Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1970)3SCC218
M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.1. The petitioner S.A. Dange, M.P. makes this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for his release by a writ of habeas corpus from detention in District Jail, Sitapur, under Sections 107/117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner also challenges the constitutionality of the provisions of Sections 144, 107, 114 and 117 of the Code. By the order of the Special Bench, passed today, it has been held that these sections of the Code, as interpreted, are valid and constitutional. The order in that behalf gives full reasons and is to be read as part of this order. We accordingly reject the contention in this petition also.2. Coming now to the merits of this petition we may state the facts. The petitioner is a member of the Communist Party of India and one of its leaders. He believes in the Directive Principles of the Constitution, particularly those which lay down that the ownership and control of material resources of the community must be so distribut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2486; 1971CriLJ1720; (1970)3SCC746; [1971]2SCR711
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petitions Nos. 77 and 307 of 1970.Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India. W.P. No. 77 of 1970.Madhu Limaye,appeared in person.Nur-ud-din Ahmed, K. P. Varma and D. Goburdhun, for the respondents Nos. 1 to 4.Niren De, Attomey-General, R. H. Dhebar, H. R. Khanna and S. P. Nayar, for the Attorney-General for India. W.P. No. 307 of 1970.Madhu Limaye, 'appeared in person.Rajendra Chaudhuri and Pratap Singh, for petitioner No. 2. C. K. Daphtary, L. M. Singhvi and O. P. Rana, for the respondents.Niren De, Attorney-General for India, R. H. Dhebar, H. R. Khanna, S. P. Nayar and R. N. Sachthey, for the Attorney- General' for India and Union of India.IntervenersS. C. Agarwal and D. P. Singh, for interveners Nos. I to3.716A. S. R. Chari, S. C. Agarwal and D. P. Singh, for intervener Nos. 4 and 7.S. C. Agarwal, D. P. Singh and Asif Ansari, for intervener Nos. 4 and 7.Shiva Pujan Singh, for intervener No. 6.D. P. Singh, for intervener No. 8.The Judgment of Hida...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1970)3SCC220
S.M. SIKRI, J.1. These two appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat in Criminal Appeals Nos. 16 and 17 of 1965. Criminal Appeal No. 16 arose out of Sessions Case No. 27 of 1964, wherein the appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs 1000, or, in default, undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months, for breach of trust committed in respect of a sum of Rs 8000. In Criminal Appeal No. 17 which arose out of Sessions Case No. 32 of 1964 the appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs 1000, or, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months, under Section 406 of the IPC. The main judgment of the High Court is in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1965 and the reasons for dismissing both the appeals are in that judgment. We also propose to dispose of both the appeals by this judgment.2. The relevant fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC447; 1971CriLJ418; (1970)3SCC491
V. Bhargava, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against two respondents, C. V. Parekh and A. C. Parekh, who have been acquitted by the High Court of Madras of the charge under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Clause (5) of the Iron and Steel Control Order after applying Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act. The first respondent, C. V. Parekh, was the Manager of Microtee Castings (Private) Ltd., while the second respondent, his son, A. C. Parekh, was the Managing Director of that Company. They were also partners of a Firm known as Messrs. C. V. Parekh and Company. Both the Company and the Firm had offices in the same premises. Respondent No. 2 was in charge of the general management of the business and affairs of the Company, so that he was empowered to make all purchases and sales, and to enter into all contracts and do all other acts on behalf of the Company. Respondent No. 1 was also an act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1970)3SCC227
C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court, dated September 19, 1967 in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1964, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for offences under Sections 148 and 302 IPC, and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.2. The appellant, Vivian Rodrick, was tried by the High Court on a charge under Section 302 IPC in the IV Criminal Session of 1964 of the Calcutta High Court, for the offence alleged to have been committed by him on January 9, 1963. The jury found him guilty unanimously and accepting its verdict the presiding Judge, on September 4, 1964 convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to death. At the same trial the appellant was also convicted for offences under Section 148 IPC and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and 3 years respectively. The terms of imprisonment for the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC432; [1971]41CompCas136(SC); (1970)3SCC165; [1971]2SCR706
Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a Judgement of the Bombay High Court made in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.2. On June 15, 1955 the respondent firm purchased gold coins for an aggregate price of Rs. 2465-14-0 as commission agents for transmission and delivery to their constituents at Bikaner. On the following day the parcel containing the gold coins was handed in at Ramwadi Post Office, Bombay for transmission to the addressee. The parcel was insured for Rs. 2500/-. It was lost in the course of transit. The respondents filed a suit for recovery of about 2475/- as compensation under the insurance effected by the Union of India, the present appellant, represented by its postal department. The appellant denied its liability for the claim on the ground that under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, hereinafter called the 'Act', read with Rule 81(g) of the rules framed thereunder, its liability could arise only if the plaintiff had declared the actua...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC465; (1970)3SCC730
J.C. Shah, J. 1. An area of land known as 'premises No. 104' Narkeldanga Main Road, in the town of Calcutta admeasuring 39 bighas and 19 cottahs (63980 sq. yards) was notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by a notification published on August 1, 1946. The notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on June 12, 1947. The land was situated at the junction of Narkeldanga Main Road and Kankurgachi Road and had a frontage on the Narkeldanga Main Road of 675 feet and on the Kankurgachi Road of 629 feet. 2. Before the Collector the appellants claimed Rs. 27,00,000/- as compensation for the land. The Collector by his award under Section 11 of. the Land Acquisition Act awarded Rs. 10,38,700/- as compensation for the land, and Rs. 800/- for trees. The amount of compensation awarded (inclusive of the statutory solatium of 15% under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act) was Rs. 11,95,425/-.3. The appellants applied for a referen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC439; 1971CriLJ415; (1970)2SCC901; [1971]2SCR700
Dua, J.1. The short point requiring determination in this appeal on certificate of fitness granted by the Allahabad High Court under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution is whether toll-tax on laden motor vehicles levied under Section 128(1)(vii) of the U.P., Municipalities Act II of 1916 (hereinafter described as the Act) on their entry within the limits of Nainital Municipality can be realised from the passengers carried by them.2. The relevant facts which lie within a narrow compass may now be briefly stated. Brij Mohan Chandra, Vice-President of the Notified Area Committee, Bhowali, District Nainital (respondent No. 1 in this Court) travelled in U.P. Government Roadways Bus from Bhowali to Nainital on 17th, 26th and 29th May, 1967. At Kaila Khan Municipal toll barrier one and a half mile from Nainital on the Bhowali-Nainital Road, toll-tax was demanded from him but he declined to pay. The Executive Officer. Municipal Boad, Nainital, thereupon filed a complaint against him under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC170; 1983(13)ELT1538(SC); (1970)3SCC136; [1971]2SCR681
Shall, J.1. On March 31, 1959 the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, granted to the respondents a licence permitting them to import from West Germany certain machinery described therein of the maximum C.I.F. value of Rs. 45,000/-. Condition No. 1 of the licence provided that :The ... application is accepted and import licence is hereby granted having quantity and value as the limiting factors and is not valid for clearance if the actual value of any item exceeds the C.I.F. value indicated in the licence by more than 5%.The respondents submitted a bill of entry dated July 1, 1960, disclosing the C.I.F. value of the consignment as Rs. 45,179-92 inclusive of landing charges, and cleared the consignment after paying duty assessed by the Customs authorities on the real value of the goods as disclosed in the bill of entry.2. On June 20, 1961 the Customs authorities issued a notice requiring the respondents to show cause why penal action should not be taken against them u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC173; 1971LabIC27; (1971)ILLJ554SC; (1970)3SCC624; [1971]2SCR687
Shah, J.1. Daksha Prasad Deka--hereinafter called 'the respondent'-was appointed Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from January 17, 1929. On a representation made by the respondent the date of his birth was entered in the service record as July 1, 1910. Under F.R. 56(a) the respondent was liable to be compulsorily retired on July 1, 1965. In 1956 the respondent applied that the date of birth entered in his service record be shown as August 1, 1911. That application was rejected. The respondent again applied in 1963 for correction of his date of birth. The application was rejected and by order dated June 26, 1965, the respondent was informed that he will stand superannuated on June 30, 1965. His representation made to the Government of Assam against that order was unsuccessful.2. The respondent then applied to the High Court of Assam praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus requiring the State of Assam to forbear from giving effect to the order dated June 26, 1965. The H...
Tag this Judgment!