Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1963]3SCR749
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. These two Criminal Appeals Nos. 121 and 140 of 1962, arise out of a criminal case in which the two appellants Babu Singh and Babu Lal were charged with having committed offences under s. 302 read with s. 34 and s. 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case against them was that on or about December 22, 1960, the two appellants murdered Mahtab Singh in furtherance of their common intention and thereby committed an offence under s. 302 read with s. 34. The case further was that on or about the day or the third week of January 1961, they did cause the evidence of the said murder to disappear by buying the dead body of Mehtab Singh and thereby committed an offence under s. 201 of the Code. 2. The victim Mehtab Singh was the father of the appellant Babu Singh and Babu Lal is the friend of Babu Singh. It appears that Mehtab Singh was living alone and that the relations between him and his son Babu Singh were not cordial. In fact, Mehtab Singh had complained to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC550; [1963]3SCR800
Das Gupta, J. 1. The appellant who was the Assistant Controller of Imports in the office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras, was tried by the Special judge, Madras on three charges - one under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, another under s. 5(1)(d) read with s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the third-which was added later-under s. 165 of the Indian Penal Code. He was acquitted of the first two charges but was convicted of an offence under s. 165 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. He appealed to the High Court of Madras; but the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of conviction, but reduced the sentence to that of fine of Rs. 400/- in default rigorous imprisonment for three months. The High Court has however granted a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the constitution that this was a fit case for appeal to this Court. On the basis of that certificate this appeal has been fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC531; (1964)ILLJ68SC; [1963]3SCR716
Shah, J.1. The appellant Madan Gopal was appointed an Inspector of Consolidation by order dated October 5, 1953 of the Settlement Commissioner of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union. The appointment was 'on temporary basis and terminable with one month's notice'. On February 5, 1955, the appellant was served with a 'charge-sheet' by the Settlement Officer, Bhatinda that he (the appellant) had received Rs. 150/- as illegal gratification from one Darbara Singh and had demanded Rs. 30/- as illegal gratification from one Ude Singh. The appellant was called upon to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him if the allegations in the charge-sheet were proved. The appellant submitted his explanation to the charge-sheet. On February 22, 1955, the Settlement Officer submitted his report to the Deputy Commissioner Bhatinda, that the charge relating to receipt of illegal gratification from Darbara Singh was proved. The Deputy Commissioner by order dated March 17, 1955...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1728; [1963]3SCR722
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The appellant Pandit Ishweri Prasad Mishra used the respondent Mohammad Isa for the specific performance of an agreement of sale executed by him on the 18th May, 1950, in the Court of the 1st Additional Sub-Judge, Muzeffarpur. By the said agreement, the respondent had promised to execute a sale-deed in favour of the appellant in respect of his house situated at Sitamarhi Bazar, Sitamarhi. The appellant's claim was decreed by the trial Court which ordered the respondent to execute a sale-deed within a month from the date of the decree on receipt of Rs. 4,000/- which is the balance of consideration remaining to be paid to him. The respondent challenged this decree by an appeal before the Patna High Court, and his challenge has succeeded. In the result, the decree passed by the trial Court was reversed and the appellant's suit dismissed with costs throughout. It is against this decree that the appellant has come to this Court with a certificate issued by the Patna Hig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC875; [1963(7)FLR415]; [1963]3SCR767
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal by special leave arises out of a Writ Petition filed by the respondent Bagleshwar Prasad against the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad, and its Secretary, appellants 1 & 2, and another. By his petition, the respondent challenged the validity of the order passed by appellant No. 1 on December 5, 1960, cancelling the respondent's result at the High School Examination held in 1960. It appears that the respondent appeared for the said examination from the Nehru Intermediate College center, Bindki. He was declared to have passed the said examination in the II Division with distinction in Art. Thereafter, he joined Intermediate first year class in the Kulbaskar Ashram Agriculture College at Allahabad. On the 3rd September, 1960, he received a letter from the Principal, Adarsh Higher Secondary School, Kora Jahanabad, from where he had appeared for the High School examination, calling upon him to appear before a Sub-Committee to a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1237; [1963]3SCR704; [1962]13STC931(SC)
S.K. Das, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated December 14, 1959, by which the said High Court quashed an assessment of sales tax made against the respondent for the assessment year 1956-57. The appellant before us are the State of the Madhya Pradesh, the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh and the Sales Tax Officer, Circle No. 2, Indore. 2. We may first state the circumstances under which the respondent was assessed to sales tax and the reasons for which the High Court quashed the said assessment. The respondent carried on the business of importing and selling different types of footwear in the State of Madhya Pradesh under the name and style of Munwar Shoe Company, Indore. During the assessment year 1956-57 the taxable turnover of the goods sold by the respondent was determined to be a little over Rs. 60,000/-, and he was assessed to sales tax on his taxable turnover in accordance with item 32 Sch. 3 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC107; [1963]3SCR687
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The short question which arises in these two appeals is whether the Muchalika (Agreement of Reference) which was executed by the appellant and the four respondents in favour of Tanguda Narasimhamurty on the 30th of December, 1943, is invalid because its consideration was opposed to public policy under s. 23 of the Indian Contract Act. Both the trial Court and the High Court of Orissa have answered this question in the negative, and the appellant, who has come to this Court with a certificate granted by the High Court under Art. 133 of the Constitution, contends that the said conclusion is contrary to law. 2. It appears that the appellant took a lease of the Parlakimedi Samasthanam Rice and Oil Mill for three years from 1941 to 1944 under a registered lease-deed on the 9th December, 1940. The rent agreed to be paid was Rs. 7,000 per annum. For the working of the Mill, the appellant took six partners with him and their shares in the partnership were duly determined. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC325; [1962(5)FLR285]; (1962)IILLJ752SC; [1963]3SCR660
Mudholkar, J.1. The substantial question which falls for decision in this appeal by special leave against an award made by the Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, centers round the question of production bonus. The appellants company runs a steel mill at Belur. There are various departments in the mill which have been grouped under three headings : direct productive departments, indirect productive departments and non-productive departments. In the last mentioned group come the general office, accounts department, establishment department, time office, stores, shipping department, drawing and design department, laboratory, progress and planning department, civil construction department, watch and ward department, medical department and welfare department. The first group consists of the following five departments : 1. Steel foundry 2. Electric Furnaces 3. Rolling Mills 4. Bolt and nuts shop and 5. Machine shops. 2. The second group consists the following departments : 1. Refrac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1963)65PLR561; [1963]3SCR678
Shah, J. 1. After arguments were concluded in this appeal we ordered that the appellant Narain Singh be acquitted of the offence under s. 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code of which he was convicted and the sentence passed on him be set aside. We proceed to set out our reasons in support of the order. 2. Narain Singh and his three nephews - Mehar Singh, Mewa Singh and Pakhar Singh - Were tried before the Court of Session, Ludhiana for offences punishable under s. 302 read with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the charge that on October 31, 1958, they had in furtherance of their common intention caused the death of one. Bachan Singh by making a murderous assault on him. 3. The prosecution case was that in the evening of October 31, 1958, when Narain Singh and his three nephews were irrigating their field, Bachan Singh diverted the flow of water into his own filed. Narain Singh and his nephews were thereupon enraged, and there was a quarrel between them and Bachan Singh. Narain Singh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC114; (1963)65BOMLR288; [1962(5)FLR294]; (1962)IILLJ360SC; [1963]3SCR650
Das Gupta, J.1. This appeal by special leave is against an order of the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur rejecting an application made by this appellant under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing an order made by the State Industrial Court, Nagpur, in the matter of dismissal by the appellant of its employee, Kundlik Tulsiram Bhosle. Kundlik Tulsiram Bhosle, who is the third respondent before us, was engaged as a temporary Motor driver in the service of the appellant. He was appointed on December 22, 1954, and it was expressly mentioned in the letter of appointment that until such time as he was confirmed by an order in writing his services were liable to be terminated at any time without notice or compensation and without assigning any reason. It was also stated that his case would be considered for confirmation one year after the date of appointment, provided a suitable permanent post fell vacant and his work was found satisfactory. By an order dated December 19, 1955, he ...
Tag this Judgment!