Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC34; (1975)2SCC512; 1975(7)LC790(SC)
P.K. Goswami J.1. This appeal is by certificate granted by the High Court of of Andhra Pradesh against its judgment of February 20, 1969 in first Appeal No. 72 of 1974. The appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale of land dated June 2, 1961 The plaintiff (first respondent herein) also prayed in the alternative for a decree for the return of earnest money and also for damages for breach of the contract. The trial court dismissed the suit for specific performance but granted a decree for the return of the earnest money and for damages. The High Court in appeal decreed the suit for specific performance attaching certain conditions to the decree.2. Briefly the facts are as follows:An agreement of sale was entered into on June 2, 1961 be tween the plaintiff and the appellant (first defendant) in respect of the land in suit. The said agreement provided, inter alia, that the appellant should retain for himself one acre of land out of the total extent of 32 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1925; (1975)2SCC570; [1976]1SCR602
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, converting-on appeal by the State-the acquittal of the appellants into conviction. Appellant No. 1 (for short, A-1) was an arrack contractor doing liquor business inter alia within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Indukurpet, District Nellore, while Appellant No. 2 (for short, A-2) was a Sub-Inspector of Police in-charge of this Police Station.2. The appellants and one other person were tried by the First Additional Sessions Judge Nellore on charges under Sections 120-B, 366, 376, 302/34, 201, 218, 468/34. 324, Penal Code relating to the abduction, rape and murder etc. of two sisters, named Kalarani and Chandrika Rani of Nellore. The Sessions Judge acquitted the three accused of all the charges. Against the acquittal of the appellants only the State preferred an appeal. The High Court partly allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal on charges 7, 8, 9 and 11 and convicted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1922; 1975LabIC1452; (1975)4SCC709; [1976]1SCR620; 1975(7)LC785(SC)
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. ln this appeal by special leave we are once again called upon to lay down the meaning and scope of Article 233 of the Constitution of India relating to the appointment of District Judges. This Article alongwitli other Articles in Chapter VI of Part VI of the Constitution came for consideration and was interpreted by this Court on several occasions in the past yet, a Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in its judgment under appeal felt persuaded to take a wholly erroneous view as to the meaning of the Article and committed a serious error in the application of the principles of law settled by this Court to the facts of the instant case. 2. We shall state the facts in a narrow compass shorn off unnecessary details. On 3.1.1972 the Government of Andhra Pradesh, respondent No. 1 was requested by the High Court, respondent No. 2, to take necessary steps for filling up six vacancies by notifying six posts of District and Sessions Judges, Grade II for direct recruitm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1957; (1975)2SCC505; [1976]1SCR598; 1975(7)LC783(SC)
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. This appeal is by special leave from the judgment dated 2 May, 1973 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.2. The appellants are vendees of the land in suit. The vendors sold the land to the appellants for Rs. 43,000/. on 26 August, 1965. The transaction was by registered deed of sale.3. The respondents filed this suit for possession by pre-emption of the land in payment of Rs. 30,000/- on allegations that the respondents were on the date of sale tenants of the land under the vendOrs. The respondents alleged that their right of pre-emption was superior to that of the vendees. They also alleged that the sale took place for Rs. 30,000/- only and the remaining amount was fictitiously mentioned in the deed of sale. The suit was dismissed on the ground that one suit on behalf of the four plaintiffs, who were tenants of different parts of the land, was not maintainable.4. On appeal the suit was remanded for re-trial. At the trial on remand, two plaintiffs withdrew from the sui...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1031; (1976)1SCC466; [1976]1SCR552
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. The validity of the Kerala State Electricity Supply (Kerala State Electricity Board and Licensees Areas) Surcharge Order 1968 is in question in these appeals. That order was passed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Kerala Essential Articles Control (Temporary Powers) Act, 1961. It obliges the Board to collect surcharges from non-licensee consumers of electricity even though the Board may have entered into long-term contracts with them with regard to the rate at which electricity is to be supplied to them. The Act is one to provide, in the interest of the general public for the control of the production, supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce in certain articles. Section 2(a) of the Act defines 'essential article' as meaning any article (not being an essential commodity as defined in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955) which may be declared by the Government by notified order to be an essential article. Section 3 enables the Gover...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1917; 1975CriLJ1666; (1975)2SCC596; [1976]1SCR587
M.H. Beg, J.1. The four appellants Daryao Singh, aged 46 years. Birbal aged 50 years. Dharam Pal aged 29 years and Om Pal, aged 25 years, were tried, along with 14 others, for the offence of rioting in the course of which two murders were committed, on 7-6-1967, at about 6.30 a.m., on a Path adjoining the field of the appellant Daryao Singh leading to village, Parsoli from village Nirpura, in Police Station Doghat, in the District of Meerut. The trial Court acquitted eleven accused persons giving them the benefit of doubt and convicted seven including the four appellants. Each of the accused persons was charged and convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment, in addition to charges and convictions under Section 149/324 and 149/34. I.P.C. and either under Section 147 or Section 148, I.P.C. depending upon the weapon alleged to have been used by an accused person.2. The prosecution case revealed a long standing enmity between two...
Tag this Judgment!