Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1972)4SCC171; 1971(III)LC465(SC)
S.K. Mitter, J.1. This appeal is by special leave granted by this Court from an appellate judgment and order of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir staying a suit filed by the Lakshmi Ice Factory for a declaration that the Union of India was not entitled to recover Rs. 35,210-21 from the plaintiff or its partners and for a decree for Rs. 10.000/-against the Union of India for balance of price of ice supplied by the plaintiff etc.2. The dispute between the parties arose out of a contract for supply of ice by the appellant to the Union of India and the latter made a claim against the plaintiff for failure to supply the ice in terms of the contract and damages suffered as a result thereof. There was a reference to arbitration Under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act in terms of an arbitration clause contained in the contract. The award which followed was challenged by the appellant and was set aside by a single Judge of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court. The appellant then instituted the su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2294; 1975CriLJ23; (1971)3SCC443; 1971(III)LC472(SC)
G.K. Mitter, J.1. Accepting the appeal of the State from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Betul acquitting all the thirteen accused before him in Sessions Trial No. 92 of 1965, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh convicted the appellant before us Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life. According to the Sessions Judge the prosecution had not produced any witness who could be relied on but the High Court took a different view and held that although three of the eye witnesses namely Gopal Singh (P.W. 1) Gurnam Singh (P.W. 3) and Moti Singh (P.W. 4) might be termed interested witnesses whose evidence had to be viewed with caution, there were atleast two police witness , Sub-Inspector, Shyamrao (P.W. 7) and constable Laxmanrao (P.W. 6) who could not be placed in the same category and whose testimony could be relied on as corroborating that of the interested witnesses in convicting Sadaram.2. The relevant facts about which th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1972)4SCC209; 1971(III)LC462(SC)
V. Bhargava, J.1. This appeal has been filed by Binoy Kumar Mukherjee on the basis of a certificate under Article 133(1)(a) & (b) of the Constitution, challenging the order of the High Court of Patna dismissing his petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellant, by that petition, had challenged the order of termination of his services while he was holding the post of Regional Transport Officer & Secretary, North Bihar Regional Transport Authority, Muzaffarpur. His service was terminated with effect from 23rd February, 1963.2. The relevant facts are that by an order dated 7th February, 1948, the Government of Bihar reorganised its Transport Establishment and sanctioned a number of posts including two posts of Enforcement Officers for a period of five years with effect from 1st March, 1948. The appellant was appointed to one of these posts of Enforcement Officers on 22nd April, 1949. There was no specific mention whether he was being appointed permanently or temporarily, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2100; (1971)1SCC823; [1971]3SCR942
J.M. Shelat, J.1. This appeal, by certificate, arises out of one of the seventy Special Civil applications filed in the High Court of Gujarat by several rate payers challenging the validity of the assessment of property tax made by the respondent-Corporation under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, LIX of 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The appellant is the owner of an immovable property situate within the limits of the Corporation. Until March 31, 1961, two kinds of taxes were being levied on buildings and lands situate within the Corporation's municipal limits : (1) the general tax levied by the; Corporation under the Act, and (2) the urban immovable property tax levied under the Bombay Finance Act, 1932 by the State Government, but collected on its behalf by the Corporation. At the request of the Corporation made in 1960, an arrangement was arrived at between the Government and the Corporation whereunder the Government agreed not to levy the U.I.P. tax pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1153; 1971CriLJ939; (1971)1SCC864; [1971]3SCR961
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. In this appeal, by special leave, the appellant challenges the judgment and order of the Calcutta High Court dated January 19, 1968 in Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 1966.2. The appellant filed a complaint dated April 11, 1963 against the respondent, her husband, in the Court of the Magistrate, 1st Class, Alipurduar, alleging that he has committed an offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. Briefly her case was as follows :3. The respondent had married the appellant in or about 1948 according to Hindu rites and both of them had lived as husband and wife together. But some time before the date of the complaint the respondent began to ill treat her, with the result that she had to reside with her mother and brother. The respondent illegally married one Sandhya Rani as his second wife on May 31, 1962 and they have been living together as husband and wife. As the second marriage has taken place during the subsistence of the appellant's marriage with the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC208; 1971(III)LC466(SC)
A.N. Ray, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 8 and 9 February, 1968 of the High Court of Gujarat acquitting accused No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 of the charge levied against them and setting aside the conviction Under Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 34 and Sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of imprisonment passed by the Sessions Judge.2. The appellants were accused No. 1, 2, 3, and 4 and 7. They were charged for having formed an unlawful assembly with the common object and intention of killing five persons, namely, Allauddin Allimohmed Marodia, Allauddin Nasir Kadiwalla, Suleman Janmohmed Sunsara, Suleman Vazir Mukhi and Noormohmed Ibrahim Badarpura and in the prosecution of that common object and intention accused No 1 had armed himself with a gun accused No. 2 with an axe & knife, accused No. 3 with an axe, accused No. 4 with a dharia and thus committed an offence punishable Under Section 302 read with Section 34, Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2143; 1971CriLJ1467; (1971)3SCC219; 1971(III)LC457(SC)
A.N. Ray, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 5 April, 1968 of the High Court of Patna setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge. Chapra and convicting Nanhu Kahar Under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. There were three accused Hikayat Kahar, Shanti Devi and Nanhu Kahar. The alleged occurrence took place at about noon on 22 September, 1964 at a field in village Bikrampur, Police Station Marhowra, District Chapra in Bihar. Nagendra Prasad Singh was a co-sharer landlord of the village and he was in possession of 27 kathas prior to and also subsequent to the vesting of the Zamindari in the State of Bihar. Nagendra Singh had grown maize and other crops in an area of 6 kathas in the northern portion of the 27 kathas. On the crucial date when Nagendra Singh along with his labourers went to the plot his brother Rajendra Singh also came there. Harvesting of maize was goin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1085; (1972)4SCC213; 1971(III)LC454(SC)
A.N. Grover, J.1. This appeal by certificate from a judgment of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench, Delhi) arises out of a suit filed by Harishankar Khanna, who is now dead, for a declaration that his discharge from service by the Officer Commanding Engineering Stores Depot (O.C.E.S.D.) Karachi dated July 15, 1946 was illegal, without jurisdiction and ineffective and that it should be declared that he was continuing in service. The suit was decreed by the trial Court principally on the ground that he had not been dismissed by the proper authority and that the provisions of Article 240 of the Government of India Act, 1935, had been contravened. The appeal of the respondent to the Additional District Judge failed. The High Court, however, reversed the decision of the Courts below and dismissed the suit.2. The case of the appellant as laid in the plaint was that he had joined the Central Provisions Office (C.P.O.) as a Clerk in December 1941 and in March 1945 he was absorbed in the offi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2111; 1971LabIC1240; (1971)1SCC780; [1971]3SCR908; 1971(III)LC451(SC)
A.N. Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment and decree of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench, Delhi) by which the suit filed by the appellant for a declaration that the order dated May 26, 1951 directing his removal from service was wrongful, illegal and void and that he still continued to be in the service of the respondent as Supervisor, Army Ordnance Corps2. According to the allegations in the plaint the appellant was appointed by the Governor-General in July 1942 as Supervisor. Army Ordnance Corps which, according to him, was a civil post under the Crown in India. In the months of September and October, 1950 the appellant was served with chargesheets by the Ordnance Officer, Administration, Shakurbasti, Delhi State, where he was posted at that time calling upon him to submit his defence to the charges of making serious false allegations against his superior officer Maj. H.S. Dhillon. The appellant asked for grant of time for submitting his defence and he al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1050; 1971CriLJ913; (1971)2SCC75; [1971]3SCR914
I.D. Dua, J.1. In this appeal by special leave the appellant Matru alias Girish Chandra challenges his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and under Section 382, I.P.C. For the former offence he was sentenced to imprisonment for life and for the latter to rigorous imprisonment for four years. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The appellant, along with Mohar Singh and Saheb Singh were committed to the court of Sessions for trial for offences under Sections 302/34, I.P.C. for the murder of Smt. Omwati, wife of Ram Chander (P.W. 1) and of their three years old son Sua Lal and under Section 382, I.P.C. for committing theft of cash, ornaments and other things from the house of the deceased. The offences were alleged to have been committed on May 29, 1964 between 10 and 11 a.m. in the township of Shamsabad.3. The appellant and the deceased were admittedly next door neighbours in Mohalla Chaukhanda at the relevant time. Ram Chandra had two sons, the...
Tag this Judgment!