Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-19-1973
Reported in : 1974CriLJ261
Venkataraman, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Tirunelveli to transfer J. C. No. 264 of 1972 pending against juvenile Pandi, from the file of the Juvenile Court. Tirunelveli, to the Court of Session. The circumstances under which the reference has been made are these. A charge-sheet, was filed by the Police in the Court of the Sub-Magistrate, Nanguneri against two persons, one Perumal and his son. the said Pandi, on the allegation that Pandi. committed an offence of murder (Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code) and that the father abetted the commission of the said offence and was (punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 or Section 302 read with Section 109 I. P. C. At the time of the filing of the charge-sheet Pandi was less than eighteen years of age and was a young person as defined in Section 3 of the Madras Children Act, 1920. The case against him was split up and the case against the father was taken on file by the Sub-Magistrate. Nanguneri. as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-19-1973
Reported in : (1974)1MLJ105
Venkataraman, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Tirunelveli to transfer J.C. No. 264 of 1972 pending against juvenile Pandi, from the file of the Juvenile Court, Tirunelveli, to the Court of Session. The circumstances under which the reference has been made are these. A charge-sheet was filed by the Police in the Court of the Sub-Magistrate, Nanguneri, against two persons, one Perumal and his son, the said Pandi, on the allegation that Pandi committed an offence of murder (Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code) and that the father abetted the commission of the said offence and was punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 or Section 302 read with Section 109, Indian Penal Code. At the time of the filing of the charge-sheet Pandi was less than eighteen years age and was a young person as defined in Section 3 of the Madras Children Act, 1920. The case against him was split up, and the case against the father was taken on file by the Sub-Magistrate, Nanguner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-05-1973
Reported in : 1974CriLJ1140; ILR1974Delhi295; 1974RLR167
S.N. Shankar, J. (1) The question referred to the full bench for decision is whether the Rent Control Tribunal while dealing with an application under sub-section (4) of section 38 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is a 'Court' for purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a 'Civil Court' within the meaning of section 476 of the said Code. (2) Jaintendra Kumar, appellant filed an application for eviction against the respondent Lakshmi Kant Mukt under section 14 of the Act. While the application was pending, the respondent applied under section 38(4) for transfer of the case (jaintendra Kumar Aggarwal v. Lakshmi Kant Mukt) from Shri D. C. Aggarwal, Controller, Delhi before whom the application was pending to some other Additional Controller for trial. In paragraphs (5) and (7) of the transfer application and the affidavit filed in support of it he made certain allegations casting aspersions on Shri D. C. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-09-1973
Reported in : ILR1973Delhi698; 1973RLR688
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The question referred to this Division Bench is whether the Competent authority holding an inquiry under sub-section (3) of section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance Act, 1956 is a 'court' within the meaning of section 195(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The question has an importance wider than the present case. For, the Competent authority acting under section 19(3) of the Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act is a quasi-judicial authority. With the march of the statute law and the welfare state in India a large number of administrative authorities have been functioning in a quasi-judicial manner. They are, thereforee, subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and of the Supreme Court under Article 32 as also to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136. The word 'court' is itself used either in a narrow sense of a civil, criminal or a revenu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-27-1973
Reported in : ILR1974Delhi190; [1974]95ITR117(Delhi)
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) These two petitions under section 561-A Criminal Procedure Code have been referred to the Division Bench mainly to consider the question whether the previous decision between the parties in C.W. 189-D/1965 acts as rest judicata barring the petitioner from raising in these petitions those contentions which have been aiready decided against him in the writ petition.(2) The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner Sharma in his return under the Income-Tax Act 1922 for the assessment year 1959- 60 claimed deduction for the payment of a sum of Rs. 18,000.00 allegediy made to M/s. Modem Sanitation for electrical and sanitary supervising charges during the relevant year. On enquiry, the lncome-Tax Officer was of the view that the alleged payee did not exist at ail and no such payment had been made by the petitioner. Not only the petitioner's daim to the deduction was disallowed in the assessment but two further proceedings were taken against the petitioner under the Inco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-21-1973
Reported in : 1974CriLJ1451; ILR1974Delhi896
Jagjit Singh, J.(1) This appeal is against an order dated October 4, 1972 of a learned Single Judge of this Court. On an application submitted on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. V. D. Misra J.. held against Hanuman Prasad Ganeriwala that offences 'under sections 182, 196, 199, 200, 209, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, as referred to in section 195, sub-section (1), clauses (b) and (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure appear to have been committed in or in relation to the proceedings of this Court' and 'that it is expedient in the interest of justice that enquiry should be made into these offences, and complaint be made to a Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction in the matter'. (2) For appreciating the contentions which have been raised in the appeal it is necessary to state certain facts. A property at No. 1 Raj Narain Road, Delhi, on an area of approximately 3,700 square yards, was purchased by the Mercantile Bank...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-07-1973
Reported in : ILR1973Delhi926; 1974RLR191
Prithvi Raj, J. (1) The petitioner by this petition filed under section 561-A Criminal Procedure Code . has prayed that the proceedings pending before Shri Brijesh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, against him and four others on a complaint filed by respondent Ladha Singh under section 352/341/504/506/147/149 I. P. C. be quashed. The grounds on which the proceedings are sought to be quashed are alleged to be that the petitioner earlier on 9th March, 1973, filed a complaint in the Court of Shri Brijesh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, under sections 506/323/295/500 1. P. C. read with section 34 1. P. C. against respondent Ladha Singh and one Kartar Singh son of Ajaib Singh on the allegation that on 12th February, 1973, when the petitioner was returning from Gurdwara Sin Guru Singh Sabha Ali Ganj after having attended the monthly Sangrand Jor Mela he was waylaid by Ladha Singh and Kartar Singh near Ali Ganj Post Office. Ladha Singh 'respondent was stated to have caught hold of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-20-1973
Reported in : (1974)76BOMLR191
Deshmukh, J.1. This petition arises out of a reference made by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Bombay. This petition is also an offshoot of what is known as the Vikhroli riot case. Another petition asking the High Court to take action in contempt against some other respondents was disposed of by us by upholding a technical objection to the maintainability of that application. In this application also another technical objection is raised by respondents who made speeches which are styled as amounting to contempt of Court.2. In order to understand the immunity which is being claimed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act 70 of 1971), (which will be hereafter referred to as the 'Act'), the facts may be very briefly noted. After a riot took place in Vikhroli on September 2, 1972 in what is known as the creek site Colony of the Godrej and Boyee Co. Ltd., several persona came to be arrested on suspicion of being involved ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-29-1973
Reported in : (1973)2MysLJ87; [1973]32STC243(Kar)
ORDERGovinda Bhat, C.J.1. This matter arises under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). The petitioner is a partnership firm registered as dealers under the Act and, therefore, required to maintain accounts as prescribed under the Rules. The respondent had information that the petitioner was maintaining two sets of account books, one for the purposes of assessment under the Act, and another for their own purposes and that the entries in the private account books were recorded after 7 p.m. in the shop premises. He had also information that some sale exigible to tax were not recorded in the regular account books but were brought into account in the private account books. On that information, the respondent decided to inspect the petitioner's premises at 8 p.m. on 6th October, 1971, so as to get hold of the private account books which, according to him, would furnish evidence of evasion of tax on the part of the petitioner. 2. When the respondent inspected the sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-20-1973
Reported in : [1974]44CompCas106(Mad); (1973)2MLJ469
1. Writ Appeals Nos. 554/71, 69/72 and 70/72 are directed against the judgment of Ramaprasada Rao J, dismissing the Writ Petitions Nos. 1916/71, 1917/71 and 1918/71 preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of writs of certiorari calling for the records in RC. No. 2/71-SIV relating to the warrants issued by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, dated June 7, 1971, and to quash the said warrants, while writ Appeals Nos. 555/71, 71/72 and 72/72 are directed against the judgment of Ramaprasada Rao J. dismissing Writ Petitions Nos. 2394, 2395 and 2396 of 1971 preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of writs of mandamus directing the first respondent therein, the Company Law Board, to withdraw the complaint lodged by it with the Central Bureau of Investigation and to refrain from prosecuting their investigation or taking any further action in the matter of the alleged violation of Sections 420, 477 and 120B of the Indian...
Tag this Judgment!