Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-04-1979
Reported in : AIR1979SC826; 1979CriLJ566; (1979)1SCC535; [1979]2SCR875
Jaswant Singh, J.1. The above noted two criminal appeals which are directed against the common Judgment and Order dated August 6, 1975 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay affirming on appeal the Judgment and Order dated August 6, 1973 of the Special Judge Greater Bombay, convicting S.P. Bhatnagar, appellant in the aforesaid first appeal, (hereinafter described as A-1) under Section 120-B read with Sections 409 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947,. and sentencing him to six months simple imprisonment on each of the said two counts as well as convicting A.S. Krishnaswami, appellant in the aforesaid second appeal (hereinafter described as A-2) under the aforesaid two counts but reducing his sentence from nine months' imprisonment to six months' simple imprisonment on each one of those counts shall be disposed of by this judgment.2. Briefly put the case as set up by the prosecution was:In 1964, the Indian ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-27-1979
Reported in : AIR1980SC350; (1980)1SCC340; [1980]2SCR260; 1980(12)LC272(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The perennial, nagging problem of delegated legislation and the so-called Henry VIII clause have again come up for decision in this appeal by the State of Kerala. Section 60 of the Madras Cooperative Societies Act 1932 and a notification issued under that provision were struck down by the High Court of Kerala on the ground of unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. Certain consequential directions were issued by the High Court. Those directions have long since worked themselves out and so the party who invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constituution has no longer any surviving interest. The State of Kerala is, however, interested in sustaining the validity of Section 60 and has filed this appeal.2. Lawyers and judges have never ceased to be interested in the question of delegated legislation and since the Delhi Laws Act case, we have been blessed(?) by an abundance of authority, the blessing not necessarily unmixed. W...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-19-1979
Reported in : AIR1980SC614; (1980)2SCC441; [1980]2SCR531
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. These batches of Civil Appeals, Writ Petitions and Special Leave Petitions raise the same question and can be disposed of by a common judgment.2. C.A. No. 1130/76 is by the State. The other Appeals, Writ Petitions and Special Leave Petitions are by the aggrieved parties.3. For the sake of convenience appellants in Civil, Appeals by Special Leave except the State would be referred as the appellants in this judgment. Similarly the petitioners in Writ Petitions and Special Leave Petitions will be referred to as petitioners.4. The appellants in Civil Appeals by Special Leave filed writ petitions before the High Court of Allahabad praying for quashing the Excise Commissioner's order dated 18th September, 1974 whereby it was provided that the vend fee be continued to be charged for the wholesale licence dealer of denatured spirit. They also prayed for a direction to the Excise Commissioner to refund the vend fee actually paid by the appellants for a period of three years ...
Tag this Judgment!