Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1978Delhi17
ORDER1. The petitioner Raj Prakash Varshney who was being detained in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi by virtue of and under an order passed by respondent No. 1 under S, 3 (1) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 197L hereinafter referred to as the Ala, by this petition under Am 226 of the Constitution of India prayed that a writ in the nature of habeas corpus be issued to respondents 1. 2, 3 and 7 with the direction that he be set at liberty. We have already allowed the petition and now proceed to record our reasons.2. The petitioner is a citizen of India and was detained in the Central Jail Tihar, New Delhi, under authority of an order dated Apr. 21, 1977 (Copy Annexure P. 1) made by respondent No. 1, Additional District Magistrate, Delhi, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-clause (1) of clause (a) of sub-see. (1) of S. 3 of the Act. Originally, the petitioner was arrested on February 4, 1977 in connection with the investigation of F. I, R. 26/1977 lodged in Police Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1986KAR3410
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. Petitioner is an agriculturist. Accepting certain incentives offered by the first respondent-the Primary Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., of Heggadadevanakote he purchased a tractor by obtaining a loan from the first respondent-Bank. The tractor met with an accident sometime after it was purchased. The result was that it was unfit for being used for cultivation purposes. Petitioner had no resources to carry out repairs to the tractor. It was only in the year 1981, he was able to put the tractor on the road. The tractor was got attached by the first respondent-Bank. He has alleged that before attachment, prescribed procedure was not followed by the Bank. Therefore, he has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, inter alia, contending that Sections 32, 33, 80, 88, 99 and 101 of the Karnataka Co.-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are ultra vires the Constitution and therefore attachment of the tra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1979]43STC338(Guj)
Mehta, J.1. A short but interesting point arises in this reference made at the instance of the assessee under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, as to what should be the correct meaning of the term 'machinery', its spare parts and accessories. The point arises in the following facts and circumstances : The applicant herein is a dealer manufacturing screen print block tables of wood which are sold to the various textile mills. In the course of the assessment period corresponding to S.Y. 2023, the Sales Tax Officer had levied tax on the sales of these tables under residuary entry 22 of Schedule E to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, rejecting the contention advanced on behalf of the applicant that the goods in question were covered by entry 15 of Schedule C to the said Act pertaining to machinery used in the manufacture of the goods, spare parts and accessories thereof other than the specified machinery in any of the schedules to the said Act. 2. Against the aforesaid order o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(1)ALD(Cri)477; 2002CriLJ3407
D.S.R. Varma, J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 16.8.1996 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy in S.C. No. 1 of 1996.2. The accused A-1 to A-8 were charged of the offences punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. and under Section 3 of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act') . The court below, on evidence, found A-1, A-3, A-5, A-6 and A-8 guilty under Section 3(2)(iv) of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, read with Section 376 I.P.C., and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years each and also sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default, to suffer imprisonment for a period of one year each. Similarly, the court below, on evidence, found A-2, A-4 and A-7 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for ten years each and also sentenced them to pay ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC226; 1989CriLJ2303; (1989)2GLR940; JT1989(1)SC478; 1989(1)SCALE542; (1989)2SCC222; [1989]1SCR890; 1989(2)LC36(SC)
B.C. RAY, J.1. The petitioner who is the brother of detenu, Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh of Ahmedabad has challenged in this writ petition the order of detention dated May 23, 1988 passed by the respondent No. 1, the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, Gujarat issued under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 and served on the detenu while the detenu was in custody at Sabarmati Central Prison under a judicial order of remand made by the Designated Court, Ahmedabad in respect of C.R. No. 40 of 1987, on the grounds inter alia that there has been absolute non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in clamping the order of detention and also on other grounds.2. In order to decide the various contention raised in this writ petition, it is necessary to consider the background as well as the various orders of detention passed against the detenu by the detaining authority, the respondent No. 1. On September 11, 1984, the detenu we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1991KAR2920; 1991(2)KarLJ505
ORDERMohan, C.J.1. All these Writ Petitions can be disposed of by a Common Order since they question the validity of the land acquisition proceedings, particularly the invocation of urgency clause viz., Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The facts leading to these Writ Petitions may briefly be stated as follows:-The Mangalore Super Thermal Power Project (hereinafter referred to as the Project) is a Project under the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). The Corporation is a Generating Company incorporated under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. It has its registered office at NTPC Bhavan, Scope Complex, No. 7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. The Corporation was set up by the Government of India in the year 1975. The object of setting up this Corporation is to supplement the shortfalls in the requirement of electrical energy by the various States. The Corporation set up various Super Thermal Powe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1995Ori95; 1995(I)OLR132
Nanavati, C.J.1. Divergent opinions expressed by this Court on the question whether a proceeding for eviction is maintainable before the House Rent Controller, even after the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 (for short, 'the Act') ceased to be in force, has made it necessary for this larger Bench to consider that question. The Uma-kant Pradhan v. S.D.J.M.-cum-House Rent Controller, 69 (1990) CIT 207, this Court held that the House Rent Contoller would have no jurisdiction to entertain a proceeding for eviction initiated after the expiry of the Act. The reasons given for taking that View of are that under Section 1(4) of the Act read with Section 5 of the Orissa General Clauses Act what is saved in an acquired or accrued right and not a mere possibility of acquiring a right; that the right which the landlord gets under Section 7 of the Act, either because of default in payment of rent or on any other ground for eviction mentioned therein is merely a right to approach the House Rent C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(7)SC608; 1995(1)KLT172(SC); 1994(5)SCALE1; 1995Supp(2)SCC187; [1994]Supp5SCR526
K. Ramaswamy, J. 1. Leave granted in S.L.Ps. No. 10248, 9079, 13769/94 and S.L.P.No....(CC No. 25558/94). 2. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, by its common judgment dated December 10, 1993 in OP. No. 4637/89 and batch since upheld the constitutionality of Sections 57A and 57B inserted by the Abkari (Amendment) Act 21 of 1984 in the Amendment Act into the Abkari Act I of 1077 (for short 'the Act'), the correctness of that judgment is questioned in this appeal. 3. The facts lie in a short compass: 4. The appellants are licencees of arrack or Indian made foreign liquor retail shops or their employees. They have been charged for offences punishable under one or other Sub-sections.(1) to (3) of Section 57A for having mixed or permitted mixing or noxious substance with liquor or for having failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent such mixing or for being in possession of liquor in which such a noxious substance has been mixed with the knowledge that arrack or Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC576; 1960CriLJ752; [1960]2SCR739
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 1956. Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated June 25, 1956, of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No. 870 of 1956, arising out of the judgment and order dated May 5, 1956, of the Sessions Judge, Howrah, in Criminal Petition 8 of 1956 against the judgment and order dated February 20, 1956, of the Magistrate First Class, Howrah, in Case No. 1-C of 1954. N. C. Chatterjee S. K. Kapur and Nanak Chand Pandit, for the appellant. S. C. Mazumdar, for the respondent. 1960. January 15. Judgment of S. K. Das and A. K. Sarkar, JJ. was delivered by S. K. Das, J., Hidayatullah, J. delivered a separate Judgment. I S. K. DAS, J.-The appellant Ballavdas Agarwala was the proprietor of a restaurant in the Railway premises at Howrah Railway Station within the Municipality of Howrah, and his servant Shyamlal Missir was in charge of that restaurant. Under an agreement with the Railway authorities, the appellant- had taken out a vendor's ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2120; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)157; 1998(1)ALD(Cri)762; 1997(1)BLJR263; 1998CriLJ2930; 1998(3)SCALE53; (1998)4SCC626; [1998]2SCR870
S.P. Bharucha, J. 1. On 26th July, 1993, a motion of no-confidence was moved in the Lok Sabha against the minority government of P.V. Narasimha Rao. The support of 14 members was needed to have the no-confidence motion defeated. On 28th July, 1993, the no-confidence motion was lost, 251 members having voted in support and 265 against. Suraj Mandal, Shibu Soren, Simon Marandi and Shailender Mahto, members of the Lok Sabha owing allegiance to the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (the JMM), and Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav, Ram Sharan Yadav, Roshan Lal, Anadicharan Das, Abhay Pratap Singh and Haji Gulam Mohammed, members of the Lok Sabha owing allegiance to the Janata Dal, Ajit Singh group (the J.D., A.S.), voted against the no-confidence motion. Ajit Singh, a member of the Lok Sabha owing allegiance to the J.D., A.S., abstained from voting thereon.2. It is the respondents, case that the above named members agreed to and did receive bribes, to the giving of which P.V. Narasimha Rao, M.P. and Prime Minist...
Tag this Judgment!