1
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-14-1976
Reported in : AIR1977SC265; (1977)1SCC750; [1977]2SCR421
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. This appeal by special leave raises a question of some interest and importance for decision. The question is whether the provisions of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 96 of 1956, override those of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958. If they do, no person can institute any suit or proceeding for the eviction of a tenant from any building or land in a slum area without the previous permission in writing of the competent authority. For the sake of brevity we will refer to these two enactments as the Slum Clearance Act' and the 'Delhi Rent Act respectively. 2. The respondent is a government servant employed in the Railway Ministry (Railway Board) and was in that capacity occupying quarters allotted to him by the Government at Nanakpura New Delhi. By a letter dated December 24, 1975 the Assistant Director of Estates called upon the respondent to vacate the quarters on or before December 31, 1975 on the ground that he owned a residential house and w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-02-1976
Reported in : AIR1976SC2602; (1977)1SCC155; [1977]1SCR1072
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. Two principal submissions, whose implications perhaps are of profound moment and have public impact, have been, at wide-ranging length, urged in this appeal by certificate, by Shri Shanti Bhushan, for the appellant/defendant and, with effective brevity, controverted by the Solicitor General, for respondent/1st plaintiff. The two focal points of the controversy are : (a) Is the appeal to the High Court by the State/1st plaintiff at all competent, entitlement as a 'party aggrieved' being absent, having regard to the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act 1 of 1951) (for short, the Act) ?; and (b) Is it sound to conceptualise 'area appurtenant to buildings' in Section 9 of the Act so narrowly as has been done by the High Court There were two plaintiffs-the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Gaon Sabha of Bedpura claiming common but alternative reliefs. The suit was for injunction or ejectment, on title, of the sole defendant who...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-23-1976
Reported in : AIR1976SC2283; (1977)1SCC70; [1976]3SCR832
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. The first two civil appeals based on admitted, abbreviated facts, revolving round the election of the President of the Bassein Council (and the third raises virtually the same point but refers to the Bhibandi Municipal Council) under the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 (the Municipal Act, for short) has led to long and intricate argument thanks partly to the haziness and incongruity of the statutory provisions, and the hard job of harmonizing and illumining which, by interpretative effort, has drained us of our faith in the blessings of simplicity certainty and consistency in Indian codified law. We may pardonably but hopefully, permit ourselves by way of constructive criticism of perfunctory codification-a proliferating source of litigation that it was once thought. With a Code, all our troubles and cares would magically vanish. The law codified, would become stable, predictable and certain. The rules of law, purified, would be accessible to, and understoo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-17-1976
Reported in : AIR1977SC1523; [1977]107ITR9(SC); (1977)2SCC519; [1977]2SCR483
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. The fiscal - not the philosophical - implications of Jesus' pragmatic injunction 'Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's'- fall for jural exploration in these appeals. by special leave, the appellant being the Union of India represented by the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, and the Respondent, Sree Jagannathji and the subject-matter the taxability of the deity Jagannathji by the State under the Income-tax Act, 1922, beyond the admitted point. To appreciate the exigibility issue, we have to flash back to 19th Century Bengal and the then prevailing societal ethos of affluent Hindu piety, and we find ourselves in the spiritual-legal company of Raja Rajendra Mullick, at once holy and wealthy, who, in advancing years, executed a comprehensive will to promote his cherished godly wishes and to provide for his secularly dear cause and near relatives. The construction of this testamentary complex of dispositions and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-24-1976
Reported in : AIR1976SC1393; (1976)3SCC784; [1976]3SCR869; 1976(8)LC418(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. Certain lands situated in Usmanpur and Dariyabad in the district of Allahabad are in the possession of the appellant, some as Bhumi-dhar, some as a Sirdar, and some as a hereditary tenant. The lands about on the Jamuna river and are submerged by the river water when the river is in flood. When the flood recedes large quantities of sand, gravel, boulders and bajris are deposited on the surface of the lands. The appellant lays claim to the deposits left behind by the fluvial action of the river contending that since he is the owner of the lands or is otherwise entitled to an unrestricted user of the lands, he would be entitled to appropriate the deposits to the exclusion of all others.2. The Mines and Minerals Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, took steps in about 1970 to sell by auction the right to remove the sand, gravel and bajris deposited on the appellant's lands. On October 13, 1970 the appellant made an application to the Officer in-charge, Mines, All...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-28-1976
Reported in : AIR1976SC1207; 1976CriLJ945; (1976)2SCC521; [1976]SuppSCR172; 1976(8)LC610(SC)
ORDERNew Delhi the 3rd November, 1962G.S.R 1464--In exercise pf the power conferred by Clause(1) of Article 359 of the Constitution the President hereby declares that the right of any person to move any court for the enforcement of the right by Article 21 and article 22 of the Constitution shall remain suspended for the period during which the Proclamation of emergency issued under Clause (1) of Article 352 thereof on the 26th October in 1962 is in force, if such person has been deprived of any such rights under the Defence of, India Ordinance, 1962 (4 of 1962) or any rule or order made thereunder.On November 6, 1962, the rules framed under the Ordinance by the Central Government were published. On November 11, 1962 the Presidential order reproduced above was amended and for the words and figure 'Article 21', the words and figures 'Articles 14 and 21' were substituted. The Defence of India Ordinance was subsequently replaced by the Defence of India Act and the rules framed under the Or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-06-1976
Reported in : AIR1976SC1978; 1995(1)SCALE240; (1976)4SCC134; [1977]1SCR157
Jaswant Singh, J.1. This batch of 20 Civil Appeals Nos. 705 to 724 of 1971 by certificate under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution which are directed against the common judgment dated September 3, 1970, of the High Court of Judicature at Patna and raise important questions relating mainly to interpretation and scope of Section 30A of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Act 67 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1957 Act'), shall be disposed of by this judgment.2. Circumstances leading to these appeals in so far as they would be helpful in appreciating the points involved are : Prior to October 25, 1949, proprietors of big estates like Rajas of Ramgarh and Jharia granted, in exercise of their untramelled discretion, mining leases of huge tracts of land in the districts of Hazaribagh, Dhanbad, and Singhbhum to various persons for winning and extracting coal for a period of 999 years in lieu of payment of premiums and fixed annual rental. There was in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-21-1976
Reported in : AIR1976SC1860; (1976)3SCC485; [1976]SuppSCR101
Jaswant singh, J.1. This appeal by special leave which is directed against the judgment and decree dated June 24, 1974, of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack reversing the judgment and decree dated September 23, 1970, of the first appellate court which in turn reversed the judgment and decree dated April 10, 1970, of the Trial Court relates to the controversy regarding the appellants' right to store and sell dry 'Mahaprasad' in the suit premises consisting of two pucca rooms standing on plot No. 167 in 'Bihar Bedha' (outer compound) of the Hoary Holy public temple of Lord Jagannath Ji in Puri (hereinafter referred to as 'the Temple'), which to use the language of the illuminating and instructive preamble of Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954 (Orissa Act No. 11 of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has ever since its inception been an institution of unique national importance, in which millions of Hindu devotees from regions far and wide have reposed their faith and belief and h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-05-1976
Reported in : AIR1977SC757; (1977)1SCC606; [1977]2SCR28; 1977(1)SLJ90(SC)
A.N. Ray C.J.1. The principal question in these appeals is whether the selection list for promotion of Income Tax Officers Class I Service to the post of Assistant Commissioners of Income Tax is correct or not.2. The selection list was prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 23, 24 and 25 July, 1974.3. It may be stated here that on 16 August 1972 this Court set aside the Seniority List which had been impugned in Civil Appeal No. 2060 (N) of 1971 and gave directions on which the Seniority List was to be prepared. (See Bishan Sarup Gupta v. Union of India : AIR1972SC2627 ).4. This selection list was prepared on the basis of the seniority list approved by this Court on 16 April, 1974 in Bishan Sarup Gupta etc. v. Union of India. : [1975]1SCR104 . 5. The basis of the preparation of the selection list is the field of choice. The principles for promotion to selection posts are set out in a Memorandum dated 16 May 1957 issued by the Central Board of Revenue. The principles are the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-30-1976
Reported in : AIR1976SC859; 1976CriLJ641; 1976(0)KLT184(SC); (1976)1SCC975; [1976]3SCR276
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. These three appeals arise out of a common Judgment of the High Court of Kerala holding the appellants guilty of contempt of court.2. S. Abdul Karim, the appellant in Criminal Appeal 118 of 1971, was, at the material time, a Munsif-Magistrate posted at Perambra. He was Respondent No. 3 in the contempt petition filed in the High Court and will hereafter be referred to as Rule 3.3. A. P. Parukutty Mooppilamma and A. P. Achuthankutty Nair, appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 196 of 1971 were respondents 1 and 2 in the original petition before the High Court, and will be hereafter be called R-1 and R-2. The appellant K. P. Ramaswami in Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 1971 was Respondent 4 before the High Court. He will, for short, be called R-4.4. M. K. Prakash, Respondent No. 1 in all these appeals before us, was the petitioner in the contempt petition before the High Court. He will hereafter be called as 'p'.5. The facts are these:R-1 is the owner of the Olathooki Ariyalakkan Mala...
Tag this Judgment!