Jurisdiction of CAT

full ruling 

tribunal judgement dated 22.02.2012 of ahmedabad bench in OA No. 78 of 2011

Rao Bahadur Y Mahabaleshwarappa 

sister in law filed 498a 406 323 342. Also alleged i was trying to make relations with her. also reported i was asked by my wife,mother in law to force her for relations & in doing so she fell down . does this case attracts any sexual offence. she is falsely implicating for property. because after the formal report to police station , she put pressure on us & signed an agreement on stamp paper for property. but want of more money which we refused, she filed a false fir as narrated brifly. kindly suggest 

I am in need of feeds which has all IPC sections listed through RSS or a web service which provides complete list.

Thanks !

There are some errors in a judgement posted.
whom should I contact/email with the corrections.
Also wondering why it is tagged/indexed at high
rank, showing at top of search results. 

ITEM NO.110               COURT NO.8             SECTION XIIA


            S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A
                         RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
                    CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 8472 OF 2003


GUSANI STEELS (PVT.) LTD. & ORS.                  Appellant (s)

                 VERSUS

SHANTHA BAI & ORS.                                Respondent(s)

(With office report)

Date: 13/12/2012  This Appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
        HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA


For Appellant(s) Mr. Manu Shanker Mishra,Adv.
                         Mr. Anshuman Upadhyay,Adv.


For Respondent(s)        Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari,Adv.

                         Ms. C.K. Sucharita,Adv

                         Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao,Adv
                         Mr. Vismai Rao,Adv.
                         Mr. Hitendra Nath Rath,Adv.

                         Mr. Sridhar Potaraju,Adv

                         Mr. G.N.Reddy,Adv.


           UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
                               O R D E R

                 The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.






          (O.P. Sharma)                   (M.S. Negi)
          Court Master                         Court Master
                         (Signed order is placed on the file)




                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                        CIVIL APPEAL NO.8472 OF 2003



GUSANI STEELS (PVT.) LTD. & ORS.                  Appellants

                 VERSUS

SHANTHA BAI & ORS.                                Respondents



                                  O R D E R



         This appeal is directed against the common  judgment  of  the  High
Court dated 29.3.2000 wherein Writ  Petition  No.6065/1992  was  also  dealt
with alongwith other writ  petitions  and  resultantly,  the  writ  petition
No.6065/1992 was dismissed by the High Court.

         The appellants were respondents  16,3,15,  18  and  38  before  the
Special  Court  constituted  under  the   Andhra   Pradesh   Land   Grabbing
(Prohibition) Act,  1982  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  "the  Act").   The
appellants were declared as land grabbers  and  an  order  of  eviction  was
granted in favour of the contesting private respondents.

         Aggrieved by the order of the Special Court,  the  appellants  went
before the High Court challenging the order of the Tribunal.  The  challenge
was to Sections 7 and 8 of the Act apart from assailing the decision of  the
Special Court on merits.  While dealing with the vires of Sections 7  and  8
of the Act, the Division Bench of the  High  Court  noted  that  those  very
provision which were the subject matter of challenge, was  decided  by  this
Court in State of A.P. VS. Mohanlal 1998 (5) SCC 468.  The counsel  for  the
appellants admitted that the said challenge which came to be dealt  with  by
the  Division  Bench  was  covered  by  the  decision  of  this  Court   and
consequently the Division Bench held that there was no  scope  to  entertain
the challenge.  Hence this appeal.

         As regards the  merit  of  the  order  of  the  Special  Court  was
concerned, it was common ground that as against the  order  of  the  Special
Court there is no further appeal before any other forum and the only  remedy
available to the appellants was to challenge the same before the High  Court
by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.


         On a perusal of the impugned order, we do not find  any  discussion
at all as regards the merits of the case namely,     the  issue  dealt  with
by the Special Court and as to its correctness or validity.  At pages 50  to
56 of the impugned judgment, we find that the various grounds raised by  the
 Advocate for the appellants as  against  the  correctness  of  the  Special
Court order, the Division Bench rejected  those  challenges  on  the  simple
ground that those challenges cannot  be  entertained  while  exercising  its
discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution. In fact,there  is
absolutely no consideration at all as regards the merits viz  the  reasoning
which weighed with the Special Court while passing the  order  of  eviction.
Be that as it may. We also find that the impleaded respondents  herein  were
not added as parties before the High Court and those  respondents  claim  to
be the protected tenants and that their rights stated to have  already  been
dealt with in their favour by the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District  vide
proceedings dated 29.6.2004.  In  the  circumstances,  while  examining  the
correctness of the order of the Tribunal as regards the merits of the  order
of eviction passed against the appellants herein, in the event of any  order
ultimately being passed, the impleaded  respondents being necessary  parties
should have been impleaded before the High Court and the  High  Court  ought
to have heard them, in as much as the ultimate decision will have a  bearing
on  their  rights  as  protected  tenants.   Having  regard  to  our   above
conclusion  the order impugned  cannot  be  sustained.   We  set  aside  the
judgment impugned and remit the matter back to the High Court for  disposing
of the case on  merit  after  giving  due  opportunities  to  the  impleaded
respondents as well.
         Having regard to the fact that the issue relates to the year  1988,
we request the High Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously  preferably
within a period of six months from the date of production  of  the  copy  of
this order.

        The appeal is allowed accordingly.










                                         .........................J.
                                         [ DR. B.S. CHAUHAN ]






NEW DELHI                        .................................J.
DECEMBER 13, 2012                [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA]

Employees Provident Fund Matter

this is a supreme court judgement dated 20-11-2012 delivered by D-B- consisting of Radhakrishan J and Madan B Lokur J.It relates to death sentence/capital punishment in 
murder cases