Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC149; 1981Supp(1)SCC87; [1982]2SCR365
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These writ petitions filed in different High Courts and transferred to this Court under Article 139 of the Constitution raise issues of great constitutional importance affecting the independence of the judiciary and they have been argued at great length before us. The arguments have occupied as many as thirty five days and they have ranged over a large number of issues comprising every imaginable aspect of the judicial institution, Voluminous written submissions have been filed before us which reflect the enormous industry and vast erudition of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and a large number of authorities, Indian as well as foreign, have been brought to our attention. We must acknowledge with gratitude our indebtedness to the learned Counsel for the great assistance they have rendered to us in the delicate and difficult task of adjudicating upon highly sensitive issues arising in these writ petitions. We find, and this is not unusual in cases of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
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
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 : Gujarat
Reported in : 1981ACJ207; AIR1980Guj172; (1979)2GLR371
Nanavatl, J. 1. The question of law, and of some importance, which arises in these revision applications for our consideration is whether a consignor who is not an owner of a part of the goods consigned by him (whom we shall call 'consignor-non-owner' for the sake of convenience) along with his own goods and under the same parcel way bill, is competent to file a suit for recovery of compensation from the Railway administration for loss, destruction, deterioration or damage caused to the goods as a result of delay or detention on the part of the Railway administration in their carriage? This question being common ~to all these revision applications, they are all disposed of together by this common judgment.2. The acts in all these cases are similar; and, therefore, we will refer to the representative facts of Civil Revision Application No. 272 of 1977 wily. It arises out of Regular Civil Suit No. 3963 of 1970 filed in the Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad, by M/s.Tolaram, Hariram and K. A....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1980)15CTR(Mad)378; [1979]120ITR827(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. All these references raise a common point. In T.C. No. 842 of 1977, relating to the assessment year 1969-70, the following question has been referred to this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to relief under Section 35B in respect of expenses after February 29, 1968, incurred by the branches in Kulalumpur and Penang '2. In. T.C. No. 115 of 1976, relating to the assessment year 1970-71, the following question has been referred :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to weighted (sic) under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the overhead charges incurred by it for the maintenance of its branches at Penang and Kulalumpur for the assessment year 1970-71 ?'3. There is apparently an omission of the word ' deduction ' after the word ' weighted ', where we have added the expression ' sic '.4. In T.C. No...
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 : US Supreme Court
City of Lafayette v. Louisiana P&L; Co. - 435 U.S. 389 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court City of Lafayette v. Louisiana P&L; Co., 435 U.S. 389 (1978) City of Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. No. 76-864 Argued October 4, 1977 Decided March 29, 1978 435 U.S. 389 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Petitioner cities, which own and operate electric utility systems both within and beyond their respective city limits as authorized by Louisiana law, brought an action in District Court against respondent investor-owned electric utility with which petitioners compete, alleging that it committed various federal antitrust offenses that injured petitioners in the operation of their electric utility systems. Respondent counterclaimed, alleging that petitioners had committed various antitrust offenses that injured respondent in its business and property. Petitioners moved to dismiss the counterclaim on the ground that, as cities and subdivision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Mandujano - 425 U.S. 564 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564 (1976) United States v. Mandujano No. 74-754 Argued No;ember 5, 1975 Decided May 19, 1976 425 U.S. 564 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus As a result of certain information concerning respondent's participation in an attempted sale of heroin, he was subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury investigating narcotics traffic in the area. The prosecutor warned him that he was not required to answer any questions that might incriminate him, that all other questions had to be answered truthfully or else he would be subject to a charge of perjury, and that, if he desired a lawyer he could have one, but that the lawyer could not be inside the grand jury room. Subsequently, respondent was charged with perjury for admittedly false statements made to the grand jury about his involvement in the attempted heroin sale. The District Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1976AP39
Kondaiah, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the appellant Insurance Company is directed against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru) in Original Petition No. 110 of 1968 directing the appellant as well as the owner and the driver of the motor vehicle to pay a sum of Rs.22,000/- to the petitioner-claimants towards compensation for the death of one Visweswara Rao.2. The material facts leading to this appeal may briefly be stated. At about 2.30 P.M. on 25-8-1968 on A. Visweswara Rao accompanied by his wife Vijayalakshmi, and his brother Rajagopala Rao, was travelling in the Jatka of Somireddy from Maruteru to Penugondas. When they just came near Maruternu a lorry bearing No. A.P.K. 7269 belonging to one K. Subbarao and driven by Md. Afuzza dashed against the Jatka as a result of which the said Visweswara Rao received a serious head injury and died at about 7.30 p.m. on the same day in the Government Hospital, Tanuku. The afo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2069; [1975]45CompCas136(SC); (1974)2SCC741; [1975]1SCR890; 1974(6)LC783(SC)
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This appeal is by certificate against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay Varying the judgment and decree passed against respondents 1 to 4 by the District Judge of Nagpur on an application under Section 235 of the Indian Companies Act 7 of 1913--hereinafter called the Act'.2. It appears that in or about April 1949 the Industrial & Agricultural Engineering Company (C.P.) Ltd.--hereinafter referred to as 'the Company' was formed under the Act with its registered office situated at Nagpur. From the date of the Company's incorporation till August 27, 1952 one Shantilal Nemchand Shah respondent 5 was the Managing Director, while respondents 1 to 4 were the Directors of the Company. On August 27, 1952, respondent 5 resigned as Managing Director and in his place two Directors C.V. Krishnamurthi respondent 2 and M. Ganpatram respondent 3 were appointed DirectOrs. These two new Directors were the employees and Directors of a concern known as Industrial & Agricult...
Tag this Judgment!