Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1264; 1974CriLJ936; (1974)4SCC1; 1974(6)LC297(SC)
Palekar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. The petitioner was detained by an order dated 22-3-1972 passed by the District Magistrate, Howrah in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971) The order was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Supplies and Services essential to the community.2. The grounds on which the order was passed are as follows:(1) On 3-8-71 at about 18. 45 hours, you and your associates K. Mali, Baidyanath Sddhukhan and others were found by Watcher constable 1609 Bipad Bhanjan Burman and Watcher Constable 1368 Anath Bandhu Karmakar of Howrah D.E.B., who were on plain cloth duty to unload 5 bags of rice from lorry No. WBL 366 on Netaji Subhas Road near Allahabad Bank under Howrah P.S. and to dispose of the stoc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1817; 1974CriLJ884; (1974)4SCC83; 1974(6)LC270(SC)
Palekar, J.1. In this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Article 32 of the Constitution the petitioner is detained by the District Magistrate, Howrah by an order dated 9-10-1972 passed in exercise of the powers under Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971). The order of detention was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.2. The grounds served on the detenu are as follows :1. On 27.7.1972 at about 7.30 hrs. you along with your associate being armed with bombs, daggers etc. committed theft of 10 metres of 12 core P.V.C. cable from Down distant signal of Baranagar Rly. Stn. in between KM Post No. 5/16 to 5/17. Being resisted by the Rly. employees you and your associates scared them away by pelting stones and hurling bombs, and made good your escape with the stolen cables. As a result of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC785; 1974CriLJ670; (1974)4SCC593; 1974(6)LC268(SC)
Palekar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for an order in the nature of habeas corpus on the ground that the petitioner is illegally detained. The detention order was passed by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, on 22-1-1972. It was passed in the exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971), since the District Magistrate was satisfied that with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community it was necessary to detain him.2. The detenu's case was placed before the Advisory Board on 24-2-1972 and after receiving the opinion of the Advisory Board the State Government confirmed the detention on 29.3.1972. It appears that the petitioner had approached the High Court but his petition was dismissed on 19.6.1972. The petitioner has come here under Article 32...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC255; 1974CriLJ1335; (1974)4SCC548; 1974(6)LC276(SC)
Bhagwati J.,1. The petitioner, who has filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus from jail, was detained pursuant to an order dated 23rd May, 1972 passed by District Magistrate, 24 Parganas under Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 on the ground that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The communication dated 23rd May, 1972, which was served on the petitioner at the time of his arrest, intimated to him the following ground on which the order of detention was made by the District Magistrate:That on 18-12-71 at about 20.00 hours you along with your associates with a view to commit theft of Copper return feeder wire of Railway Traction cut the end of the wire of traction at post No. 28/23 in between Shyamnager and Ichhapur. During the operation your associates Shri Lakshm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1816; 1974CriLJ883; (1974)1SCC594; 1974(6)LC756(SC)
Palekar, J.1. In this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Article 23 of the Constitution the petitioner is detained by the District Magistrate, Midnapere, by this order dated 29-3-1972. The order was passed in exercise of the powers conferred by him by Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971) with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.2. The grounds communicated to the petitioner are :(1) On 3-10 71 at about 02 00 hrs., you along with your associates committed theft in respect of 1200 feet of overhead aluminium conductor wire worth about Rs. 1, 200/- from Power Supply line of the West Bengal State Electricity Board near Hategeria village under Keshiary P.S., District Midnapore. Due to such act of yours, electric supply from Hizli Power Station to Egra remained suspended for 12 hours and chaos was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2364; (1975)3SCC476; [1974]3SCR460; 1974(6)LC203(SC)
A. Alagirswami, J.1. The respondent's ancestors had been granted a cash allowance called Tainat by the Peshwas. After the defeat of the Peshwas by the British, by the Treaty of Gulgallee with Jamkhandi dated 6-6-1819 by the Hon'ble Mr. Elphinston, Governor of Bombay on behalf of the East India Company one of the terms which .were granted to, Gopalrao Jamkhandikar was regarding the terms which he held from the Government of His Highness the Peshwa, for the pay-meat of his contingent (apparently army) of his personal allowance. It stated that he was to continue all allowances and no complaints on this head were to be suffered to reach the Government (East India Company). The allowance to respondent's ancestors was one such allowance. This allowance seems to have amounted to a sum of Rs. 2010/- minus a sum of Rs. 240/- being the commutation amount as shown in Petha Khata Wahi Extract of 1942-43. That exact also shows that this grant was permanent. But in 1944 the then ruler of Jamkhandi s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1149; 1974CriLJ805; (1974)4SCC597; 1974(6)LC248(SC)
Palekar, J.1. In this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Article 32 of the Constitution the petitioner had been detained by an order dated 14-9-1972 passed by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971). The order was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Supplies and Services essential to the community.2. There was only one ground for detention and it was as follows :That on 10-9-1972 in between 06.30 hrs. and 07.30 hours you and your associates broke open wagon Nos. P.C. 12799, N.R. 35424 and E.R.C. 97048 loaded with foodgrains (Wheat) and committed theft in respect of the same from Canning Rly. Yard. You were subsequently arrested.Your action caused disruption of train services affecting supplies and services essential to the community.3. The affidavit f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC789; 1974CriLJ672; (1974)4SCC491; [1974]3SCR470
Y.V. Chandrachud, J. 1. On July 31, 1965 a Food Inspector of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi took a sample of Haldi from the appellant's shop on More Sarai Road. On the Public Analyst certifying that the Haldi contained foreign starches to the extent of 25 per cent the appellant was put up for trial before the learned Magistrate, First Class, Delhi, under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The learned Magistrate acquitted the appellant on the sole ground that the sample of Haldi was not taken by the Food Inspector in the presence of independent witnesses, leading to non-compliance with the 'mandatory provisions' of Section 10(7) of the Act. The order of acquittal was set aside in appeal by (he High Court of Delhi which following its own earlier judgment took the view that the provisions of Section 10(7) of the Act are directory and not mandatory. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court convicting t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2187; (1974)4SCC842; 1974(6)LC267(SC)
alagiriswami, J.1. This is an unfortunate litigation between a mother and her only daughter. The mother filed a suit, O.S. No. 40 of 1956 against the daughter claiming a certain house as her own and that she let it out to her daughter on a monthly rent of Rs. 30 and sought eviction of the daughter from the house. The daughter contended that the sale deed by which the mother purchased the site on which the house stands from her (daughter's) husband was a nominal one and that the house was constructed by her and her husband from out of their funds and that she was not a tenant. The mother also filed another suit, O.S. No. 14 of 1957 for recovery of certain furniture and utensils and for the rent. The Trial Court found that the sale deed was not nominal, that the daughter as well as her husband contributed towards the construction of the house and that it was the joint property of all the three and that the tenancy pleaded by the mother was false. Both the suits were dismissed by the Tria...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC787; (1974)2SCC67; 1974(6)LC264(SC)
Alagiriswami, J.1. The Government of Hyderabad acquired appellant's land measuring 18 acres 21 guntas in survey No. 116 situated within the Municipal limits of Hyderabad City under the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act. The notification under Section 3(1) of that Act corresponding to Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 was issued on 26.10.1950. The appellant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 25/- per sq. yard but the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of O.S. Rs. 7,500/- per acre. At the request of the appellant a reference was made to the City Civil Court which enhanced the compensation to O S Rs. 4/- per sq. yard. The usual solatium of 15% and interest at the rate of 6% on the compensation from the date of taking possession of the land were also awarded. Against this judgment both the appellant as well as the State Sled appeals, the appellant claiming compensation at Rs. 12/- per sq yard. The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the State and ...
Tag this Judgment!