Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2711; (1973)2SCC617; [1974]1SCR570
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenges the Trade Notice dated 29 January, 1972 referred to as the impugned notice.2. The import and export of goods is regulated by the Imports and Exports Act, 1947 referred to as the 1947 Act. Section 3 of the 1947 Act empowers the Government to issue orders making provisions for prohibiting, restricting or otherwise controlling the import and export of goods of special description. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the 1947 Act the Central Government from time to time issued orders regulating export of goods. The Export Control Order 1968 referred to as the 1968 Order came into existence under these powers. Clause 3(1) of the 1968 Order provides that no person shall export goods of the description specified in Schedule 1 of the 1968 Order except under and in accordance with the licence granted by the Central Government or by an officer specified, in Schedule 11 of the 1968 Order. Mica scrap ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC344; 1974CriLJ366; (1974)3SCC397
H.R. Khanna, J.1. Harchand Singh, Jaswant Singh, Jaswinder Singh, Sadhu Singh, Gaijan Singh and Labh Singh were tried in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in connection with an occurrence which resulted in the death of Ajaib Singh. The trail court acquitted Sadhu Singh, Gaijan Singh and Labh Singh. Harchand and Jaswant Singh were convicted by the trail court under Section 304 part II read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. Jaswinder Singh was convicted under Section 323 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Two cross appeals were thereafter filed in the Punjab & Haryana High Court One of the appeals was by Harchand Singh, Jaswant Singh and Jaswinder Singh, challenging their conviction. The other appeal was by the State of Punjab wherein it was prayed that the conviction of Harchand Singh, Jaswant Singh and Jaswinder Singh should...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC274; 1974CriLJ330; (1974)3SCC404; [1974]1SCR567; 1973(5)LC837(SC)
H.R. Khanna, J.1. Janardhan Narayan Suroshe and Krishna Vithu Suroshe were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge Thana under Section 302 Indian Penal Code on the allegation that they had caused the death of Bhaskar Narayan Suroshe. Each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Krishna Vithu Suroshe filed an appeal against the judgment of the trial court but the same was dismissed summarily by the Bombay High Court Krishna Vithu Suroshe thereafter filed the present appeal to this Court by special leave. At the time the leave was granted it was directed that the appeal would be limited only to the ground wherein it had been stated that the High Court should not have dismissed the appeal in limine.2. Bhaskar Narayan Suroshe was the brother of Janardhan Narayan Suroshe accused. The houses of Bhaskar Narayan Suroshe and Janardhan Narayan Suroshe are situated in village Raite and there intervenes a small lane between the two houses. On March 24, 1972 at about 9 p.m., it i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC432; 1974CriLJ449; (1974)3SCC401; [1974]1SCR563; 1973(5)LC830(SC)
H.R. Khanna, J.1. This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by Chotka Hembram for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.2. An order for the detention of the petitioner was made under Sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by the District Magistrate of Burdwan on July 3, 1972. The petitioner by means of this petition challenged the validity of the aforesaid order for his detention. From the reply filed on behalf of the State of West Bengal it would appear that the petitioner was released on April 28, 1973 and a fresh order for the detention of the petitioner was made on April 26, 1973 by the District Magistrate of Burdwan during the pendency of the present petition.3. The present petition, it may be mentioned, was sent from jail by the petitioner on February 22, 1973. The petitioner is now being detained in pursuance of the fresh order of detention dated April 26, 1973. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2591; 1973CriLJ1795; (1973)2SCC701; [1974]1SCR559; 1973(5)LC832(SC); 1973()WLN683
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. The appellant filed a complaint against the 2nd respondent before the Addl. Munsiff Magistrate of Jodhpur City under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. The 2nd respondent was the Post Master General. Rajasthan and the appellant a clerk in the Head Post Office at Jodhpur. He was also the Divisional Secretary of National Union of Postal Employees. The relevant portion of the complaint is as follows :4. That the accused came on tour to Jodhpur on 25-10-1971. He arrived at the Head Post Office Jodhpur, in connection with the inspection at 5.45 P.M. The complainant reached to submit his representation to the accused for cancelling his transfer, when the accused just sat in his jeep and the complainant started narrating his story.5. That the accused being enraged by this complaint, kicked him in his abdomen and abused him by saying 'Sale, Goonda, Badmash, on one hand you are complaining and on the other hand you are requesting for the cancellation of transfer.6. That the compl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2609; (1973)2SCC825; [1974]1SCR535
M.H. Beg, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal, on a certification of the case, under Article 133(1)(a) and (c) of the Constitution, granted by the Delhi High Court.2. The plaintiff-respondent had sued for a declaration that the annual rent of Rs. 365/- payable on a piece of land situated in Basti Ara Kashan, Paharganj, New Delhi, leased to him from 1-4-31 for a period of 90 years on behalf of the Secretary of State for India could not be enhanced during the subsistence of the lease for the grant of which he had paid a premium of Rs.-18,054/-. The plot of land leased was entrusted for management oh behalf of the Government of India to the Delhi Improvement Trust, and, thereafter, after the abolition of the Delhi Improvement Trust in 1957, to the Delhi Development Authority under Section 60 of the Delhi Development Act of 1957. The plaintiff also claimed refund of Rs. 5,935.25 ps. which had been retrospectively demanded and realised from him as arrears of enhanced rent from 1.1.52 to 30.6....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2602; (1974)3SCC415; [1974]1SCR548
K.K. Mathew, J.1. In this appeal, by special leave, the question for consideration is whether the findings arrived at by the High Court of Gujarat in Election Petition No. 9 of 1972 on issues No. 1 and 5, which were tried as preliminary issues, are correct.2. An election to elect four members of the Council of States from the State of Gujarat was to be held on April 8, 1972.3. The appellant and respondents No. 1 to 5 filed nominations. On scrutiny, the returning officer held them to be valid. On April 8, 1972, the election was held at Gandhi Nagar and the appellant and respondents 2, 3 and 5 were declared elected.4. On May 1, 1972, respondent No. 1 filed the election petition to declare the elections of the appellant and respondents 2, 3 and 5 void.5. The main ground urged in the election petition for declaring the election of respondents 4 and 5 in the election petition (respondent 5 and the appellant respectively here) void-with which alone we are concerned in this appeal-was that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2617; 1973CriLJ1778; (1974)3SCC307; [1974]1SCR528
H.R. Khanna, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave by Roop Singh (30), Paranjan Singh (42), Nirbhai Singh (22), Maghar Singh (56), Tara Singh (30) and Naib Singh (25) against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The six appellants were tried along with Major Singh (14), Inder Singh (50) and Teja Singh (42) in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge Barnala on various charges in connection with an occurrence which resulted in the death of three persons, Mastan Singh (55), Amar Singh (55) and Mohinder Singh (26) and injuries to Bachan Singh (PW 9). Learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted all the nine accused. On appeal by the State of Punjab, the High Court convicted the six accused appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 326 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life on the first count and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years on the second count. Both the sentences were orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2758; 1973LabIC1613; (1974)ILLJ138SC; (1974)3SCC318; [1974]1SCR504
S.N. Dwivedi, J.1. M/s. Woolcombers of India Limited have their factory at Jagatdal, 21 miles from Calcutta. They shall hereafter be addressed as Woolcombers. They are the appellants in this case. The respondents are their workmen employed in the factory at Jagatdal. They are represented by two Unions : Woolcombers Workers' Union and the Issac Holdens Mazdoor Union. On June 4, 1969, the West Bengal 'Government referred an industrial dispute between the Woolcombers and their workmen to the 6th Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta for adjudication. As many as 10 points of dispute were referred. Parties filed their written statements and produced their oral and documentary evidence. After examining the evidence; the Tribunal gave its award on September 26, 1969. All the referred points except a part of point No. 1 and point No. 7 were decided against the workmen. Point No. 7 related to the categorisation of workmen in the factory. They were categorised into four classes : (1) highly skilled work...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2641; 1973LabIC1593; (1973)IILLJ409SC; (1973)2SCC650; [1974]1SCR515
A.N. Ray. C.J.1. Civil Appeal No. 275 of 1971 is by certificate from the judgment dated 6 August, 1970 of the High Court of Kerala. The appellant is M. Ramanatha Pillai.2. Civil Appeal No. 2231 of 1970 is by certificate from the judgment dated 29 September, 1970 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The appellants are S. Ajit Singh and Jamna Dass Akhtar.3. Civil Appeal No. 248 of 1971 is by certificate from the judgment dated 30 September, 1970 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The appellants are seven in number. They are Kulbhushan Lal, Krishna Lal, Jagdev Singh, Shanti Sarup, Dilawar Singh, Ram Asra and Inder Lal.4. The facts in Civil Appeal No. 275 of 1970 are these. A Vigilance Commission was constituted for the State of Kerala by an order dated 29 May, 1965. The Government of Kerala on 26 October, 1965 sanctioned the creation of a temporary post of Vigilance Commissioner for a period of three years from 3 June, 1965. P.D. Nandana Menon assumed charge as Vigilance Commiss...
Tag this Judgment!