Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2555; 1973CriLJ26; (1973)3SCC110; [1973]1SCR939; 1973(5)LC286(SC)
H.R. Khanna, J.1. Arjun Singh (47), his son Sheoram Singh alias Bhure Singh (27), Jagatpal Singh (29), Ganga Deen (29). Ram Nath (39), Sheo Prasad (30) and Jumman (30) were tried in the court of Additional Sessions Judge Unnao for offences under Section 302, Section 302 read with Section 149, Section 307, Section 307 read with Section 149, Section 148 and Section 147 Indian Penal Code and were acquitted. On appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court convicted Arjua Singh under Section 302, Section 307 read with Section 149, and Section 148 Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life on the first count, rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years on the second count and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years on the third count. Sbeoram Singh was convicted under Section 302 read with' Section 149, Section 307 and Section 148 Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on the first count, rigorous impris...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1150; (1973)2SCC337; [1973]1SCR973
A.N. Grover, J.1. These appeals from the decision of the Allahabad High Court involve a common point and shall stand disposed of by this judgment.2. It is necessary to state the facts only in C.A.1888 of 1970. The U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act 1958 received the assent of the President on October 8, 1958. On December 10, 1958 a notification was issued by the U.P. Government declaring Ghaziabad a regulated area under Section 3 of the aforesaid Act. In February 1959 the Controlling Authority under Section 4 of the Regulation Act was constituted. On July 16, 1960 a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act by the State Government declaring its intention to acquire land measuring about 34,000 acres in fifty villages of Ghaziabad for planned development of the area. On December 23, 1961 a notification was issued under Sub-section 6 and 17 of the Acquisition Act in respect of an area of 19.75 acres. This was followed by successive piecemeal notificatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2497; 1972LabIC1622; (1973)3SCC303
D.G. Palekar, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and Order dated October 25, 1967 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 3713 of 1967.2. The petitioner Deoki Nandan Parashar was an employee of the Agra District Co-operative Bank Agra. He joined service as an Office Assistant in 1963 and was confirmed in that post a year later on May 14, 1964. On October 16, 1964 the petitioner was promoted as Executive Officer and was confirmed in that post after one year's probation expiring on 16-10-1965.3. The Annual General Meeting of the Bank was fixed on August 25, 1966. An emergency meeting of the Board of Directors was called on the previous day for disposing of urgent business in connection with the proposed Annual General Meeting. At that meeting one A. P. Sharma, who was a Director, moved a resolution for terminating the services of the petitioner. It was passed. A letter was issued to the petitioner on August 25, 1966 intimating to him the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC69; 1974LabIC240; (1972)2SCC862; [1973]1SCR945
M.H. Ray, J.1. These four appeals are by certificate from the common judgment dated 23 February, 1968 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.2. The subject matter of these appeals relates to the equation of posts and integration of services of officers of the Public Works Department in the State of Andhra Pradesh consequent on the reorganisation of States in the year 1956.3. On 1 November, 1956 the State of Andhra Pradesh came into existence under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The State of Andhra Pradesh was formed out of the former State of Andhra and the Telengana area of the former Hyderabad State (hereinafter referred to as the Andhra State and the Telengana area).4. The appellants were Engineers in the employment of Andhra State. On the formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh the appellants under the provisions of the Act continued to serve the State of Andhra Pradesh. The respondents who were Telengana officers in the employment of the State...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2492; (1973)3SCC291
D.G. Palekar, J.1. This appeal is from the judgment and decree of the Mysore High Court in Regular First Appeal No. 73 of 1962 by which the decree passed by the Sub-Judge, South Kanara in Original Suit No. 53 of 1961 was reversed. The suit was for possession of immovable properties and mesne profits. The properties in suit which are situated in 3 villages of Karkala Taluk, namely, Irvathoor, Miyar and Nallur, belonged to one Shantiraja Kadamba. He died on 21-10-1958. The family was an Aliyasanthana family. But after the passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the children of his pre-deceased brothers became entitled to the inheritance as Shantiraja Kadamba did not leave behind either ft widow or a legitimate child. The plaintiffs are the children of the two deceased brothers Jinnappa Kadamba and Devaraja Kadamba. Their claim to the extensive property of Shantiraja was challenged by the five defendants. They claimed all the property in suit under a Will alleged to have been executed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC843a; (1974)3SCC247; [1972]30STC565(SC)
K.S. Hegde, J.1. We find no merit in this appeal. The respondent is carrying on the business of manufacturing of cement at Sawai Madhopur under the name and style 'Jaipur Udyog Limited' and is registered under Section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act'). In the certificate of registration the business of the respondent was described as 'wholly manufacture of cement'. The respondent claimed liability to pay tax at the preferential rate of 1 per cent, under Section 8(1) read with Section 8(3)(b) of the Act which includes 'machineries'. The respondent purchased from outside the State of Rajasthan earth-moving machinery comprising bull-dozers, dumpers and tipping wagons during the period August 5, 1957, to March 31, 1959, on payment of tax under the Act at the preferential rate. The assessing authority held that the respondent was not entitled to have the benefit of the preferential rate of tax on the above-said purchases and imposed a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2427; (1972)2SCC601; [1973]1SCR896
H.R. Khanna, J.1 This judgment would dispose of four appeals No. 1031, 1094 and 1095 of 1967 and 177 of 1968 which are directed against the judgments of the Punjab High Court. Appeals Nos. 1094 of 1967, 1095 of 1967 and 177 of 1968 have been filed on certificate of fitness granted by the High Court, while appeal No . 1031 of 1967 has been filed by special leave. The common question which arises for determination in these four appeals is whether in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 40 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (Act 44 of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Central Government could amend Rule 49 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the rules) with retrospective effect.2. Arguments have been addressed in appeal No. 177 of 1968 and it is stated that the decision in that appeal would govern the other appeals also.3. Prithvi Chand appellant in appeal No. 177 of 1968 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC643; (1972)2SCC721; [1973]1SCR904; 1973(5)LC245(SC)
A.N. Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of the Madras High Court arising out of a suit for partition instituted on the original side of that court.2. Raja v. Rajeswara Rao the respondent herein and Raja v. Maheswara Rao (deceased) who were brothers owned the cinema known as Odeon at Woods Road, Madras in equal shares. This property was leased out by them to Isherdas Sahni & Bros. In 1965 Raja Maheswara Rao filed a suit in which it was stated that apart from other properties owned by the two brothers Odeon Cinema which consisted of land, buildings, theatre, furniture, talkie equipment etc. was owned by them in equal shares. The lease in favour of Isherdas Sahni & Bros. was to expire on April 30, 1967. As we are concerned only with the cinema property in the present case it is unnecessary to refer to the pleadings relating to other properties belonging to the two brothers. In para 11 of the plaint it was pleaded that having regard to the nature of the property ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC960; (1972)1CTR(SC)334; (1972)2SCC689; [1973]1SCR918; [1972]30STC348(SC)
H.R. Khanna, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of Gujarat High Court in a reference made to it under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Bombay Act 51 of 1959) as amended by the Bombay Sales Tax (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1962 (Gujarat Act 25 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The respondent made an application under Section 52 of the. Act to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax for determination of the rate of tax payable on sale of five articles, including Palmolive shampoo, large size, Colgate tooth paste, giant size and Colgate tooth brush for adult use. It was urged by the respondent before the Deputy Commissioner that Palmolive shampoo was a kind of liquid soap and was covered by entry 28 of Schedule C to the Act. As regards Colgate dental paste and Colgate tooth brush, the respondent submitted that those were articles meant for cleansing teeth and were not toilet articles. These contentions were repelled by the Deputy Commis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2558; (1972)2SCC616; 1973(5)LC231(SC)
Hegde, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellant was the election petitioner. The respondent is the returned candidate. The constituency with which we are concerned in this appeal is the South Delhi Parliamentary constituency. In the last General Election to the Lok Sabha from the South Delhi Parliamentary constituency, the appellant was the Jan Sangh nominee and the respondent was the Congress nominee. After counting of votes, the respondent was declared elected. The appellant challenged the validity of the election of the respondent on various grounds. At the time of the trial of the case, he pressed only one ground viz. that the election was rigged by the ruling party. The appellant explained the process adopted in rigging the election thus : Millions of ballot papers were chemically treated and the symbol of the Congress candidates in those ballot papers was mechanically stamped...
Tag this Judgment!