Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1550; 1974CriLJ1015; (1975)3SCC276; [1975]1SCR80
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated March 24, 1971, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad convicting the appellants, by reversing their acquittal, on charges under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 149 and 148, Penal Code.2. The prosecution case was that on May 18, 1965, at about 10 a.m., Girja Singh (P. W. 11) and Sidh Nath (P. W. 8) were proceeding to the Ganga for a bath which runs at a distance of one mile from their village Tarapur. Onkarnath, appellant met them coming from the opposite direction. He asked Sidh Nath as to why he was walking chest high. Sidh Nath replied that there was nothing abnormal in his gait. Onkarnath appellant then slapped Sidh Nath and roughly handled him. Girja Singh intervened and remonstrated. Onkarnath Singh slapped him, also.3. Girja Singh was joint, in residence and mess with his cousins, Jagdish Narain Singh (P. W. 1) and Deep Narain Singh, deceased Jagdish Narain was employed in the Engineering College o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1121; (1974)2SCC319; 1974(6)LC366(SC)
Beg, J.1. There is a batch of five Civil Appeals by Special leave and another of eight Writ Petitions by ex-Servicemen Go-operative (Tenants) Farming Societies before us raising common questions of fact and law so t hat they can be disposed of by a single judgment.2. The Civil Appeals are filed against the orders of the Collector, Kaithal, dated 25-4-1972, directing that an area of 230 acres of land assumed to have been leased to the members of the appellant Societies under the East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in 1952, for 20 years, should be handed over to the rightful owners by the Pattedars as the period of their leases has expired. A preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution against the orders of the Collector is not substantiated by citing any authority of this Court. Moreover, there are also Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution questioning the power of the Col...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1320; (1974)2SCC266; [1974]3SCR915; 1974(6)LC574(SC)
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1.These appeals are by certificate against the judgment of the Patna High Court which reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in Title Suit No. 94 of 1956 filed by the first respondent Murli Prasad. A brief history of this case will be necessary for understanding the several contentions urged before us. One Mahendra prasad obtained a licence for electrification of the Chhapra town which was granted to biro in 1932. The licence was thereafter assigned to Janardhan Prasad Varma after the death of his father Mahendra Prasad in 1936. This licence was subsequently assigned to the Cnhapra Electric Supply Co., Ltd., which, however, went into voluntary liquidation in 1944. It was decided to sell the electricity undertaking by public auction and assign the licence to the purchaser with the previous sanction of the Government, In pursuance of this decision, the liquidator invited bidders for purchasing the electricity concern. But before the date of public auct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2009; (1974)2SCC402a; [1975]1SCR1
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. These appeals and writ petitions relate to the legality of certain proceedings taken under Chapter V-A of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955. Chapter V-A was introduced in the Bombay Municipal Act, 1888 by Maharashtra Act 14 of 1961. That chapter contains Sections 105A and 105B. According to the provisions of those sections the Commissioner in relation to premises belonging to or vesting in, or taken on lease by the corporation and the General Manager (also defined as the Commissioner) of the Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking in relation to premises of the corporation which vest in it for the purposes of that undertaking were granted certain powers of eviction in respect of unauthorised occupation of any corporation premises. Unauthorised occupation is defined as occupation by any person of corporation premises without authority for such occupation and includes the continuance in occupation b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1274; 1974(0)BLJR793; (1974)2SCC227; [1974]3SCR931
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. This appeal by certificate is from the judgment dated 24 March, 1967 of the High Court of Patna.2. Ram Autar Lal Jain filed an application under Section 46 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 hereinafter called the Act for grant of the stage carriage permit on the route Daltoigani to Mahuatour in Bihar. Before the application could be disposed of by the Regional Transport Authority Ram Autar Lal Jain died on 1 June, 1964. Thereafter. Kamal Kumar Jain the son of Ram Autar Lal Jain made an application to Regional Transport Authority stating that the application filed by his deceased father might be treated to be one on behalf of himself and on behalf of his two minor brothers. It was also stated in the application that Ram Autar Lal Jain had died leaving his sons as heirs. On 4 August. 1964 another application was filed by Kamal Kuniar Jain praying that the application filed by the deceased father might be treated as the application of a firm called M/s. Ram Autar Lal Jain t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2184; 1974LabIC1422; (1974)4SCC706
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. What is the true nature of the Scheme envisaged in the Report of the University Grants Commission for the year 1966-67? Was the Scheme, in so far as it related to the pay scales of lecturers and professors in affiliated colleges accepted by the Government of Maharashtra? And If so, is the State Government entitled to superimpose on that Scheme additional conditions subject to which alone the benefit thereof can be given to the lecturers and professors? These are the questions which were raised before the High Court in a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It is open to grave doubt whether the recommendations of a body like the University Grants Commission can give rise to rights and obligations enforceable in a court of law but of that we shall say nothing as everyone concerned approached the questions on the assumption that the petition raised a justiciable issue. The decision of the High Court meets a long-felt demand of ill-paid teachers a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1276; 1974LabIC980; (1975)3SCC58; [1974]3SCR907
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. These two appeals are by certificate from the common judgment dated 10 August, 1971 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.2. The State and the Taxation Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh are the appellants its Civil Appeal No. 1324 of 1972. The ten appellants in Civil Appeal No. 2648 of 1972 are Taxation Inspectors of the former State of Punjab. They were allocated to Himachal Pradesh because of reorganisation of the State of Punjab. The first seven appellants were confirmed as Taxation InspectOrs. The other three appellants were Taxation Inspectors but were not confirmed in that post.3. The appellants in the former State of Punjab were Sub Inspectors of Taxation. On 1 April. 196o the appellants were upgraded from the post of Sub-Inspectors to Inspectors of Taxation. When the appellants were allocated to Himachal Pradesh on the appointed day on 1 November, 1966 they were Inspectors of Taxation. The respondents were Excise Sub-Inspectors in Himachal Pradesh on the appointed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1791; (1974)2SCC260; [1974]3SCR896; 1974(6)LC304(SC)
K.K. Mathew, J.1. The first appellant is the father of appellants 2 and 3. The property in question belonged to the father of first appellant. By a will executed by him, he bequeathed the property to appellants 2 and 3. After the death of the tastator, mutations in favour of appellants 2 and 3 were effected in the revenue records in the year 1996 B.K. (1939). The first appellant managed to get the mutation of the land in his name in 1944 for the reason that he wanted to get licence for a gun. In 1955, when the Pepsu Tanancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force, the first appellant was shown to be the owner of the land in the revenue records. Chapter IV-A of the Act was inserted by Pepsu Act No. 15 of 1956 on October 30, 1956 and by Section 32A of this chapter, ceiling was placed on the holding of land.2. A suit was filed by appellants 2 and 3 for a declaration that the land belonged to them, that, the mutation of the land in the name of the fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1560; 1974CriLJ1026; (1974)4SCC616; [1974]3SCR902; 1974(6)LC405(SC)
P.K. Goswami, J.1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the Patna High Court convicting the two appellants and Anr. Under Section 420/34, Indian Penal Code. They have each been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for six months. Dr. Rama Shankar (PW 14) and Dr. Ram Bala Singh (PW 4) were state, of the legal consequences attending a proved or admitted state of facts. Its declaratory, determinative and adjudicators function is its distinctive characteristics. Its recordings gives an official certification to a pre-existing relation or establishes a new one on pre-existing ground See Borchard, 'Declaratory Judgments', 2nd ed., pp. 8-10.2. The judgment of the civil court with which we are concerned, adjudicated on the rights of the parties as they existed before the suit and when it declared that the mutation was effected not with the idea of transferring the property to the first appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1144; 1974CriLJ800; (1974)4SCC607; 1974(6)LC392(SC)
Krishna Iyer, J.1. The appeal by special leave relates to a tragic case of one young doctor murdering his fellow doctor with whom he was on very friendly terms-an act of motiveless malignity, if the case of the prosecution were true. The accused, 28 years old, and the deceased of around the same age, were both students in the Ganesh Shanker Vidyarathi Memorial Medical College, Kanpur, and were both employed in the same college and were residing together in the same hostel. Obviously they were as think as brothers and indeed spent their evenings often together.2. On the fateful day, April 11, 1969, the accused and the deceased went to see a picture in the Natraj cinema around 6 p.m. After witnessing the show they returned together and looked out for the whereabouts of one Dr. Shah, in which connection they went to the police outpost, Govind Nagar, at about 10 p.m. They left the outpost but took an out of the way route to the Medical College hostel via the Juhi Railway yard. The action-p...
Tag this Judgment!