Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC2223; 2004CriLJ2484; JT2004(Suppl1)SC312; 2004(5)SCALE121; (2004)5SCC175
..... noticed and in our view correctly that when the names of visitors who allegedly were a part of the conspiracy warranting detention of the detenu were not in the list of visitors during the concerned period, there is a patent admission about people getting unauthorised entry into the jails without their names being recorded in the official records something which would be impossible except with the connivance of those who otherwise should have .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC2147; 1992(40)BLJR222; 1991CriLJ3284; JT1991(6)SC141; 1991(2)SCALE535
orders. ratnavel pandian, j.1. the petitioner shivaji jaising who stands condemned to death is approaching this court for modification of the sentence of the death into one of imprisonment for life. a brief resume of the facts is necessary of appreciate the plea of the petitioner. 2. the case of the prosecution is that on 3.8.1980 the petitioner and his younger brother ram hari jaising babar in furtherance of their common intention committed triple murder and also attempted to cause the death of three others by causing grievous hurt. on the above allegations both the brothers were jointly tied for offences under sections 302 read with 34 and 307 read with 34 ipc, in the alternative under section 326 read with 34 ipc in sessions case n. 136/81 on the file of the court of the 3rd additional sessions judge at solapur. the trial court by its judgment dated 28.6.82 found both the appellants guilty of the charges and convicted them thereunder and sentenced the petitioner with extreme penalty of law date sentence, but sentenced ram hari jaising babar to imprisonment for life on all the three counts. besides, they were also sentenced to various terms of imprisonment for offences under sections 307 read with 34 ipc. 3. feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court the convicted accused preferred criminal appeal no. 498/82. on a reference made by the sessions judge under section 366 of the crpc, confirmation case no. 8/82 was registered. the high court by its common judgment and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC2372; 1995(2)ARBLR249(SC); [1995]84CompCas618(SC); JT1995(6)SC3; (1996)1MLJ15(SC); 1995(4)SCALE635; (1995)5SCC545; [1995]Supp2SCR514; 1995(2)LC698(SC)
..... . in paragraph 12 it is provided that nothing contained in the agreement shall be construed as conferring upon gbc any right, title or interest in the above trade marks, or in their registration or in any designs, copy rights, patents, trade names, signs, emblems, insignia, symbols, slogans, or other marks or devices used in connection with the said beverages .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IVAD(SC)496; AIR1996SC1895; (1996)133CTR(SC)143; [1996]220ITR67(SC); JT1996(4)SC709; (1996)9SCC257; [1996]Supp1SCR657
orderb.p. jeevan reddy, j.1. these appeals are preferred against the judgment of the calcutta high court answering the three questions referred to it under section 256(1) of the income-tax act against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. the three questions are :1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in law in holding that the return of income furnished by the assessee by virtue of the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of section 139 of the income-tax act, 1961 beyond the time allowed under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of the said section, could not be construed as a return furnished under either of the latter sub-section and in that view holding that the assessee was not entitled to file a revised return under sub-section (5) of section 139 of the income tax act, 1961 ?2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment made by the income tax officer for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 were within the time limit prescribed in section 153(1)(b) of the income tax act, 1961 ?3. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in law in holding that the cases for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 were such as 'failing within clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 ?2. while question no. 1 was referred at the instance of the revenue, questions 2 and 3 were referred at the instance of the assessee. the two assessment years concerned .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC2256; 2009(57)BLJR1518; 2009CriLJ2797; 2009(166)LC149(SC); 2009(237)ELT17(SC); JT2009(5)SC194; 2009(1)OLR(SC)917; 2009(4)SCALE653; (2009)5SCC296; 2009(4)LC1965(SC
p. sathasivam, j.1. leave granted.2. this appeal is directed against the judgment dated 05.09.2008 passed by the high court of delhi in w.p. (crl.) no. 782 of 2008 which was filed by pooja batra wife of deepak kumar @ deepak batra detained under the conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the cofeposa act') praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to release the detenu i.e. her husband from detention. the high court, by the said judgment, dismissed the writ petition with costs of rs. 50,000/- on her and directed the department to initiate criminal proceedings against the detenu under sections 199, 420, 468 and 471 of the indian penal code in exercise of its power under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure.3. the case of the department is as follows:(a) the detaining authority has issued the detention order dated 05.12.2007 against shri deepak kumar @ deepak batra, the husband of the appellant herein on the basis of the facts and documents put up before them and after satisfying with the facts on records that the detenu has propensity and potentiality to indulge in smuggling activities in future. the detenu is the mastermind for import of the goods covered under bill of entry no. 589144 dated 25.04.2007. the goods covered under abovementioned bill of entry were not only mis-declared in respect of quantity but also there were certain goods which were concealed in the container. the value of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC477; (1970)3SCC697; [1971]2SCR849; [1971]27STC127(SC)
hegde, j.1. this is an appeal by special leave. it arises from the judgment of the high court of patna in a reference under section 25(3) of the bihar sales tax act, 1947. that reference was called for by the high court at the instance of the assessee company (the respondent herein). the questions referred for the opinion of the high court by the board of revenue were :(1) with regard to the sales which took place in the period from 1st of april, 1955 to the 6th september 1955, whether the assessee is entitled, upon the facts found by the board of revenue with regard to these categories of sales, to exemption from liability under the bihar sales-tax act because of the provision of article 286(1)(a) of the constitution as it stood at the relevant date read with the explanation to that article.(2) with regard to the sales which took place in the period from 7th september, 1955, to 31st march, 1956 whether the assessee is entitled, upon the facts found by the board of revenue with regard to these categories of sales, to exemption from liability under the bihar sales-tax act on the ground that the sales took place in the course of inter-state trade or commerce under article 286(2) of the constitution as it stood at the relevant period.2. the high court answered the first question in the negative and against the assessee. it answered the second question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. the assessee has not come up in appeal. this appeal has been brought by the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1113; 1981(1)SCALE747; (1981)3SCC36; [1981]3SCR367; 1981(13)LC396(SC)
1. a tenant under a decree of eviction questions its correctness in this appeal by special leave.2. respondents 1 and 2 are the brother's sons of respondent 3 kishorilal vishwakarma. respondents commenced an action for ejectment of the appellant under section 11(2)(c) & (d) of the bihar buildings (lease, rent & eviction) control act. 1947 ('rent act' for short) from a shop forming part of holding no. 188 of ward no. 3 within the area of giridih municipality in bihar state. claim for possession was founded on the ground mentioned in section 11 a (1)(c) alleging that the respondents in good faith required possession of the shop for opening an office and a clinic by first respondent manoharlal sharma who by then had become a qualified medical practitioner having obtained m.b.b.s. degree. the additional ground on which the claim rested was the usual one of default in payment of rent for a period of two months and more as envisaged by section 11(1)(d). default complained of was failure to pay rent for the months of september, october and november, 1972.3. appellant contested the suit, inter alia, contending that he did not commit default in payment of rent for the months of september, october and november, 1972, and that the same was paid but no receipt was passed and that as the respondents were avoiding statutory liability of passing the receipt acknowledging payment of rent the appellant was forced to send the rent by money order from december 1972 and he sent the same month .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1989(3)Crimes759(SC); JT1989(4)SC366; 1989(2)SCALE1083; (1990)1SCC328; [1989]Supp2SCR105
k.n. saikia, j.1. special leave granted.2. this appeal is from the judgment and order of the high court of andhra pradesh at hyderabad dated 4.7.1988 passed in writ petition no. 8610 of 1988.3. the appellant states that he enjoys popularity in his area and that he previously held several important positions in the cuddapah district of andhra pradesh, such as organising secretary of the andhra pradesh congress committee for several years, a municipal councillor from 1982 to 1986 and a vice-chairman of cuddapah municipal council. according to him in december 1985 he was elected as a chairman of the cuddapah municipal council for its residuary term and in march 1987 he was elected to the municipal council as an independent candidate defeating the telugu dasam and congress (1) candidates by a large margin. it is his case that the local leadership of the ruling telugu desam party having failed to woo him into their fold he was pressurised through the excise and police authorities foisting false cases upon him. on 13.11.1987, the police having summoned him to the police station for taking his photograph as was done in case of criminals, he moved the andhra pradesh high court by writ petition no. 79038 of 1987 and the high court was pleased to issue directions as prayed for, by its order dated 17.12.1987. thereafter the excise authorities are stated to have registered some cases against the appellant who applied for and was granted bail on 10.5.1988 rejecting the excise authorities' .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2917; 2003(4)AWC3020(SC); 105(2003)DLT576(SC); 2003(70)DRJ146; JT2003(5)SC617; 2003(5)SCALE297; (2003)6SCC516; 2004(1)SLJ1(SC); (2003)3UPLBEC2059
arijit pasayat, j.1. delay condoned in slp (c) 12703/2003 (cc 5872/2003).2. leave granted.3. the basic issue in these two appeals relates to the scope and ambit of sub-rule (2) of rule 10 of the central civil services (classification, control and appeal) rules, 1965 (in short the 'rules') vis-a-vis other provisions of the said rule.4. division bench of the delhi high court by the impugned judgment in each case held that sub-rule (2) of rule 10 does not contain any provision wherefrom it can be deducted that the deemed suspension for custodial detention exceeding forty eight hours would continue until it is withdrawn. it was further held that on a plain reading of the said provision it is clear that the same comes to an end by operation of law after release of the employee from detention.5. factual scenario is almost undisputed and needs to be noted in brief.6. respondent-employee in each case was arrested and detained in custody for a period exceeding 48 hours. with reference to sub-rule (2) of rule 10, the order was passed in each case indicating that in view of the detention in custody for a period exceeding 48 hours, the concerned employee is deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of suspension and shall remain suspended until further orders. 7. the background facts of the appeal relating to respondent-rajiv kumar is referred for the purpose of adjudicating the issues involved as the factual position in the appeal relating to bani singh would not affect .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2251; 1972(0)BLJR523; (1971)1SCC556; [1971]3SCR639
g.k. mitter, j.1. the only question involved in this appeal is, whether the direction of the high court that the partition suit launched in 1943 should be allowed to proceed in view of the provisions of section 6 of the bihar land reforms act, 1950 which came into force on 25th september, 1950, is correct.2. the suit had a chequered career. it was instituted against a number of persons the main relief asked for being partition of four annas milkiat interest in touzi no. 702, tappa haveli, pargana maheshi, district champaran, bihar. the subordinate judge of motihari made a preliminary decree for partition declaring the first respondent's share in the property as claimed by him. the high court in appeal modified the decree reducing the plaintiff's share to rs. 0-1-4 interest only. in further appeal to this court the trial court's preliminary decree was upheld on 5th october 1953. in the meanwhile the bihar land reforms act of 1950 effecting far-reaching changes in the incidents of land tenure and land holdings had been passed. the first appellant made an application to the trial court in june 1958 praying that the proceedings for final decree be treated as having abated in view of the vesting of all estates in land in the state of bihar. this was accepted by the subordinate judge by an order dated july 12, 1958. the high court allowed the appeal with the direction above mentioned which the appellants now seek to have set aside.3. the bone of contention between the parties is .....
Tag this Judgment!