Court : Supreme Court of India
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
Reported in : (1982)3SCC24; 19831SCR145;
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 Amicus Curiae on behal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:12. 10.2018 Pronounced on:22. 04.2019 LPA No.359/2017, CM Nos.17922/2017, 20160/2017, 33383- 84/2017, 47167/2017 & 660/2018 BAYER CORPORATION ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Ms. Arpita Sawhney and Mr. Arun Kumar Jana, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. T.P. Singh and Mr. Shashwat Jain, Advs. for R-1 & 6. Ms. Rajeshwari, Adv. for R-2 & 5. Ms. Saya Choudhary Kapur, Mr. Vivek Ranjan and Mr. Devanshu Khanna, Advocates for Interveners. RFA(OS)(COMM) 6/2017, CM Nos.17508/2017 & 32128- 29/2017 BAYER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GMBH & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Nishchal Anand and Mr. Sanchith Shivakumar, Advs. versus ALEMBIC PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Saya Choudhary Kapur, Mr. Vivek Ranjan and Mr. Devanshu Khanna, Advs. FAO (OS) (COMM) 169/20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1991(53)ELT312(Mad)
S. Mohan, Off. C.J.1. All these appeals can be dealt with under a common judgment. They arise out of the order passed by our learned brother Nainar Sundaram, J., in W.P. No. 4062 to 4067 of 1980. 2. The short facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions were as follows : We will confine ourselves to the facts in W.A. No. 321 of 1987 which will be sufficient to highlight the issue. The petitioners-appellants are a Small Scale Unit holding Registration Certificate No. 18/07/20688/PMT/SSI dated 7-12-1976. They are manufactures of Stainless Steel Utensils among other things. For the purpose of the manufacture of stainless steel utensils, they import Stainless Steel Circles. They imported H. T. Stainless Steel Circles as per s.s. S. 737 for the manufacture of stainless steel utensils and cleared the goods under Bill of Entry No. 147 dated 4-9-1979. The duty was assessed by the concerned Customs Officer under the Item 73.15(2) of the Schedule to the Indian Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1963Mad434; 1963CriLJ636
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This appeal, filed against the judgment of Balakrishna Ayyar, J., raises a question as to the constitutional validity of Section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act. That provision has been challenged as void before us on the ground that it contravenes Articles 14 and 20(3) of the Constitution. But the objection to the validity of the section under the first head, namely, that it denies equal protection of laws to persons similarly situate, was not taken before the learned Judge; nor even in the grounds of appeal before us. But in view of importance of the matter and as the learned Advocate-General had no objection to the question being raised at this stage, we have allowed learned counsel for the appellant to argue that point.2. We shall now set out the circumstances which have necessitated the appellant to call to his aid the Fundamental Rights declared under Articles 14 and 20(3).3. The appellant is a merchant at Madras trading under the name of Rainbow Trading ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. Heard Sri B.K. Saxena, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri R.N. Trivedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Akhilesh Kalra, on behalf of the respondent.2. Before coming to the merits and demerits of the appeal, it would be useful to mention certain relevant background of the case. The parties entered into a contract in March, 1981. On account of dispute, the matter was referred to Arbitrators appointed by the parties. As there was disagreement between the Arbitrators on certain points, the matter was referred to the Umpire, who delivered the Award on 20.3.1998. Thereafter the matter went to the Civil Court. The orders passed by the Civil Court were assailed before this Court in the instant appeal.3. On 18.12.2008, a Division Bench of this Court while hearing the matter came to the conclusion that as the factual dispute is involved it can be adjudicated by the mediator. On the agreement of the parties, the matter was relegated to mediator for amicable settlement. Later on Justice...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3576; [2005]127CompCas787(SC); (2005)6CompLJ227(SC); [2005(107)FLR826]; JT2005(8)SC544; 2005(7)SCALE519; (2005)8SCC104; [2005]63SCL109(SC); 2006(1)SLJ24(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. All these appeals involve identical issues. By judgments rendered by Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, impugned in the appeals held that Directors of Jiyajirao Cotton Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company') to be personally liable for the payment of wages to the workmen of the company under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (in short the 'Act'). However, the authorities under the Act could proceed against the assets of the company in the hands of the Directors or the assets acquired from income of the company by the Directors. The personal property of the Directors, however, could not be proceeded against if it acquired from the sources other than the income of the company. The Letters Patent Appeals filed against the judgments of the learned Single Judge were dismissed. It is to be noted that learned Single Judge had held that writ petitions were not maintainable as the writ petitioners had an alternative remedy under Section 17 of the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1957Cal234
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application by the Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. seeking the Court's confirmation of the alteration of the Memorandum of Association of the company effected by the Special Resolution passed on 7th' December, 1956 at a general meeting of its shareholders. The Special Resolution is carried by the requisite majority.2. The Special Resolution reads as follows : ''That Sub-clause 3 (16) of the Memorandum of Association of the company be deleted and substituted by the following two sub-clauses.16(a) To subscribe, contribute or guarantee money for any national, charitable, benevolent, political, public, general or useful object or funds or for any exhibition.16(b) To establish and support or aid in the establishment and in support of associations, institutions, funds, trusts and conveniences calculated 'to benefit persons who 'are or have been employed by or who are serving or have served the company or its predecessors-in-business or the dependents, connect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.5926 of 2019 (@SLP (C) No.4016 of 2019) Appellants Versus Respondents Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Sec. School & Anr. J.A.J Vasu Sena & Anr. JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J1The present appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 7 May 2018 setting aside the judgment of a learned Single Judge in a Letters Patent Appeal.1 The Division Bench accepted the deemed confirmation of the services of the first respondent who was a probationer in the school of the appellants. 1 LPA No.86/2018 1 2 Allowing the appeal filed by the first respondent, the Division Bench held that under Rule 105(1) read with the first proviso of the Delhi School Education Rules 1973,2 the maximum period of probation permissible is two years. The High Court held that there is a deemed confirmation of the services of a probationer who is continued in service beyond the maximum period of proba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)150PLR439
Hemant Gupta, J.1. The petitioner is a former Judge of this Court, now represented by his wife andhter. The challenge in the present writ petition is to declare the proviso to Para 2 (b) of Part III of the First Schedule of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service Act), 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') which fixes the maximum limit of pension of a retired Judge of a High Court, as ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India being arbitrary and discriminatory. 2. The petitioner joined Punjab Civil Services (Judicial) on 25.4.1951. He was promoted as Additional District Judge on 12.11.1969 and elevated as a Judge of this Court on 2.2.1983. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 15.10.1987. 3. The case of the petitioner is that Para 2 (b) of Part III of First Schedule of the Act provides for special additional pension of Rs. 1600/-per annum in respect of each completed year of service for pension but maximum limit is Rs. 8000/-per annum. Apa...
Tag this Judgment!