Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2400; (1977)79PLR57; (1976)4SCC89; 1976(8)LC802(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. On January 30, 1963 respondent 1 gave a shop on rent to respondent 2, Sat Parkash, for a period if eleven months commencing on February 1, 1963. The rent note executed by respondent 2 in favour of respondent 1 reads as follows:I, Sat Parkash son of Amritsaria Mal Aggarwal of Samrala, am the tenant. Whereas a shop known as Karkhana pucca bounded as follow...sand situated at Samrala is owned by Shri Dhian Singh.... Now, therefore, I have taken the said shop for a period of 11 months from 1.2.1963 to 31.12.1963 at a rent of Rs. 500/-. per annum. The agreement is that rent for a year has been paid in advance against a receipt. I shall not let it out further to anybody and if I do, I shall be liable to ejectment. If the owner needs (the shop) for himself any time, I shall vacate (it) on a six months' notice without demur. Hence I have executed this rent note on the 30th of January, 1963.Sd/ SAT PARKASHTENANT.A partnership firm called M/s. Sat Parkash Single and Brothers ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC685; (1976)4SCC87
P.N. Bhagwati, J1. This is an appeal by special leave directed against the judgment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana rejecting a Writ Petition preferred by the appellants in limine without issuing a rule to the respondent. The writ petition sought to challenge an assessment order made by the Additional Excise and Taxation-cum-Assessing Authority, Karnal assessing the appellant to sales-tax for the assessment year 1970-71 in respect of certain sales of chicks, some under the Punjab Sales Tax Act 1948 and others under the Central Sales Tax Act 1956. The main question which was raised in the Writ Petition was whether in the circumstances of the case, it could be said that the transfer of chicks from Karnal to Delhi made by the appellant during the assessment year 1970-71, was by way of inter-State sales or intra-State sales. Now the same question under identical set of facts was also raised in the assessment of the appellants for the assessment year 1969-70 and it was decided against t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1977)6CTR(SC)169
Bhagwati, J. - This is an appeal by special leave directed against the judgment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana rejecting a writ petition preferred by the appellants in limine without issuing a rule to the respondent. The writ petition sought to challenge an assessment order made by the Additional Excise and Taxation-cum-Assessing Authority, Karnal assessing the appellant to sales-tax for the assessment year 1970-71 in respect of certain sales of chicks, some under the Punjab Sales Tax Act, 1948 and others under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The main question which was raised in the Writ Petition was whether in the circumstances of the case, it could be said that the transfer of chicks from Karnal to Delhi made by the appellant during the assessment year 1970-71, was by way of inter-State sales or intra-State sales. Now the same question under identical set of facts was also raised in the assessment of the appellants for the assessment year 1969-70 and it was decided against the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2403; 1976(2)KarLJ189; (1976)4SCC9; [1977]1SCR178
M.H. Beg, J.1. Civil Appeals Nos. 644 to 650 of 1974 are by special leave against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. The common and principal question of law which arises is : Does the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' or 'the Bangalore Act'), applying the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Acquisition Act'), to acquisitions of land in Bangalore require the determination of market value, for purposes of awarding compensation, on a date corresponding to the date of notification under Section 4 of: the Acquisition Act or to the date corresponding to that of the notification under Section 6 of the Acquisition Act2. The facts of the cases are not really material for the determination of the question of law stated above. A few facts relating to the lands acquired may, however, be mentioned. They have a bearing on a connected question dealt with at the end...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC705; 1977CriLJ347; (1976)4SCC311; 1977(9)LC76(SC)
N.L. Uutwalia, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, by two persons who have been convicted by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, after setting aside their acquittal recorded by the trial Court. Each has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The facts of the case are in a narrow compass. And the points urged by Mr. Kohli in support of the appeal, do not necessitate mentioning of all the facts in any detail.3. In the month of February, 1969 there was an election held for electing members to the Punjab Legislative Assembly. From the constituency of the appellants and the deceased there were three contesting candidates in the field, namely: Pritam Singh, Joginder Singh and Gurmit Singh. The first two were contesting the election as independent candidates and Gurmit Singh was an Akali candidate. Shingara Singh, father of appel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : ""
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. The appellant was at the material time carrying on business as a wholesale dealer in foodgrains under a licence issued to him under the Maharashtra Foodgrains Dealers' Licensing Order, 1963 (hereinafter called as the Order of 1963). The license was in a printed form and Clause 1 (A) of the license provided that the licensee, if' he is a wholesale dealer, shall sell foodgrains only to retailers and consumers and not to licensed wholesalers except under a permit obtained from the licensing authority. Note (1) of Clause 7 (A) declared that the licensing authority may permit a wholesaler, who is a licensee, to sell foodgrains to a licensed wholesaler in other States, subject to the restrictions that may operate on inter- State movement of foodgrains and also permit a licensed wholesaler of one market to sell foodgrains to a licensed wholesaler in another market within the State, in cases where he is satisfied that such sales are made in accordance with the traditional p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1970; 1976CriLJ1541; (1976)4SCC343; 1976(8)LC737(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the conviction and sentence of death imposed by the Additional sessions Judge, Salem and confirmed by the High Court of Madras.2. One Natesan and his wife Ranganayaki, to whom we shall for the sake of convenience, refer as the deceased, were living together in a house situate at Mutth Undal Lane in Nammakkal. Natesan was a tailor by profession and he had his tailoring shop in Sannadhi Street about a furlong away from his house. He had also a small petty shop adjoining his house on the western side which was looked after by the deceased. The appellant, who is the son of the maternal uncle of Natesan. who regularly taking his meals with Natesan since sometime before the date of the incident, as he was unmarried and had no employment at the relevant time. According to the prosecution, about three months prior to the date of the occurrence the appellant made advances to the deceased and wanted to satisfy his lust by sexual inte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2304,1976CriLJ1757,(1976)4SCC369
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by Sarwan Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Amar Singh under 3. 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 and is directed against the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by which the appellant Sarwan Singh has been convicted under Section 302. I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life, whereas other two appellants Mukhtiar Singh and Amar Singh have been convicted under Section 302/34. I.P.C. and given the same sentence. The appellants along with five others were prosecuted for the offence of murdering Jit Singh deceased and a charge under Section 302/149, I.P.C. and a number of other charges were framed against them. All the accused were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge. Barnala who rejected the prosecution case in its entirety and acquitted all the accused persons of the charges framed against them. The State of Punjab filed an appeal before the High Court against the order of acquittal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1973; [1977]106ITR11(SC); (1976)4SCC37; [1977]1SCR171a; 1976(8)LC745(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. The first appellant, Performing Right Society Limited, (hereinafter called the Society) is a company incorporated under the (English) Companies Acts, 1908 and 1913, having its registered office at Copyright House, 33 Margaret Street, Cavendish Square, London a company limited by guarantee and having no share capital. The Society is an association of composers, authors and publishers of copyright musical works established to grant permission for the performing right in such works. 'Performing right' means the right of performing in public, broadcasting and causing to be transmitted to subscribers to a diffusion service, in all parts of the world. The members of the Society are required to assign to the Society the performing right in their works, and the Society exercises and enforces on their behalf all rights and remedies in respect of any exploitation of such works. The Society collects royalties for the issue of licences granting such permission and distributes the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC704; (1976)4SCC289
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. The appellant was tried for an offence of intentionally causing the death of one Misri Lal Rai before the Sessions Judge, Saran. The learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence of intentionally causing the death of Misri Lal Rai and convicted him under Section 302 as also under Section 302 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code along with other accused and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The appellant and the other accused appealed to the High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court acquitted the other accused but came to the conclusion that so far as the appellant was concerned, he had exceeded the right of private defence to his property in causing the death of Misri Lal Rai and it accordingly altered the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 to one under Section 304, Part I and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The appellant thereupon preferred the present appeal with special leave obtained from this...
Tag this Judgment!