Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC531; 1975LabIC358; (1975)4SCC838; [1974]1SCR98
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated the 10th September, 1968, of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in L.P.A. No. 108 of 1966, confirming the order of the learned single Judge and holding that the order of the State Government dated the 5th March, 1962 referring a dispute for adjudication was incompetent.2. The respondent company dismissed three of its workmen between the 15th December, 1959 and 6th January, 1960 and it also retrenched another employee on the 7th February 1960. The District Motor Transport Workers' Union appears to have raised a dispute with the management on the 17th November, 1960 and demanded the reinstatement of the dismissed workmen as well as the payment of retrenchment compensation regarding the workman who was retrenched. The demand not having been met with by the management and conciliation having failed, the State Government was approached for making a reference of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1409; (1973)2SCC444; [1974]1SCR102
I.D. Dua, J.1. In this appeal by special leave, five appellants have challenged their conviction under Sections 148 and 325/149, I.P.C. and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years on each count with additional fine of Rs. 200/- each under Sections 325/149, I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for six months, upheld by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on appeal from the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur.2. Originally, 13 persons including the five appellants were tried by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur under Sections 148, 307/149 and 364, I.P.C. According to the broad features of the prosecution story, on August 11, 1963, Dharamvir P.W. 9 started from his village Ramsara for his land in the area of Azamgarh some time between 7 and 8.00 a.m. He was driving a bullock cart and with him were his wife Nathi, P.W. 5, his brother's wife Ankori, P.W. 6, and a small girl Guddi as also one Chandu, in the said ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2221; 1973CriLJ1409; (1974)3SCC81; 1973(5)LC680(SC)
Mathew, J.1. This is an appeal, by special leave, against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana confirming the conviction of the appellant of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and imposing the sentence of imprisonment for life for the offence by the Sessions Judge, Hissar.2. The prosecution case was as follows. On 4-9-1969 at about 5 p.m. Thandu Ram of village Sabarwas was going out of his house and when he reached near the naubra of Gopal, he saw Girdhari Hirab and asked him to tell as to when his turn of water would commence. Girdhari replied that he would tell about that shortly and went towards his house. Bhallu and Kurra, having lathis with them came from the back side of Thandu Ram and gave one lathi blow each to him (Thandu Ram). They also tried to drag Thandu Ram but Mool Chand (P.W. 4) came there and saved him. At that time, the appellant and Hari Singh were sitting on the chabutra in front of their house along with Ram Sarup. The a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2187; 1973CriLJ1174; (1973)2SCC200
K.K. Mathew, J.1. The appellants were convicted of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. by the Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay and each of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life. They filed an appeal to the High Court against the conviction and sentence. The High Court dismissed the appeals in limine. This appeal, by special leave. Is directed against the order of the High Court.2. The prosecution case was as follows. The deceased Narayan alias Babi. Laxman Dholam (P.W 3) and appellants 1 to 4 were all residing in the Nariman Bhatnagar Zopadpattl at Prabhadevi. Relations between Babi and Naresh (P.W, 4). on one side and the appellants on the other were strained on account of their support for candidates belonging to rival political par-ties in the municipal elections held in March. 1968.3. There is a committee appoint-ed by the hutment dwellers to collect rent at the rate of Rs. 2/- per month from the hutment dwellers. Appellant No. 1 was a member of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2224; [1973(27)FLR71]; 1973LabIC1217; (1973)IILLJ133SC; (1974)3SCC157; 1973(5)LC691(SC); 1973()WLN493
Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from an order of the Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, dismissing the application of the appellant mills under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called the 'Act' and refusing to accord approval to the dismissal of the workmen concerned.2. On the 18th December, 1947, the respondent workmen were charge-sheeted for certain acts of misconduct. Since they were not available for service, copies of the charge-sheet were forwarded to their addresses by registered post on December 20, 1967. The copies were also affixed on the notice board of the mills. The charge-sheet posted to respondent 1 was returned undelivered on or about the 24th December 1967. However, the charge-sheet, which was sent by registered post to the other respondent, was delivered to him on December 23, 1967. On that very day, letters were issued to the respondents fixing the date of enquiry on the 30th December 1967. Copies of those letters were p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2279; [1973(26)FLR428a]; (1973)IILLJ147SC; (1974)3SCC160; [1974]1SCR87
A.N. Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by certificate from an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The facts may be shortly stated. Prior to April 1, 1963, three undertakings namely, Gwalior Engineering Works, (2) Gwalior Potteries, and (3) Gwalior Leather Factory and Gwalior Tannery, Morar, were owned and managed by the Madhya Pradesh State. The employees in these undertakings were in the service of the Madhya Pradesh State Government. These undertakings were transferred to the Madhya Pradesh Industries Corporation Ltd., hereinafter called the 'Corporation'. The employees of these undertakings thus ceased to be in the service of the State Government and became employees of the Corporation. On February 16, 1963 the Government of Madhya Pradesh had made an offer to the employees of the three undertakings which was as follows :-WHEREAS the State Government have decided to transfer the management of the (1) Gwalior Potteries, (2) Gwalior Engineering Works, (3) Gwalior Leather Factory and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2061; [1973]90ITR140(SC); (1974)3SCC205; [1974]1SCR91
K.S. Hegde, J.1. These are appeals by special leave. They raise a common question of law viz. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of these cases the amounts claimed by the appellants (assessees) as their losses in transactions in gunny bags which were concluded by the transfer or delivery of pucca delivery orders were speculative losses under Explanation 2 to the proviso to Section 24(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. For deciding the question of law formulated above, it will be sufficient if we set out the facts in Civil Appeal No. 1037 of 1970. At the hearing we were referred to the facts of that case only.3. The assessee in Civil Appeal No. 1037 of 1970 is a company dealing, inter alia, in jute and jute goods. In the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1960-61 (corresponding accounting periods being calendar years 1956, 1957 and 1959), the assessee claimed Rs. 35,578/-, Rs. 20,665/- and Rs. 3,849/- respectively as losses ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC771; [1973(27)FLR15]; 1974LabIC466; (1974)3SCC212; 1973(5)LC687(SC)
Vaidialingam, J.1. This appeal, by certificate, is against the judgment and order dated March 7, 1968, of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal No. 24 of 1964, holding that the Industrial Tribunal has to Calcutta the claim for bonus made by the workmen according to the full Bench Formula, as explained by this Court. The proceedings between the parties had a very chequered career, as will be noted from the facts mentioned later. The dispute between the parties relates to a claim for additional bonus for the years 1957-58 and 1958-59 and for payment of bonus for the year 1959-60 and 1960-1961.2. By order dated December 7, 1946, the Government of West Bengal referred a dispute between the appellant and its workmen for between the appellant and its workmen for adjudication under Rule 81A of the defence of India Rules to the Hon'ble Mr. Justice William Mecormick sharps. One of the questions that was referred and which has relevance to the present proceedings, was whether a profit sharing bonus ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1362; (1974)3SCC620; [1973]32STC623(SC)
K.S. Hegde, J.1. The appellants carry on business of buying paddy and after getting it husked either in their own mills or in other mills sell the rice to the Government and other registered dealers. On the purchase of paddy they paid purchase tax as provided in the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The question for decision is whether when they sold the rice produced out of the paddy purchased, they were entitled to exclude the turnover relating to the paddy purchased. When the Sales Tax Officer sought to levy sales tax without excluding the turnover in question from the total turnover of the appellants, the appellants moved the High Court of Punjab and Haryana under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the levy. The petitions filed by the appellants first went up before a learned single Judge, who rejected the same. He came to the conclusion that rice and paddy are not identical goods and consequently the turnover relating to paddy over which purchase tax had...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2190; 1974(0)BLJR877; 1973CriLJ1176; (1973)2SCC406; [1974]1SCR78
I.D. Dua, J.1. In this appeal by special leave, the appellant challenges the order of a learned single Judge of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated May 22, 1969 allowing the revision of Izhar Hussain and after setting aside the order of the Sessions Judge, Barabanki dated March 15, 1967 as also that of the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Barabanki dated January 11, 1967, directing the Deputy Registrar of the High Court to file a complaint under Section 211, I.P.C. against the appellant for falsely charging Izhar Hussain with offences under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 149 and under Section 147, I.P.C. in the court of the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Barabanki.2. It appears that pursuant to the first information report (Ext. Ka-9) lodged by Kartar Singh s/o Shri Lachman Singh at police station Kotwali Sub-District Nawabganj, District Barabanki on February 7, 1966, Izhar Hussain respondent and some others were tried in the court of the A...
Tag this Judgment!