Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC756; 1973CriLJ595; (1973)3SCC879
I.D. Dua, J.1. Satyabrata Seal alias Dulu has forwarded the present petition for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus from Dum Dum Central Jail in the State of West Bengal. Like Manu Bhusan Roy Prodhan in W. P. No. 252 of 1972 : reported in : 1974CriLJ401 pursuant to the order of detention dated August 21, 1971 he too was arrested on November 11, 1971 when the grounds of detention were also served on him. The fact of making the detention order was reported to the State Government on August 23, 1971 and the State Government approved the same on August 31, 1971. The same day the necessary report was submitted to the Central Government, His case was placed before the Advisory Board on December 9, 1971 and the Board gave its decision on January 19, 1971. His representation was received by the State Government on December 10, 1971 and was considered by the said Government on January 18, 1972. The State Government confirmed the detention order on February 2, 1972 and it was communicated to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC757; 1973CriLJ596; (1973)3SCC901
I.D. Dua, J.1. Debendra Nath Goswami forwarded through Dum Dum Central Jail an application for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. That petition purported to be made under Article 226 of the Constitution and under Section 491, CrPC. Later he forwarded another application under Article 32 of the Constitution from Burdwan Jail where he was apparently transferred in the meantime, seeking the same relief.2. The petitioner was arrested on December 29, 1971 pursuant to an order of detention made on May 3, 1971. The grounds of detention were served on him at the time of his arrest. The fact of making the detention order was reported to the State Government on May 3, 1971, the day it was made. The State Government approved that order on May 11, 1971, and also reported that fact to the Central Government the same day. His representation was received by the State Government on January 22, 1972 and was considered by it on February 15, 1972. His case was placed before the Advisory Board on Janu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC295; 1974CriLJ401; (1973)3SCC663; [1973]2SCR842
I.D. Dua, J.1. This petition for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus, by Manu Bhusan Roy Pradhan has been forwarded to this Court by the Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Jail, West Bengal. 2. Pursuant to the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, on August 21, 1971 in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 9 read with Sub-section (2), of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 26 of 1971 (hereinafter called the Act) with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, he was arrested on November 11, 1971. The grounds of detention served on the petitioner at the time of his arrest read:On 16-4-71 at about 20.00 hours you along with others committed a murderous assault on Shri Bulo Das Gupta on the road in front of the office of Mahila Samity, Dhupguri, Police Station Dhupguri, District Jalpaiguri causing severe injuries on his person. Shri Das Gupta subsequently died in h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC291; (1973)2SCC35; [1973]2SCR835
H.R. Khanna, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of Allahabad High Court whereby that Court reversed the decisions of the trial Court and the first appellate court and awarded a decree for the possession of the land in dispute in favour of the plaintiff-respondents against the defendant-appellants. The appellants were further held to be entitled to withdraw the mortgage amount which had been deposited by the respondents. 2. On January 16, 1923 Ganga Prasad Rai, father of Lachhman Singh plaintiff-respondent No. 7, executed a mortgage deed in respect of land in dispute for Rs. 600 in favour of Ram Cheej Pandey and put him in possession thereof as a mortgagee. Ram Cheej Pandey, who was impleaded as defendant No. 1 in the suit, is now dead and the appellants, who too were impleaded as defendants, are his legal representatives. Ganga Prasad Rai at the time of the mortgage was the occupancy tenant of the land in dispute. On January 6, 1955 plaintiff-respondents...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC758; (1988)IILLJ423SC; (1973)3SCC315
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. By an order dated. 29th October 1971 the District Magistrate, 24-Paraganas, West Bengal, directed that the petitioner be detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 26 of 1971, with a view to preventing him from acting in. any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The petitioner was arrested on 4th November 1971 and the grounds of detention were furnished to him on the same date. The representation made by the petitioner was received by the Government on 19th November, 1971 and was rejected on 1st December 1971. On the decision, of the Advisory Board dated 13th January 1672 the detention order was confirmed by the Government on 19th January, 1972. The correctness of the detention order is challenged by the petitioner by this petition 'under Article 32 of the Constitution.2. It is contended that the petitioner was in jail on 29th October 1971 when the detention order was passed, that he was then bei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC106; (1972)2SCC788; [1973]2SCR757
A.N. Ray, J. 1. These petitions challenge the Import Policy for Newsprint for the year April 1972 to March 1973. The Newsprint Policy is impeached as an infringement of fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression in Article 19(1)(a) and right to equality in Article 14 of the Constitution. Some provisions of the Newsprint Control Order 1962 are challenged as violative of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 14 of the Constitution.2. The import of newsprint is dealt with by Import Control Order, 1955 (referred to as the 1955 Import Order). The 1955 Import Order is made in exercise of powers conferred by Sections 3 and 4A of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947 (referred to as the 1947 Act). Section 3 of the 1947 Act, speaks of powers of the Central Government to prohibit, restrict or otherwise control imports and exports. Section 4A of the 1947 Act contemplates issue or renewal of licences under the 1947 Act for imports and exports. Item 44 in Part V of Schedule I of the 1955 Imp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1974)3SCC251; [1973]31STC358(SC)
A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. These three matters raise the same question, and so could be disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioner in W. P. Nos. 417 and 418 of 1967 is a dealer in hides and skins. The petitioner in S. T. R. P. No. 43 of 1967 is a dealer in copra and coconuts. Their turnover during the relevant assessment years was subjected to sales tax under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, but the goods which were purchased by these two dealers and which were declared goods within the meaning of Section 5(4) were subsequently sold in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. So they claimed a refund of the tax which had been paid by them. That refund is what is claimable under the proviso to Section 5(4) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, which reads: 5. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) a tax under this Act shall be levied in respect of the sale or purchase of any of the declared goods mentioned in column (2) of the Fourth Schedule at the rate and only at the point...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC300; 1974CriLJ405; (1973)1SCC297
I.D. Dua, J.1. The petitioner, Akshoy Konai, in this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution prays for his release from detention in the Dum Dum Central Jail, Calcutta. He was arrested on February 14, 1972 pursuant to the order of detention made by the District Magistrate, Birbhum on February 11, 1972 in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 26 of 1971 (hereinafter called as the Act). The detention order dated February 11, 1972 the legality of which is assailed herein reads:Government of West Bengal Order No. 728C Dated Suri, the 11-2-1972Whereas I am satisfied with respect to the person known as Shri Akshoy Konai s/o Kelu Konai of Karkaria, P. S. Rampurhat, Dist. Birbhum that with view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order, it is necessary so to do;Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers confe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC760; (1973)1SCC202
1. Eleven persons were tried by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bahraich for offences under Sections 395, 397 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge acquitted accused No. 10 but convicted the others. Accused Nos. 6 and 7 were convicted under Section 395 and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. In appeal the High Court of Allahabad upheld the conviction of accused Nos. 1, 6 and 7 only. This appeal by special leave is filed by accused Nos. 6 and 7 against that judgment.2. The incident out of which the prosecution arises happened on the night between the 25th and 26th March, 1965 in the village of Vaibahi District Bahraich. The complainant, Jwala Prasad, heard some noise at about mid-night and no sooner did he come out of his house than was he overpowered by 4 dacoits. Fifteen or sixteen persons thereafter entered Jwala Prasad's house and looted his property. The neighbours of Jwala Prasad went to his house on hearing the commotion and one of them...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC982; [1973]88ITR1(SC); (1973)3SCC274; [1973]2SCR738
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This is a second round of litigation because on the first occasion this Court allowed Appeal No. 324 of 1965 on September 20, 1966 and remanded the case for being re-heard and dealt with in accordance with the directions given in that judgment. After the matter went back a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, Raghavan, J. (as he then was) and Issac, J. heard the matter but as there was difference of opinion between the learned Judges the case was placed before Mathew, J. (as he then was) who agreed with the judgment of Raghavan, J. This is an appeal against that judgment by certificate. Inasmuch as this Court had earlier considered the case we may take the facts as stated in the following passage in that judgment:2. 'The appellant is a limited company incorporated under the Travancore Companies Regulation and is carrying on business, in the State of Kerala of manufacturing sugar, running a distillery and also a tincture factory. The appellant-company was f...
Tag this Judgment!