 3 years awarded to him by the High Court has so far undergone for a period of one year approximately. It is also not in dispute that the 6 appellant was not involved in any other criminal case except the one in question. 19. Keeping in view the facts that the incident in question is of the year 2007; Second, the appellant has undergone jail sentence of 1 year 3 months out of three years total period of jail sentence awarded by the High Court; Third, the appellant was never involved in any criminal activity except the case at hand; and the last, out of three accused, one was given the benefit of doubt, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has made out a case for interference in the quantum of sentence awarded to him by the High Court.

›
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1409 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) ...

11. The need to remand the case has been occasioned on account of one factual error committed by the High Court while dealing with two submission of the appellant (employer) in Para 34 of the impugned order. It is noticed that while dealing with the submissions of the appellant(employer), viz., that the reference made to the Industrial Tribunal is improperly and presumptuously worded and secondly, the Industrial Tribunal travelled beyond the scope of the reference, the High Court instead of quoting the reference, by mistake quoted the operative portion of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and treated the operative portion of the award as reference and proceeded to examine the submissions and rejected the same.12. In our opinion, this being obviously an error apparent on the face of the record of the case and 7 rightly admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, we have no option but to set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the High Court for deciding the writ petitions afresh on merits. We express no opinion on any of the issues dealt with by the High Court in the impugned order.

›
Non­Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11063 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 283...

SUIT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION = plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs sought in the plaint even on the ground of limitation also. It is required to be noted that the agreement/agreement to sell and the general power of attorney were executed in the year 1987, on the basis of which the plaintiff had sought for the reliefs in the year 2004. Even, according to the plaintiff also, the title deed/sale deed in 13 favour of the original defendant no.1 executed by the developers M/s Ansal Properties was in the year 1994. Considering the evidence on record and even considering the case on behalf of the plaintiff, it appears that throughout the plaintiff was aware of the execution of the title deed/sale deed in favour of the original defendant no. 1 executed in the year 1994, still the suit has been instituted in the year 2004 only, i.e. after a period of 10 years. Nothing is on record that any steps were taken by the original plaintiff to get the sale deed executed in his favour and/or in favour of his nominee. Therefore, the suit has been instituted after a period of 17 years after the execution of the agreement/agreement to sell dated 20.4.1987 and after a period of 10 years from the date of the title deed/sale deed in favour of the original defendant no. 1. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff is not entitled such reliefs, except of decree of recovery of amount paid to the original defendant no. 1.

›
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.11070 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. ...
Thursday, November 15, 2018

1. Regarding renewal of the mining lease. 2. Regarding validity of the Environmental Clearance. 3. Regarding sale of iron ore in the form of ROM by Sarda Mines Private Limited. 4. Regarding diversion of additional land for mining and allied activities 5. Regarding production of iron ore without/in excess of the Environmental clearance. 6. Regarding enquiry done by the State Government for alleged violation of Rule 37, MCR, 1960 [Mineral Concession Rules of 1960]. 7. Regarding alleged ownership of the mining lease actually being with Jindal Steel and Power Ltd.

›
IA Nos.40 of 2015 etc. in W.P. (C) No.114 of 2014 Page 1 of 14 REPORTABLE  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICITON  I...

temporary employees are entitled to minimum of the pay scales as long as they continue in service. = In view of the judgment in Jagjit Singh (supra), we are unable to uphold the view of the High Court that the Appellants-herein are not entitled to be paid the minimum of the pay sales. We are not called upon to adjudicate on the rights of the Appellants relating to the regularization of their services. We are concerned only with the principle laid down by this Court initially in Putti Lal (supra) relating to persons who are similarly situated 10 | P a g e to the Appellants and later affirmed in Jagjit Singh (supra) that temporary employees are entitled to minimum of the pay scales as long as they continue in service. 12. We express no opinion on the contention of the State Government that the Appellants are not entitled to the reliefs as they are not working on Group ‘D’ posts and that some of them worked for short periods in projects. 13. For the aforementioned reasons, we allow these Appeals and set aside the judgments of the High Court holding that the Appellants are entitled to be paid the minimum of the pay scales applicable to regular employees working on the same posts. The State of Uttar Pradesh is directed to make payment of the minimum of pay scales to the Appellants with effect from 1st December, 2018.

›
Non Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 10956 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil)...