Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-13-1980
Reported in : AIR1981SC234; (1981)1SCC166
..... of social engineering, if i may say so, you cannot give full compensation-apart from the patent fact that you are not in a position-nobody has the resources-to give it.96. there can be no scheme ..... whole. though initially a model bill based on the recommendations made by the working group in its report dated july 25, 1970 had been prepared where ceiling was proposed to be imposed on urban property on the basis of monetary value, parliament later on realised tha ..... without the constraints mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 27 of the act.6. the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed except for the restricted striking down of section 27(1) of the act. there will be no order as to costs.fuller reasons will ..... act was to secure the socialisation of vacant land in urban agglomerations with a view to preventing the concentration of urban lands in the hands of a few persons, speculation and profiteering therein, and with a view to bringing about an equitable distribution of land in urban agglomerations to subserve the common good, in furtherance of the directive principles of state policy under article 39(b) and (c). the act mainly provides for the following:(i) imposition of a ceiling on both ownership and possession of vacant land in urban agglomerations under section ..... with instructions to the select committee to report by april 1, 1976, was also negatived, (d) that though over 150 amendments had been moved (some of which were received by the members on the very day as speeches were in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-12-1980
Reported in : AIR1980SC749; (1980)2SCC315; [1980]2SCR1028; [1980]45STC456a(SC); 1980(12)LC397(SC)
A.D. Koshal, J.1. The question which falls for determination in the appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against its judgment dated the 19th September, 1977 is whether the appellant which is a limited company is not liable to make good to the State Sales Tax authorities the amount of sales tax leviable under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the A.P. Act) in respect of the turn-over covering the purchase by the petitioner of cotton during the period 1-4-1969 to 8-6-1969, which turn-over had been exempted from sales tax by the Commercial Tax Officer, No. II, Guntur (C.T.O. for short) in his assessment order dated the 30th of April, 1971.2. Two assessment orders were passed by the C.T.O. on the date last mentioned. One of them covered the turnover of the appellant liable to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act). That turn-over included a sum of RS. 26,61,166 which repre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-14-1980
Reported in : AIR1981SC124; (1980)4SCC570; [1981]1SCR406
Sen J.1. These appeals by special leave from a judgment of the Delhi High Court, involve interpretation of Section 2(h) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, as amended by the Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1978, as well as of Sub-section (2) of Section 18 read with Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 19 of the Act.2. The importance of this case in its legal aspect consists in the question as to whether the Central Government has the power under Sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act to receive up to the specified date, i.e., June 30, 1975 any money due to a coal mine notwithstanding that the realisation pertains to a period prior to that date even though such amounts may not be the 'current assets', by reason of Explanation to Section 2(h)(xii), and to apply such realisations under Sub-section (4) thereof to discharge the liabilities of such coal mine which could not be discharged by the appointed day, i.e., May 1, 1973.3. The facts of the case are as foll...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-24-1980
Reported in : AIR1981SC504; (1984)4SCC507; [1981]1SCR801; 1980(12)LC962(SC)
Krishna Iyer, J.1. Section 2(e) of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (Act 43 of 1978) (for short, the Act) defines a 'Prize chit' inclusively :-2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- * * * * * * * * *(e) 'prize chit' includes any transaction or arrangement by whatever name called under which a person collects whether as a promoter, foreman, agent or in any other capacity, monies in one lump sum or in instalments by way of contributions or subscriptions or by sale of units, certificates or other instruments or in any other manner or as membership fees or admission fees or service charges to or in respect of any savings, mutual benefit, thrift, or any other scheme or arrangement by whatever name called, and utilises the monies so collected or any part thereof or the income accruing from investment or other use of such monies for all or any of the following purposes, namely :-(i) giving or awarding periodically or otherwise to a specified n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-31-1980
Reported in : AIR1981SC379; (1980)82BOMLR471; 1980CriLJ1424; (1980)4SCC600; [1981]1SCR175
Sarkaria, J.1. These appeals by special leave directed against Judgments, dated January 17, 1974 and March 29, 1974, of the Bombay High Court, raise, among others, three important questions, namely :(1) Whether an Officer of the Railway Protection Force, making an inquiry under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 1966 Act), in respect of an offence under Section 3 of that Act of unlawful possession of the railway property, is a Police Officer for the purposes of Section 25, Evidence Act and Section 162 of the CrPC. 1898; and as such any confession or incriminating statement recorded by him in the course of an inquiry under Section 9 of the Act is inadmissible in evidence.(2) Whether a person arrested by an Officer of the Railway Protection Force under Section 6 of the Act for the alleged commission of an offence under Section 3 of the Act, is a 'person accused of an offence' within the meaning of Article 20(3) of the Constitution.(3) Whe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-26-1980
Reported in : AIR1981SC1982; (1981)1SCC228; [1981]1SCR532
Shinghal, J.1. This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated July 17, 1970, by which it upheld the judgment of the trial court dated March 3, 1965, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents for Rs. 35,000 and interest with a part of their costs. It so happened that although there was initially much controversy about the facts the parties realised the futility of disputing some glaring facts and agreed to take a decision, even in the trial court, on what they once described as 'interim consent terms', but to which they have stuck all through. We shall refer to them in a while, after stating some of the facts on which both the trial and the appellate courts have placed reliance. That will bring out the significance of the 'consent terms' and make them more intelligible.2. The Premier Automobiles Ltd, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs, imported 13 cases of machinery from Italy. Case No. 249, which is the subject-matter of the con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-06-1980
Reported in : AIR1980SC793; 1980CriLJ557; 1983(13)ELT1631(SC); (1980)2SCC262; [1980]2SCR1005
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment dated August 18, 1973 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The facts of the case have been detailed in the judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary to repeat them all over again. The appellant was tried by the Magistrate for offences under Section 135(1)(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section (ii) read with Section 8(i) of the Gold Control Act, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for nine months under each count. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Sentences of fine were also imposed. The Sessions Judge, on appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence under the Gold Control Act and acquitted the appellant of that charge for the reason that the requisite sanction for his prosecution was not accorded, but maintained the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 135(1)(b)(ii) of the Customs Act. Thereafter, the appellant went up in revision to the High Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-07-1980
Reported in : AIR1980SC1464; (1980)3SCC589; [1980]3SCR1006; 1980(12)LC612(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. These appeals by certificate are directed against a Common judgment dated February 5, 1970 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by which a Letters Patent Appeal against a decision of the Single Judge was dismissed.2. The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass and all the appeals involve a short point of law relating to the interpretation of Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The history of the case has been detailed in the judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same. Shorn of unnecessary details the appeals arose out of applications made by Pera Ram. Ganga Ram, Bhago and Kalu Ram who were the tenants of agricultural land owned by Mrs. Raj Kanta, the appellant in these appeals. The tenants made separate applications Under Section 18 of the Act on September 4, 1961 for purchasing the land held by them from Mrs. Raj Kanta (hereinafter called the 'land owner')....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-10-1980
Reported in : AIR1980SC1088; (1980)3SCC330; [1980]3SCR1
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.1. These are two appeals from Uttar Pradesh involving the validity of a levy which bears the somewhat unusual name of 'Circumstances and Property Tax'. Civil Appeal 1528 of 1970 is by certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court under Articles 132(1) and 133(1)(c) of the Constitution while Civil Appeal 564 of 1973 is by Special Leave granted by this Court.2. The facts leading to Civil Appeal 1528 of 1970 are as follows :-The appellant M/s. R.R. Engineering Company is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of machinery, machine tools and as structural engineers. Its registered office is situated at Clutterbuckganj which was at one time within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the District Board of Bareilly. Acting under the power conferred by Section 108 of the District Boards Act, 1922, the District Board, Bareilly, by Resolution No. 3 dated February 18, 1928 decided to impose the 'Circumstances and Property Tax' on persons acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-09-1980
Reported in : (1982)3SCC24; [1983]1SCR145a
..... pathumma v. state of kerala 2 scr 537. there the constitutional validity of the kerala agriculturists' debt relief act 1970 was challenged on the ground of violation of both articles 14 and 19(1)(f). before entering upon a discussion of the arguments ..... offences under the penal code, were normal sentences. now, according to this changed legislative policy which is patent on the face of section 354(3), the normal punishment for murder and six other capital offences under the penal code, is imprisonment for ..... and political structure of the country, and which sets out the objectives and goals to be pursued by the people in a common endeavour to secure happiness and welfare of every member of the society. so also standards or norms set by international organisations and bodies have ..... amounts to deprivation of personal liberty which is referred to in article 19(1)(d).' (page 148)39. fazal ali, j. held that since preventive detention, unlike punitive detention, directly infringes the ..... firstly, statistics of deterred potential murderers are hard to obtain. secondly, the approach adopted by the abolitionists is oversimplified at the cost of other relevant but imponderable factors, the appreciation of which is essential to assess the true penological value of capital ..... 277. the historical course through which death penalty has passed in the last 150 years shows that the theory that death penalty acts as a greater deterrent than life imprisonment is wholly unfounded. not more than a century .....
Tag this Judgment!