Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC228; 1974CriLJ313; (1974)1SCC167; [1974]2SCR154
Krishna Iyer, J.1. A successful prosecution for a food offence ended in a conviction of the accused, followed by a flea-bite fine of Rs. 100/-. Two criminal revisions ensued at the instance of the State and the Food Inspector separately since they were dissatisfied with the magisterial leniency. (Why two revision proceedings should have been instituted, involving duplication of cases and avoidable expenditure from the public exchequer is for the authorities to examine and inhibit in future). The High Court heard the accused against the conviction itself but upheld the guilt and enhanced the punishment to the statutory minimum of six months imprisonment and one thousand rupees fine. The aggrieved dealer has reached here through the twin routes of Article 32 a writ petition bristling with challenges of settled concepts and hanging every argument on the familiar peg of breach of fundamental rights and of Article 136 a remedy to correct gross errors of law leading to the manifest injustice...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC104; (1974)1SCC48; [1974]2SCR143
Goswami, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Madras High Court by which it set aside the judgment of a single Judge of that court in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. The facts may briefly be stated.2. The first respondent obtained a registered lease of a cinema theatre known as Kapali Talkies, Madras, for a period of three years from 19th August, 1969. The lease was a composite lease consisting of the land, buildings and the cinematographic equipment in it. The monthly rental was Rs. 9,125/-. Among other terms, the lease was to expire on 18th August, 1972. It is not necessary for our purpose to refer to the condition of an earlier termination of the lease under certain circumstances. The lessors (the appellants herein) are the sole and absolute owners of the Kapali Talkies, Madras-28, described in Schedule 'A' to the lease.3. It may be appropriate to extract some material portions of the lease executed between the parties, w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC117; (1974)1SCC78; [1974]2SCR124; 1973(5)LC900(SC)
Krishna Iyer, J.1. The dispute is short, the points of law few, the evidence largely made up of admissions, and so the judgment permits of brevity. A vignette of the facts is all that is therefore necessary.2. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition where the narrow area of conflict in this Court is continued to two items claimed by the plaintiffs but disallowed by the High Court. The first two of the three points formulated for determination by the High Court reflect the controversy raised before us and may be expected :1. Whether the said shop-room at the extreme north west corner of plot No. 1238 belongs exclusively to the defendants first party; 2. Whether the entire properties mentioned in Schedule C to the plaint are joint family properties liable to partition, and...3. Point No. 2 relates to three items in Schedule C to the plaint which were covered by four usufructuary mortgages, Ex.B-1 to B-4. The case of the first (contesting) defendant, who is the first respondent bef...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC136; (1974)ILLJ97SC; (1974)3SCC601; [1974]2SCR128; 1974(1)SLJ272(SC)
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This appeal by special leave challenges the award of the Special Labour Court, Ahmedabad, by which the respondent an employee of the appellant Corporation was directed to be reinstated and paid as compensation half the wages including dearness allowance from the date of his discharge till the date of his reinstatement in service. The respondent was appointed by the appellant on June 13, 1967 as a temporary Senior Assistant on conditions set out in the letter dated June 13, 1967. The respondent's services continued to be temporary as no order of appointing him on probation was passed, and on the date when his services were terminated by an order dated January 6, 1971, he was in temporary service.2. According to the respondent's statement of claim in September-October 1970 he was not keeping good health, none-the-less he used to attend to his duties. However, in October 1970 his health deteriorated further and he went on sick leave for five days from October 14 to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC111; (1974)1SCC11; [1974]2SCR116
Khanna, J.1. Whether the decree for the possession of the land in dispute awarded in favour of Laxman Purshottam Pimputkar respondent No. 1 (hereinafter described as the respondent) has become inexecutable after the coming into force of the Gujarat Patel Watans Abolition Act, 1961 (Gujarat Act 48 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is the short question which arises for determination in this appeal brought by special leave against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court.2. The appellants and the respondent belong to one family. The respondent represents the seniormost branch of the family. The family was granted Patilki Watan in a number of villages, including Solsumbha, in district Thana. The watan land situated in Solsumbha is the subject matter of the present dispute. Under the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 the person who actually performs the duty of a hereditary office for the time being is called an officiator. Purshottam, father of the respondent, was the officiat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC120; 1974CriLJ280; 1983(13)ELT1527(SC); (1974)3SCC567; [1974]2SCR107
Khanna, J.1. The facts of the case have been set out in the judgment of my learned brother Krishna Iyer J. and need not be repeated.2. Two principal contentions have been raised on behalf of the appellant. It is urged in the first instance that the finding that the appellant was in possession of the gold bars with foreign markings recovered from his shop and of indigenous gold recovered from his residential premises cannot be sustained. In this respect I find that the trial court and the High Court on consideration of the evidence brought on record have arrived at the conclusion that the appellant was in possession of the gold bars and indigenous gold in question. Nothing cogent has been brought to our notice as may justify interference with this concurrent finding of fact based upon appreciation of evidence. I, therefore reject the first contention.3. Equally devoid of force is the second contention that the Customs Officer cannot under Section 107 of the Customs Act, 1962 examine any...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC165; (1974)1SCC58; [1974]2SCR97; 1973(5)LC903(SC)
Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated July 22, 1969 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in connection with a petition filed by respondent Dr. G.G. Padma Rao against the appellant Swarajya Lakshmi under Section 13(1)(iv) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the dissolution of the marriage between them by a decree of divorce on the ground that the appellant had for a period of not less than three years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition been suffering from a virulent and incurable form of leprosy. The appellant and the respondent were married on June 17, 1963. The appellant was then 20 and the respondent, her husband, was 28 years of age. The appellant, we are told, was taken away by her parents to New Delhi only two days after the marriage. She returned to Hyderabad to live with her husband only towards the end of August 1963. Almost immediately thereafter in the month of September her hu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC199; (1973)1SCC150; [1974]2SCR74
Mathew, J.1. The appellant as plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that he was entitled to continue as the Elavarasu or Junior Head of the Tiruppanandal or the Kasi Mutt and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, the Head of the Mutt, from interfering in any way with his functioning as the Elavarasu or Junior Head of the Mutt.2. The defendant, who is now dead, contended that the appellant was not validly nominated as the Elavarasu of the Mutt, that even if he was nominated as the Elavarasu, the appellant acquired no right by the nomination to continue as the Elavarasu, that the appellant's conduct after he became the Elavarasu was such that he was unworthy to become the future head of the Mutt, that he (the defendant) cancelled the nomination and so the appellant had no right to get the declaration prayed for.3. The questions which arose for consideration in the trial court were : whether the appellant had been nominated by the defendant as the Elavarasu of the Kasi ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC171; 1975(0)BLJR387; 1974MPLJ20(SC); (1974)1SCC3; [1974]2SCR90; 1973(5)LC911(SC)
Sarkaria, J.1. This appeal by certificate is directed against the appellate judgment and decree, dated the 31st October, 1962, of the High Court of Judicature at Patna.2. The plaintiffs-appellants instituted a suit on 30-6-1956, in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Samastipur for a declaration of title and possession in respect of a pucca house in Plot No. 216, Ward III of Samastipur Municipality. It was alleged that Abdul Karim (Def. No. 1) had out of his own funds purchased this house in the name of his wife Mst. Hakimunnissa by a registered sale-deed dated 10-5-1941, from one Abdul Motilib. After the purchase, Defendant No. 1, who was in possession of the house, executed two mortgage deeds, dated 6-1-1948 and 28-7-1948, in favour of his son-in-law, Abdul Latif (Defendant No. 3), husband of Mst. Bibi Hazra (Defendant No. 2). Abdulkarim (Defendant No. 1), in order to clear the mortgage dues and for meeting other necessities, agreed to sell the house to Plaintiff No. 1 for a consideratio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC592; (1974)1SCC95; 1973(5)LC865(SC)
Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal by certificate from a judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court raises a very simple point which has unfortunately been laid over with a thick cloud of confusion caused by the long and chequered history of the litigation. The facts and circumstances out of which this appeal arises may be set out in beginning.2. On December 3, 1950 the appellants entered into a partnership agreement with the respondent for the purpose of carrying on the business of supply of blankets to the Army. The formal deed of partnership was executed on March 6, 1951. The partnership deed recites that the appellants (who were parties No. 2 and 3 to the deed) were weaving experts while the respondent (who was party No. 1 to the deed) used to do the work of spinning woollen yarn. It further recites that the three parties had formed a partnership for the purpose of supplying 5000 blankets to the Government of India in conformity with specification No. 1 M. 2689. The deed of p...
Tag this Judgment!