Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC497; 1978(2)ELT429(SC); (1974)4SCC428; [1974]3SCR121
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. The core of the contention urged by the appellants in these various appeals filed by certificate under Article 133(1)(a) and (c) of the Constitution is that the excise duty on matches sought to be levied on these medium-sized manufacturers of Shivakashi wears the mask of equality but in its true face bears the marks of unequal justice violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.2. Shri Chitale, learned Counsel for the appellants, has focused his arguments on one grievance only and, we think, with good reason that the discriminatory fiscal treatment of his clients is unConstitutional, the vice being treatment of dissimilar categories similarly. To compress his whole argument in a single sentence, it is that the appellants, small manufacturers of matches, have been subjected by the impugned notification to excise duty at the same onerus rate as has been applied to larger producers, wilfully indifferent to a historically well recognised classification betw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1974)3CTR(SC)91
Krishna Iyer, J. - The core of the contention urged by the appellants in these various appeals filed by certificate under Art. 133(1)(a) & (c) of the Constitution is that the excise duty on matches sought to be levied on these medium-seized manufactures of Shivakashi wears the mask of equality but in its true face bears the marks of unequal justice violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.2. Shri Chitale, learned counsel for the appellants, has focused his arguments on one grievance only - and, we think, with good reason - that the discriminatory fiscal treatment of his clients is unconstitutional, the vice being treatment of dissimilar categories similarly. To compress his whole argument in a single sentence, it is that the appellants, small manufacturers of matches, have been subjected by the impugned notification to excise duty at the same onerous rate as has been applied to larger producers, wilfully indifferent to a historically well recognised classification between the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1818; 1974CriLJ885; (1974)4SCC222; [1974]3SCR133
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. These appeals are brought by leave granted by the High Court of Calcutta under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution.2. Cr. A. No. 114 of 1970: On May 29, 1968 gold bars and sovereigns bearing foreign markings were seized from the respondents by customs officers, Calcutta. Respondents were charged under Section 135, Customs Act, 1962 for being in possession of goods which they had reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under Section 111 of that Act. It was alleged that the goods were imported into India without the requisite permit and without payment of duty and were therefore liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The respondents were also charged under Rules 126P(1)(i) and 126P(2)(ii) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, for failure to make a declaration in respect of the gold found in their possession.3. The respondents pleaded guilty to the charges but cited facts in extenuation of the offences. The learned Presidency Magistr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC505; 40(1974)CLT283(SC); (1974)1SCC526; [1974]3SCR114; 1974(6)LC136(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This appeal is preferred Under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment of the Orissa High Court dismissing an election petition filed by the appellant challenging the election of the respondent to the Orissa Legislative Assembly from Melchhamunda constituency in Sambhalpur district of the State of Orissa.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal may be briefly stated as follows:There were general elections to the Orissa Legislative Assembly sometimes in the beginning of March 1971. The last date for filing nomination papers was fixed on 7th February, 1971 and on or before that date the appellant and the respondent both filed their respective nomination papers for the seat from Melchhamunda constituency. On 9th February, 1971, which was the date fixed for scrutiny of the nomination papers, the appellant raised an objection against the nomination of the respondent on the ground that he was disqu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC765; 1974CriLJ660; (1974)4SCC218; 1974(6)LC159(SC)
Bhagwati, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court confirming the conviction of the appellant by the Special Judge, Kangra under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/-, or in default, further rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. The appellant was employed as a Wasil-Waqi-Nawis in Tehsil Office at Kangra. He was assigned the work of realising loans advanced by the Government under various schemes which included the Low Income Group Housing loan scheme. One Sat Parkash had obtained a loan of Rs. 4,500/- from the Government in 1956. It appears that he was irregular in repayment of the loan and in 1968 a balance of Rs. 2,500/- remained due and payable by him to the Government. On 21st August, 1968 Deputy Commissioner, Dharamsala permitted him to make payment of the outstan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1066; (1974)1SCC671; [1974]3SCR109; 1974(6)LC185(SC)
S.N. Dwivedi, J.1. Before us there is this associate litigation-the civil appeal and the special leave petition for admission. Its history runs thus : There is the New Bengal Engineering Works. It has a factory and various movable and immovable properties. It is a running business. The business was set up by the appellant and the respondent as partners in December 1962. As usual with many partnerships, the partner did not march in step for long Within six months they fell out. On August 22, 1963, they could, however, agree to refer their disputes to the arbitration of two persons, Sri R.N. Sharma and Sri CM. Sharma. The agreement is in writing. It referred 'the disputes of our concern' and gave 'the arbitrators full authority to decide our dispute'. The arbitrators gave their award on September 20, 1963. They filed the award in the high Court on November, 1963. On September 10, 1964 the respondent filed an application for determining the validity of the agreement and for setting aside ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1178; (1974)1SCC675; [1974]3SCR101; 1974(6)LC153(SC)
S.N. Dwivedi, J.1. It is the defendant's appeal. The plaintiff Digamber Jain Praband Karini Sabha, Panagar, instituted a suit against the defendant Shikharchand Jain for recovery of possession over certain agricultural lands situate in mauza Imlai. Smt. Rajrani, fifth defendant (now dead) was the proprietor of a Patti in mauza Imlai. The land in dispute fell in that Patti. It was her sir. The area of the land is 12.86 acres. Smt. Rajrani became Malik maqbooza of the land on the abolition of the proprietary rights in the State in 1951. On January 18, 1954, she gifted the land by a registered gift deed in favour of the plaintiff (which is registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act, 1951). Ram Das and Ballu, the third and fourth defendants, were cultivating the land. The plaintiff instituted a suit against them on July 15, 1954. In the said suit they pleaded that Shikharchand had sub-let the land to them. The suit was decreed. Their appeals were dismissed on May 4, 1957. Shikhar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC460; 1974LabIC362; (1974)ILLJ301SC; (1974)4SCC308; [1974]3SCR87; 1974(6)LC146(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. The State of Karnataka, appellant before us, has raised two contentions, the first being the more material but less meritorious and the second secondary but substantial. The first respondent herein filed a petition under Article 226 seeking several reliefs including (a) the quashing of an order denying him credit for service while he was Private Secretary to three Ministers beginning from October 27, 1946 till July 23, 1954 (with minor interruptions when he served in other capacities, an inconsequential circumstance in this case) when he was made Assistant Secretary, and (b) a direction for payment of such amounts as he would have got had his due inter se seniority and promotion been accorded to him. The High Court granted both reliefs and they are challenged in this Court. There is no doubt, on the pleadings and indubitable evidence on record, that the petitioner came into a Class I post from October 27, 1946 and his claim to service since then running continuo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC463; 1974CriLJ453; (1974)4SCC186; [1974]3SCR92
M.H. Beg. J.1. The appellants Raghunandan, Ganga Sahai, Ghalendra, Khem Singh, and Sohan Singh, in the two Criminal Appeals now before us by special leave, were tried by a Civil & Sessions Judge of Moradabad for various offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 323 and 452 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. Raghunandan was held guilty of the offence of murder by shooting one Sriram with a gun on 12-12-1969, at about 1 p. m., while the deceased was sitting in front of his cattle shed in his outer court yard and talking to Had Singh, a neighbour, who was also injured by gun shots. The appellants Ganga Sahai and Sohan Singh were held guilty of Offences punishable under Section 148 Indian Penal Code while Khem Singh and Ghalendra were found guilty punishable under Section 147 Indian Penal Code. All the appellants were held guilty of Offences punishable under Section 307 and 323 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code and Section 452 Indian Penal Code. But, no separate se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC651; (1974)2SCC169; [1974]3SCR64
H.R. Khanna, J.1. This judgment would dispose of civil appeals Nos. 844 and 845 of 1973 which have been filed by special leave against the judgment of learned Judicial Commissioner Goa, Daman and Diu whereby he cancelled the leases of the distilleries granted in favour of the appellant and directed the Government to deal with the tender of respondent No, 1 according to law in the light of the observations made by the Judicial Commissioner. As the question involved in the two appeals is identical, we may set out, the facts giving rise to civil appeal No. 844. Learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that the decision in that civil appeal would also govern the other appeal.2. There is a distillery installation owned by the State at Daman. The Government has been leasing out the said distillery for specified period to members of the public for manufacture of country liquor. At the expiry of each lease, the Government used to invite fresh tenders from the public for the next lease and gr...
Tag this Judgment!