Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC668; (1973)3SCC342; [1973]2SCR1019; [1973]31STC309(SC)
K. S. HEGDE, J1. These appeals by certificate can be disposed of by one judgment. They raise common questions of law. The material facts are not in dispute. In Civil Appeals Nos. 498,499 to 502 of 1970, the principal question of law that arises for decision is whether the producers who supplied the cement to the State Trading Corporation or its agents in gunny bags in pursuance of the directions given by the Government are liable to pay sales-tax on the turnover relating to the price of the gunny bags. The only other question that arises for decision in these appeals relates to the interpretation of Rule 6(f) of the rules framed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. This question will be considered while dealing with the other appeals. In the other appeals the question for decision is whether the selling agents of the State Trading Corporation are liable to pay sales tax in respect of the price of the gunny bags in which they sold the cement to the consumers. The High Court has...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1385; 1973CriLJ1136; (1973)3SCC662
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad confirming the sentence of death passed on the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Moradabad.2. On the night of 14th/15th June, 1989 Kartar Singh the son of Smt. Moonga, was murdered in the village Karthala, in the district of Moradabad. Her husband, Faqira, had disappeared some time earlier and she had developed illicit intimacy with the appellant, a resident of the village of Pachkaura in the same district. Some time later appellant's brother, Charan Singh, was brought in by the appellant to assist him in cultivating Smt. Moonga's land. Smt. Moonga is said to have developed illicit intimacy with Charan Singh and the appellant was suspected of having murdered Charan Singh in the year 1988. The appellant is then said to have formed an idea of doing away with Smt. Moonga's only son, Kartar Singh, so that he could grab her property. Appellant's brother, Dharampal, who was a c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1973)2CTR(SC)100
Hedge, J. - These appeals by certificate can be disposed of by one judgment. They raise common questions of law. The material facts are not in dispute. In Civil Appeals Nos. 498, 499 to 502 of 1970, the principle question of law that arises for decision is whether the producers who supplied the cement to the State Trading Corporation or its agents in gunny bags in pursuance of the directions given by the Government are liable to pay sales-tax on the turnover relating to the price of the gunny bags. The only other question that arises for decision in these appeals relates to the interpretation of Rule 6 (f) of the rules framed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. This question will be considered while dealing with the other appeals. In the other appeals the question for decision is whether the selling agents of the State Trading Corporation are liable to pay sales tax in respect of the price of the gunny bags in which they sold the cement to the consumers. The High Court has de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC707; 1973CriLJ664; (1973)3SCC657
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and order dated 28-4-1971 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 1310 of 1969 confirming the conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, read with Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced by the Special Judge to undergo two and a half years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rupees 500/-. But the High Court has reduced the sentence to one year's rigorous imprisonment; the fine levied by the Special Judge has, however, been maintained.2. The case of the prosecution was briefly as follows: One Kaku Singh, P.W. 1, was allotted surplus land belonging to one Hazura Singh situated in the village of Dhakrabba Two other persons Jagan Nath and Amar Nath, had also been allotted surplus land of the same owner along with P.W. 1. Those persons had authorised P.W. 1 to take possession of their land also on th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC962; (1974)3SCC255; 1973(5)LC460(SC)
Dwivedi, J.1. It is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioner, Shiv Singh, challenges the order of the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs East Division, Jullundur, the third respondent, dated July 7, 1969 and prays for his confirmation to the post of the Sub-Inspector in the scale of Rs. 105-155.2. This case was first heard on September 20, 1972. The court adjourned the further hearing of the petition and directed the respondents to file a further affidavit with respect to certain matters. The respondents have now filed an affidavit. The petitioner has filed an affidavit in reply and the respondents have also filed a rejoinder affidavit.3. Facts of the case are now abundantly clear. At one time there were two Divisions, called the Jullundur East and Jullundur West Telegraphs Engineering Divisions. Jullundur East Telegraph Engineering Division will hereinafter be called as Jullundur East. The petitioner was employed as a Linesman in Jullundur East in 1954. On November...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC618; (1973)1SCC490
C. A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This appeal by special leave, by accused Nos. 1 to 4, 8 and 9, is against the judgment and order dated 13-1-1969 of the High Court of Allahabad confirming the conviction and the sentences imposed on them by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut. All the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Appellants 3 and 6 (accused Nos. 8 and 9) have been convicted under Section 148, I.P.C. and each of them has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months. Appellants Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 (accused Nos. 1 to 4) have been convicted under Section 147, I.P.C. and each of them has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. The six appellants along with four others, who were accused Nos. 5 to 7 and 10, were tried by the learned Sessions Judge for offences under Section 302 read with Sections 149, 147 and 148 of the Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC710; (1973)75PLR124; (1973)2SCC393; [1973]2SCR1006
A.N. Grover, J.1. In these appeals by certificate from a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court the main question requiring determination relates to the scope, ambit and true interpretation of Section 7 read with Section 11 of the East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act, 1949, hereinafter called the 'Act'.2. We need state the facts only in C.A. 825/72 (Dasaudha Singh and Ors v. State of Haryana). The Collector Karnal leased out an area of 1154 Acres in villages Pehowa and Murtzapur jointly to Karnal Cooperative Society Ltd., Pehowa and the Lyalpur Coop. Joint Farming Society, Murtzapur Under Section 5 of the Act. Owing to some dispute which arose subsequent to the lease between the two societies the Registrar gave an award on the matter having been referred to him for arbitration. According to that award the entire land in village Murtzapur and 172 Acres of land in village Pehowa were given to the Lyalpur Society and the remaining 357 Acres of land in village Pehowa to the Karnal Soc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC211; 1973CriLJ271; (1973)3SCC688
I.D. Dua, J.1. The appellant Ghasita alias Ghasi Ram in this appeal by special leave has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Hamirpur for the offence of murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death. His appeal has been dismissed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the sentence of death confirmed on reference under Section 374, Cr.P.C.2. The appellant was originally a resident of village Beera. He was married to the daughter of one Mataiyan Chamar in village Bargarh and had started living in the village of his father-in-law about a year prior to the murder in question. He was employed with one Mahadeo Lodhi as a plough-man. It appears that he had purchased some articles on credit from Binda, a shop-keeper of village Bargarh of the value of about Rupees 5 or 6. As the appellant had not paid the sum due for some time in spite of several demands by Binda and his father, on September 7, 1969, when the appellant was ploughing his master's field, Binda pas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC207; 1974CriLJ397; (1973)3SCC250; [1973]2SCR990
I. D. Dua, J.1. The petitioner in these proceedings for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus under Article 32 of the Constitution is one Mohd. Subrati alias Mohd. Karim detained in the Burdwan Jail pursuant to the impugned order of detention dated February 9, 1972 made by the District Magistrate, Burdwan 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 No. 26 of 1971 (hereinafter called the Act). The said District Magistrate, as is clear from impugned order, was satisfied that with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community it was necessary to make the order directing that he be detained. The ground of detention were duly served on him at the time of his arrest on February 11, 1972. Those grounds are:1. That on 6-1-72 at about 03.30 hrs. you along with your associates including (1) Teka Bah...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC250; 1973LabIC211; (1973)2SCC352; [1973]2SCR998; 1973(5)LC446(SC)
J.M. Shelat, J.1. This appeal, founded on the certificate granted by the High Court of Calcutta, raises questions of interpretation of Section 3(2) of the Life Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance, 1 of 1956, Section 11 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 31 of 1956 and Rule 12A of the Life Insurance Corporation Rules, 1956 made Under Section 48 of the said Act. 2. These questions arise in the following circumstances: Prior to January 1, 1956 the appellant was employed as the Principal Officer of die Bengal Insurance and Seal Property Co. Ltd., respondent 2 in this appeal. It was not disputed in the High Court that by Principal Officer the appellant meant that he was the Managing Director. His salary as such officer was Rs. 2630 per mensum which on and from January 1, 1956 was raised to Rs. 3000 per mensum. On January 19, 1956, respondent 2 issued in favour of the appellant four cheques for Rs. 5436-6-0 in all representing his salary for November and December 1955 and for cert...
Tag this Judgment!