Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2333; (1976)4SCC1; [1977]1SCR459; 1976(8)LC756(SC)
P.K. Goswami, J.1. The appellant and the respondents 3 and 4 were the former existing stage-carriage operators of Jaipur Sainthal route which was nationalised on January 25, 1973. All of them applied for the grant of non-temporary stage carriage permits of Jaipur-Padampura route as alternative route permits. The Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur (briefly the. RTA) by its order of July 22, 1974, granted non-temporary permits to the appellant and respondent No. 4 and rejected the application of respondent No. 3. That led to an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal at Jaipur, Rajasthan, by respondent No. 3. The notice of appeal was served upon the appellant but since he did not appear the appeal was heard ex-parte and by its order dated December 17, 1974, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the RTA and granted the permit in favour of respondent No, 3. The appellant filed a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Rajasthan H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2488; 1976CriLJ1985; (1976)4SCC288; 1976(8)LC754(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Orissa acquitting the respondent of a horrendous crime in which six persons, close relatives of the respondent, were done to death. The respondent was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhankenal and sentenced to death, but on appeal the conviction and sentence were set aside and the respondent was acquitted. The question in this appeal is : whether the acquittal of the respondent is justified or it must be set aside and the conviction and sentence imposed on the respondent restored.2. The entire prosecution case against the respondent rests on the oral evidence of Chanchala (PW. 6) who claimed to be an eye-witness to the murder of Hrudananda, one of the six persons alleged to have been killed by the respondent. The learned Additional Sessions Judge believed her evidence, but the High Court found it difficult to accept her testimony. The High Court has given cogent reasons for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC170; 43(1977)CLT1; 1977CriLJ173; (1976)78PLR928; (1976)4SCC233; [1977]1SCR439
Fazal Ali, J.1. In this appeal by special leave, the appellant has been convicted for criminal misconduct under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. He has also been convicted under Section 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act but no separate sentence has been passed thereunder. The appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court of Orissa against the order of the Special Judge which was, however, dismissed, and the convictions and sentences imposed on him were confirmed by the High Court. Thereafter an application for leave to appeal to this Court was made before the High Court, which having been refused the appellant obtained special leave from this Court, and hence this appeal.2. After going through the judgments of the Courts below, we are constrained to observe that the High Court as well as the Trial Court have made a wholly wrong approach in applying the provisions of the P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2538; (1976)4SCC265; [1977]1SCR419; 1976(8)LC750(SC)
H.R. Khanna, J.1. This appeal by special leave by the State of Kerala is against the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court affirming on appeal the judgment and decree of the trial court whereby the suit for recovery of Rs. 28,208.70 filed by the appellant against the General Manager, Southern Railway respondent was dismissed.2. The appellant booked 2,000 tons of rice in 21,310 bags from Bareilli railway station for being transported to Trivandrum central railway station as per 10 railway receipts during the period from June 25 to July 5, 1950. According to the case of the appellant, the rice delivered at Trivandrum central railway station was short by 79,378 lbs. It was also averred that the rice in 327 bags was found to be damaged. The appellants accordingly claimed Rs. 28,208.70 as damages from the respondent.3. The respondent resisted the claim of the appellant, inter alia, on the ground that the suit was not maintainable as the Union of India had not been impleaded as a defe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2490; 1976LabIC1633; (1976)4SCC201; [1977]1SCR425
P. K. Goswami, J.1. These two appeals are by certificate from the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Both the appeals question the decision of the High Court-one by the Judicial Officer and the other by the State Government.2. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 908 of 1975 (hereinafter to be referred to as the officer) was originally a member of the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch). He was appointed as a Subordinate Judge, IV Class, on February 27, 1956. Thereafter he was promoted as a Sub-Judge, First Class, and was duly confirmed. While, as a Subordinate Judge-cum-Magistrate First Class in Amloh, District Patiala, the Bar Association of Amloh on May 11, 1965, sent a resolution to the High Court levelling certain charges against the officer affecting his integrity and impartiality. The High Court-ascertained the facts through a preliminary enquiry held by the District Judge, apparently, ex parte, at this stage. Thereafter, on the report of the Dis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2506; (1976)4SCC112; [1977]1SCR411; 1976(8)LC823(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. This appeal by special leave arises out of an order dated February 6, 1975 of the Bombay High Court dismissing First Appeal No. 13 of 1975 summarily. That appeal was filed by the appellant, Shankar Gopinath Apte, against the decree passed by the learned II Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona in Special Civil Suit No. 107 of 1968. That suit was filed by the respondent, Gangabai Hariharrao Patwardhan to recover the amount that may be found due to her on taking accounts from the appellant and for an injunction to restrain the appellant from obstructing her in the enjoyment of the suit property. Alternatively, the respondent prayed for a decree for possession of the suit lands.2. The suit property consists of 3 agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 98/1-1, 98/1-2 and 99, admeasuring in all 54 acres and 20 gunthas. The lands are situated in a village called Kiwale in Pune district.3. These lands belonged originally to the respondent's husband who died on Februa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1977)6CTR(SC)11
Ray, C.J. - The petitioner in this Writ Petition raises the question that the supplies of crude oil made by the petitioner Oil and Natural Gas Commission referred to as the Commission to Indian Oil Corporation Limited referred to as the Corporation are not exigible to sales-tax either by the State of Assam or the State of Bihar under the Central Sales Tax Act or the Bihar Sales Tax Act respectively. The petitioner contends that the supplies by the Commissions to the Corporation are pursuant to directions/orders of the Central Government, and therefore, there is no contract of sale. The petitioner in particular contends that the Commission is obliged to supply to the Corporation and the petitioner has no volition or freedom in the matter. The petitioner, therefore, contends that there is no contract of sale between the Commission and Corporation.2. The second contention of the petitioner is that if it be held to be sales these are inter-State sales under S. 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2520; (1976)3SCC852; [1977]1SCR359
Jaswant Singh, J.1. This appeal by certificate granted under Article 133(1)(a) and (c) of the Constitution which is directed against the judgment and decree dated March 25, 1968 of the High Court of Calcutta in Appeal No.255 of 1963 raises important questions relating to the interpretation of certain provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Act XXX of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as 'the B.L.R. Act') as also of the Mining Leases (Modification of Terms) s, 1956 providing for the modification and alteration of terms and conditions of the mining leases granted prior to the commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948 (Act 53 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1948 Act') and of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Act 67 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1957 Act') which replaced the 1948 Act on June 1, 1958.2. The facts and circumstances leading to this appeal are : By an indenture of lease dated July 31, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2478; (1976)4SCC42; [1977]1SCR354a; [1976]384STC435(SC); 1976(8)LC819(SC)
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. The Petitioner in this Writ Petition raises the question that the supplies of crude oil made by the Petitioner Oil and Natural Gas Commission, referred to as the Commission to Indian Oil Corporation Limited, referred to as the Corporation are not exigible to Sales-tax either by the State of Assam or the State of Bihar under the Central Sales Tax Act or the Bihar Sales Tax Act respectively. The petitioner contends that the supplies by the Commission to the Corporation are pursuant to directions/orders of the Central Government, and, therefore, there is no Contract of sale. The petitioner in particular contends that the Commission is obliged to supply to the Corporation and the petitioner has no volition or freedom in the matter. The petitioner, therefore, contends that there is no contract of sale between the Commission and the Corporation.2. The second contention of the petitioner is that if it be held to be sales these are inter-state sales under Section 3(a) of the C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2591; [1977(34)FLR392]; (1977)0GLR3; (1977)GLR223(SC); (1976)4SCC108; [1977]1SCR372; 1976(8)LC783(SC)
P.N. Shinghal J.1. These appeals by certificate are directed against a common judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated May 4, 1972. We have heard them together and will dispose them of by a common judgment. The facts giving rise to the appeals are similar in essential respects and may be shortly stated.2. There are large deposits of bauxite in Gujarat State. The State Government issued a notification on December 31, 1963, intimating that the lands in all the talukas of Kutch district and in Kalyanpur taluka of Jamnagar district had been reserved for exploitation of bauxite in the public sector. A similar notification was issued on February 26, 1964, in respect of all areas of Jamnagar and Junagarh districts. Even so, the appellants made applications to the State Government for grant of mining leases for bauxite in the reserved areas. There were no other applications to that effect, but the State Government rejected the applications of the appellants on the ground that, as had been n...
Tag this Judgment!