Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1963AP270
Chandra Reddy C.J. 1. The question referred to the Full Bench is whether Clause (4) of Section 2, Hindu Women's Right to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act (19 of 1946) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is applicable only if the husband contracts a marriage after the Act or whether the words 'marries again' are merely descriptive of the position of the husband as a twice married man at the date when the proceedings are taken under the Act, and they do not exclude from their operation the husband, who has taken a second wife before the Act. This point arises in all these appeals, some preferred by the wives and others by the husbands. For the sake of convenience, we will refer to the husbands as appellants and the wives as respondents.2. The answer to this question turns upon the interpreation of Clause (4) of Section 2 of the Act. That section is in these words;'2. Notwithstanding any custom or law to the contrary, a Hindu married woman shall be entitled to separate residence ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1983]53CompCas269(AP)
Lakshmaiah, J.1. These appeals under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, referred to hereinafter as 'the Act', are directed against certain awards made by the learned Addl. District Jugde-cum-Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Krishna at Machilipatnam in applications filed by the legal representatives of the deceased under Section 110A of the Act awarding certain amounts towards compensation in respect of an accident involving the death of certain persons.2. On 30th June, 1973, an accident took place during the early hours between milestones 221/4 and 221/6 near Ambarpet on the highway, Hyderabad to Vijayawada while M. Radha Kirshnamurthy, Regional Transport Officer, Guntur, M. Purnachandra Rao, Motor Vehicles Inspector, Tenali, R. Ranga Rao, driver of Ambassador car, AAG, 1652, S. Subba Rao, Motor Vehicles Inspector, Guntur and Ammer, the driver working under S. Subba Rao were travelling in the Ambassador car, AAG. 1652 when a lorry TNU. 3360, driven by one by name R. Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori378
Narasimham, J.1. This reference to the special Bench was necessitated in consequence of a difference of opinion between my lord the Chief Justice and my learned brother Justice Das who first heard the appeal as a Division Bench.2. The essential facts have been fully set out in the judgment of my learned brother Justice Das and it is unnecessary to repeat them at length. Appellant Radhi Bewa (who was defendant No. 2 in the original suit) is the widow of one Bairagi who died sometime in 1932 or 1934. Respondent Bhagawan (plaintiff no. 1) is the own brother of Batragi and respondents Brundaban and Hrudanand (plaintiffs 2 and 3) are the sons of another brother of Bhagawan and Bairagi named Natha who is dead. There was another brother of Bhagawan named Bharat who died leaving a widow named Keluni (defendant no. 1) and a daughter (defendant no 3.) They were also parties to the litigation in the early stages and it appears that they eventually compromised with the plaintiffs. The whole case p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC92; (1954)IMLJ314(SC); [1954]1SCR587
Patanjali Sastri, C.J.1. This appeal raises issues of great public and private importance regarding the extent of protection which the Constitution of India accords to ownership of private property. 2. The first respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) purchased the entire Touzi No. 341 of the 24-Parganas Collectorate at a revenue sale held on January 9, 1942. As such purchaser, the respondent acquired under section 37 of the Bengal Revenue Sales Act, 1859 (Central Act No. 11 of 1859) the right 'to avoid and annul all under-tenants and forthwith to eject all under-tenants' with certain exceptions which are not material here. In exercise of that right the respondent gave notices of ejectment and brought a suit in 1946 to evict certain under-tenants, including the second respondent herein, and to recover possession of lands. The suit was decreed against the second respondent who preferred an appeal to the District Judge, 24-Parganas, contending that his under-tenure ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC526; JT1988(1)SC36; 1988(1)SCALE10; 1988Supp(1)SCC176; [1988]2SCR511; 1988(1)LC433(SC)
K.N. Singh, J.1. These appeals and writ petitions involve two questions of law; (i) whether Rule 41-A of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulations) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) framed by the State Government under Section 19 of the Karnataka Cinemas Regulations Act of 1964 (Karnataka Act 23 of 1964) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been made 'for purposes of the Act', and (ii) whether Rule 41-A places unreasonable restrictions on the appellants' right to carry on their business of exhibiting cinematograph films in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.2. The appellants/petitioners hold licences for exhibiting cinematograph films in their cinema theatres under the Act and the Rules in Form F prescribed by the Rules. The Rules and conditions contained in the Licence (Form F) do not prescribe any restriction on the number of shows of films which a licensee can exhibit in his theatre. Condition No. 11 of the licence, however, provides that : 'No cinematograph e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1856; 2002(1)ALD(Cri)792; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)133; 2002CriLJ2547; 2002(2)Crimes200(SC); (2002)2GLR1549; [2002(2)JCR273(SC)]; JT2002(4)SC92; 2002(2)KLT189(SC); 2002(3)Mh
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. No person shall be deprived of his life or his personal libertyexcept according to procedure established by law-declares Article 21of the Constitution. Life and liberty, the words employed in shapingArticle 21, by the Founding Fathers of the Constitution, are not to beread narrowly in the sense drearily dictated by dictionaries, they are organic terms to be construed meaningfully. Embarking upon theinterpretation thereof, feeling the heart-throb of the Preamble, deriving strength from the Directive Principles of State Policy andalive to their constitutional obligation, the Courts have allowed Article 21 to stretch its arms as wide as it legitimately can. The mental agony, expense and strain which a person proceeded against in criminal law has to undergo and which, coupled with delay, mayresult in impairing the capability or ability of the accused to defend himself have persuaded the constitutional courts of the country inholding the right to speedy trial a manifestat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2631; JT2001(5)SC416; 2001(4)SCALE327; (2001)6SCC50; [2001]3SCR969
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 23.6.1999 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 14282 of 1998 in which the orders of the State Government appointing the Commission under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act'), vide G.O.Ms.No.83 dated 5.2.1997 and G.O.Ms. No. 468 dated 2.6.1997 were set aside holding, inter alia, that the Government did not form any opinion to appoint the Commission under the Act.3. The factual backdrop of the case leading to the present proceeding may be shortly stated thus :4. For construction of Yeleru Left Canal, land in Visakhapatnam District was acquired on the requisition of the Irrigation Department. Awards were passed by the Land Acquisition Officer after completing the formalities under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officers, the Awardees sought reference under Section 18. The Subor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996CriLJ2015; 1996(1)WLC413
N.C. Kochhar, J.1. The appellant-Shabbir Mohammad was prosecuted in case FIR No.8/89 of Police Station, Peesangan, District Ajmer for having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B IPC with the allegations that he, in' conspiracy with some others (since acquitted), had caused fatal burn injuries on the person of his wife Abida (deceased). He was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 124/89. One of the documents filed by the prosecution in support of its case was the post mortem report prepared by the doctor, who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. The appellant was called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of the said post mortem report and, since he did not dispute the genuineness thereof, it was admitted in evidence as Ex.P. 10 under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) and, thereupon, the prosecution did not produce the doctor concerned as a witness in the Court. The learned Sessio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2005CriLJ4343; 2005(3)WLC1
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellant in this appeal impugns the judgment dated March 7, 2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Alwar in Sessions Case No. 25/2002 whereby the appellant has been decided and sentenced the appellant as under -Section 302, IPCTo suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer one year rigorous imprisonment.Section 498A, IPCTo suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.The sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. In the dying declaration recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate No. 9 Jaipur, Mubina (deceased) stated that she was the wife of the appellant who did not like her and on the date of incident poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze. Thereafter he showered bucket of water on her burning body. Learned trial Judge after considering the material on record convicted and sentenced the appellant as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1966)2MLJ194
M. Natesan, J.1. These two cases raise certain interesting and important questions, particularly the competency of the State Legislature to enact Madras Act XIV of 1957, Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and whether Section 5 of the Act is invalid as violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and (1)(f) of the Constitution. A further question for consideration and one of some difficulty is, whether a conviction under Section 5 of the Act for burning a copy of the Constitution taints a candidate for election as a member of a Panchayat under Madras Act XXXV of 1958 with moral delinquency, and under Section 25(1) of the Panchayat Act disqualifies him for election. Another plea is raised that the disqualification as imposed under Section 25(1) is discriminatory and offends Article 14 of the Constitution.2. We shall first briefly set out the facts in the two cases. W.A. No. 260 of 1965 arises out of the election hel...
Tag this Judgment!