Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1362; 1970CriLJ1261; (1970)3SCC13
A.N. Ray, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 26th June 1967 of the High Court at Bombay convicting Vishwanath Raghunath Bhate, Yeshwant Krishna Karmarkar and Ismail Shaikh Daud Pawaskar, accused Nos. 1, 4 and 5 respectively under Section 282 of the Indian Penal Code, Accused No. 1, Bhate was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default to undergo a further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Accused No. 4 Yeshwant Krishna Karmarkar was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default to undergo a further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Accused No. 5, Pawaskar who was the captain of the launch was sentenced under Section 282 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. The High Court also convicted accuse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1477; (1970)2SCC369; [1971]1SCR8
J.C. shah, J. 1. At an election held in June 1963 for electing a member from the Kasdol Constituency in the State of Madhya Pradesh, D. P. Mishra who stood as a candidate on 'the Congress ticket' was declared elected. The rival candidate Kamal Narayan Sharma filed a petition for setting aside the election of Mishra on the grounds that the latter had committed corrupt practices at the election in that he offered to bribe Sharma, by offering through his agent Dr. Ausaf Hussain to pay Sharma a sum of Rs. 50,000/-as inducement for withdrawing from the contest and thereby committed a corrupt practice defined in Section 123(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; that Mishra published on April 12, 1963, April 26, 1963 and May 4, 1963 in a Hindi newspaper 'Mahakoshal' edited, published and printed by Shyamacharan Shukla (who was engaged an authorised agent by Mishra to conduct election campaign on his behalf) statements of facts which were false and which they believed to be false o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC981
J.C. SHAH, J.1. The appellant is the tenant since 1942 of a portion of House No. B-III-674, Gukhram Nagar, Ludhiana, belonging to the respondents. The appellant is a medical practitioner and has a dispensary in Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana. The respondents moved an application under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Punjab Act (3 of 1949) in the Court of the Rent Controller Ludhiana for an order in ejectment against the appellant on two grounds: (1) that the appellant committed default in payment of rent, and (2) that the premises is required by the respondents for personal use. Before the first hearing the rent in arrears was paid in court, and the question as to the liability to be evicted on the ground of non-payment of rent no longer survives. The Rent Controller held that the respondents required the premises for personal use, but since the building was a “scheduled building” within the meaning of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, no order in ejectment c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC796; (1970)3SCC887
S.M. Sikri, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Patna High Court dismissing the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by the appellants before us. The Revenue authorities had annuled a settlement made in favour of the appellant, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (h) of Section 4 of (he Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as the Act, Three orders were sought to be quashed by this petition: (1) order dated May 24, 1961 passed by the Additional Collector Bhagalpur, (2) order dated November 28, 1962, passed by the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division; and (3) order dated November 3/6, 1961, passed by the Government of Bihar.2. The learned Counsel for the appellants has raised three points before us: (1) The order of the Additional Collector, dated May 24, 1961, whereby he set aside the settlement made in favour of the appellants predecessors, having been passed without hearing the appellants, under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC798; 1978(2)ELT385(SC); (1971)3SCC31
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This appeal, on certificate, is directed against the Order, dated April 8, 1964 of the Punjab High, Court in Civil Writ Application No. 30/D of 1960, filed by the appellants under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.2. The appellants challenged in their writ petition, as many as eight orders passed on different dates by the various respondents herein, under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act). As pointed out by the High Court, the writ petition was very prolix and had been drafted in a very confusing manner and the objections raised by the respondents followed the, same pattern. But, when one reads through the various orders passed by the authorities, as well as the averments made in the writ petition and in the, counter-affidavit of the respondents, the following facts emerge.3. The appellant No. 1, is a firm carrying on business in tobacco and is a licensee of private bonded warehouses and duty paid godown at Haldwani, Dist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC984; (1970)2SCC264
K.S. Hegde, J.1. The only reason why this appeal had to be heard by this Court is that the appellants were entitled in law for a certificate under Article 133(1)(b) of the Constitution as against the order of the High Court summarily dismissing their writ petition on the strength or which they had a right of appeal to this Court.2. The appellants are the owners of certain lands in village Wadaj in Ahmedabad. Some areas out of those lands were notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on March 19, 1964 for a housing scheme prepared by the 3rd respondent, a Co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. The notification under Section 4 was followed up by an enquiry under Section 5(a). Thereafter a notification under Section 6 of that Act was issued on October 1, 1984, This was followed up by other proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. During the pendency of those proceedings, the appellants moved the High Court of Gujarat unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1153; 1970CriLJ1132; (1970)1SCC665; [1971]1SCR1
M. Hidayatullah, C.J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Mysore dated November 28, 1966 in Misc. Criminal Petition No. 610 of 1966. By that order the High Court held that the present appellant Bhimappa had no locus-standi to invoke Section 417(3) of the CrPC and to ask for special leave to file an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent. The appellant questions the correctness of the order.2. Bhimappa (appellant) had a house at Athni, Taluka Belgaum District. It stood in the name of his eldest son and his two other sons lived in one part of the house and the other part was let out to the first respondent Laxman who ran a boarding house and also lived there with his wife and children and his mistress Champevva, the second respondent. No rent was fixed but the sons of Bhimappa used to have their meals with respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Bhimappa asked his tenant to vacate the house as he wanted to reside in it himself and his son Ya...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC794; (1970)3SCC181
K.S. Hegde, J.1. In this execution appeal by special leave the only question that arises for decision is whether the decree under execution is a nullity as held by the High Court as well as by the Courts below.2. The appellant is the owner of Shop No. 4682, Plot No. 21, Daryaganj, Delhi. He leased out that shop to the 1st respondent on November 8, 1953. One of the terms of the lease was that the 1st respondent should not sub-let the shop. On the allegation that the 1st respondent has sub-let the shop to the second respondent, the appellant brought a suit in the Court of Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi for the eviction of the respondents, under Section 13 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act). The respondent denied the sub-lease alleged by the appellant. Their case was that the second respondent was a partner of the 1st respondent During the pendency of the trial of the suit, the appellant and the 1st respondent entered into a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1498; 1978(2)ELT382(SC); (1970)3SCC76
A.N. Grover, J.1. All these appeals by special leave against the orders made by the Central Government under Section 36 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter called the 'Act' involve common question and shall stand disposed of by this judgment. 2. The facts and circumstances relating to C.A. 976 of 1966 may alone be stated. 'The appellant carries on. business, inter alia, of manufacturing and soiling various kinds of paper and boards at its factory at Brajajnagar in the district of Sambalpur in the State of Orissa. It manufactures various types and qualities of paper. It is stated that there are three types of paper which are principally manufactured. These are creamwove paper, map litho paper and writing paper. In the appeal the facts of which are under consideration we are concerned with creamwove paper on which excise duty was levied. From the year 1960 till July 1961 creamwove paper was being assessed as printing and writing paper under Item 17 (3) of the First Sche...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC786; 1971(0)BLJR49; 1970CriLJ764; (1970)1SCC653; [1970]3SCR946
Bhargava, J.1. A first information report was lodged by one Vijay Shanker Nigam in Police Station Cantonment, Gorakhpur, in respect of an incident alleged to have taken place at about 7 p.m. on 10th April, 1968 in front of his house. The report stated that one Bipen Kumar Tiwari had been attacked by certain goondas who also stabbed him with a knife and further caused injuries of Vijay Shankar Nigam also. One of the principal accused named in that report was S. N. Sharma, Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Gorakhpur, who is the appellant in this appeal. The allegation against him was that it was at his instigation that the goondas had attacked Bipen Kumar Tiwari and attempted to murder him. The offences made out by the report lodged by Vijay Shankar Nigam were cognizable and the Police, after registering the case, started investigation. On the 13th April, 1968, the appellant moved an application before the Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence...
Tag this Judgment!