Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC808; 1967CriLJ823; 1967MhLJ280; [1967]2SCR127
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Rajasthan High Court and arises in the following circumstances. There was an election to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from the Beawar constituency at the general election in 1962. A number of persons stood for election, two of whom were the appellant and the respondent. The appellant secured the highest number of votes while the respondent came second. The appellant was declared successful at the election and this led to an election petition by the respondent. 2. A number of grounds were taken in the election petition for invalidating the election of the appellant; but in the present appeal we are concerned with one ground and shall refer to that only. That ground was that the appellant had committed a corrupt practice as defined in section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act No. 3 of 1951, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The case of the respondent was that the appellant had published a statement of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
S.K. Kapur, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of three regular first appeals, being R. F. A. Nos. 88.D of 1956, 89-D of 1956 and 104-D of 1956. (2) Parmeshwari Parshad Gupta (hereafter referred to as Gupta) filed a suit against Bharat Fire and General Insurance Limited (hereinafter referred to as the company) for a declaration that he continues to be the General Manager of the company and recovery of Rs. 31,152.00/13.00. In the alternative, he asked fora decree'for Rs. 1,63.00/8,201.00 as money due to him from the company as detailed in the plaint. This suit was registered as suit No. 282 of 1954. The trial Court declined the decres for declaration but awarded to Gupta a decree for Rs. 73,936/15/9 as under (1) Rs. 1,480/10/3 as salary forl7 days from lst December, 1953 to 17th December, 1953, at the rate of Rs 2700.00 per month ; (2) Rs. 52/4/3 as the pay of the chauffeur for that period ; (3) Rs. 2,700.00 on account of one month's salary in lieu of notice ; (4) Rs. 16.200.00 on accoun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. This judgment will dispose of three regular first appeals, being R. F. A. Nos. 88-D of 1956. 89-D of 1956 and 104-D of 1956.2. Parameshwari Parshad Gupta (hereafter referred to as Gupta) filed a suit against Bharat Fire and General Insurance Limited (hereafter referred to as the company) for a declaration that he continues to be the General Manager of the company and recovery of Rs.31,152/13/-. In the alternative, he asked for a decree of Rs.1,63,820 as money due to him from the company as detailed in the plaint. This suit was registered as suit NO. 282 of 1954. The Trial Court declined the decree for declaration but awarded to Gupta a decree for Rs.73,936/15/9 as under:-(1) Rs.1,480/10/3 as salary for 17 days from 1st December, 1953 to 17th December, 1953, at the rate of Rs.2700 per month; (2) Rs.52/4/3 as the pay of the chauffeur for that period; (3) Rs. 2700 on account of one month's salary in lieu of notice; (4) Rs. 16,200 on account of gratuity for six months at the rate of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1027; 1967CriLJ975; [1967]2SCR122
Hidayatullah, J. 1. This is an appeal by Special Leave against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, January 18, 1962, by which the High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant Periyasamy under section 302, Indian Penal Code, and the sentence of death imposed on him. The facts of the case are as follows :- Periyasamy was charged with the murder of his wife Kaveri Ammal on the morning of May 11, 1965, at 6 a.m. at a place in Kirambur where they were residing in what is called a shed. Opposite to this shed was another shed in which Periyasamy's brother with his wife Pappayee (P.W. 1) was residing. Periyasamy and Kaveri Ammal had been married for a period of two years during which time Kaveri Ammal used to go-away frequently to her parent's place, and the motive suggested is that it used to enrage the appellant Periyasamy. On the morning of the day of occurrence, Pappayee heard the cry 'Ayyo Ayyo', and she states that she saw Periyasamy striking his wife with a k...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC970; 1967CriLJ939; 1967MhLJ737(SC); (1967)69PLR300; [1967]2SCR116
Bhargava, J. 1. The respondent, Ghisa Ram, is a Halwai dealing in milk and milk products, including Dahi, and holds a licence from running his shop in Defence Colony in New Delhi. On September 20, 1961, the Food Inspector of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi visited the shop of the respondent and took a sample of curd of cow's milk for the purpose of testing whether there was any adulteration. The curd was churned and divided into three equal parts. Each part was put in a separate bottle and sealed by the Food Inspector. One of the bottles containing the sample of the curd taken was handed over to the respondent. Out of the two remaining samples with the Food Inspector, one was sent to the Public Analyst who carried out the analysis on October 3, 1961. He then gave a certificate on October 23, 1961, in which he noted that the fat content in the curd was 11.6% and the non-fatty solids were 7.3%. The standard prescribed by the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER(1) In this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order, or direction quashing the selection made by the respondents, as well as quashing the panel announced by respondent No.2 in his letter No. 754E 20 - H (Trip) (Elac) dated the 7th July, 1965.(2) The impugned selection was made for the posts of Reservation Supervisors. The petitioner is impugning the selection on various grounds, namely -1. Under Rule 9 (d) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (to be hereinafter referred to as the Manual) as there were only 24 vacancies, the Selection Board should have called for interview only 96 persons but they had called for interview as many as 152 persons. Thereby they contravened the aforementioned Rule. 2. It was the duty of the Railway Establishment to make available to the members of the Selection Board the confidential reports of the candidates called for examination even before the wr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
(1). In each of these nine criminal Writ Petitions (Nos. 2 to 10 of 1966) under Article 22 and 226 of the Constitution of India and under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner therein prays that this court may be pleased to issue a writ of habeas corpus calling upon the respondents to produce him Court and to show on what authority they have detained him and, if they fail to show lawful authority for doing so, to set him at liberty. (2) The facts of these cases are more or less identical. Common questions of law arise for decision in these petitions. Hence they are consolidated together. After the ugly incidents in Delhi on 7th of this month, the petitioner were arrested between the 7th and 13 of this month. They are now detained in prison. They allege that they were not informed whey they were arrested, nor were they produced before any Magistrate Their case is that they are unlawfully detained.(3) The case for the respondents is that the petitioners were arres...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
K.S. Hegde, C.J.(1) These proceedings arise from the common judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in sessions cases Nos 6 and 9 of 1966. In the said cases the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted both the appellants, Jai Singh and Prem Singh, far an offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced Jai Singh to death, subject to confirmation of the sentence by this Court, but Prem Singh was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Murder reference No. 49 of 1966 is a reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking confirmation of the death sentence imposed on Jai Singh. Criminal Appeal No. 93-D of 1966 is the appeal filed by Jai Singh, and Criminal Appeal No. 912-C of 1966 is the appeal submitted by Prem Singh through the Superintendent, Central Jail, New Delhi. (2) Briefly stated, the case for the prosecution is as follows ; - The deceased Faqir Chand Soni was, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
S. Hedge, C.J.(1). These proceedings ... the common judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in session cases 6 and 9 of 1966. In the said cases the Additional Session Judge convicted ... the appellants, Jai Singh and Prem Singh an offence under S. 302 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced Jai Singh to death, subject to the confirmation of the sentence by this court, but, Prem Singh was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Murder reference No. 49 of 1966 is a reference made by the learned Additional Session Judge under s. 373 of the Criminal Procedure seeking confirmation of the death sentence imposed on Jai Singh. Criminal Appeal No. 93-D of 1966 is the appeal filed by jai Singh, and Criminal Appeal No. 912-C of 1966 is the appeal submitted by Prem Singh through the superintendent, Central Jail. New Delhi.(2) Briefly stated the case for the prosecution is as follows:(3) The deceased Faqui Chand Soni was the principal of the Commercial College situate in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC944; [1967]2SCR109
Shah, J.1. The Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 - hereinafter called 'the Act' - was enacted with the object of reorganising the State of Punjab. By the Act which came into force on November 1, 1966, the eastern hilly areas of the old State were transferred to the Union territory of Himachal Pradesh; the territory known as Chandigarh in Kharar tahsil was constituted into a Union territory; and the remaining territory was divided between the new State of Punjab and the Haryana State. The old State of Punjab had a bi-cameral Legislature with 154 members in the Legislative Assembly and 51 members in the Legislative Council. Under s. 13 of the Act as from November 1, 1966, the Legislative Assembly of the new State of Punjab consists of 87 members and the Haryana Legislative Assembly consists of 54 members. The new State of Punjab has also a bi-cameral Legislature. Out of the original membership of 51, 16 members whose names are set out in the Seventh Schedule to the Act ceased to be members...
Tag this Judgment!