Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC337; 1974CriLJ363; [1974(28)FLR142]; (1974)0GLR340; (1974)ILLJ276SC; (1974)3SCC717; 1974(6)LC135(SC)
Chandrachud, J.1. Respondent 1 is a partnership firm of which respondents 2 and 3 are partners. They were charged for offences under Paragraph 76(a) of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Section 14(2) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, on the allegation that they had failed to pay Provident Funds contributions amounting to Rs. 337.50 for the months of November and December, 1966 and January 1967 The learned City Magistrate, 7th Court, Ahmedabad held the charged proved and sentenced the respondents to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- each. He further directed them to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- to 'the prosecution' by way of costs. This order was set aside by the High Court of Gujarat in a revision application filed by the respondents. The High Court has granted to the Department, Employees' Provident Fund, Ahmedabad, a certificate to appeal to this Court under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution.2. Section 1(3)(a) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, provides that subj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC471; (1974)1SCC242; [1974]2SCR544
Sarkaria, J.1. Whether the decree dated September 23, 1964, passed by the Trial judge in Regular Suit No, 6 of 1963, filed under the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947 (for short, called Bombay Rent Act) directing the eviction of the appellant is a nullity and, as such, inexecutable, is the only question that falls for decision in, this appeal by special leave. It arises out of these facts:2. Appellant was a tenant of the premises at Ward No. 3, Nondh No. 1823/9 in the Salabatpur area of Surat. He was in arrears of rent since 16-10-1961. On 16-11-1962, the landlords (respondents herein) served a notice on the appellant terminating his tenancy and also requiring him to pay the arrears of rent. Or, 2-1-1964, the landlords instituted the suit in the Court at Surat for possession against the tenant on two grounds, namely :(i) non-payment of rent in arrears for a period of more than one year,(ii) bona fide requirement of the premises by the landlords for their own use and occupation.3. The rate ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC276; 1974CriLJ331; (1974)3SCC698; 1974(6)LC121(SC); 1973()WLN998
Beg, J.1. The six appellants before us by special leave were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge of Gangapur and convicted under Section 147 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment as well as under Section 302 Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment. The convictions and sentences had been upheld by the High Court of Rajasthan.2. The party of the accused had been claiming possession over a field called 'Bhaiwala' over which there had been some litigation between two parties so that the Naib Tehsildar was appointed as Receiver by the orders of the S.D.O. Gangapur. The Revenue Courts then upheld the claim of Brijmohan the murdered man who was said to be in actual possession of it. The party of the accused had threatened him so that proceedings under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code had to he instituted against the accused who had also been prosecuted for the theft of the crop by Brijmohan. The theft cas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC284; 1974CriLJ335; (1974)3SCC664; 1974(6)LC119(SC)
Chandrachud, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the High Court at Patna confirming the conviction of appellant 1 under Section 302, Penal Code, that of appellants 2 to 8 under Section 302 read with Section 149 and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on each of them. Appellant 6 has also been convicted under Section 323 but no separate sentence has been passed for that offence.2. At about 1 a.m. on the night between 12th and 13th May, 1966, an eighteen year old boy, Arjun, was done to death. He was sleeping in the court yard of his house and he and his brother Nakuldeo Thakur (P.W. 1) were occupying the same cot. Nakuldeo noticed that certain persons were standing near the cot and one of them gave a lead to the others to beat. Nakuldeo escaped with his torch and before he had run a few paces he heard Arjun saying 'Ram Pukar Kaka, do not kill me'. Ram Pukar is appellant 1 before us. It is alleged that thereafter Ram Pukar attacked Arjun with a spear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC391; (1974)1SCC235; [1974]2SCR555
Goswami, J.1. There are three groups of appeals with certificate directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court of 20th September, 1969. The first group (Civil Appeals Nos. 1592-1595 of 1971) is by Rattan Lal Gupta, Uma Sharan Sharma, Sewa Ram, Dharam Das Agarwal, Land Lines Pvt. Ltd., Smt. Kusum Lata and Tribhuvan Kumar; the last two being the widow and son of Madan Mohan Lal, deceased. The second group (Civil Appeals Nos. 1628-1631 of 1971) is by Suraj Bhan (in Civil Appeal No. 1628 of 1971) and others. The third group (Civil Appeals Nos. 1634-1639 of 1971) is by Harish Chandra, Mahendra Kumar Tayal, Shanti Swarup Jain, Mitranand Kaushaik, Baru Mal Agarwal, Gur Prasad, Richpal Singh and Bhagwan Singh Sambi. There are also two Special Leave Petitions Nos. 3094-3095 of 1971 which have not been admitted but by an order of this Court dated 7th February, 1972, the petitioners were allowed to intervene in these appeals.2. The facts relating to the appeals have got to be narrated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC396; (1974)1SCC202; [1974]2SCR530; 1974(6)LC237(SC)
Krishna Iyer, J.1. This litigation, started in 1951, has lived long, although the main point on which the fate of the case rests is the construction of a contract between the Municipal Board, Bareilly (the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 1727 of 1968) and the Thekedar under it of the Municipal market, one Habibullah (the father of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1727 of 1968). The present appellant is the legal representative of the defendant and has himself filed an appeal (C.A. No. 1728 of 1968) where the Board is the sole respondent. Instant or early justice seems impossible without radical re-orientation and systematic changes in the judicial process, as these two appeals, which have survived two decades, sadly illustrate.2. Now, a brief narration of the facts. Although the canvass has been spread out, the relevant dispute lies in a narrow compass, and can be resolved by a close look at the terms of Ex. '1' (substantially repeated in Ex. '4') and by applying settled rules which te...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC280; (1974)1SCC289; [1974]2SCR524
Palekar, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from an order passed by the single Judge of the High Court of Delhi in second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, No. 59 of 1958.2. On or about September 10, 1959 the respondent landlord let out the premises in suit to the appellant on a rent of Rs. 125/- per month. The premises consisted of a shop. On 1-9-1962 the respondent applied under Section 14 of the above Act to the Rent Controller, Delhi for evicting the appellant on the ground that she had sub-let the entire premises to one Sohan Singh who, according to the respondent, was running a business under the name of Royal Dispensing Chemists and Druggists in the shop. It was further alleged that the appellant was charging a fabulous amount as rent from her sub-tenant Sohan Singh. The appellant in her written statement admitted the tenancy but denied sub-letting. She alleged that Sohan Singh was her husband and from the time of the lease the business of a Chemist was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC303; (1974)1SCC309; 1974(6)LC30(SC)
Palekar J.1. This appeal by special leave arises out of an Order dated June 28, 1971 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta in Matter No. 61 of 1970 (in the ordinary original civil jurisdiction) on an application made by the respondents under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.2. The facts are quite simple. The appellants are Engineers and Contractors with their Head Office in Bombay. They have a factory for the manufacture of prestressed and pre-cast products near Delhi. In December, 1968 the appellants received an order for 20,000 prestressed concrete poles from the Haryana State Electricity Board to be supplied in a period of approximately two years. One of the components of the poles is prestressed concrete wire made of steel. The appellant required about 400 metric tons of the said wire meeting the order. The respondents, who are from Calcutta, are manufacturers of such wires. Their representative in Bombay one Mr. I.M. Uppal learnt that the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC314; (1974)4SCC623; [1974]2SCR492
Palekar, J.1. This appeal by certificate from the judgment and Order of the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 388 of 1964 raises the question whether a reference by the respondent Electricity Co. of an alleged dispute between itself and the Appellant Board to the Arbitration of the Central Electricity Authority (hereinafter called the Authority) operates as a bar to the Constitution of a Rating Committee by the Board under Section 57A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act).2. A few facts may be necessary to be stated. The appellant Board is constituted under Section 5 of the Act and has several functions to perform under the Act. Respondent No. 1, the Electricity Company, holds a licence to generate, transmit and distribute electrical energy within the licenced area of Ahmedabad.3. On September 11, 1963 the Electricity Company intimated to the Board and the State Government of its intention to revise the rates of electricity with effect ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC326; (1974)1SCC305; [1974]2SCR514
Beg, J.1. This appeal by certificate from a judgment of the High Court at Patna comes before us in the following circumstances : An application made by one Ram Autar Lal Jain before the Chhotanagpur Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'RTA') for grant of a stage carriage permit on a particular route. The application was made within the time fixed. But, before the application could be considered Ram Autar Lal Jain died leaving one widow and two sons as his survivors, heirs and legal representatives. Ram Autar Lal Jain's heirs formed a partnership firm called M/s. Ram Autar Lal Jain and an application was made before the RTA for substitution of the firm in place of Ram Autar Lal Jain deceased, the original applicant, so that the firm could prosecute the application before the RTA. The RTA allowed the substitution but split up the route into two parts and granted one part to the appellant and the other part to the Respondent No. 4. The matter did not, however, res...
Tag this Judgment!