Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC987; (1971)1SCC623; [1971]3SCR855; 1971(III)LC434(SC)
V. Bhargava, J.1. This appeal by special leave is by a tenant who has been ordered to be ejected on the ground that he was in arrears of rent for more than three months and did not tender them even at the first hearing by the Rent Controller of the application for ejectment presented by the landlord under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act III of 1949. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana in its judgment stated that, admittedly, the rent of the premises was fixed at Rs. 20 per month and was to be paid in advance each month. In addition, the rent of the electricity was to be paid separately. In dealing with the case, the High Court proceeded on the basis that, on the date of the application which was made on 22nd September, 1964, the rent that was in arrears amounted to Rs. 400 calculated @ Rs. 20 per mensem. In addition, Rs. 22.05 P. were due as interest on this amount up. to that date, and the costs due could be taken at the figure of Rs. 25. This totals to a sum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC427; 1971(III)LC430(SC)
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This appeal by special leave, is directed against the judgment dated February 19, 1970 of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 346 of 1969, confirming the conviction of the appellant, who was the 1st accused, for an offence Under Section 302. Indian Penal Code, as well as the sentence of death passed by the Sessions Judge.2. The appellant, alongwith three others, was charged Under Section 120B read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having entered into a criminal conspiracy about a few days prior to October 12, 1968 to commit the murder of one Vemban and that in pursuance of this conspiracy, the appellant committed the murder of Vemban. The appellant was further charged with having committed the murder of Vemban on October 12, 1968 at about 11.30 a.m. on the Pallapatti Pudupatti footpath shown in the sketch Ex.P. 16.3. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. So far as accused Nos. 2 to 4 are concerned, the learned Sessions Judge has ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC983; 1971CriLJ806; (1971)3SCC226; 1971(III)LC422(SC)
K.S. Hegde, J.1. At about 7 a.m. on October 31, 1966, two persons by name Moti Ram and Balak Ram were injured as a result of an attack on them. The attack in question is said to have been made when they were on their way to the field for cultivation. It is said that they fell unconscious at the spot itself. When they were being removed to the hospital, Moti Ram died on the way and later Balak Ram died in the hospital. The information about this offence was laid by P.W. 4, Harnam Das, the brother of the deceased Moti Ram at 9-30 a.m. on the same morning at Mullana Police Station which is about six miles from the scene of occurrence. In that information he accused the appellants as having attacked Moti Ram and Balak Ram. He claims to have seen the occurrence himself.2. During the pendency of the investigation of the case one Rattan Lal, the brother of the appellant Gopi chand sent a petition to the Superintendent of Police, Ambala on Novembers, 1966. Therein he gave out a different versi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2206; (1971)1SCC749; [1971]3SCR832; 1971(III)LC417(SC)
A.N. Grover, J.1. This petition under. Article 32 of the Constitution illustrates how an attempt has been made to circumvent the law declared by this Court in Triloki Nath and Anr. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors. [1969] 1 S.C.R. 103 by which the State policy of reserving 50% of the vacancies among the teachers in the employment of the respondent State for the Muslims of Kashmir and out of the remaining 50%, 40% for the Jamvi Hindus and 10% for others including Kashmiri Pandits was struck down as contrary to the Constitutional guarantee under Article 16.2. The petitioners, who are 10 in number, are in the service of the Education Department of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. According to the petition, petitioner No. 1 joined service in 1952 as a teacher in the Government High School, Poonch. He had passed the Bachelor of Teaching Examination and was given the grade of Rs. 80-8-200. This grade which was of a non-gazetted post was later revised sometimes before 1964 to Rs. 150-500. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC974; (1971)1SCC721; [1971]3SCR815
K.S. Gegde, J.1. This is an execution appeal. The decree-holders are the appellants herein. This case has a long and chequered history. The decree-holders obtained a decree against the respondents in the court of Sub-Judge, Bankura (West Bengal) for a sum of over Rs. 12,000/-, on December 3, 1949. On March 28, 1950 they applied to the court which passed the decree to transfer the decree together with a certificate of non-satisfaction to the court at Morena in the then Madhya Bharat State for execution. It was ordered accordingly. The execution proceedings commenced in the court of Additional District Judge at Morena on September 21, 1950 (Money Execution Case No. 8 of 1950). The judgment-debtors resisted the execution on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to execute the same as the decree was that of a foreign court and that the same had been passed ex-parte. The court accepted that contention and dismissed the execution petition on December 29, 1950. On April 1, 1951 the CP...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC774; 1971(III)LC406(SC)
A.N. Ray, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 16 October, 1967 of the High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) acquitting eight respondents on appeal against the judgment dated 21 July, 1967 of the Sessions Judge, Sitapur and rejecting the reference dated 21 July, 1967 made by the Sessions Judge to the High Court on the capital sentence passed on Ram Gopal the remaining respondent.2. The Sessions Judge found Ram Autar, Raghunath, Basdeo, Nand Ram, Chandra Bhal, Asharfi, Lallu and Balram guilty of an offence Under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life The Sessions Judge also found Chandra Bhal, Asharfi and Basdeo guilty of an offence Under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Ram Autar, Raghunath, Nand Ram, Lallu and Balram were convicted of offence Under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and each was se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC966; (1971)1SCC678; [1971]3SCR840; 1971(III)LC409(SC)
V. Bhargava, J.1. This writ petition and the appeal challenge the validity of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act No. 13 of 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The facts leading up to the passing of this enactment are that, in the year 1910, some eminent educationists assembled at Banaras and founded an Association for the development of Hindi and its propagation throughout the country. This Association was named as the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan. On the 8th January, 1914, it was registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act No. 21 of 1860, with Head Office at Allahabad, under the name of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan. The rules and bye-laws of the Society laid down the objects of this Association and the manner of its working. It had three classes of members, viz., special members (Vishisht Sadasya), permanent members (Sthayi Sadasya), and ordinary members (Sadharan Sadasya). Under the bye-laws, apart from the original members constituting the Society, further members could be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1193; (1972)4SCC174; 1971(III)LC384(SC)
K.S. Hegde, J.1. The President of India promulgated a proclamation of emergency on October 26, 1962, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Clause (1) of Article 352 of the Constitution of India, As the Parliament was not in session at that time, the President promulgated the Defence of India Ordinance on the same day (Ordinance No. IV of 1962). That Ordinance was published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary on that very day. In pursuance of the powers given by the said Ordinance, Defence of India Rules, 1962 were framed (to be hereinafter called the 'Rules'). The Ordinance in question was replaced by the Defence of India Act 1962 (Act I of 1962). That Act came into force on December 12, 1962. The 'Rules' framed earlier were continued under that Act.2. By a notification published in the Gazette of India on January 9, 1963, the 'Rules' were amended by in incorporating therein Part XII-A. The same is called as 'Gold Control Rules, 1963'. Rule 126(1) of those rules required ever...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC961; (1971)1SCC688; [1971]3SCR791; 1971(III)LC279(SC)
SIKRI, C.J.1. In our ordered dated March 10, 1970, we stated that we will give our reasons later for rejecting the points raised before us. We now proceed to give those reasons.This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta (Bose, C. J., and Mitra, J.) dismissing the appeal of Sachindra Mohan Nandy and Jnanendra Mohan Nandy, now appellants before us, against the judgment of Mukherji, J., discharging the rule obtained by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution. In order to appreciate the points raised before us it is necessary to state the relevant facts.2. On October 9, 1960, and October 10, 1960, the Collector of Hooghly made two orders under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 - hereinafter referred to as the Acquisition Act. The Collector purported to requisition land belonging to the appellants for certain public purposes. He had issued the orders in exercise of the powers which had been conferred upon him ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC689; 1973LC1(SC); 1983(13)ELT1477(SC); (1971)1SCC697; [1971]3SCR802
J.M. Shelat, J.1. This appeal, under a certificate, raises two questions. The first is as to the nature of the power of the Collector of Customs under the proviso to the second Sub-section of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 52 of 1962, and the second is as to whether the Collector under that proviso can extend the period for giving notice under Section 124(a) of the Act either after the initial period of six months or the extended period has already expired.2. In 1963, the respondent carried on business as a dealer in watches in the name and style of Wallton Watch Company in Calcutta. In 1955, he also used to have another business premises where he carried on the same business in the name of Wallton Watch Company. That business was wound up in that year and he had the stock-in-trade of that business transferred to his business carried on in the. name of Wallton Watch Company.3. On March 19, 1963, the Rummaging staff under the appellant raided the respondent's business premises and seiz...
Tag this Judgment!