Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2118; (1973)3SCC417; 1972(4)LC664(SC)
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave, challenging the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court, dated the 11th March, 1971, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant to quash certain adverse remarks made against him. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on two grounds : (1) The allegations of malafides do not bear any connection with the adverse remarks which are contained in annexure 1 to the writ petition; (2) The appellant has come to court without making any representations against the adverse remarks, which he was entitled to do under the rules. For these reasons, the High Court declined to entertain the writ petition filed by the appellant.2. Mr. M.K. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellant, attempted to argue that on the materials on the record, he would be able to satisfy this Court that the rejection of the writ petition by the High Court summarily without an investigation into the allegations of malafides made by the appellant was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC512; 1973CriLJ623; (1972)3SCC746a; 1972(4)LC675(SC)
H.R. Khanna, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave by Asa Singh (48), Sewa Singh (45), Darshan Singh (32), Iqbal Singh (30) and Kehar Singh (65) against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court affirming on appeal the decision of the Sessions Judge, Jullundur whereby Kehar Singh appellant was convicted under Section 324 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, while each of the remaining four accused appellants was convicted under Section 302 I.P.G. and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Asa Singh, Sewa Singh and Darshan Singh appellants are brothers being sons of Milkha Singh, while Iqbal Singh appellant is the son of Kehar Singh appellant.2. There was also a charge against the five appellants under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC but the learned Sessions Judge held that the charge in this respect had not been substantiated. The occurrence in the opinion of the Sessions Judge was not premeditated and appear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1300; 1972CriLJ879; (1972)2SCC273; 1972(4)LC672(SC)
D.G. Palekar, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave. The appellants who were accused Nos. 1 and 3 respectively were acquitted by the learned Munsif-Magistrate 1st Class, Aurangabad on march 19, 1966. The case against them had been started on a complaint filed by the respondent for an offence Under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the respondent filed an appeal under Section 417(3) of the CrPC and the same was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1966 in the Patna High Court. The order-sheet shows that notice was issued to the appellants on July 5, 1966. In pursuance of the notice, the appellants appeared in the case on July 28, 1966 through Shri Kedar Nath Verma, Advocate. By some mistake, neither the name of the appellants nor of their advocate Shri Kedar Nath Verma appeared in the cause list, and the case was heard in their absence on December 16 and 17, 1968. The appeal was allowed and the appellants were convicted of the offence under Section 4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2296; (1973)3SCC384; 1972(4)LC669(SC)
D.G. Palekar, J.1. This appeal by special leave is filed by the plaintiffs whose suit No. 140 of 1951 has been dismissed by the High Court at Allahabad in first appeal No. 93 of 1954 reversing the decree of the learned Civil Judge Saharanpur who had decreed the suit. The suit was for possession.2. The Ramanand had two sons Chamanlal and Ajodhya Prasad. Chamanlal's son is Kailash Chand. The suit was brought by Chamanlal and Kailash Chand. Chamanlal died during the litigation and his heirs have been brought on record. Ajodhya Prasad married one Sonia Devi. They had two issues son Manakchand and daughter Makhmali. Adjodhya Prasad died in 1928 while he was still a member of the joint family. His son Manakchand died in 1930 when he was barely three years old. Makhamli was given in marriage to one Shanti Prasad, D.W. 3. Disputes arose between the widow Sonia Devi and the plaintiffs with regard to family property and they were referred to arbitration in 1931. The arbitration gave an award whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1502; 1972CriLJ909; (1972)2SCC466; [1973]3SCR303; 1972()WLN120
H.R. Khanna, J.1. This judgment would dispose of criminal appeal No. 36 of 1969 Bhagat Ram v. State of Rajasthan and criminal appeal No. 262 of 1970 State of Rajasthan v. Ram Swaroop. Both the appeals have been filed on certificate granted by the Rajasthan High Court.2. Bhagat Ram during the year 1962 was posted as circle inspector of police at Ganganagar. Ancestral village of Bhagat Ram is Mehna in Tehsil Moga, District Ferozepur. Ram Swaroop also belongs to that village. Both Bhagat Ram and Ram Swaroop were tried in the court of special judge, Ganganagar for offences under Section 120B IPC for conspiring to extort bribe of Rs. 2,000 from PW 1 Niranjan Dass of Moga. Charges were also framed against Bhagat Ram for offences under Sections 161, 218, 347 and 389 Indian Penal Code as also Section 5(1)(a) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Additional charge under Section 165A Indian Penal Code was framed against Ram Swaroop. Both Bhagat Ram and Ram Swaroop were acquitte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1450; [1973(26)FLR182]; 1972LabIC829; (1972)ILLJ442SC; (1972)1SCC623; [1972]3SCR320
K.K. Mathew, J. 1. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, challenging the validity of a resolution passed on 12.11.1967 by the Managing Committee of the Jai Narain College, Lucknow, formerly known as Kanyakubja Degree College, an associated college of the Lucknow University, terminating his services, and praying for issue of an appropriate writ or order quashing the resolution. A learned single judge of that Court, finding that in terminating the services, the Managing Committee acted in violation of principles of natural justice, quashed the resolution and allowed the writ petition.' The Managing Committee appealed against the order. A Division Bench of the High Court found that the relationship between the College and the appellant was that of master and servant and that even if the service of the appellant has been terminated in breach of the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice, the remedy of the appellant was to file a suit fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1295; 1972CriLJ874; (1972)74PLR475; (1973)2SCC65; [1972]3SCR312
H.R. Khanna, J.1. Ishar Das appellant was convicted by the judicial magistrate 1st class Patiala for an offence under Section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act No. 37 of 1954) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of that Act and was ordered to furnish bond under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Bedi, J. of the Punjab and Haryana High Court during the course of the inspection of the Court of trial magistrate, took the view that an improper order had been made in the above case by the magistrate. The High Court thereupon of its own motion directed that a notice be issued to the appellant. The case was thereafter posted before Bedi, J. The learned judge referred to the fact that a minimum sentence of imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000 had been prescribed by Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It was also observed that offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were against the public and called for d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1352; 1972LabIC676; (1972)ILLJ437SC; (1972)1SCC691; [1972]3SCR296; 1972()WLN115
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan directing the reinstatement of one Bhisham Verma in the service of the appellant with full back wages.2. The facts are as follows. The appellant is a public limited company with its registered office at Sawaimadhopur in the State of Rajasthan. It has a cement factory at the said place besides a limestone quarry at Phallodi situate at a distance of 24 kms. from the cement factory. It has two separate sets of Standing Orders for the workmen employed in the factory and in the quarries. Both sets of Standing Orders were certified in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The Standing Orders applicable to the workmen employed in the factory were certified in the year 1954 while those applicable to the workmen of the quarries were certified in the year 1961. Up to April 1967 both sets of Standing Orders provided for superannu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1507; (1972)1SCC702; [1972]3SCR233
C.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 5801 of 1971, is by the first respondent, is an application under Sections 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) to pass a judgment and decree according to the Award of the arbitrator dated August 24, 1971 and to grant interest from the date of the decree, on the amount found payable by the appellant.2. Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 5802 of 1971, by the State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant in the Civil Appeal, is an application requesting this Court to decline to take the Award dated August 24, 1971 on its file. Without prejudice to the above prayer, there is a further request made to this Court to set aside or modify the Award in certain respects.3. The relevant facts leading up to the filing of the two applications may be adverted to : The erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat had entered into a contract with M/s. Saith and Skelton (P.) Ltd., the first respondent, for the supply and ere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC318
J.M. Shelat, J.1. Prior to November 1948. one Padamsi Haridas carried on his profession as a chartered accountant in the name of Devidas Vithaldas and Co. By a deed of partnership dated November 30. 1948. he took one Amratlal Parikh as a partner, reserving, however, to himself all the rights and interests in the goodwill of that business.2. On January 2, 1951 he retired from the said partnership. Clause (1) of the Deed of Dissolution executed on that occasion provided that the said partnership shall be deemed to have been dissolved as from December 31. 1950. but the business shall as from that date be carried on in the said name by the said Amratlal alone. Clause (2) of the said deed tan as follows:2. The goodwill of the late partnership belonged to the said Padamsi alone. He has agreed to sell the name to the said Amratlal. As consideration for and in full satisfaction of the purchase price of the goodwill of the said late partnership the said Amritlal shall-(a) pay to the said Padams...
Tag this Judgment!