Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1338; (1973)1SCC708
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the appellant's appeal against the judgment of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Karnal making the award in a dispute between the appellant and the respondents a Rule of Court. The facts necessary for decision are as follows.2. In 1948 the Government of India sponsored a scheme to build and establish a colony for the resettlement and rehabilitation of displaced persons at Nilokheri and started several industries including a dairy farm. Some of the founders of the appellant Society took over the dairy farm business from the Rehabilitation Administration under an agreement dated 1-10-1950. They later formed themselves Into a co-operative society and took over the same business and entered in to an agreement on 6-5-1953. There is no dispute that originally the whole transaction was made under the agreement of 1-10-50 and that the disputes had to be decided on the basis of the agreement...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1973]89ITR251(SC); [1973]3SCR747
Hegde, J.1. Both these appeals, by special leave arise from the judgment of the High Court of Madras in a Reference Under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The question of law referred in that case is :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the properties settled by the deceased by the six deeds of settlement (two of them dated 26th June, 1951 and four of them dated 30th June 1951) valued at Rs. 7,38,656/- or any part hereof was not liable for inclusion in the estate of the deceased as property deemed to pass on his death.3. The High Court answered that question partly in favour of the Revenue and partly in favour of the assessee. It opined that the value of the property gifted in favour of the wife of the deceased is not to be taken into consideration in computing the value of the property that passed on the death of the deceased. In respect of the properties gifted to the sons, grandsons and the daughter of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2210; 1973CriLJ1196; (1973)1SCC751; [1973]3SCR728
C.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1.The question that arises for consideration in this appeal by the State of U.P. on certificate is-whether a District Magistrate is competent under Section 337(1) of the CrPC to grant pardon to an accused person when a First Class Magistrate, before whom the inquiry proceedings had been pending, had rejected such a request. 2. Before we proceed to state the facts, it has to be mentioned that it has been brought to our notice that Sarwan Lal, the 4th respondent, died after the appeal was filed in this Court by the State. In consequence the appeal has abated against him. However, in the course of the judgment, we will have to refer to him also when we state the case of the prosecution.3. The prosecution case against the accused was as follows :-The first respondent, Kailash Nath, along with Sarwan Lal, Moti Chandra and Smt. Shanti Devi, respondents 4 to 6 respectively, were the Directors of M/s. M.K. Brothers (P) Ltd., Kanpur and were doing business in cotton in Kan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2102; (1973)IILLJ84SC; (1973)4SCC183; [1973]3SCR714; 1973(1)SLJ542(SC)
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. These two appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgment and order dated 25/26th February. 1969, of the Bombay High Court in Miscellaneous Petition No. 75 of 1967, quashing the orders of the Central Government as well as certain other orders equating the post of Sales Tax Officer of old Madhya Pradesh with the post of Sales Tax Officer, Grade II, of old Bombay. Civil Appeal No. 2303 of 1969 is by the Union of India and Civil Appeal No. 2304 of 1969 is by some of the Sales Tax Officers of the old Madhya Pradesh State. They are also respondents in the Union's appeal. The appellants, in the latter appeal, support the Union Government in all respects. In the course of the judgment, we will refer to the array of parties as in Civil Appeal No. 2303 of 1969.2. Respondents 8 to 13 and 15, along with six others, were serving as Sales Tax Officers in the State of Madhya Pradesh. On the reorganisation of states as from November 1, 1956, these 13 officers were...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1311; (1973)1SCC761; [1973]3SCR691
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1.The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal, by special leave, is whether the order dated March 31, 1969, passed by the Court of Small Causes, Madras, in H.R.C. No. 983 of 1968 directing the eviction of the respondent tenant is a nullity and as such not executable. The facts leading upto the passing of the order may be stated :2. The appellant was occupying a premises in Madras as a tenant. His landlady filed an application H.R.C. No. 1924 of 1967 seeking eviction of the appellant on the ground that she bona fide required the premises for her own occupation. At that time the suit premises No. 64, Lloyds Road, Royaspettah, Madras-14 was advertised for sale. The appellant for purposes of his occupation purchased the premises on October 23, 1967, as per registered document No. 1633 of 1967 in Sub-Registrar's Office, Mylapore. The respondent was then a tenant of the suit premises under the vendor. After the purchase, he attorned in favour of the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1329; (1973)1SCC665; [1973]3SCR687
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1.The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant Patiraji is entitled to the ''Adhivasi' rights under Section 20(b)(i) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 ('the Act').2. One Ram Adhar and the respondents were co-tenants of certain lands situated at Bibiganj, District Sultanpur. On the death of Ram Adhar on February 24, 1949 the appellant took proceedings under the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 for a declaration that she was the widow of Ram Adhar and as such, had become a cotenant along with the respondents. The appellant succeeded before the Assistant Collector but in appeal, the Additional Commissioner and then the Board of Revenue took a contrary view, holding that the appellant was not the widow of Ram Adhar. The judgment of the Board of Revenue is dated July 1, 1954.3. In the meanwhile, the Act had come into force on July 1, 1952. The appellant then brought the present suit, treated as one Under section 20 (b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1343; 1973LabIC1112; (1973)ILLJ474SC; (1973)1SCC811
Y. V. Chandrachud, J.1. This appeal is founded on a certificate granted by the Patna High Court under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution.2. The appellant was appoint ed as a Supply Inspector in 1948. In 1957, while he was in charge of the Wagerganj Godown a complaint of bribery was made against him. An inquiry was held into that complaint but eventually the appellant was removed from service by an order dated September 16, 1958.3. On September 28, 1958 the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 87 of 1960 (1958) in the Patna High Court but that Petition was dismissed on 21-1-1960 presumably because a statement was made on behalf of the State Government that the appellant was not removed for misconduct but his ser vices being temporary were terminated by a simple order of discharge.4. The appellant thereafter made a representation to the Government asking that his case be reviewed and that he be paid gratuity. In reply it was stated by the Government that the claim for gratuity could not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2110; (1973)75PLR626; (1973)1SCC688; [1973]3SCR679
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1.The plaintiff, who in a Rent-Act application against his tenant sought possession of certain premises on the ground of personal requirement, died pending the application. The question for decision is whether the cause of action would survive to his legal representatives or whether, as contended by the tenant, the application must abate.2. On June 28, 1962 a flat at New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi was leased by the plaintiff to the defendant. On failure of the defendant to comply with two notices to quite plaintiff filed an ejectment application under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ('the Act'). Possession was sought from the tenant on the ground that the premises were required by the plaintiff 'for occupation as a residence for himself and members of his family'.3. The Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, dismissed the application on the preliminary ground that the notices to quit were not valid. Plaintiff filed an appeal against that decision but...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1222; (1973)0GLR610; (1973)1SCC702; [1973]3SCR670
I.D. Dua, J.1. In this appeal by special leave the short question requiring determination is whether the High Court of Gujarat was justified in dismissing in limine with one word 'dismissed' the appellants' appeal against their conviction by the Sessions Judge, Jamnagar for offences under Section 420 read with Section 511 and 34, I.P.C. and under Section 474 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code.2. Both the appellants were charged on five counts in the court of the Sessions Judge relating to offences, inter alia of forging railway receipts purporting to be valuable security, being in possession of forged receipts knowing them to be forged and of dishonestly or fraudulently using the forged receipts as genuine knowing them to be forged, in furtherance of the common intention of cheating the Indian Railways or attempting to cheat them.3. The points which arose for determination in the trial court as stated in its judgment were :(1) Whether the prosecution has proved that on or about 7-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1258; 1973CriLJ987; (1973)4SCC1
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This appeal by the State, by special leave, is against the judgment dated September 7, 1971 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 384 of 1971 and Murder Reference No. 32 of 1971 Respondents 1 and 2 are brothers and similarly Respondents 3 to 6 are also brothers. The six respondents along with another Darshan Singh, son of Ishar Singh, were tried for offences under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, acquitted the 7th accused, Darshan Singh, son of Ishar Singh. Joginder Singh, the 1st respondent, was convicted under Section 302 and sentenced to death. Respondents 2 to 6 were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 and sentenced to life imprisonment. All the six respondents were convicted under Section 148 and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprsionment. Further they were also convicted and sentenced to varying terms of imprisonmen...
Tag this Judgment!