Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-28-1984
Reported in : AIR1984SC1728; 1984(2)SCALE261; (1984)4SCC382; [1985]1SCR651; 1985(17)LC212(SC)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. The short question involved in this appeal is whether upon redemption of a usufructuary mortgage a tenant-mortgagee could be directed to deliver actual or physical possession of the mortgaged property to the lessor mortgagor By reason of the grant of a limited special leave the appeal has been confined to that question.2. Facts relevant to the question may be stated : One Behara Audinarayana Patro, the original owner of suit property executed two usufructuary mortgage deeds dated 30.8.1939 and 25.8.1942 in favour of the first defendant Sambangi Thavitinaidu, who was then a sitting tenant of that property. In 1951 the mortgagor filed a suit for redemption of the mortgages and obtained a preliminary decree on 31.12.1952. Subsequently, the mortgagor died and the respondents were brought on record as his legal representatives. On 21.10.1963 the respondents filed an application for passing a final decree by way of ascertainment of the amount due and for delivery of possess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Mar-21-1984
Reported in : (1984)(18)ELT657TriDel
1. This is a revision petition filed before the Government of India (now transferred to this Tribunal under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944) against order-in-appeal No. 113-B of 1981 dated 28-2-1981 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi.2. M/s. Oriental Talc. Products Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called the appellants) have two units - one at Banswara and Anr. at Udaipur (Rajasthan). Their main business is to grind 'Soap Stone' into powder known as 'Soap stone powder' in their mills-"Three Roller Raymond Grinding Mills" and to sell the same to be used as "filler" in various industries such as Paper, Textile, Paints, Ceramics, Plastics, etc.Power is used for the purpose of grinding.3. For their unit at Banswara, the appellants had not obtained any excise licence, nor paid any excise duty on the goods cleared by them from that unit and as such the Central Excise (Preventive) Party, Udaipur visited the factory premises of the appellants at Banswar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-23-1984
Reported in : AIR1984SC1744; 1984(2)SCALE65; (1984)4SCC66; 1984(16)LC890(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. A dispute of a trivial nature between a landlord and now his transferees and the tenant is awaiting disposal for over 3 decades thanks to the literal and unimaginative approach to the provisions of a procedural statute which times without number has been described as one for advancing justice and not to make a mockery of it.2. A bungalow with an attached cottage situated at No. 1, Hailey Road, New Delhi was taken on lease by one E. B. Brook and he inducted the appellant as a sub-tenant in the cottage portion which may herein after be referred to as demised premises. Mr. Brook surrendered his tenancy and vacated the portion in his actual possession on April 1, 1955 simultaneously calling upon the appellant to hand over possession of premises in his possession to the then landlord one Lakhmir Singh, who is no more. Appellant did not vacate the premises in his possession but reached an agreement with Lakhmir Singh, the then landlord on June 20/22, 1955 to become the direc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-16-1984
Reported in : AIR1984SC684; AIR1984SC991; (1984)86BOMLR365; 1984CriLJ613; 1984CriLJ819; 1984(1)Crimes568(SC); 1984(1)Crimes926(SC); 1984(1)SCALE198; 1984(1)SCALE583; (1984)2SCC183; (1984
D.A. Desai, J.1. Respondent Abdul Rehman Antulay (hereinafter referred to as the accused) was the Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra from 1980 till he submitted his resignation on January 12, 1982, which became effective from January 20, 1982. He thus ceased to hold the office of the Chief Minister from January 20, 1982 but continues to be a sitting member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly till today.2. As the contentions canvassed before this Court are mainly questions of law, facts at this stage having a peripheral relevance in the course of discussion, it is unnecessary to set out the prosecution case as disclosed in the complaint filed by complainant Ramdas Shrinivas, Nayak (complainant for short) in detail save and except few a pertinent and relevant allegations. In the process the brief/history of the litigation may also be traced.3. The complainant moved the Governor of Maharashtra by his application dated September 1, 1981 requesting him to grant sanction to prose...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-17-1984
Reported in : AIR1984SC1622; (1984)86BOMLR536; 1984CriLJ1738; 1984(2)SCALE445; (1984)4SCC116; [1985]1SCR88
1. This is rather an unfortunate case where a marriage arranged and brought about through the intervention of common friends of the families of the bride and bridegroom though made a good start but ran into rough weather soon thereafter. The bride, Manju, entertained high hopes and aspirations and was not only hoping but was anxiously looking forward to a life full of mirth and merriment, mutual love and devotion between the two spouses. She appears to be an extremely emotional and sensitive girl and at the very behest cherished ideal dreams to be achieved after her marriage, which was solemnised, on Feb. 11, 1902 between her and the appellant, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda. Soon after the marriage, Manju left for her new marital home and started residing with the appellant in Takshila Apartments at Pune. Unfortunately, however, to her utter dismay and disappointment she found that the treatment of her husband and his parents towards her was cruel and harsh and her cherished dreams seem to ...
Tag this Judgment!