Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1699; (1975)4SCC467; [1975]SuppSCR361
1. There are two principal questions in these writ petitions and civil appeals. First, is compensation which is related to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act referred to as the Act bad? Second, is planned development of Delhi bad and vague?2. This Court in Afloatoon and Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors. : [1975]1SCR802 held that the notification dated 13 November, 1959 under Section 4 of the Act which is also being challenged in these writ petitions and appeals is beyond challenge now.3. Piecemeal acquisition which was held to be bad in State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma and Ors. : [1966]3SCR557 was validated by the Land Acquisition Amendment and Validation Act with retrospective effect. The validity of the Amending Act has been upheld by this Court in Udai Ram Sharma and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. : [1968]3SCR41 and reaffirmed in Aftatoon's case (supra).4. The contention that piecemeal acquisition under Notification dat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC2045; (1975)IILLJ93SC; (1975)4SCC703; [1975]SuppSCR354; 1975(1)SLJ525(SC); 1975(7)LC446(SC)
1. This appeal is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Allahabad declaring that the orders, dated 15-8-1949 and 18-5-1951, of the respondent's removal from service were illegal.2. The respondent was employed as Assistant Jailor at the Central Prison, Benaras. Auditing of the accounts revealed certain shortages. The respondent was charge-sheeted in respect of the same, and dismissed from the post on 4-7-1942. He made representations to the authorities against his dismissal. Ultimately, the Government reinstated him on 15-6-1948 but by the same order suspended him with retrospective effect from the date of his dismissal. On the basis of the enquiry held earlier into the charges against him, he was removed from service on August 15, 1949. The respondent then filed suit No. 144/396 of 1952 in the Court of Munsif, Lucknow, claiming a declaration that the suspension order, dated June 15, 1948, and the removal order dated, 15-8-1949, and the Government Order, dated 18-5-1951, upho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1453; 1975CriLJ1201; (1975)4SCC257
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. The appellant Soma Bhai Lala Bhai hereinafter referred to as Soma Lala was tried by the Sessions Judge, Surat for the charges under Sections 302, 303 and 201 I.P.C. as also under Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, but was acquitted of all the charges by the Sessions Judge by his order dated November 30. 1971. The State of Gujarat filed an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat against the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge and after hearing the aforesaid appeal the High Court of Gujarat reversed the order of acquittal and convicted the accused for offences under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment, under Section 307 to five years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- and under Section 27 of the Arms Act to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 500/-. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC2202; 1976MhLJ1(SC); (1975)2SCC609; [1975]SuppSCR336
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. There is more than meets the eye in the seemingly simple legal issue raised in this ejectment suit, if we probe the deeper public and professional implications of the limitations on a pleader's implied power to enter into a compromise of a case bona fide on behalf of his client, but in his interest, although without his consent.2. The facts to use trite phraseology, fall within a narrow compass. The landlords, Respondents 1 to 3, brought an action for eviction of the tenant-appellant (Regular Suit 141 of 1964) under the rent control law extant in Maharashtra. Litigation is often so harassingly long that oven where recovery of possession is sought for immediate bona fide need of the owner, the judicial process, takes its slow motion course that settlement of the dispute is not infrequently preferred by both sides to protracted adjudicatory justice. In the present case, although parties had engaged lawyers and gone to trial, they took several adjournments from cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1646; [1975(31)FLR44]; (1975)IILLJ87SC; (1976)2SCC502; [1975]SuppSCR328; 1975(1)SLJ560(SC)
A.N. Ray, J.1. These appeals by certificate turn on the question as to whether the Karnataka State Civil Services (Age of Compulsory Retirement) Rules, 1974 are valid.2. These cases may be broadly classified into three categories. One group consists of primary and secondary school teachers in Government schools of the former State of Mysore. The second group consists of teachers in the schools belonging to various local authorities situate in the area of the former State of Mysore. These teachers were absorbed in Government service of the new State of Mysore when the said schools were taken over by the Government. The third group consists of teachers in the schools of the School Boards in the Bombay area and the Madras area of the new State. They were absorbed in Government service under the Mysore Compulsory Primary Education Act, 1969.3. The new State of Mysore came into existence on 1 November, 1956 consequent upon the reorganisation, of States brought about by the States Reorganisa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1652; (1975)4SCC555; [1975]36STC378(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. The common question of law that arises in these appeals by the same assessee is : Whether the sales in question made by the asses-see were sales effected in the course of export of goods out of the territory of India and as such were exempt from imposition of sales tax under Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution 2. The relevant assessment years are 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60. The assessee, the New Rajasthan Mineral Syndicate, is registered as a dealer under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. It is not registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, called the Act). The assessee carries on the business of quarry contractOrs. In the relevant years, it held a licence from the then Punjab State to quarry iron-ore at Nizampur, District Mohindergarh. 3. During the assessment years in question, the Sales Tax Officer assessed the assessee-firm to tax under Section 9 of the Act on a turnover of Rs. 3,18,757.6, Rs. 3,99,948.93 and Rs. 5 lakhs, respectively...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1432; 1975CriLJ1224; (1975)2SCC227; 1975(7)LC563(SC); 1975()WLN250
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave. The appellant alongwith one Vikram Singh was convicted by the Special Judge, Sikar under Section 161 Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorious imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. The appellant was further convicted under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947-hereinafter called the Act. But no separate sentence was awarded to him under this count. Both of them filed appeal in the Rajasthan High Court. The appeal of Vikram Singh was allowed by the High Court. His conviction and sentence were set aside. It Was, however, maintained the conviction of and the sentence imposed upon the appellant.2. The case against both the accused was initiated on report Ext. P-7 lodged by complainant Mohan Lal, P.W. 11 on 4-6-1963 before the superintendent of police, Anti-corruption Department, Jaipur. Mohan Lal at the relevant time was the Secretary of the Gram S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC910; [1976]46CompCas142(SC); (1975)2SCC515; 1975(7)LC428(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. The appellants question the propriety of an order under Section 195 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 made by the District Judge, Jalgaon on November 22, 1967 summoning the appellants before him for the purpose of examining them concerning the trade, dealings, affairs and property of the respondent Company, the Gendalal Mills Limited (in Liquidation), Jalgaon, The winding up of the Company had been ordered by that Court on November 3, 1954.2. The relevant facts are these. On December 31, 1953 the former Management of the Company executed in favour of the appellants and several other persons a Debenture Trust Deed for Rupees fifteen lacs; the immovable property of the Company and its fixtures including machinery were given as security. On June 24, 1954 the Management of the Company executed an unattested Deed of Hypothecation to the tune of Rupees ten lacs in favour of the second appellant: the movables of the Company were hypothecated under this Deed. Some time in July...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1883; (1975)4SCC652; [1975]SuppSCR315
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. These are three appeals by special leave. One of them was directed from some interlocutory order of the High Court and had become infructuous. Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellants asked us to dismiss that appeal as being infructuous. We accordingly do so. In one of the remaining two appeals the appellant is Kumari Shamim Rahmani. She has been convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Dr. Hari Om Gautam. A sentence of life imprisonment has been awarded to her. In the other appeal the appellant is Shri Amir Ahmad Rahmani, elder brother of Shamim. He is said to have lodged a false information at the Police Station in connection with the said murder with the intention of screening his sister from legal punishment. He has been convicted under Section 201 of the Penal Code. The Trial Judge imposed a sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment on him but the High Court has reduced it to one year.2. The murder of the D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1703; 1975CriLJ1494; (1975)4SCC241
S. Murtaza Fazl Ali, J.1. The appellant Gajendra Singh has been convicted under Section 302 and sentenced to death as also under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The High Court on appeal has affirmed the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant Gajendra Singh. Accused Raj Bahadur Singh father of the appellant who was convicted by the Sessions Judge under Section 302/34 has been acquitted of that charge but his conviction under Section 323 and sentence for one year's rigorous imprisonment has been affirmed by the High Court. There was the third accused before the Court of Session, namely, Bisharam Singh who has been acquitted because the prosecution produced no evidence against him. The appellant has filed the present appeal by special leave against the order of the High Court affirming the conviction and sentence passed on him.2. Briefly put the prosecution case is that on August 10, 1971 some time about the noon the deceased Badam Singh who ...
Tag this Judgment!