Court : Delhi
Reported in : 43(1991)DLT425; 1991RLR201
M.C. Jain, J.(1) This bunch of writ petitions mentioned in the schedule annexed to this judgment (Not printed--Ed.) raises a common question regarding the constitutional validity of Section 3(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958(2) For appreciating the controversy raised in these writ petitions, it would be appropriate that the history of rent control legislation is taken into account. Before enacting the rent control laws, the relations of the landlords and the tenants were governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. That was the general law applicable to landlords and tenants but on account of scarcity of accommodation i.e. shortage of housing accommodation. Rent control legislation came into being. So far as Delhi is concerned, under rule 21 of the defense of India Rules, New Delhi House Rent Control Order, 1939 was issued. Its application was extended to Municipality of New Delhi and to the notified area of Civil Station, Delhi, Rule 81(2) (bb) empowered the Centr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1955All193; 1955CriLJ623
Desai, J.1. This is an application by Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia for a writ of 'habeas corpus'. He is being prosecuted on two charges, each of committing an offence under Section 3, U. P. Special Powers Act, 14 of 1932. He contends that the Act, and particularly Section 3 of it, stands repealed under Article 13 of the Constitution on account of its being inconsistent with the provisions of Article 19.2. The applicant is the General Secretary of the Praja Socialist Party of India. The Government of Uttar Pradesh has increased irrigation rates for water supplied from canals to cultivators and the Praja Socialist Party of Uttar Pradesh is carrying on an agitation against the increase on the ground that it places an unbearable burden upon the cultivators who are adversely affected by the progressive fall in prices of foodgrains. The applicant visited Farrukhabad in connection with the agitation and addressed two public meetings on 4-7-'54, one at Kaimganj at 4 p. m. and the other at Farrukhabad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 124(2005)DLT403; 2005(84)DRJ421
R.C. Chopra, J.1. The only contention raised in this appeal by learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of Section 53-A of the Indian Penal Code, which was inserted by Act 26 of 1955, the maximum sentence awardable to an accused convicted under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 is five years only. It is submitted that the sentence of transportation for 14 years as mentioned in Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 is deemed to have been omitted in view of Section 53-A of the IPC which was introduced by way of Amendment Act 26 of 1955. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that sentence of 14 years RI and a fine of Rs.30,000/- awarded to the appellant by the Trial Court under Section 5 of the Act vide orders dated 28.8.2001 in FIR No. 180/1999, PS Hazrat Nizamuddin, is not sustainable and since the appellant has already undergone a sentence of more than five years, he does not wish to make any further submission on the merits of the appeal. 2. Vide o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1957All505
Desai, J.1. This is an application, purporting to be under Order 45, Rule 13, C. P. C., for the issue of an order staying operation of the order passed by this Court on October 8, 1956, in Writ Petition No. 252 of 1956 and maintaining the status quo as regards possession over the land covered by the orders of the consolidation authorities. The facts leading to this application are as follows:2. Under Section 26 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (No. 5 of 1954) possession of some land belonging to opposite parties Nos. 1 to 11 was transferred to other tenants of the village, who are opposite parties 12 to 16. After exhausting the remedy as provided in the Act against the transfer they filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, Mukhtar Singh v. State of U. P. : AIR1957All297 . A Bench of this Court quashed the orders of the consolidation authorities regarding transfer of possession of the Opposite parties' land on 8th October, 1956 on the ground that Section 14 (ee) of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 23(1983)DLT482
M.L. Jain, J.(1) The brief facts are that on the night between 13th and 14th February, 1975 an explosion of high intensity took place in a Jhuggi of Mani Ram in Prem Nagar (Baljit Nagar) P.S. Patel Nagar in which three persons were injured. Investigation disclosed that a number of persons were engaged in the manufacture of bombs in Delhi. Some of the accused were disgruntled ex-employees of the Food Corporation of India and wanted to blow up its buildings. The ring leader Uttam Mandal made a disclosure statement that on 8-2-1975, 3 Kg. of Potash and 2 Kg. of Mandal were purchased for Rs. 490.00 by him from the shop of accused Avdesh Kumar in Mirzapur, U.P. On 2-3-1975 Uttam Mandal led the police to his shop where Suresh Chand and Avdesh Kumar were found sitting. Nothing incriminating was recovered from him. However, by his order of 14-7-1982 the Additional Sessions Judge held that Avdesh Kumar was not in conspiracy but was prima facie guilty of an offence under Section 6 of the Indian ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1991CriLJ1588
ORDERJai Singh Sekhon, J.1. Through this petition the petitioner challenges the validity of the detention order dated 28-9-1989 Annexure P-1 passed by the District Magistrate, Gurdaspur, Under Section 3(2) read with Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 (as amended upto date). The above referred order was served upon the detenu on the same day along with the grounds of detention.2. The brief re'sume' of relevant facts as given in the grounds of detention are that on 20-5-1988, some bomb explosions took place in the area of Police Stations City and Sadar Pathankot resulting in the death of some persons and injuries to some others. A case for offences Under Sections 302/307 of the IPC and Under Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act as also Under Sections 3/4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act was registered vide FIR No. 89 of 1988 at Police Station City Pathankot. In that case the petitioner was arrested on 23-12-1988 and during interrogation he ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1950]SuppSCR102
Mukherjea, J.1. These sixteen appeals arise out of as many applications presented by the different appellants under section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code, complaining of illegal detention under section 2 (1) (a) of the Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1949. 2. The appellants were originally arrested under the Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947. That Act, which received the assent of the Governor-General on 15th of March, 1947, was to remain operative under section 1 (3) of the Act for a period of one year only from the date of its commencement, subject to a proviso engrafted upon the sub- section itself, which empowered the Provisional Government to extend it, with or without modifications, for a further period of one year, by means of a notification, on a resolution being passed to that effect by the Bihar Legislative Assembly and agreed to by the Bihar Legislative Council. On the 11th of March, 1948, the Provincial Government of Bihar, in exercise of their p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1968Bom344; (1968)70BOMLR247; 1968CriLJ1231
ORDER(1) This is an application for bail under the provisions of Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are charged by the Sholapur Police with offences under Section 120-B I. P. C. Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, Sections 30 and 25 of the Arms Act, Section 5 of Explosives Act. Section 6 of Poisons Act. Section 82 of the Prohibition Act and Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. (2) According to the Police, the petitioner No. 1 is the father of petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and they are all the proprietors of two firms by name of 'Hazi M. F. Maniyar and Sons' and 'M. M. Maniyar'. According to the Police, all the petitioners look after the said two businesses and that the said two businesses have two godowns wherein goods of these firms are stored. According to the petitioners, however, 'Hazi M. F. Maniyar and Sons' is the partnership firm in which only petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are partners under a deed of partnership, copy of which they have prod...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1991(4)BomCR695
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. These two writ petitions which challenge the Notification of the State Government dated 26th June, 1991 issued under sub-section (3) of section 18 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 and its further consequential notification dated the same issued under sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 20 of the said Act can conveniently be disposed of by this common judgment. However, reference to the parties in this judgment would be as in the Writ Petition No. 240 of 1991 except where W.P. No. 243 of 1991 is particularly considered and referred to.2. The facts in Writ Petition No. 240 of 1991 are that the petitioner is the Chair-person of the South Planning and Development Authority and in Writ Petition No. 243 of 1991, the petitioner is the Goa Citizens League, which holds out itself as a Special activist organisation formed with a view to promote social, economic and educational cultural and political interests for achieving the progress and welfare of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1960All376; 1960CriLJ779
ORDERM.C. Desai, J. 1. The applicant has been convicted under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908) for knowingly having in his possession or control an explosive substance in the circumstances showing that he was not having it in his possession, for a lawful object. It has been found as a matter of fact, on the basis of evidence, that he was carrying the explosive bomb in a pocket of his knickers and that it exploded causing injuries to him. He offered no explanation for his possession of the bomb; on the contrary he denied his possession of it altogether.2. Section 7 of the Act lays down that 'no court shall proceed with the trial of any person for an offence against this Act except with the consent of the Central Government'. The cognizance of the offence under the Act was taken in this case by a court with the consent of the Governor and not the Central Government. The Governor claims to have the power to give consent under Notification No. 25/1/54-Police (I) dated...
Tag this Judgment!