Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1643; 1967(0)BLJR818; [1967]2SCR762
Subbarao, C.J.1. These three writ petitions raise the important question of the validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964. 2. Writ Petition No. 153 of 1966, is filed by the petitioners therein against the State of Punjab and the Financial Commissioner, Punjab. The petitioners are the son, daughter and grand-daughters of one Henry Golak Nath, who died on July 30, 1953. The Financial Commissioner, in revision against the order made by the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur Division, held by an order dated January 22, 1962 that an area of 418 standard acres and 9 1/4 units was surplus in the hands of the petitioners under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act X of 1953, read with s. 10-B thereof. The petitioners, alleging that the relevant provisions of the said Act whereunder the said area was declared surplus were void on the ground that they infringed their rights under cls. (f) and (g) of Art. 19 and Art. 14 of the Constitution, filed a writ in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1804; JT1993(2)SC1; 1993(1)SCALE489; 1994Supp(1)SCC324; [1993]1SCR891
ORDER1. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - which were originally filed in the High Court of Sikkim and now withdrawn by and transferred to this Court under Article 139-A- raise certain interesting and significant issues of the constitutional limitations on the power of Parliament as to the nature of the terms and conditions that it could impose under Article 2 of the Constitution for the admission of new State into the Union of India. These issues arise in the context of the admission of Sikkim into the Indian Union under the Constitution (35th Amendment) Act, 1975 as the 22nd State in the First Schedule of the Constitution of India.2. Earlier, in pursuance of the resolution of the Sikkim Assembly passed by virtue of its powers under the Government of Sikkim Act, 1974, expressing its desires to be associated with the political and economic institutions of India and for the representation of the people of Sikkim in India's Parliamentary system, the Constitu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3362; 97(2004)CLT393(SC); 2003CriLJ4974; JT2003(Suppl2)SC420; 2004(2)MhLj36; 2004MPLJ46(SC); 2003(8)SCALE39; (2003)8SCC90; 2004(1)LC172(SC)
Santosh Hegde, J.1. This appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short 'the TADA Act') is filed against the judgment of the Judge, Designated Court for Rajasthan, Ajmer in TADA Special Case No. 8 of 1992. The appellant herein was accused No. 4 in the said case and has been held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 120 IPC, Sections 3 and 6(1) of the TADA Act, Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 120B IPC and had been sentenced to a maximum sentence of 5 years' RI under the main count and has also been imposed sentence and fine under various other charges with a direction that all the sentences of imprisonment should run concurrently. 2. In view of the fact that we are of the opinion that almost all the contentions raised in the above appeal and argued before us are covered against the appellant by our judgment in Jameel Ahmed and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan : (2003)9SCC673 , we do not think it is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2003VIIAD(Delhi)1; 107(2003)DLT385; 2003(71)DRJ178; 2003(3)JCC1669
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. PREFACE 1. Every criminal trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest. The journey, in the present case, has been navigated by the Designated Judge of the Special Court constituted under Section 23 of the Prevention of Terrorists Activities Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as POTA). In the Murder Reference and the connected appeals arising out of the judgment dated 16.12.2002, we are called upon to decide the legality and validity of the trial as also the sustainability of the judgment pronounced by the Designated Judge of the Special Court, POTA. By the impugned judgment, the learned Designated Judge has held that the prosecution has successfully brought home the charge of conspiracy against accused Nos. 1 to 3, for having entered into a conspiracy with the 5 slain terrorists who had attacked Parliament House on 13.12.2001 along with Mohd. Masood Azhar, Gazi Baba @ Abu Zehadi @ Abu Seqlain and Tariq Ahmed, all Pakistani nationals (declared as pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
D. Pathak, C.J. 1. This matter has arisen out of a reference made by the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong. The reference is as hereunder:'No. KJJ/T/77/98 Dated Shillong, the Sir, In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 1475 and 1476 reported in AIR 1975 SC 1022, a confusion has arisen with regard to jurisdiction of Asstt to D. C. in the areas those have been ceded with the Shillong Municipal Authority for the purpose of Municipal Administration only, vide notification No. 44-1 dated New Delhi, the 16th January, 1934. In case No. M. S. 153(T)/76 learned lawyer for defendant contended that this Court got no jurisdiction as both the parties are Tribals and place Mawkhar is outside Shillong Municipality. He relied on above mentioned Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in support of his contention. Learned lawyer for plaintiff contended that this Court get jurisdiction. He referred to Para 20 of 6th Schedule of the Constitution of India. He referred ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1976All266
ORDERP.N. Bakshi, J. 1. The petitioner is a registered Medical Graduate and resides in a house situate in an Ahata known as Chandrika Prasad Bagicha, situate in Mohalla Chunniganj, Kanpur. The Bagicha lies in one of the thickly populated commercial and residential localities of Kanpur. A trust was created in 1917 in respect of this Bagicha and one Mukandi Lal Garg was acting as its Managing Trustee till 22nd March, 1975, nO new trustee has since been appointed.2. The petitioner's case is that Srimati Rabia Begum respondent No. 4, who is a war widow, started raising construction over a portion of the afore-said Bagicha in May, 1975, in close proximity to the petitioner's residential house. On an enquiry the petitioner came to know that she had obtained a lease in respect of 1,000 Sq. yards of land in this Bagicha from Mukandi Lal Garg on 1-2-1975 for the construction of a godown for the storage of 500 gas cylinders. The petitioner's father Dr. M. G. Mangalani also resided with him. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [2000]118STC475(Orissa)
A. Pasayat, Ag. C.J.1. Applications for reference Under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (in short, 'the Act') having been refused, the present applications Under Section 24(2) of the Act have been filed. Since identical disputes are involved, this order shall govern each of the cases under consideration.2. The assessment years involved are 1976-77, 1977-78 to 1983-84 and 1990-91. While disposing of the appeals filed Under Section 23 of the Act, the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal (in short, 'the Tribunal') upheld the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Sundargarh Range, whereby the assessments made Under Rule 12(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957 (in short, 'the Orissa Rules') read with the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, 'the Central Act') for all the aforementioned period except for the assessment year 1990-91 for which the assessment was set aside for fresh adjudication.3. Background facts relevant to be noted for the purpose of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(1)BLJR816; 2004CriLJ3328; JT2004(3)SC367; 2004(3)SCALE245
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. A Division Bench of the Patna High Court found the appellants guilty of offenses punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). In addition, appellants Lakhan Singh, Janardan Singh, Ram Janam Singh, Dani Singh, Raghu Singh, Ram Charitar Singh and Chandar Singh were found guilty of offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and sentenced each to undergo five rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- with default stipulation. It directed that the fine on realisation was to be paid to the informant by way of compensation. Appellant Lakhan Singh was additionally convicted for offence punishable under Section 436 IPC to undergo life imprisonment. 2. The present appeals have been filed by 21 persons. Twenty seven persons were named in the FIR and charge sheet was filed initially against 24 persons. In terms of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'), three more persons were add...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2006)2GLR1432
ORDER IN SCA Nos. 8117 of 2005 & 8118 of 2005.33. Though all the three matters are heard together, as far as main judgment is concerned, I have considered the facts of Special Civil Application No. 8116 of 2005 and I have given detailed reasons and disposed of the said matter. The other two matters i.e. Special Civil Application Nos. 8117 & 8118 of 2005 are also identical and raising same challenge. In view of the reasonings and conclusion in the main judgment, these two petitions i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8117 of 2005 and 8118 of 2005 are also disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged to the aforesaid extent in both the petition with no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1964Bom7; (1963)65BOMLR191; ILR1963Bom715
Shah, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Bombay against the respondents who had filed a suit for the following declarations : (a) that there was a right on their part in limitation of the right of the Government to assess the suit plots of land or, (b) in the alternative, that there was in any event a right on their part in limitationof the right of the Government to assess the said plots of land in excess of the specific limit of assessment payable in respect of the said plots at the time when the Foras Act IV of 1851 first came into operation, viz., 1st July 1851, or to enhance the said assessment; (c) that the appellant had no right to fix or levy or recover the assessment of land revenue in respect of the said plots as intimated by him to them (the respondents) in his notices, all dated 29th June 1943; (d) that the decision and order of the appellant contained in the said notices were illegal, void and inoperative in law and not binding on them (the respondents) and ...
Tag this Judgment!