Court : Sikkim
Decided on : May-19-1980
Reported in : 1981CriLJ695
Man Mohan Singh Gujral, C.J.1. This Reference under Article 228 of the Constitution of India and Section 432 of the Cr. P.C. made by the learned Sessions Judge of Sikkim at Gangtok by his order dated 28th of Nov., 1979, brings to the forefront the question of the constitutional validity of the Sikkim Criminal Procedure Act. 1976 (hereinafter called the 'Sikkim Act') in the light of the provisions of Article 371-F (k) of the Constitution of India. The answer to this question would finally settle the procedure to be followed by the Courts in Sikkim in respect of the trials of criminal cases pending therein. The circumstances leading to this Reference may first briefly be stated.2. The controversy involved has a close link with the judicial history of Sikkim during the last three decades. Though from the historical point of view the period does not relate to distant past yet the procedural atmosphere is surrounded with such mystery as if excavation of pre-historic culture is needed to unr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-09-1980
Reported in : (1982)3SCC24; [1983]1SCR145a
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This reference to the Constitution Bench raises a question in regard to the constitutional validity of death penalty for murder provided in Section 302, Penal Code, and the sentencing procedure embodied in Sub-section (3) of Section 354 of the CrPC, 1973.2. The reference has arisen in these circumstances :Bachan Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 273 of 1979, was tried and convicted and sentenced to death under Section 302, Indian Penal Code for the murders of Desa Singh, Durga Bai and Veeran Bai by the Sessions Judge. The High Court confirmed his death sentence and dismissed his appeal.3. Bachan Singh's appeal by special leave, came up for hearing before a Bench of this Court (consisting of Sarkaria and Kailasam, JJ.). The only question for consideration in the appeal was, whether the facts found by the Courts below would be 'special reasons' for awarding the death sentence as required under Section 354(3) of the CrPC 1973.4. Shri H.K. Puri, appearing as Amicu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-30-1980
Reported in : AIR1980SC1528; (1984)4SCC516; [1980]3SCR915; 1980(12)LC647(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. This appeal by certificate under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution's by the original plaintiff-State Bank of Saurashtra (the Bank for short) whose suit for recovery of Rs. 76,368.04 J.P. from the legal representative of the deceased principal debtor Harilal Parmanaddas Adatia and his surety original defendant 2 Chitranjan Rangnath Raja. ('Surety' for short) was decreed by the trial court both against the legal representative of the principal debtor and the surety but on appeal by the surety, was dismissed by the High Court only against the surety.2. Harilal Parmananddas Adatia, hereinafter referred to as 'principal debtor', approached the Manager of the Bagasra Branch of State Bank of Saurashtra seeking facility for cash credit upto Rs. 75,000/-. He submitted proposal form Ext. 66 on 'September 10,1957, offering to give security for the cash credit by pledge of groundnut oil tins as also a personal guarantee of defendant 2 Chitranjan Rangnath Raja. After obtaining ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-07-1980
Reported in : AIR1981MP123; 1981MPLJ202
G.P. Singh, C.J. 1. The Caltex Petroleum Corporation is a foreign company incorporated in the State of Delaware in the United States of America. One of its subsidiaries, namely, the Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited (an Indian Company), hereinafter referred to as the Caltex Oil Refining, was carrying on the business of refining crude oil and producing petroleum products in India. Another subsidiary of the Caltex Petroleum Corporation, namely, the Caltex (India) Limited (a foreign company) incorporated in Bahamas Islands, hereinafter referred to as the Caltex (India), was carrying on through its undertakings in India the business of marketing and distributing petroleum products. The President of India, on 30th Dec. 1976 promulgated the Caltex (Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited and of the Undertakings in India of Caltex (India) Limited) Ordinance, 1976. The Ordinance was replaced by an Act (Act No. 17 of 1977) bearing the same name. The Act was enacted on 23r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-11-1980
Reported in : AIR1980SC2147; 1980CriLJ1440; (1981)1SCC107; [1981]1SCR1196
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. (On behalf of himself and Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J. and P.N. Bhagwati, J.)1. A procession of 'life convicts', well over two thousand strong, with more joining the march even as the arguments were on, has vicariously mobbed this Court, through their learned Counsel, carrying constitutional missiles in hand and demanding liberty beyond the bars. They challenge the vires of Section 433A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Procedure Code, for short) which compels 'caging' of two classes of prisoners, at least for fourteen eternal infernal years, regardless of the benign remissions and compassionate concessions sanctioned by prison law and human justice. Their despair is best expressed in the bitter lines of Oscar Wilde. The Ballad of Reading Gaol:I know not whether Laws be right,Or whether Laws be wrong,All that we know who lie in gaolIs that the wall is strong;And that each day is like a year.A year whose days are long.(Emphasis added)But broken hearts cannot break prison w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-11-1980
Reported in : (1980)2SCC665; 1980Supp(1)SCC249
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. These two criminal appeals are directed against a judgment dated 27th February 1979 of the Sessions Judge, Delhi by which the accused (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) have been convicted under various Sections of the Penal Code and awarded sentences of various terms of imprisonment not exceeding two years (which have been ordered to run concurrently) in addition to fines2. Both the appeals were originally filed before the Delhi High Court and were admitted by it on the 21st March 1979 when the sentences of the appellants were suspended and they were released on bail. On the 17th May. 1979, the State also filed an appeal to the Delhi High Court for enhancement of the sentences. The Special Courts Act (No. 22 of 1979 and hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act') was passed by Parliament and received the assent of the President on 16th May 1979. On the 27th June 1979, the Central Government made a declaration Under Section 5(1) of the Act as a conse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-15-1980
Reported in : 1980(2)KarLJ76; [1980]46STC404(Kar)
Rama Jois, J.1. The sixteen sales tax appeals are preferred by two dealers in desiccated coconut, aggrieved by the orders of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes made in exercise of his suo motu power of revision under section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), setting aside the orders of the assessing authority for the relevant assessment years exempting their inter-State sales turnover of desiccated coconut from sales tax under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act'), and bringing the same to tax under section 8 of the Central Act. Four revision petitions are preferred by the State aggrieved by the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal upholding the claim of the respondent-firm therein, which is also a dealer in desiccated coconut, that inter-State sales of desiccated coconut are not exigible to tax under the Central Act. All these cases were heard together and are being dispos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-13-1980
Reported in : (1981)2SCC362; [1981]2SCR1
Chandrachud, C.J.1. A ceiling on agricultural holdings was imposed in Maharashtra by the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 27 of 1961, which was brought into operation on January 26, 1962. The ceiling fixed by that Act (the Principal Act), was lowered and certain other amendments were made to that Act by Acts 21 of 1975, 47 of 1975 and 2 of 1976. The validity of these Acts was challenged in the Bombay High Court in a large group of over 2660 petitions. A Division Bench of the High Court sitting at Nagpur repelled that challenge by a judgment dated August 13, 1976, in Vithalrao Udhaorao Uttarwar v. State of Maharashtra : AIR1977Bom99 . The High Court held that the provisions of the aforesaid Acts were not open to challenge on the ground that they were inconsistent with or took away or abridged any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution, since those Acts were placed in the Ninth Schedule by the Constitution 17th Amendment Act, 1964, and the Consti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-11-1980
Reported in : AIR1980SC1447; 1980LabIC735; (1980)3SCC393; [1980]3SCR485
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. Competitive claims to seniority, dependent on the year of allotment in the Indian Police Service, fall for consideration in this appeal by special leave. We have expedited the hearing of the case since keeping officers in an unsettled state may be a factor which impairs their efficiency.2. One Shri Ahluwalia, a senior member of the Indian Police Service, sought to quash the decision of the Union of India dated 26-6-1976, whereby his year of allotment was fixed as 1965. According to his case, the correct year of allotment should have been 1961. If his plea were granted, the present appellants would be affected by being made junior to him. The rival contentions revolve round a few facts, which we will set out, and a few rules framed under the All India Services Act, 1951, which we will construe. First a rush through the relevant calendar of dates. Concerned, as we are, with the year of allotment of Shri Ahluwalia (respondent No. 4), let us focus on the chronology ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-18-1980
Reported in : [1981]47STC13(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. Validity of the assessments made under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the A.P.G.S.T. Act') and the Central Sales Tax Act (hereafter referred to as 'the C.S.T. Act'), for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64, is questioned in these tax revision cases, mainly on the ground of bar of limitation. So far as the assessment under the C.S.T. Act is concerned, there is no provision in the Act prescribing the period within which the assessment ought to be completed, but, in the A.P.G.S.T. Act, there is such a provision, and that constitutes the basis of the petitioner's contention. Section 14(1), inter alia, says 'an assessment under this section shall be made only within a period of four years from the expiry of the year to which the assessment relates.' 2. Sub-section (7) of section 14, however, provides for exclusion of certain periods while computing the period of four years, prescribed by sub-section (1). Sub-section (7) reads a...
Tag this Judgment!