Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-07-1979
Reported in : AIR1980SC962; 1980CriLJ690; 1980Supp(1)SCC92; [1980]2SCR380
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 562 of 1979. From the order dated 17-9-1979 of the Special Court at New Delhi in Criminal Case No. 1/79. P. R. Mridul, and O. P. Sharma for the Appellant. Soli J. Sorabjee, Solicitor General of India, R. N. Sachthey, Girish Chandra, Bipin Behari Lal and Miss Niklam Grover for the Respondent. The Judgment of S. Murtaza Fazal Ali and A. P. Sen, JJ. was delivered by Fazal Ali, J. D. A. Desai gave a separate opinion and P. N. Shinghal, J. gave a dissenting opinion. FAZAL ALI, J.-This appeal is directed against an order dated 17th September 1979 passed by Justice Joshi, Special Judge appointed under the Special Courts Act, 1979 (No. 22 of 1979) (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act') by which the learned Judge directed a charge to be framed against the appellant under s. 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with s. 5 ( 1 ) (d) and s. 5 (2) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1947 and also under s. 5(2) read with s. 5(1)(d) of the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-13-1979
Reported in : [1980]50CompCas456(Delhi); ILR1981Delhi249
Sachar, J.(1) Is the Central Government under a legal obligation to give a hearing to the undertaking before making a reference under sub-section (1) of section 31 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act (to be called the Act) to the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (to be called the Commission) for an enquiry and report is one of the main questions that calls for decision in these three Writ Petitions namely C.W. 782/74, C.W. 547/74 and C.W. 1309/73, which were heard together. Another question of law that arises relates to the scope and extent of power of the Central Government and the Commission respectively and the areas that are carved out to each of them which reference is made under section 31 of the Act. The main restions of law being common to all the petitions will bo disposed of by this order. There were certain special facts relating to each petition which were argued by their counsel in their respective petitions and we shall deal with tho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-12-1979
Reported in : AIR1979SC1550; (1979)4SCC232; [1979]3SCR651; 1979(11)LC631(SC)
Desai, J.1. Law touching manufacture, import, use or consumption of liquor (as understood in common parlance) is recently vigorously assailed with almost afflicted sentimentalism that even though we have dismissed this batch of Special Leave Petitions on 23rd March, 1979, in fairness to petitioners on whose behalf all possible contentions that can be formulated by research and dialectics were advanced with eloquence and devoid of inebriation likely to be caused by the subject-matter of dispute, we propose shortly to state our reasons for dismissal of the petitions.2. To illumine the contours of controversy events preceding the promulgation of the Ordinance amending the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 ('Act' for short), as in force in the Union Territory of Delhi ('Delhi' for short) styled as Punjab Excise (Delhi Amendment) Ordinance, 1979 ('Ordinance' for short) may be stated. Punjab Excise Act, 1914 has been extended to Delhi. While implementing the provisions of the Act, the concerned author...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-17-1979
Reported in : (1980)2MLJ489
Ismail, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Ramanujam, J., dated 20th November, 1975 rendered in Writ Petition No. 2956 of 1972. The learned Judge disposed of two writ petitions, one W.P. No 9255 of 1972 filed by the appellant herein and the other filed (K.V. Paramasivam Pillai v. Angalammai Ammal and 2 Ors. W.P. No. 4576 of 1975, by the fourth respondent herein, by a common judgment. For the purpose of understanding the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to refer to certain facts.2. The appellant was the original owner of Survey Nos. 163/1 and 163/3 of an extent of 3.20 and 0.20 acres respectively in Ariyamangalam village, Diruchirapalli taluk. She had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,600 on 21st October, 1957 from the Government for the installation of a pump set in the well situated in those lands under Taluk L. O. No. 22 of 1967. She had earlier borrowed two loans from two creditors on the security of her lands. One of the creditors filed O.S. No. 660 of 1958 on t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-23-1979
Reported in : 1980(1)KarLJ200; (1980)ILLJ123Kant
Rama Jois, J.1. In these four writ appeals, preferred against the orders of the single Judge dismissing the four writ petitions presented under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, by registered owners of coffee estates under the Indian Coffee Act, 1942 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', the following question of law arises for consideration : 'Whether the Coffee Board, is an industry carried on by or under the authority of any Department of the Central Government or is an institution established not for purposes of profit, and consequently excepted from the application of the Payment of Bonus Act in view of cls. (iv) and (v) (c), respectively, of S. 32 of the Act ?' 2. The appellants are registered owners of coffee estates under the Act. The first respondent-Coffee Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') has been brought into existence by the Act. With the approval of the Central Government, the Board decided to pay bonus to its employees under the provisions of the Payme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-19-1979
Reported in : AIR1980SC1896; (1980)ILLJ137SC; (1980)2SCC593; [1980]2SCR146
..... an opportunity to answer the charge and permitted to be defended by a workman working in the same department as himself. except for reasons to be recorded in writing by the officer holding the inquiry, the workman shall be permitted to produce witnesses, in his defence and cross-examine any witnesses on whose evidence the charge rests. a concise summary of the ..... in which they had participated is not disputed. in this background, the application of the procedural imperatives before termination of services of the workmen, in the circumstances of the present case, has to be judged. this, in turn, depends on the key finding as to whether the discharge orders issued by the management were punitive or non-penal. the anatomy of a dismissal order is not a mystery, once ..... somewhere around 1966. a sensible stroke of enlightened capitalism persuaded the management to enter into agreements with the union, somewhat improving emoluments and ameliorating conditions. by 1968, the sabha, a later union, came into being and commanded the backing of all or most of the mill-hands. by march 1969, the sabha presented a charter ..... cannot be sustained. 10. i now turn to the interpretation of sub-section (2) of section 11a of the 1947 act. it is a well settled canon of interpretation of statutes that the language used by the legislature must be regarded as the only source of its intention unless such language is ambiguous, in which situation the preamble to the act the statement of objects of and reasons .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-10-1979
Reported in : AIR1980SC214; (1980)1SCC321; [1980]1SCR875
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The question involved in this case is whether a suit for ejectment filed in respect of any non-residential building or part thereof pending before any court on the date on which the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Act No. XVIII of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as 'the principal Act') was amended by the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Amendment Act, 1964 (Act No. XI of 1964) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amending Act') could have been proceeded with after that date. It arises in the following circumstances:Haji Mohamed Hussain Sait, the father of the plaintiff, Haji Abdulla Sait was the owner of a building situated in the city of Madras. He leased it out in favour of the defendant, K. Seetharama Rao under a lease deed dated July 8, 1940 for the purpose of running a restaurant known as 'Modern Cafe' in it for a period of three years with effect from July 15, 1940 on a monthly rent of Rs. 950/-. The agreed period of lease...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-23-1979
Reported in : AIR1979SC1803a; [1979(39)FLR309]; 1979LabIC1261; (1979)IILLJ416SC; (1979)4SCC573; [1980]1SCR61
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. Having had the advantage of reading my learned brother's judgment I should have stopped mine with a single sentence, following the example of Diplock, L.J. who in Hughes v. Hughes See Foot-note 49 in Law and Politics by Robert Steveris merely said: 'For the reasons given by my brother Harman I would dismiss the appeal'. But I respect brother Sen's request that my concurrence notwithstanding I should, in a separate opinion, highlight the quintessential aspects and reinforce the legal conclusions which are interpretatively decisive and constitutionally validatory of Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (briefly, the Act). That is the apology for this separate judgment of mine. Why an apology? Because exordiums are opprobriums and socio-economic apercus are anathemas for some judicial psyches; and I should have, for that reason, abandoned my habitual deviance from the orthodox norm idealised by some that a judicial judg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-22-1979
Reported in : 1979MhLJ851
P.B. Sawant, J.1. These two petitions are between the same parties in proceedings under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act). The facts giving rise to them are taken from Special Civil Application No. 2849 of 1974 and they are as follows:2. The premises involved are a bunglow situate on plot No. 5 in Survey No. 2 at Mundhava Road, Ghorpuri, Poona (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises) which was admittedly leased out to the petitioner-tenant by respondent No. 1 and his wife one Banoobai since deceased, under a rent note dated 10-11-1957 at a monthly rent of Rs. 130/- exclusive of electricity and water charges. Respondent No. 1 and his wife the said Banoobai, were admittedly the owners in common of the suit premises. The rent of the suit premises was increased by owners from 1-1-1963 to Rs. 150/- and the tenant paid the said rent from 1-1-1963 to 31-7-1963. Thereafter, there were arrears of rent 1-8-1963 to 31...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-06-1979
Reported in : AIR1979All200
H.N. Seth, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26th ofSept. 1967, passed by the Civil Judge, Deoria decreeing the suit filed by Deoria Sugar Mills Ltd., for recovery of a sum of Rs. 37,860.94 Paise, the Union of India has come up in appeal before us.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on or about 29th Feb., 1952 one Oriental Transport Service, acting for and on behalf of and as agent of the plaintiff, Deoria Sugar Mills Ltd., handed over a consignment of Sugar Mills Machinery consisting of vacuum creating Unit to the Central Railway at Victoria Dock for being carried at 'Railway Risk' rate to Deoria Sadar, a station on the North Eastern Railway which is owned by Union of India. According to the plaintiff, the said consignment reached Deoria Sadar on or about 11th of July, 1952 in such a badly damaged and broken condition that the machinery had become totally useless. The plaintiff was thus deprived of the use of the said machinery ...
Tag this Judgment!