Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-07-1972
Reported in : AIR1972SC1150; 1972CriLJ727; (1972)3SCC525
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J. 1. The appellant (original accused No. 2), a Chemist Incharge of the Injection Department of Sanitax Chemical Industries Ltd. Baroda (hereinafter referred to as S. C. I. Ltd., along with 5 others was charged under Section 304A, I.P.C. for rashly and negligently manufacturing a solution of glucose in normal saline Batch. No. 211105 which contained more than the permitted quantity of lead nitrate as a result of which 13 persons, to whom it was administered, died. At the relevant time the first accused K. K. Prabhakaran was the Chief Analyst of the Testing Laboratory, accused R.M. Patel the third accused was the works Superintendent. S. J. Mehta the fourth accused was Production Superintendent, Manibhai B. Amin, proprietor of M/s. M. B. Amin and Company, Baroda, the fifth accused was the Managing Director, and H. M. Amin, the sixth accused, the son of the fifth accused was a Director and partner of S. C. I. Ltd. It was alleged that all these accused were responsibl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-12-1972
Reported in : AIR1973SC569; (1972)2SCC200; [1973]1SCR139
M.H. Beg, J.1. Jayaram Mudaliar, the Appellant before us by Special Leave, purchased some lease hold land for Rs. 10,500/- from Munisami Mudaliar and others under a sale deed of 7-7-1958 (Exhibit B-7) and some other lands shown in a sales' certificate dated 15-7-1960, (Exhibit B-51) sold to him for Rs. 6,550/- at a public auction of immovable property held to realise the dues in respect of loans taken by Munisami Mudaliar under the Land Improvement Loans' Act 19 of 1883. Both Jayaram and Munisami, mentioned above, were impleaded as codefendants in a partition suit, in Vellore, Madras, now before us in appeal, commenced by a pauper application dated 23-6-1958 filed by the plaintiff-respondent Ayyaswami Mudaliar so that the suit must be deemed to have been filed on that date. The plaintiff respondent before us had challenged, by an amendment of his plaint on 18-9-1961, the validity of the- sales of land mentioned above, consisting of items given in Schedule 'B' to the plaint, on the grou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-05-1972
Reported in : AIR1972SC935; (1972)3SCC324; [1972]3SCR1
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Madras High Court dated March 25, 1971 dismissing at the stage of admission an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order of a learned single Judge of that Court dated September 1, 1970 allowing writ petition No. 933 of 1970 filed by the respondent praying for a writ of mandamus directing the Licensing Authority under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 to do his public duty and consider the applications for import licence made by the respondent. More than 200 writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment of the learned single Judge, the facts in the respondent's writ petition No. 933 of 1970 being, by common consent, treated as illustrative of all the other cases as well.2. On December 7, 1968 Lala Manickchand, proprietor of Messrs Katrella Metal Corporation, Madras, respondent in this Court, submitted an applic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-22-1972
Reported in : AIR1972SC2427; (1972)2SCC601; [1973]1SCR896
H.R. Khanna, J.1 This judgment would dispose of four appeals No. 1031, 1094 and 1095 of 1967 and 177 of 1968 which are directed against the judgments of the Punjab High Court. Appeals Nos. 1094 of 1967, 1095 of 1967 and 177 of 1968 have been filed on certificate of fitness granted by the High Court, while appeal No . 1031 of 1967 has been filed by special leave. The common question which arises for determination in these four appeals is whether in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 40 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (Act 44 of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Central Government could amend Rule 49 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the rules) with retrospective effect.2. Arguments have been addressed in appeal No. 177 of 1968 and it is stated that the decision in that appeal would govern the other appeals also.3. Prithvi Chand appellant in appeal No. 177 of 1968 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-18-1972
Reported in : (1972)3SCC501; [1972]3SCR99
A.N. Ray, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave from the Judgment dated 9 February, 1965 of the High Court at Allahabad dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge quashing the assessments of the respondent under the Uttar Pradesh Large Land Holdings Tax Act No. 31 of 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and further holding that the respondent was entitled to the benefit under Rule 6-A of the Uttar Pradesh Large Land Holdings Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules).2. The respondent Raja was prior to the abolition of zamindari in the State of Uttar Pradesh the Raja of the properties known as Chandapur Raj consisting of 28 villages in the Tahsil Maharajganj in the District of Rae Bareli. The respondent was a minor till 3 March, 1958 and he attained majority on 4 March, 1958. The properties were under the management of the Court of Wards from 1945 to 1953 and thereafter under the management of the Dist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-18-1972
Reported in : (1972)1CTR(SC)66
Ray, J. - This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 9 February, 1965 of the High Court at Allahabad dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the judgment of the learned single Judge quashing the assessments of the respondent under the Uttar Pradesh Large Land Holding Tax Act No. 31 of 1957 (here-in-after referred to as the Act) and further holding that the respondent was entitled to the benefit under rule 6A of the Uttar Pradesh Large Land Holdings Rules, 1957 (here-in-after referred to as the said Rules).2. The respondent Raja was prior to the abolition of Zamindari in the State of Uttar Pradesh the Raja of the properties known as Chandapur Raj consisting of 28 villages in the Tehsil Marharajganj in the District of Rai Bareli. The respondent was a minor till 3 March, 1968. The properties were under the management of the Court of Wards from 1945 to 1953 and thereafter under the management of the District Judge, Rai Bareli up to 4 March, 1958.3....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-30-1972
Reported in : AIR1972SC2267; 1972CriLJ1526; (1973)3SCC83; [1973]2SCR1
J.M. Shelat, Acting C.J. 1. The appellant was charged of having committed on April 24, 1970 the murder of a lady doctor, Dr. Vaidya, at Kulu. On May 4, 1970, he was arrested on the aforesaid allegation. On May 9, 1970, his advocate made an application before the Magistrate, Kulu Under Section 464 of the CrPC, 1898. The application stated that the advocate had interviewed the appellant in the judicial lock-up where he was detained and found him talking incoherently and showing symptoms of impairment of the cognitive faculties of mind and otherwise of an abnormal behavior. The applicant prayed that he should be removed to the mental hospital at Amritsar for ascertaining whether he was in a position to make his defence. Since there was no response to the said application, a similar application was again addressed to the Magistrate on June 3, 1970. To this application were annexed three medical certificates by Dr. B. N. Sur, Dr. Pathak and Dr. K. P. Singh respectively dated May 10, 1970, M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-18-1972
Reported in : AIR1972SC2617; 39(1973)CLT345(SC); [1973]89ITR6(SC); (1973)3SCC171; [1973]2SCR310; [1972]30STC567(SC)
H. R. Khanna, J.1. Whether notice issued Under Section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) should be quashed on the ground that it does not mention the reasons for the issue of the notice is the main question which arises for determination in these two appeals. Nos. 1190 and 1191 of 1969, which have been filed by special leave against the common judgment of the Orissa High Court allowing writ petitions filed by the respondents against the appellants. 2. For sake of convenience we may give the facts giving rise to appeal No. 1190 of 1969 as it is the common case of the parties that the decision in that appeal would govern the other appeal also. The respondent in appeal No. 1190 is a dealer registered under the Act. The matter relates to the assessment for 1963-64. The date of the order of assessment is not on file but it is stated that, it was made sometime in the later part of 1964. On March 30, 1967 the Sales Tax Officer, Intel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-02-1972
Reported in : AIR1972SC2250; (1973)3SCC733; [1973]1SCR765; 1973(5)LC178(SC)
A.N. Ray, J.1. These three appeals are by certificate from the judgments dated 9 June, 1966, 10 December, 1964 and 19 July, 1966 of the High Court of Mysore.2. The only question which falls for consideration in these appeals is the interpretation of Section 63A(2)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).3. Civil Appeal No. 1084 of 1967 concerns applications for grant of permits on specified routes in the State of Maharashtra. On 8 April, 1963, the Regional Transport Authority, South Kanara issued a notification under Section 57(2) of the Act inviting applications from public carriers permit holders of South Kanara District intending to operate their vehicles in the State of Maharashtra. The permits were under reciprocal agreement between the State Governments of Mysore and Maharashtra. There were 28 vacancies for permits. 39 applications were made for the same. The respondent Kamath in Civil Appeal No. 1084 of 1967 submitted an application for permit. Hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-30-1972
Reported in : AIR1973SC106; (1972)2SCC788; [1973]2SCR757
A.N. Ray, J. 1. These petitions challenge the Import Policy for Newsprint for the year April 1972 to March 1973. The Newsprint Policy is impeached as an infringement of fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression in Article 19(1)(a) and right to equality in Article 14 of the Constitution. Some provisions of the Newsprint Control Order 1962 are challenged as violative of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 14 of the Constitution.2. The import of newsprint is dealt with by Import Control Order, 1955 (referred to as the 1955 Import Order). The 1955 Import Order is made in exercise of powers conferred by Sections 3 and 4A of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947 (referred to as the 1947 Act). Section 3 of the 1947 Act, speaks of powers of the Central Government to prohibit, restrict or otherwise control imports and exports. Section 4A of the 1947 Act contemplates issue or renewal of licences under the 1947 Act for imports and exports. Item 44 in Part V of Schedule I of the 1955 Imp...
Tag this Judgment!