Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC693; (1975)4SCC406; [1975]3SCR381
1. The dual prayers in the election petition, by the worsted appellant, related to (a) invalidation of the 1st respondent's election; and (b) the further submission that instead, the petitioner/appellant be declared successful from the 12-Sangrur Parliamentary constituency. The petition was dismissed by the High Court and the appellant has repeated both his reliefs in this civil appeal. However, by the time the appeal came up for hearing, the 1st respondent, the returned candidate, passed away, but Hari Agrawala, Advocate, has sought to appear for an elector from the constituency, on the score that the whole constituency is, a sense, before the Court and anyone from the constituency is entitled to oppose the election petition and also the election appeal. There is no doubt that the democratic order sustains itself on the rectitude at the polls and disputes affecting elections are not like private litigation but of public concern. Viewed thus, the question raised is not free from doubt ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC613; (1975)1SCC843; [1975]3SCR365; 1975(1)SLJ189(SC)
1. These appeals by certificate raise the question as to whether the confirmation of N. S. Rao was to be made by the Governor or by the High Court.2. Rao was appointed on 23 June, 1970 on probation under Rule 9 of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules 1963, He was appointed as District/Additional District & Sessions Judge. He assumed charged on 7 July, 1970. On 7 July, 1972 he completed two years of probation. On 13 July, 1972 the High Court received a complaint from Mangat Rai Gaba. The High Court entrusted to Justice Gurnani Singh an enquiry into the complaint. On 1 September, 1972 Rao was transferred to Ambala as District and Sessions Judge. On 5 September 1972 there was an order posting Rao as District & Sessions Judge, Karnal. On 13 October, 1972 there was a letter from the State Government to the High Court, declining to issue notifications under Sections 20 and 21 of the Punjab Courts Act.3. On 13 February, 1973 the State Government addressed a letter to the High Court to s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC2125; [1975(30)FLR169]; 1975LabIC1508; (1975)ILLJ391SC; (1975)4SCC731; 1975(7)LC161(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the Award made on August 9, 1973 by the Fifth Labour Court at Bombay deciding some of the issues arising for consideration in the reference before it. 2. The appellant company owns a factory at Thana near Bombay. Among the workmen of the Company are 'Operators' who work under the supervision of 'Charge-hands'. On December 30, 1970 one Asha Bhambani who was an Operator employed in the Company's aforesaid factory is alleged to have threatened a Charge-hand, Ramesh Thadani, with assault because Ramesh Thadani had reported against another operator who was consequently removed from service. According to the Management, Ashok Bhambani followed up the threat by assaulting Ramesh Thadani at about 5:30 p m. that very day in the train between Thana and Mulund when Ramesh Thadani was on his way home after the day's work. Next day i.e. December 31, 1970 several Junior Assistants and Charge-hands employed in the factory submitted to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC609; 1975CriLJ588; (1975)4SCC143; [1975]3SCR301; 1975(7)LC398(SC)
1. The petitioner, Ham Ranjan Chatterjee, challenges the order of his detention dated 8.12.1973 made under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, by the District Magistrate, Purulia. The order states that 'with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary so to do'. It is founded on three grounds which run as under :1. On 3.6. 1973 at about 19.00 hrs. at village Kotaldi a thickly populated area, under P. S. Santuri, District Purulia, you with your associates were illegally manufacturing bombs for unlawful purposes from dangerous explosive in your possession when an explosion took place causing fatal injury to one of your associates-Sova Gope (s/o Late Chandi Gope of Kataldi, P. S. Santuri. You and your associates' act of preparing bombs presumably for criminal operations as given out by you and your associates and the explosion taking place in a thickly populated area, created panic amongst the local ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC929; 1975LabIC585; (1975)4SCC203; [1975]3SCR306
1. The short question that arises for consideration in these petitions is as to the validity of the equation of posts of graduate teachers allotted to the new State of Mysore constituted under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. This Act re-drew the boundaries of the different States in India with effect from 1st November, 1956 and inter alia a new State of Mysore was formed comprising the territories of the existing States of Mysore and Coorg, four districts in the existing State of Bombay, three districts in the existing State of Hyderabad and one district in the existing State of Madras. Prior to the reorganisation, each of these five integrating areas, which went to make up the new State of Mysore, had a different set up of school administration. The schools in the Mysore and Coorg areas were classified into Primary schools, Middle schools and High schools. In the Bombay and Madras areas, the schools were classified into Primary schools and Secondary schools and in the Hyderabad a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1975CriLJ784; (1975)1SCC660; [1975]3SCR291
1. Shri S. P. Singh, appearing as amicus curiae, has urged a few points in support of his submission that the petitioner-detenu, very poor and not fallen into criminal company, is entitled to be set free, the order being illegal.2. The obnoxious acts, with futuristic import, relating to the detention, have been set out in the grounds annexed to the order and are repeated in the affidavit of the Deputy Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of West Bengal, based on the records available in the Secretariat. The District Magistrate of Purulia, nearly three long years ago, passed the order of detention against the petitioner on February 2, 1972 on receipt of materials regarding the prejudicial activities of the detenu and on being subjectively satisfied of the need for the detention under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act XXVI of 1971) (hereinafter called the MISA, for short).3. The two criminal adventures of the petitioner which persuaded the Distr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1722; 1975CriLJ1499; (1975)4SCC114
ORDERV.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. The petitioner who was detained under an order of the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas, in exercise of his powers under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 has moved this Court for release from custody on the ground that the order has been passed without any real subjective satisfaction and that another person who had been detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, on the same ground, has already been released by the High Court.2. On one short ground, the order of detention must fail. The single instance relied on by the detaining authority for the subjective satisfaction reached by him is dated 27/ 28th July 1973 and relates to stealing of telephone cables. If really this ground had been the basis of the detention order, one would have reasonably expected the District Magistrate to act promptly. In any case, the order seemed to have been passed nearly seven months after the criminal incident. No explanation whatever in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC760; (1975)77PLR647; (1975)1SCC341; 1975(7)LC153(SC)
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. This appeal by special leave turns on the question as to whether the appellant can claim damages against the Union in respect of a consignment delivered for carriage by the Railway Administration.2. The respondent Jhanak Lal on 11 January, 1956 consigned 35 bags of brass for carriage by Railway from Sindi Railway Station to Mirzapur. The railway receipt was consigned to self. The Railway Police on 15 January, 1956 seized the goods at Sindi Railway Station.3. Jhanak Lal was prosecuted in respect of the goods for an offence under Section 379/411, Indian Penal Code. He was acquitted on 27 June, 1957. The Magistrate mentioned in the judgment that the brass which had been seized be returned to Jhanak Lal. It may be stated here that the Criminal Court made the aforesaid order because Jhanak Lal being the consignor and consignee was prima facie entitled to possession.4. Jhanak Lal received the goods back from the Police in whose custody they were.5. The appellant in a letter ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC629; (1975)1SCC583; [1975]3SCR284; 1975(7)LC156(SC)
1. This appeal by certificate raises the question whether the notifications dated 29 September, 1965 and 18 January, 1969 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act hereinafter referred to as the Act arc lawful.2. In 1960 there was a request by the respondent Baroda Industrial Development Corporation hereinafter referred to as the Company to the State for acquiring land for expansion of the Industrial Estate of the Company. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Baroda expressed the opinion that the acquisition was necessary as the land was adjoining the occupied land of the Company and that was the only land available.3. On 4 March, 1961 there was a notification under Section 4 of the Act. On 22 August, 1961 there was an agreement between the State Government and the Company in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 41 of the Act.4. It may be stated here that the decision of this Court in R. L. Arora v. State of U.P. [1962] 2 Supp. S.C.R. 149 wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC775; 1975CriLJ637; (1975)3SCC836; [1975]3SCR211
1. The petitioner in this petition seeks a writ of habeas corpus challenging the validity of his detention under an order made by the District Magistrate, Burdwan under Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The order of detention was made on 10th July, 1973 on the ground that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. Pursuant to the order of detention the petitioner was arrested on 24th August, 1973 and immediately on his arrest he was served with the grounds of detention. There were two incidents referred to in the grounds of detention as forming the basis for arriving at the subjective satisfaction on the part of the District Magistrate and they were as follows :1. On 23.1.73 at about 03.00 hrs. you along with your associates (i) Michael Antony, son of M. Danial @ Ram Murti of Purn...
Tag this Judgment!