Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC835; (1976)2SCC429; [1976]3SCR287
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal by special leave directed against a Judgment of the High Court of Mysore. The following pedigree table will be helpful in understanding the facts leading up to this appeal: MAHALINGAPPA (died in 1922) | ________________|_____________________ | | | Mallappa Appa Saheb Neelkanth Deft. No. 1 Deft. No 2 (died on 8-7-46) ____________________________|___ | | Chandrakant Smt. Balabai Deft. No. 8 (wife of Neelkanth) Deft. No. 4. 2. The respondents are Hindus governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. Mahalingappa, the propositus of the joint family died in 1922, survived by three sons, namely, Mallappa, Defendant 1, Appasaheb, Defendant 2, Neelkanth. (The sons are hereafter referred to as 'M', 'A' and 'N'.) Mahalingappa and his sons constituted a joint Hindu family. The family was trading in tobacco. Mahalingappa, as Karta was managing the joint family business. After his death, his eldest son Neelkanth, father of Chandrakant, Defendant 3, bega...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC859; 1976CriLJ641; 1976(0)KLT184(SC); (1976)1SCC975; [1976]3SCR276
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. These three appeals arise out of a common Judgment of the High Court of Kerala holding the appellants guilty of contempt of court.2. S. Abdul Karim, the appellant in Criminal Appeal 118 of 1971, was, at the material time, a Munsif-Magistrate posted at Perambra. He was Respondent No. 3 in the contempt petition filed in the High Court and will hereafter be referred to as Rule 3.3. A. P. Parukutty Mooppilamma and A. P. Achuthankutty Nair, appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 196 of 1971 were respondents 1 and 2 in the original petition before the High Court, and will be hereafter be called R-1 and R-2. The appellant K. P. Ramaswami in Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 1971 was Respondent 4 before the High Court. He will, for short, be called R-4.4. M. K. Prakash, Respondent No. 1 in all these appeals before us, was the petitioner in the contempt petition before the High Court. He will hereafter be called as 'p'.5. The facts are these:R-1 is the owner of the Olathooki Ariyalakkan Mala...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC844; (1976)1SCC852; [1976]3SCR262
S. Murtaza Fazl Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad dated October 5, 1966, and raises a question of law regarding the applicability of Sections 172 and 174 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Act No. 1 of 1951).2. It appears that the case had a chequered career and the dispute between the parties passed through several phases both before the Revenue Courts and in the High Court. In order to appreciate the point of law involved in this appeal, it may be necessary to give a resume of the facts which culminated in the judgment of the High Court under appeal. The dispute refers to lands comprised in Khata Nos. 1052, 1344 and 1411 of village Bishunpur in the District of Rae Bareli (U. P.), It is not disputed that these Khatas originally belonged to one Harbans who died leaving behind three sons, namely, Gurdin, Ramcharan and Ramadhin. Ramacharan appears to have died issueless but Ramadhi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1104; 1976LabIC764; (1976)IILLJ311SC; (1976)1SCC817; [1976]3SCR255
R. S. Sarkaria, J.1. The circumstances leading to this appeal, directed against a judgment of the High Court of Mysore, are as follows:2. The respondent herein entered the service of the Princely State of Mysore in 1935 as Instructor of Tailoring in the Department of Public Instructions. In 1949 Three Occupational Institutes (Polytechnics) at Hassan, Devangere and Chintamani were started in the State. The respondent was sent on deputation to serve in the Polytechnic at Devangere as Instructor in Tailoring and he joined the new post on November 28, 1949. One Shri K. Narayanaswamy Chetty who was also an Instructor in Tailoring in the Department of Public Instruction was also deputed to the Occupational Institute at Hassan and joined duty there on December 1, 1949. This K. N. Chetty was far junior to the respondent in service. Special Officer-in-Charge of the three Occupational Institutes considered the names of the respondent and K. N. Chetty for absorption as Instructors in Tailoring an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC853; (1976)2SCC495
ORDERThe recommendations of the Divisional Commissioners are accepted with the modification that the percentage value of the timber to be allowed to the kumkidars may be fixed to 20 per cent of the value of the timber available on the land, limiting the value of timber to Rupees 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only). The timber may be removed by the authorities of the Forest Department as in the case of any other lands.5. Accordingly the Tehsildar, Udipi on September 9, 1964 commu nicated this order of assignment to Respondent 1:NOTICESub: Assignment-Land-Udipi Ta-luk-Kakkunje village Section No. 134/2 and 3-grant under Kumki right-sanctioned.The lands Section No. 134/2 and 3 measuring 4.75 and 2.50 acres respectively are sanctioned in favour of Sri Chandrashekar Adiga under Kumki rules subject to the condition that 20 per cent of the timber limiting the value of Rs. 1000 shall be allowed to the petitioner and rest of the timber will be removed by the forest Department. He is therefore re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2197; 1976CriLJ1717; (1976)4SCC290; 1976(8)LC214(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. The only question that falls to be determined in this appeal by special leave directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madras, is whether the extreme penalty of death was rightly awarded in the case of the appellant.2. Miss Lily Thomas, appearing as amicus curiae for the appellant, has pointed out these circumstances which according to her can be taken, in mitigation of the capital sentence.3. That appellant had received no less than nine injuries including two incised injuries on the head. In his statement under Section 342, Cr. P.C. he stated that those injuries on the head were caused by PW. 9 with a big knife. He has ascribed his other injuries to some of the prosecution witnesses. Unfortunately, no explanation has been given of these injuries by the prosecution.4. It was the prosecution case itself that when the appellant and his companions went for assault on the deceased at the house of PW 14, the appellant who was armed with a big sword had first h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1976)5CTR(SC)311
Untwalia, J. - In these appeals by certificate the question for determination is whether the exercise of the power of revision under sub-section (3) of section 20 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi - hereinafter called the Act is subject to the period of limitation provided in sub-section (2a) of section 11 or section 11-A of the said Act. The requisite facts lie in a narrow compass and may usefully be stated at the outset.2. The appellant who was carrying on the business of execution of building contracts was assessed to sales tax under the Act by the Sales Tax Officer for the year 1955-56 by an order of assessment made on November 23, 1959. The appellants appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax succeeded in part. He held that the assessment for the first two quarters of the year 1955-56 was invalid having been made out of time. The case was, therefore, remanded to the Sales Tax Officer for a fresh assessment in respec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1115; (1976)2SCC181; [1976]3SCR247; [1976]37STC425(SC)
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. In these appeals by certificate the question for determination is whether the exercise of the power of revision under Sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi-hereinafter called the Act-is subject to the period of limitation provided in Sub-section (2a) of Section 11 or Section 11-A of the said Act. The requisite facts lie in a narrow compass and may usefully be stated at the outset.2. The appellant who was carrying on the business of execution of building contracts was assessed to sales tax under the Act by the Sales Tax Officer for the year 1955-56 by an order of assessment made on November 23, 1959. The appellant's appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax succeeded in part. He held that the assessment for the first two quarters of the year 1955-56 was invalid having been made out of time. The case was, therefore, remanded to the Sales Tax Officer for a fresh assessment in r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2299; 1976CriLJ1755; (1977)3SCC346; 1977(9)LC12(SC)
ORDERV.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. Shri L.C. Goyal, counsel for the petitioner, with the art of brinkmanship, has come up at the last moment as he has done on former occasions, to pray for stay of execution life and try out all strategies to save it and perhaps that counts for this motion before us. 2. The prisoner was sentenced to death as long ago as 1969 and the conviction and sentence have been confirmed right up to highest Court years ago. Indeed, he has moved mercy petitions and consequential writ petitions more than once and has managed to avoid the execution till now. On the last occasion the same Advocate pleaded that his client's mercy petition was not being forwarded by the Superintendent of the Jail and prayed that he may be directed by this Court to forward it to the President. This Court did so and suspended the hanging for a time as a last chance. 3. It now transpires that the Prisoner has made an application for clemency by way of commutation and that it has been forwarded an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC907; (1976)ILLJ460SC; (1976)1SCC810; 1976(1)SLJ629(SC); 1976(8)LC212(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. Following a settlement with the workers employed in their different branches, the appellant, Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (referred to hereinafter as the company) paid to these workers an amount equivalent to 6 per cent of their total earnings for the financial year ending 31 July 1971, in addition to honus at 4 per cent of the annual earnings. Paragraph 4 of the memorandum of settlement reads:It was decided that although the workers were entitled to 4 per cent bonus under the bonus Act, it will be necessary to afford some relief to the workers. It was agreed that over and above 4 per cent bonus, the Hindustan Construction Company will pay additional amount of 6 per cent ex-gratia to the workers for the year 1970-71 in the pay packet of June, 1971.The workmen employed in the head office of the company at Bombay demanded that they should also be paid an amount equivalent to 6 per cent of their total earnings for the financial year ending 31 July 1971 in addition to b...
Tag this Judgment!