Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-10-1981
Reported in : AIR1981SC1786; 1981(3)SCALE1169; (1981)4SCC8; [1982]1SCR187
Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against an Order dated January 15, 1981 of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by which the appeal filed by the appellant against the Order of the Trial Judge was dismissed on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable as the Order impugned was not a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the High Court.2. After hearing counsel for the parties at great length we passed the following Order on April 22, 1981:We have heard counsel for the parties at great length. In our opinion, the appeal before the High Court was maintainable and the High Court should have entertained and decided it on merits. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment dated January 15, 1981 of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court and remand the case to the same and decide it on merits. The High Court will dispose of the appeal as quickly as possible. The interim order passed by this Court on February 16...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-30-1981
Reported in : AIR1982SC149; 1981Supp(1)SCC87; [1982]2SCR365
..... of sections 123 and 124 of the evidence act as also those of article 74(2) of the constitution have fully safeguarded high government and official secrets and disclosure is prohibited in public interest unless the court is fully satisfied that disclosure will not harm the public ..... , including its derivation that is the various steps leading up to and at tending its enactment, as shown by the legislative journals, in its effort to ascertain the intention of the legislature where it is in doubt. conversely, the legislative history cannot be considered where the ..... accepted the appointment on those terms. in 1942, while the claimant was on leave in australia, malaya was occupied by the enemy and the letters patent appointing the claimant, of which there was no copy and those relating to other judges, were lost or destroyed. on april ..... t no additional judge can be appointed without complying with the requirement of clause (1) of article 217.39. now. when the term of an additional judge expires he ceases to be a judge and therefore, if he is ..... the constitution will not include a 'chief justice' of a high court and by analogy, the word 'judges' in article 145(2) and (3) will not include the 'chief justice of india.'1129. in these circumstances the reasonable way ..... mr. sheth's case 0065/1977 : [1978]1scr423 , recalling the observation in chandramouleshwar prasad's case : [1970]2scr666 extracted hereinbefore, observed that consultation in order to fulfil its normative function must, be real .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-07-1981
Reported in : AIR1981SC1047; (1981)22CTR(SC)157; [1981]129ITR295(SC); 1981(1)SCALE949; (1981)2SCC693; [1981]3SCR387; 1981(13)LC873(SC)
1. This appeal by certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution arises out of a writ petition filed by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Calcutta. The appellants are partners of a firm of Solicitors known as M/s. Orr Dignam & Co. having its office at Calcutta. The appellants acted as the Solicitors of a German Corporation known as Ferbwerke Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft Vormals Meister Lucius & Bruning (a Corporation organised under the law of Federal Republic of Germany) (hereinafter referred to as 'the German Corporation' ) in two suits filed on the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court-one Suit No. 511 of 1962 filed by the Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. against German Corporation and another Suit No. 1124 of 1962 filed by the German Corporation against the Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. on the alleged infringement of a patent. The appellants were instructed by a firm of Solicitors in London namely...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-13-1981
Reported in : AIR1981SC818; (1982)1CompLJ309(SC); 1981(1)SCALE90; (1981)1SCC664; [1981]2SCR533
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1629, 1857 & 2087 of 1979. From the Judgment and Order dated 1-5-1979 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No. 408 of 1978. F. S. Nariman, S. D. Parekh, A. D. Mehta, Lalit Bhasin, Vinay Bhasin and Vineet Kumar for the Appellants in C.A. No. 1629 and for R. 1 in C.A. No. 2087/79. V. N. Tarkunde, S. Ganesh, K. Vasudev and T.V.S.N. Chari for the Appellants in CA 1857/79. Soli J. Sorabjee, Solicitor General and Girish Chandra for Appellants in CA 2087 and for Respondent (UOI) in CA 1629/79. Soli J. Sorabjee, Solicitor General, S. Ganesh Vasdev and T.V.S.N. Chari for Respondent No. 2 in CA 1629. T. V. S. N. Chari for Respondent No. 4 in CA 2087 Suresh Parik and S. Swarup for Respondent No. 3 in CA 2087. F. S. Nariman, B. P. Maheshwari and Suresh Sethi for Respondent-Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. in CA No. 1857 and 2087/79. C. M. Chopra for Intervenor. The Judgment of R. S. Sarkaria and D. A. Desai, JJ. was delivered by Sarkaria, J. O. Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-03-1981
Reported in : AIR1981SC2198; 1981CriLJ1835; 1981(3)SCALE1707; (1982)1SCC71; [1982]1SCR1077
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India the petitioners and through them the Shia community of Mohalla Doshipura, Varanasi are complaining against the various actions of the respondents (including respondents 5 and 6 as representing the Sunni community of Mohalla Doshipura) which constitute serious infraction and/or infringement of their fundamental rights guaranteed to them under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution in the matter of enjoying their religious faith and performance of religious rites, practices and observances on certain plots and properties situated in the said Mohalla of Doshipura, Police Station Jaitpura (formerly Adampur) in the city of Varanasi and in particular are seeking a declaration that the 9 plots of land bearing plot Nos. 245, 246, 247, 248/23/72, 602, 603, 602/1133, 246/1134 and 247/1130 in the said Mohalla and buildings and structures thereon belong to the Shia Waqf of Mohalla Doshipura and that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-09-1981
Reported in : AIR1981SC873; 1981(1)SCALE455; (1981)2SCC600; [1981]3SCR92
1. Inspired by the objective of removing nation-wide shortage of sugar and for the purpose of enhancing sugar production in order to achieve an equitable distribution of the commodity so as to make it available to consumers at reasonable rates and thereby relieving the sugar famine, the Cane Commissioner, Government of Uttar Pradesh by virtue of a Notification dated 9th October, 1980, acting under Clause 8 of the Sugarcane (Conrtol) Order, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Control Order') directed that no power crusher, with certain exceptions, of a khandsari unit or any agent of such owner in the reserved area of a mill could be worked until December 1, 1980. The exact contents of the Notification may be extracted thus:Lucknow, Thursday 9th October 1980In exercise of the powers under Clause 8 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 read with the Central Government, Ministry of Food & Agriculture, Community Development and Cooperation (Department of Food), Government of India Order ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-28-1981
Reported in : AIR1981SC1829; 1981LabIC1313; (1981)IILLJ314SC; 1981(3)SCALE1275; (1981)4SCC335; [1982]1SCR438; 1981(2)SLJ349(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. Transferred Case No. 3 of 1981 and the writ petitions filed by the petitioners raise common constitutional and legal questions and we propose to decide all these cases by one common judgment. So far as Transferred Case No. 3/81 is concerned, it arises out of writ petition No. 1186/1980 filed by Nergesh Meerza and Ors. Respondent No. 1 (Air India) moved this Court for transfer of the writ petition filed by the petitioners, Nergesh Meerza & Ors in the Bombay High Court to this Court because the constitutional validity of Regulation 46(1)(c) of Air India Employees Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as 'A.I. Regulations') and other questions of law were involved. Another ground taken by the applicant-Air India in the transfer petition was that other writ petitions filed by the Air Hostesses employed by the Indian Airlines Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'I.A.C.') which were pending hearing in this Court involved almost identical reliefs. After h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-22-1981
Reported in : AIR1981SC1450; 1981(1)SCALE739; (1981)3SCC173; [1981]3SCR553; 1981(13)LC572(SC)
1. Mst. Bibi Rahmani Khatoon and others filed Title Suit No. 3/70 in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge I, Gaya for declaration of their title and for recovery of possession of agricultural lands admeasuring 4 acres 29 gunthas comprised in two holdings bearing khata nos. 458 (nakdi) and 459 (Bhouli) in Touzi No. 7535 situated in village Parsain. The defendants in the suit were the present respondents and three others defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7. One Brahmadeo was defendant 7 claiming an interest in khata No. 458 on the basis of a sale deed executed on March 31, 1959, by one Deonandan Singh who was defendant 5 in the trial court. It must be made distinctly clear that Brahmadeo claimed interest in khata No. 458 while the present respondents claimed interest in khata No. 459 only. The trial court decreed the suit declaring that the plaintiffs were the owners of both the khatas and were entitled to recover possession of the same.2. Title Appeal No. 7/74 was preferred in the court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-08-1981
Reported in : AIR1982SC101; 1982LabIC38; 1981(3)SCALE1837; (1982)1SCC379; [1982]2SCR69
Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. The second world war left in its wake conditions of scarcity of foodgrains and other essential commodities in different parts of the country. To tide over that situation and with intent to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of the available supply of foodgrains etc., schemes of rationing of foodgrains were periodically introduced in the different States in the country.2. In the State of Bombay, an informal (non-statutory) scheme of rationing was introduced in November, 1957 and for administering the said scheme, an ad hoc Organisation was set up under the Controller of Foodgrains Distribution. Since this Organisation (hereinafter referred to as CFD) was intended to be only a temporary and short-term set up, no recruitment rules were framed for appointment to the various categories of posts created therein. The CFD was manned principally by (1) personnel who had been working in the temporary Civil Supplies Department created during the second world war peri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-01-1981
Reported in : AIR1981SC1514; 1981CriLJ894; 1981(1)SCALE851; (1981)3SCC208; [1981]3SCR627
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 543-545 of 1979. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 15th April, 1978 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision No. 701/77, 105/78 & 103/78 respectively. H.K. Puri for the Appellant. R.K. Garg, Sunil Kumar Jain and V.J. Era for Respondents Nos. 1, 2, 5 & 6. S.K. Gambhir and Vijay Mansaria for the State. The following Judgments were delivered CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. I agree with my brother A.P. Sen that the order passed by the High Court should be set aside and that the Magistrate should be directed to record the plea of the accused under Sec. 251 Criminal Procedure Code and thereafter, to proceed with the trial according to law. The facts leading to these appeals have been stated in the judgments of both my brethren A.P. Sen and Baharul Islam and it is unnecessary for me to state them over again. The prayer in the application before the High Court was merely to quash the order dated Novembe...
Tag this Judgment!