Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1126; (1970)1SCC633; [1970]3SCR881
Hidayatullah, C.J.1. On a complaint, January 30, 1968 by the Income Tax Officer (Section X Central) Bombay, of the Commission of Offences under Sections 409, 477A and 120B read with Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code a case was registered by the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, New Delhi. Investigation was entrusted to an Inspector under the Establishment. It was to be made in Maharashtra State. The appellant, which is a limited company, called the Management of Advance Insurance Company Limited, thereupon filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court at Delhi challenging the right of the Special Police Establishment to investigate the case. This petition was disposed of on October 18, 1968 by the High Court ordering its dismissal. The present appeal is by certificate granted by the High Court.2. Before the High Court many questions were mooted. Shortly stated the argument is that the Delhi Special Police Establishment is not Constitu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC927
M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.1. The two appellants, Janardan Tiwary and Bishwanath Singh have been convicted under Section 376, Indian Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced to six years1 rigorous imprisonment and Rs 500 fine, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year each. They were originally tried with two others (Chandrama Singh and Rameshwar Singh) who were also convicted by the Court of Sessions but were acquitted in the High Court.2. The facts of the case are simple. The prosecutrix is a young girl aged between 14 and 16 years. She was residing with her mother in Village Babura, which is six miles from Barbara Police Station. The occurrence is said to have taken place on January 8, 1962, between the hours 6 and 7 in the evening. That evening, Ram Pyari in the company of her nephew Bir Kumar Singh, PW 2, a boy aged 12 years went to a temple for the purpose of lighting agarbatties and performing pooja. They were returning home after having lighted the deyas ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1730; 1970MhLJ892(SC); (1970)1SCC570; [1970]3SCR894
K.S. Hegde, J. 1. The question for decision in this appeal by certificate is whether the full ownership conferred on a Hindu female under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act is defeasible by the adoption made by her to her deceased husband after the Act came into force.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding that question of law may now be stated. One Somasundra Udayar of Poon-gavur village in Tanjavoor District died Prior to 1937 leaving behind him his widow Sellathachi and two daughters Kuppaimal and Punithavalli Ammal. The properties left behind by the deceased were inherited by his widow and they were in her possession when the Act came into force on June 17, 1956. By Virtue of Section 14(1) of the Act Sellathachi became the full owner of the properties inherited by her from her husband. On July 13, 1956, she adopted the plaintiff--1st respondent in this appeal. Thereafter on June 19, 1957 she settled 9 acres 16 cents of lan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1500; (1971)3SCC69
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. The appellant, Pratap Singh was declared elected to the Haryana State Assembly from Bahadurgarh constituency in the first midterm elections which took place on May 14, 1968. There were three contestants from this constituency, the appellant Pratap Singh being the Congress Party candidate, the respondent Hardwari Lal being the Swatantra Party candidate and the independent candidate Ram Narain, being the third candidate. The appellant obtained 23,714 votes and the respondent obtained 19, 279 votes and the appellant was declared duly elected to the Assembly. It is not necessary to refer to the third candidate Ram Narain as he is not before us in these proceedings. 2. On an election petition filed by the respondent herein for setting aside the election of the appellant, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana set aside the appellant's election by its judgment dated January 21, 1969 and this appeal, under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (herei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC263; 1971CriLJ281; (1970)1SCC536; [1970]3SCR872
Hidayatullah CJ.1. The petitioner Chaju Ram was detained under the orders of the District Magistrate, Jammu passed under Section 3(2) read with Section 5 of the Jammu & Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 1964 on March 30, 1969. The order was served on him the same day and on the original order, we find an endorsement by the Station House Officer to the effect that in compliance with the District Magistrate's order, he arrested Chaju at 6.30 P.M. and that the contents of the order were explained to him in Urdu by reading over the same to him in token of which his thumb impression was obtained on the face of the order, Beneath this endorsement, there is a thumb impression although it is not stated there whose thumb impression it is. In any event, this was in compliance with the direction given in the order itself that notice of the order should be given to Sh. Chaju by reading over the same to him.2. As required by Section 8 of the Act, grounds of the order of detention had to be disclose...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1970)3SCC689
G.K. MITTER, J.1. The appellants in these appeals are the legal representatives of one B. Manik Peter who had obtained an award against the Union of India for Rs 37,874-12-2 besides interest and costs made on December 5, 1956. The award-holder had preferred an application under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the “Act”) calling upon the arbitrator (the umpire) to file his award coupled with a prayer for the passing of a decree in terms of the award. The Union of India not only resisted that application but preferred an application under Sections 30 and 16 of the Act for setting aside the award, and, in the alternative, remitting the award back to an umpire to be appointed by the Madras High Court for reconsideration. The learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court who heard the two petitions together allowed the award-holder's application and dismissed that of the Union of India. A Division Bench of the same High Court hearing appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1273; (1971)3SCC844
K.S. Hegde, J.1. This case illustrates the consequence of entrusting judicial work to those who had no judicial training and back-ground. A simple question whether the family of the respondent was divided or undivided has been pending decision for about 20 years.2. One Jethaji was the girasdar holding a giras estate known as Manghani Taluka. That giras is a part of Kotda-sanghani Mahal. Jethaji had three sons (1) Jesangji; (2) Arjunsinghji and (3) Mohan-sinhji. On the death of Jethaji, the giras devolved on his sons. Arjunsinghji died in or about 1945 leaving behind his two sons Pradyumansinghji and Balwantsinhji. The case of the respondent and his brother was that the giras had been divided between their father and their two uncles sometime in 1938 though Rajkam in that respect was executed only on October 20, 1950. On September 1. 1951, all giras estates were abolished under the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act (to be herein-after referred to as the Act). Thereafter the girasdars were onl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1490; (1970)3SCC368
A.N. Grover, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of a Division bench of the Calcutta High Court reversing in appeal a decision of the trial Judge by whom the suit had been dismissed.2. In 1943 the 2nd and 3rd floor of premises No. 46/7, Lower Chitpur Road, Calcutta, were taken on rent by the Government, the agreement of tenancy having been entered into by the then Governor-General-in-Council The rate at which the rent was payable was Rs. 2225.50np. per month apart from the occupier's share of taxes. The respondents are the trustees under a deed of settlement executed by R. K. Modi who had originally leased out the premises. On the Rent Controller being moved for fixation of the standard rent it was fixed at Rs. 3427-4-3 per month with effect from December 1', 1948. The tenancy in favour of the Governor-General-in-Council devolved upon the Union of India which is the appellant before us. The tenant continued to pay rent at the above rate along with the occupier's share of taxes up...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1281; 1971(0)BLJR289; (1970)1SCC622; [1970]3SCR862; [1970]26STC354(SC)
A.N. Grover, J.1. The only point for determination in these appeals by certificate is whether certain sales of motor vehicles manufactured by the appellant were inter-state sales and were liable to tax under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956, hereinafter called 'the Act'.2. The appellant carries on the business of manufacturing inter alia Tata Mercedes Benz trucks and buses, chassis, spare parts and accessories thereof at Jamshedpur in the State of Bihar. These are sold to the Government of India, the State Transport Corporations, commercial and industrial undertakings and other persons. These appeals relate to the assessments made by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, hereinafter called the 'Assistant Commissioner', with regard to the assessment periods April 1, 1964 to March 31, 1965 and April 1, 1965 to March 31, 1966. As the points are common to both the appeals we shall deal with the facts relating to the second period, namely, April 1, 1965 to March 31...
Tag this Judgment!