Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC228; (1953)55BOMLR517; (1953)IMLJ715(SC); [1953]4SCR1009
Mahajan, J. 1. This is an appeal by defendant No. 1 from the decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Second Appeal No. 557 of 1945, whereby the High Court confirmed the decree of the lower courts granting possession of land to the respondents on the forfeiture of a lease. The appeal is confined to survey No. 86/2 at Mundhava in Poona district. 2. The principal question arising for decision in the appeal is whether notice as contemplated by section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act is necessary for the determination of a lease for non-payment of rent even where such lease was executed before the coming into force of the Transfer of Property Act. The only other question that falls for determination is whether the High Court should have interfered with the discretion of the lower courts in refusing relief against forfeiture in the circumstances of this case. 3. The present respondents are the daughter and grandsons of the original plaintiff Vinayakbhat. His adoptive mothe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC732; 1992(1)ARBLR145(SC); JT1991(6)SC349; 1992(I)OLR(SC)215; 1991(2)SCALE1369; (1992)1SCC508; [1991]3SCR417; [1991]Supp3SCR417; 1992(1)LC276(SC)
ORDERK.N. Singh, C.J.1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment of the Orissa High Court making the award made by the Arbitrator rule of the court. The appellants challenged the validity of the award before this Court on two grounds, namely; (1) the Award was vitiated as it contained no reasons; and (2) the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to award pendente lite interest.2. The first question was considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Raipur Development Authority and Ors. v. Chokhamal Contractors and Ors. [1989] 2 SCC 721. The Constitution Bench held that an award is not liable to be set aside merely on the ground of absence of reasons. The Constitution Bench further held that where the arbitration agreement itself stipulated reasons for the award the Arbitrator is under a legal obligation to give reasons. Thus the first question stands concluded against the appellants. As regards the second question, when the appeal was taken up for hearing by a Division Bench t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC745; 1979CriLJ659; (1979)2SCC656; [1979]2SCR1085
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 264 of 1978. Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 31-3-1978 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 597/76. A.N. Mulla and S.K. Jain for the Appellant. O.P. Rana for the Respondent. The Judgment of V.R. Krishna Iyer, P.N. Shinghal and D. A. Desai JJ. was delivered by Krishna Iyer, J.P.S. Kailasam, J. gave a dissenting opinion on behalf of himself and A. D. Koshal, J. KRISHNA IYER, J.-Exordially speaking, the point for decision is short but its legal import and human portent are deep, sounding in constitutional values and meriting incisive examination. Where the question wears a simple look but its answer strikes at life and liberty we must proceed on the inarticulate major premise of human law as the solemn delivery system of human justice. In formal terms, the problem to be resolved is the vires of Order XXI, Rule 15(1) (c) of the Supreme Court Rules (the Rules, for short), but in juristic terms it turns on the inflex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3642; 2000(4)ALT39(SC); [2000]101CompCas317(SC); JT2000(7)SC86; 2000(4)SCALE551; (2000)5SCC274
ORDERM.B. Shah, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 24.12.1996 passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissing the Appeal No. GA 708 of 1996 arising out of Company Petition No. 316 of 1981 whereby the learned Single judge had confirmed the auction sale of the property of Mesrs. Kolay Biscuits Company Private Limited - Company under liquidation.2. In the present case, it is admitted fact that on 9th July 1965 Mesrs. Kolay Biscuits Company Private Limited created a mortgage of its land and building in favour of Union Bank of India for the loan granted in its favour. The factory of the company was closed down in 1980. On 20th March 1991 under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies Act (SICA), the company was declared as sick unit by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short 'B.I.F.R.') and thereafter application under the said Act was rejected by the Board. Appeal filed before the A.I.F.R. was also dismissed. It...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIAD(SC)184; AIR2001SC3471; JT2001(7)SC200; 2001(6)SCALE82; (2001)8SCC443
Raju, J.1. Special leave granted.2. These appeals have been filed by the National Highways Authority of India, who was not a party to the proceedings in the High Court, but with the permission granted by this Court and the State of West Bengal against the judgment dated 20.11.2000 in FMAT No. 3607 of 1999, whereunder a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has not only stayed the action initiated by the Superintending Engineer to re-bid the right to collect the toll in question but also ordered the continuance of the Receiver in respect of the possession of the expressway and collection of toll charges, meeting the expenses and deposit with the State, etc., and a further direction to the State Government to take a decision in terms of Clause 15 of the Memorandum No,. 15/1(3)/PR/N/DEW/IE-12/94(V) dt. 11.3.1998.3. The disputes between the parties relate to the right of collection of toll charges from the vehicle using part of Durgapur Expressway between 22 km. to the end point Palsit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2572; 2002(5)ALD70(SC); JT2002(5)SC53; 2002(5)SCALE42; (2002)6SCC16; [2002]SUPP1SCR19; 2002(2)LC1099(SC)
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. Leave granted.2.The suit premises in these two appeals are two shops situated in M.T. Cloth Market, Indore on the ground-floor of a building. The property was owned by late Krishnadas. He inducted the two appellants in the two shops as tenants for non-residential purpose. Krishnadas died on 8.7.1995. His ownership and right of reversion as landlord have devolved on his widow - Smt. Kalawatibai and two sons - Govinda and Hemant. These three are the respondents in these appeals. They initiated the proceedings for eviction of the two appellants in December 1995. The case of the respondents is that the shop in the occupation of appellant Dhannalal is required bona fide for starting the business of Govinda, the respondent No. 2, while the shop in the occupation of the other appellant, M/s Tulsidas Sureshchandra is required by the respondent Hemant for shifting and continuing his readymade garments business which he is presently running in a rented accommodation situated in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3426; 2006(2)ARBLR34(SC); 2006(2)AWC1869(SC); 2006(5)BomCR322; (2006)5CompLJ224(SC); 2006(1)CTLJ100(SC); (2006)4MLJ1695; 2006(3)SCALE324; (2006)4SCC227
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The above appeals were filed from the common final judgment and order dated 19.12.2003 passed in Appeal No. 1109/2003 in Arbitration Petition No. 514/2003 and Appeal No. 1110/2003 in Arbitration Petition No. 514/2003 by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay whereby the appeals filed by the appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge were allowed and the arbitration petition filed by the appellant herein before the Single Judge was dismissed.2. The central issue of importance in this appeal is whether the right of first refusal under Clause 31(b) of the permission agreement entered into between the appellant - Percept D. Markr (India) Pvt. Ltd. and the respondent No. 1 - Zaheer Khan is void under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 has been in restraint of trade. It was submitted by learned senior counsel for the appellant - Mr. Ashok H. Desai that the provision such as the right of first refusal is merely regulatory and no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(2)ALD(Cri)415; 2008CriLJ3533; JT2008(7)SC66; 2008AIRSCW4805; 2008(7)SCC550; (2008)3SCC(Cri)183; 2008CriLJ3533; 2008(3)Crimes35; 2008(3)AICLR546; 2008(4)Supreme508; 2008(4)LH(SC)2630
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. In our judicial system, we have not been able to develop legal principles as regards sentencing.The superior courts except making observations with regard to the purport and object for which punishment is imposed upon an offender, had not issued any guidelines. Other developed countries have done so. At some quarters, serious concerns have been expressed in this behalf. Some Committees as for example Madhava Menon Committee and Malimath Committee have advocated introduction of sentencing guidelines.3. Before, however, we delve into the said question, we may notice the fact of the matter.Respondents herein were convicted for commission of an offence under Section 61(1) of the Punjab Excise Act for carrying 2000 litres of rectified spirit. They were sentenced to undergo an imprisonment for a period of one year.4. The High Court, however, by reason of the impugned judgment purported to be upon taking into consideration the fact that the offence was commit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1; (1971)IIMLJ44(SC); (1969)3SCC562; [1970]3SCR53
A.N. Grover, J.1. These connected appeals which involve points of importance and interest in international commercial arbitration arise out of a suit instituted on the original side of the High Court of Judicature at Madras by M/s. Tarapore & Co. against M/s. V. O. Tractoroexport, Moscow.2. Initially the claim was for a permanent injunction restraining the Russian firm from realizing the proceeds of a Letter of Credit opened on June 9, 1965 with the Bank of India Ltd., Madras, which had also been impleaded as a defendant. Subsequently by an amendment of the plaint the plaintiff has confined relief to recovery of damages.3. The facts chronologically are as follows: A contract was entered into on February 2, 1965, between the Indian and the Russian firms for the supply of earth-moving machinery for a value of Rs. 66,09,372.00. The machinery was required by the Indian firm for executing the work of excavation of a feeder canal as part of the Farakka Barrage Project. On June 9, 1965. the I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1495; (1971)73BOMLR320; (1969)3SCC223; [1970]2SCR950
C.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. This appeal, by special leave, by defendants 5 to 7, is directed against the order dated December 2, 1968 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No. 2545 of 1968 filed by the appellants under Article 227. The circumstances leading up to the filing by the appellants of the Special Civil Application in the High Court may be briefly mentioned.2. Respondent No. 1, as plaintiff, instituted Rent Act Suit No. 784/6206 of 1963 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay against Jayantilal Dayalal & Co., respondent No. 2 herein and its three partners, respondents 3 to 5 who were defendants 1 to 4. The appellants herein were impleaded as defendants 5 to 7. According to the plaintiff, respondents No. 2 to 5 were the owners of an open plot of land known as Jalaram Nagar, situate in Greater Bombay and were doing business of construction. The said defendants represented to the plaintiff that they were putting up a building in the said property according to the plan...
Tag this Judgment!