Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1898; [1974(29)FLR202]; (1974)IILLJ368SC; (1975)3SCC73; [1975]1SCR586; 1975(1)SLJ167(SC); 1974(6)LC454(SC)
K.K. Mathew, J.1. The appellants filed a petition before the High Court of Punjab under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the orders passed by the State of Punjab reverting them from the posts held by them in an officiating capacity in the cadre and ex-cadre posts of senior scale of Indian Administrative Service to their substantive posts in the State Civil Service from which they were promoted.2. The appellants contended before the High Court that the orders of reversion were punitive in character and, therefore, attracted the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution and since they were given no reasonable opportunity to make their representations against the reversion, the orders were bad, and prayed for quashing them. The High Court overruled the contention and dismissed the petition. This appeal, by certificate, is against that order.3. The case of the appellants in the writ petition was that their names were included in the Select List prepared under Regul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1924; (1974)2SCC472; [1975]1SCR575
K.K. Mathew, J.1. The appellants filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Allahabad praying that the order passed by the State Government on October 20, 1967, allowing a revision filed by the respondent be quashed and possession of the premises in question be given to them under Section 7-A of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act).2. The original owner of the premises was one Ram Swaroop Gupta. He leased the premises to M/s. Pioneer Exhibitors and Distributors Limited. They used the premises for exhibiting cinema. That lease terminated by efflux of time on June 30, 1952. Gupta, thereafter, leased the premises by a deed dated October 13, 1952 for a period of 10 years to Ram Agyan Singh, respondent No. 2. But there was no order allotting the accommodation to him under Section 7(2) of the Act. Respondent No. 2 also used the premises for exhibiting cinematograph films. Disputes having arisen between ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC246; 1974CriLJ1253; (1975)3SCC39; [1975]1SCR561
H.R. Khanna, J.1. Karam Singh (60) and his son Sukhdev Singh (38) were shot dead in their field in the area of village Dhandari at a distance of seven miles from police station Sadar Ludhiana on August 5, 1971. Four persons Charan Singh (65), Mukhtiar Singh (50), Gurdev Singh (40) and Paramjit Singh (24) were tried in connection with that occurrence in the court of the Sessions Judge Ludhiana. The learned Sessions Judge convicted Charan Singh and Mukhtiar Singh under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for the murder of Karam Singh and sentenced each of them to death. Charan Singh and Mukhtiar Singh were also convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code for the death of Sukhdev Singh and each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on that count. Gurdev Singh and Parmjit Singh were convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for the murder of Sukhdev Singh and each of them was sentenced to death on that score. Gurdev Singh and Paramjit Singh were furthe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1717; (1974)2SCC316; [1975]1SCR557; 1974(6)LC451(SC)
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. This is an appeal by certificate against the judgment dated 6 June, 1969 of the High Court at Mysore.2. The appellant was the owner of several acres of land at Bangalore. The appellant developed an agricultural and horticultural Estate on that land. In the year 1967 there was a proposal to acquire the aforesaid property of the appellant. The land acquisition proceedings commenced. Possession of the property was taken in the month of April, 1967. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was made in the month of May, 1967. A declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made on 1 July, 1967. In the month of August, 1967 the appellant preferred claims. The claim for compensation preferred by the appellant was for Rs. 18.83,650.3. In the month of September, 1967 the Government paid a sum of 6,50,000/- as an instalment. On 30 August, 1968 the Government wrote to the Divisional Commissioner that the Government approved the award for the tota...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1719; [1974(29)FLR239]; 1974MhLJ785(SC); (1974)2SCC387; [1975]1SCR550; 1974(6)LC456(SC)
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. This is an appeal by certificate from the judgment dated 29th March, 1971 of the High Court of Bombay.2. The appellant filed this suit on 2 September, 1964 in the High Court of Bombay and claimed six months salary in lieu of notice and gratuity for 16 years of service.3. In the year 1965 the appellant asked for discovery by the respondent of documents relating to pension scheme for foreign employees. The application for discovery was dismissed in the month of November, 1965.4. On 16 December, 1969 the appellant took out a Chamber Summons for amendment of the plaint. The proposed amendments were twofold. The first set of amendment related to averments in support of the claim for gratuity which had already been alleged in the plaint. The second set of amendment related to averments in support of a claim for Rs. 850 per month by way of pension as and from 1 February, 1964 during the life time of the appellant.5. By an order dated 19 January, 1970 the appellant was allowed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1723; 1974CriLJ1171; (1975)3SCC2
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. This is a case of fratricide in which the appellant Mulkh Raj Sikka was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi on the charge that he had committed the murder of his brother Satish Chander on the night between the 27th and 28th May, 1970. The learned Judge sentenced the appellant to death and the order of conviction and sentence was confirmed in appeal by the High Court of Delhi. In this appeal by special leave the appellant challenges the correctness of the judgment of the High Court.2. One Bhagwan Dass had seven sons, appellant-being the eldest and the deceased Satish Chander the youngest. At the relevant time the appellant was working as an Inspector of Police in the Central Bureau of Investigation, Delhi while the deceased had just finished a course in Electrical Engineering and was seeking employment. The deceased used to live with the appellant in Qr. No. 238, Sector XII, R. K, Puram, Delhi.3. On January 15, 1962 Bahgwan Dass executed a will a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1697; 1974CriLJ1166; (1974)4SCC778; 1974(6)LC466(SC)
Chandrachud, J.1. The appellant, who has many aliases, was charged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, with offences under Sections 302 and 309 of the Penal Code for committing the murder of one Indira Joshi & then taking a poisonous insecticide in a bid to commit a suicide. The trial court convicted the appellant of both the offences and sentenced him to death for the offence of murder. The High Court having confirmed that judgment, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave of this Court.2. The circumstantial evidence in support of the charges for which the appellant has been convicted is of the clearest kind. The deceased Indira, a young widow, developed friendship with the appellant after the death of her husband. They lived together for a few months and later the appellant shifted to another room for securing which the deceased pledged her ornaments with a moneylender. Separate residence meant separate interests and the appellant feared that he ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1699; 1974CriLJ1168; (1974)4SCC781; 1974(6)LC461(SC)
Khanna J.1. Bhagwan Dass (25) was convicted by learned Sessions Judge Udaipur under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for causing the death of three persons Manna (35), Smt. Dhulki (45) and Heerka (25) and was sentenced to death. Bhagwan Dass was also convicted under Section 307 Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to PW Chunki (50). In view of the sentence of death, no separate sentence was imposed upon the accused for the offence under Section 307. On appeal and reference the Rajasthan High Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Bhagwan Dass thereafter filed the present appeal by special leave.2. The prosecution case is that Bhagwan Dass accused is a resident of village Dhol. Wardi (DW 1), the younger sister of the accused, was married to Bheru Das (PW 5) of village Sancholi, at a distance of about four miles from Dhol. Manna deceased was the uncle of Bheru Dass, while Dhulki was the latter's grandmother. Manna, Dhulki, Bheru Dass as well as PW Chunki (50), who made her living...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2307; 1975CriLJ26; (1974)4SCC785
1. This is an appeal by Shiv Sing (68) against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court affirming on appeal and reference the conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 303. Indian Penal Code and the sentence of death.2. The prosecution case is that the accused was convicted by the Sessions Judge Garoth on December 23, 1938 for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 109 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The accused while undergoing that sentence escaped from Central Jail Indore on November, 27, 1946.3. On December 29, 1960, it is stated: Head Constable Bahadur Singh of police station Jharda went along with Ramgopal constable to village Kahtharia at about 11 a.m. The Head Constable while sitting on the bank of the river asked Ramgopal constable to call the village chowkidar. After Ramgopal had left, the Head Constable saw the accused going with a 12 bore gun at a distance of about 50 yards. The Head Constable shouted to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1728; [1975]45CompCas43(SC); (1975)0GLR1069; (1974)2SCC323; [1975]1SCR534
M.M. Beg, J.1. This appeal, after certification by the Gujarat High Court of fitness of the case for it, arises in the following circumstances:2. Uttamram Mayaram Thakar, a flourishing lawyer, made a will, on 10-6-1945 and died childless on 20-8-1946. His widow, Bai Ruxmani, obtained, under the will, inter alia, certain shares the right and title to which are disputed before us. On 6-3-1948, Bai Ruxmani executed a registered gift deed purporting to donate the disputed shares in various limited companies, of which details were given in the gift deed, to her brother, Vasudev Ramchandra Shelat, the appellant before us (hereinafter referred to as 'Shelat'). On 18-4-1948, Bai Ruxmani also expired. But, before she died, she had signed several blank transfer forms, apparently intended to be filled in by donee so as to enable him to obtain the transfer of the donated shares in the registers of the various companies and share certificates in his own name. She had put her signatures in the corre...
Tag this Judgment!