Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1918; 1974CriLJ1305; (1975)3SCC295
P.K. Goswami, J.1. The appellant, Kesavan Velayudha Panicker, (aged 57) was convicted under Section 302, I.P.C, and the sentence of death passed upon him was confirmed by the High Court of Kerala. 2. The appellant and the deceased, Krishnan Nadar, were engaged in illicit manufacture of arrack. Prior to the occurrence there was a quarrel between them over the theft of a washpot used for manufacture of alcohol belonging to the deceased. They quarrelled on 19th July, 1972 as well as on the next day in the afternoon at about 7.00 P.M. The deceased was coming along the road from north to south at Kallar and the appellant with his son (since acquitted by the trial court) were coming from the opposite direction. The appellant was carrying a chopper in his hand (M.O.I). Both the appellant and the deceased were residents by the side of the Kallar market. When they accosted each other, the appellant asked the deceased whether he would continue to abuse him as before. The appellant then gave a cu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2076; (1974)2SCC585; 1974(6)LC531(SC)
Ray, C.J.1. These two appeals are by special leave from the judgment dated 20th February, 1970 of the High Court at Bangalore.2. The appellants challenged the resolution of the Area Committee, Bellary dated 30th May, 1969 appointing respondents No. 5 to 9 as trustees of three temples situated at Malapanagudi village in Hospet Taluk, Bellary District.3. The resolution was passed in exercise of powers under Sections 39 and 41 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act. These two sections were struck down by the High Court at Bangalore in the decision in K. Mukundaraya Shenoy and Ors. v. State of Mysore and Anr. (1), reported in . The High Court therefore held that the resolutions passed by the Area Committee under those two sections were invalid.4. Counsel for the appellants wanted to raise a contention that Sections 30 and 41 of the Act remained in force in the District of Bellary. This contention was not raised in the High Court....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC460; (1974)2SCC630b; [1975]1SCR956
M.H. Beg, J. 1. The appellants are manufacturers of sugar, who have come 'before after certification of their cases as fit for appeal to this Court under Article 133(l)(c) of the Constitution. They challenged the notification dated 28-6-1967 issued by the Central Government under Clause 7 of the Sugar (Control) Order, 1966, fixing ex-factory prices for sugar factories specified in the notification. It appears that, in the Writ. Petitions filed in the High Court for quashing the impugned notification and appropriate orders in the nature of mandamus, the validity of Section 3 of the Essential Supplies Act 10 of 1955, as well as of the Sugar (Control) Order, 1966, issued under it were questioned. But, before us, the appellants have confined their arguments to contentions based on the correctness of the method adopted in fixing prices of Sugar manufactured in various States, and the alleged failure of the Central Government to take into account the fact that there was an initial fixation o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2133; (1974)2SCC570; [1975]1SCR950; 1974(6)LC537(SC)
K.K. Mathew, J.1. The appellant was the chairman of the Board of Directors of Kathiawar Industries Limited. The Custodian of Evacuee Property sought to proceed against the company under Section 10(2)(11) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The appellant challenged the validity of proceedings before the High Court of Gujarat by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings. An appeal against the order was preferred to this Court. The Court set aside the order and remitted the case to the High Court for a fresh decision. The Court thereafter dismissed the writ petition and, this appeal, by certificate, is against that order.2. The issued share capital of Kathiawar Industries is Rs. 50 lakhs. The total number of shares subscribed, preferential as well as ordinary, of the company is 1,21,961. One of the shareholders of that company is a company by name Bhawani Investm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC43; (1975)1SCC76; [1975]1SCR918
D.G. Palekar, J.1. This is an appeal filed by one Umed Singh who was unseated by an Order passed by Narula, J. of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Election Petition No. 9 of 1972. The election was to the Haryana Legislative Assembly from the Meham Assembly Constituency in Rohtak District in the State of Haryana. Four candidates contested the election. One Raj Singh was set up by the Ruling Congress Party and he polled 19,042 votes. Chatru was set up by the Kisan Mazdoor Party and he polled 4,546 voles. The present appellant Umed Singh stood as an Independent candidate and polled 19,654 votes. Another candidate Tale Ram who also stood as an Independent candidate polled 493 votes. Since the appellant Umed Singh who was respondent No. 1 in the Election Petition polled the highest number of votes he was declared elected. He was declared elected on 12-3-1972 and the Election Petition was filed by Raj Singh, the Congress candidate on 26-4-1972.2. The last date for filing nominations was 11...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC73; 1975LabIC1; (1975)3SCC178; [1975]1SCR914; 1974(6)LC548(SC)
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. This appeal is by special leave from the judgment dated 8 September, 1971 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.2. The principal question raised in this appeal is whether the appellants are wrongly shown as junior to the respondents.3. The respondents have been treated to be senior to the appellants on the basis of the Punjab Co-operative Subordinate Service Rules, 1936 hereinafter referred to as the 1936 Rules. Under the 1936 Rules seniority is dependent on the passing of departmental examination. The appellants passed the departmental examination after the respondents had done so. therefore, the appellants are treated as junior to the respondents.4. The appellants belonged to Pepsu Service. On 20 October, 1956, the appellants had been promoted from the position of Sub-Inspectors to Inspectors On 1 November, 1956 there was the reorganisation of the State of Punjab. Pepsu became merged in Punjab. The appellants became integrated with other Inspectors working in the S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1976)3SCC234
H.R. KHANNA, J.1.This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by Gian Devi who has been ordered to be detained in Nari Niketan, Delhi.2. Gian Devi petitioner was a witness in a case under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sonepat against Ganga Saran, Ram Kali and Usha Rani. The allegation in that case was that Gian Devi had been residing in the house of Ganga Saran, who is the Vice-Principal of a college, in connection with her studies. Gian Devi developed intimacy with Ganga Saran and after the completion of her studies, she came to her father's house. Her father, Sheesh Pal Singh wanted to marry her with another person. Ganga Saran then came to Sheesh Pal Singh's house and took away Gian Devi. Ram Kali and Usha Rani were stated to have abetted the enticing away of Gian Devi. It was also alleged that after Sheesh Pal Singh had brought Gian Devi from the house of Ganga Saran he married her to Satish Chandra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2051; 1974MhLJ972(SC); (1974)2SCC615; [1975]1SCR899
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. In the year 1932 one Shantappa Wathare, father of respondents 1 and 2 in C.A. 1942, executed a document (we are using the word 'document' because the character of the document was the subject matter of subsequent litigation) in respect of the western l/3rd share of Survey No. 99 measuring 7 acres and 30 gunthas in the village of Bamani in the State of Miraj in favour of Nabisha Pirajde of Miraj. In 1936 he executed a similar document in respect of middle l/3rd and in 1941 Dashrath and Bhima, belonging to another branch of the family, executed a similar document in respect of the eastern l/3rd portion of the land in favour of the said Nabisha Pirjade. On 11-8-1948 Miraj State merged in the then Bombay Province and from that date the Bombay Tenancy Act 1939 became applicable to the lands in question. On 15-9-1948 the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947 became applicable to the areas of the former Miraj State and on 28-12-1948 the Bombay Tenancy and Agricult...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2188; 1974CriLJ1500; (1975)3SCC241; [1975]1SCR906
H.R. Khanna, J.1. Godhu (25) and Banwari (45) were convicted by teamed Additional Sessions Judge Sri Ganganagar under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for causing the death of Gheru (30) and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Conviction was also recorded against Godhu under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and against Banwari under Section 27 of that Act. Each of the two accused was sentenced for the offence under the Arms Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default to undergo imprisonment for a further period of one month. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Charge was also framed against the two accused for an offence under Section 364 Indian Penal Code but they were acquitted on that count. On appeal the Rajasthan High Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The two accused thereafter came up in appeal to this Court by special leave.2. Godhu and Banwari accused are cousins, being sons of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2069; [1975]45CompCas136(SC); (1974)2SCC741; [1975]1SCR890; 1974(6)LC783(SC)
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This appeal is by certificate against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay Varying the judgment and decree passed against respondents 1 to 4 by the District Judge of Nagpur on an application under Section 235 of the Indian Companies Act 7 of 1913--hereinafter called the Act'.2. It appears that in or about April 1949 the Industrial & Agricultural Engineering Company (C.P.) Ltd.--hereinafter referred to as 'the Company' was formed under the Act with its registered office situated at Nagpur. From the date of the Company's incorporation till August 27, 1952 one Shantilal Nemchand Shah respondent 5 was the Managing Director, while respondents 1 to 4 were the Directors of the Company. On August 27, 1952, respondent 5 resigned as Managing Director and in his place two Directors C.V. Krishnamurthi respondent 2 and M. Ganpatram respondent 3 were appointed DirectOrs. These two new Directors were the employees and Directors of a concern known as Industrial & Agricult...
Tag this Judgment!