Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC527; (1977)1SCC455
S. Murtaza Fazl Ali, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated August 2/3, 1971 : (1972)74BOMLR727 by which the plaintiff's suit for declaration and injunction has been dismissed. The plaintiff is an association of hoteliers and restaurant keepers doing business within the local limits of Sangli Municipality in the State of Maharashtra. Under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' - and the rules framed thereunder by the Maharashtra Government the members of the plaintiff association were required to take a licence for the business conducted by them. The Municipality insisted that the members of the plaintiff-Association should pay two sets of fees - one under item 1 and another under items 3 to 8 of Appendix (I) to the Schedule. These fees were demanded by the Municipality on the ground that the members were both manufacturers and retail dealers and were, therefor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC445; (1977)1SCC25; [1977]2SCR128; 1977(9)LC4(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. This appeal by special leave arises out of a proceeding under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (referred to hereinafter as the Act). On September 11, 1973 the appellant applied under Section 16(1)(a) for allotment of a part of house No. 98, Lakhmanganj, Lucknow. He was in fact in occupation of this portion of the building when he made the application; according to the appellant he had been inducted as a tenant by a person representing that he was the owner of the house, though really he was himself a tenant. On November 24, 1973 the first respondent also applied for alloting the house to him. Subsequently there were two more applicants for the house. The Area Rationing Officer (Rent Control) by his order dated June 4, 1974 allotted the accommodation to the first respondent. The appellant before us preferred an appeal to the District Judge, Lucknow, who on August 7, 1974 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of allo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC388; (1977)1SCC220; [1977]2SCR122; 1976(8)LC986(SC)
ORDER'Smt Roop Kaur through her attorney Shri M.S. Grewal the auction purchaser of unit No. B.XIII-18-S-14 (Portion I and III) Hide Market Amritsar has failed to deposit the balance sale price amounting to Rs. 28,000/- inspite of issue of registered notice for 2.1.61. Her bid is, therefore, cancelled and earnest money forfeited. Settlement Officer Jullundur may be requested to deduct Rs. 3200/- as earnest money out of CA.No.P/J/10110. The applicant may be informed accordingly and property disposed of in the next sale programme.Announced. Sd/- Distt Rem & Managing Officer Date 8.3.61 AMRITSAR.7. This order does not state that parties were duly heard. It is disputed whether the notice mentioned in it, alleged to have been sent to Smt. Rup Kaur on 18.12.1960 asking her to appear on 2.1.1961, was received by the contesting respondent. Even if the learned Single Judge's finding that it was not received at all by her were not correct, the time fixed for her appearance was too short. Furtherm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC489; AIR1977SC489a; [1977]10ITR292(SC); [1977]106ITR292(SC); (1977)1SCC431a; [1977]2SCR111
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. A fine point of law, which lends itself to subtle spinning of gossamer webs of argument, falls for decision in these appeals by certificate. Were the policy of the law been plain, the language should have been clearer and the labours of courts could have been lesser. The arguments have been exhaustive, the precedents, in profusion, cited to the point of no return and the short issue expanded into learned length; but, at the end of the forensic journey, we are hesitantly inclined to leave the judgment under appeal undisturbed as the law set out therein has better appeal and theoretical soundness than the rival view point well-presented by Sri Ahuja for the appellant (Revenue). The planning and pruning of case law is perhaps necessary if time-consuming court proceedings are to be curbed. 'All our life is crushed by the weight of words : the weight of the dead', said Luigi Pirandello. Heavy case-law must not clog judicial navigation.2. Next to a abbreviate statemen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC435; (1977)1SCC300; [1977]2SCR102
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. This criminal appeal, by special leave, raises a few questions of law under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act XXXVII of 1954) (for short, the Act), ingeniously urged by the appellants, a firm and its two partners, although the plea of 'guilty' entered by the appellants before the trial Court-possibly as part of a 'plea bargaining' which misfired at the appellate level-makes short shrift of the exculpatory and extenuatory arguments urged by his counsel before us. At the end of the weary forensic exercise we gathered what should have been told us first viz., that when the three accused were examined and charges read out they pleaded guilty, which would have abbreviated the hearing here had we known it earlier. We proceed on the footing that the facts set out in the charge are true, that being the net price of a plea of guilt.2. At this stage, the particulars and the setting of the prosecution facts need to be narrated. On October 2, 1973 the Food ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC813; (1977)3SCC566; 1976(8)LC1005(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. By our order made on May 14, 1976 we allowed this appeal setting aside the judgment of the High Court and dismissing the election petition without any order as to costs, adding that the reasons for our decision will follow. The following paragraphs contain the reasons.2. The appellant was elected to the Barwaha Assembly constituency No. 267 of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly. Poll was taken on March 8, 1972 and the result was declared on March 12, 1972. There were only two contestants, appellant Amolakchand Chhazed who was a nominee of the congress party and the second respondent before us, Vimalehand Jain, sponsored by Section Bhartiya Jan Sangh. The appellant was declared elected having secured 30295 votes, the second respondent polled 15620 votes. One Bhagwandas, a voter in that constituency, filed an election petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh asking for a declara...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC429; [1977]106ITR1(SC); (1977)1SCC408; [1977]2SCR92
H.R. Khanna, J.1. This appeal on certificate is against the judgment of Gujarat High Court dismissing petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the appellant for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ to quash two notices issued by the respondent to the appellant under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961).2. The matter relates to the assessment years 1957-58 and 1959-60. The appellant is a public limited Company which carries on the business of manufacture of pottery and sanitary wares at Morvi and other places in the State of Gujarat. In respect of the assessment year 1957-58, the corresponding accounting year for which ended on July 31, 1966, the appellant filed its return under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1922).The predecessor-in-interest of the respondent by assessment order dated April 16, 1959 assessed the total income of the appellant at Rs. 4,60,372. In comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC708; (1977)1SCC496; 1976(8)LC973(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. The two respondents were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to death for the murder of Mellore Venkata Reddy of village Maddurupalli in Andhra Pradesh by the Sessions Judge, Nellore Division.2. It was, according to the Sessions Judge, a case of 'planned, deliberate and cold-blooded murder'. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad hearing the reference for confirmation of the death sentence upheld the conviction of the respondents under Section 302 read with Section 34. On the question of sentence the learned Judges of the High Court thought that the sentence of death should be commuted to one for imprisonment for life and they ordered accordingly. What weighed with the learned Judges in awarding the leaser sentence will appear from the following extract from their judgment:We now come to the question of sentence. A-1 and A-2 (the respondents) were sentenced to death by the learned Sessions Judge. Both of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC441; (1977)1SCC403; [1977]2SCR86; 1976(8)LC982(SC)
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. This appeal is by special leave from the judgment dated 16 September, 1976 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.2. The appellant made an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in the High Court and impeached the order dated 21 September 1974 whereby the Government dismissed the appellant's objections against Scheme No. 9-M relating to Road Transport Nationalisation. The appellant also impeached the Scheme as published in the Gazette on 11 October, 1974.3. The High Court held that in view of the fact that Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is included as Entry 125 in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution the appellant could not challenge the Scheme.4. The High Court erred in holding that it was not open to the appellant to challenge the Scheme. The Attorney General rightly and fairly said that the judgment of the High Court could not be supported on that ground.5. The High Court failed to appreciate that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2207; 1977CriLJ1901; (1977)4SCC607b
1. This is an appeal by special leave granted by us today, the 12th November, 1976, against the order D/- 4-2-1976 in Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 1 of 1974 after notice to respondents. It was heard immediately by consent of both sides.2. The validity of the commitment proceedings and the transfer of the case to the committing Magistrate are questioned by the appellant We uphold the High Court's order in so far as it quashed the charges framed under Sections 466 and 471/464 Indian Penal Code against the appellant. Nothing has been urged against that.3. The High Court does not appear to have decided all the points raised. At any rate, it has not fully dealt with the matter in coming to its conclusions regarding the commitment of the appellant for an offence under Section 193, I.P.C. We need not mention all the questions of fart and law sought to be raised before us. They will, no doubt, be urged before the High Court which will in particular decide whether there was a legally valid order o...
Tag this Judgment!