Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2573; (1977)1SCC260; [1977]1SCR741
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1.This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 from the judgment of the Patna High Court dated May 9. 1974 in Election Petition No. 42 of 1972.2. On March 29, 1972 the Election Commission issued a notification calling upon the Muzaffarpur Local Authorities Constituency to elect one member to the Bihar Legislative Council. That Constituency consists of the Municipalities of Muzaffarpur, Sitamarhi, Hajipur and Lalganj and the Notified Area Committees of Mahnur and Dumra. We are concerned in this appeal with the Notified Area Committee of Dumra only. According to the programme notified by the Election Commission, the last date for filing nominations was April 5, 1972. The poll was held on April 30 and the result of the election was declared on May 1, 1972. Respondent 1 Ram Bilas Jha, an independent candidate, secured the highest number of votes, namely 61 whereas his nearest rival respondent 5, Mahanth Raghunath Das, a Congress (R)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2033; (1977)1SCC33
A.N. Ray, C.J. 1. This appeal is by certificate from the judgment dated 26 April 1967 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Letters Patent Appeal No. 273 of 1963.2. The respondent, Mst. Parsini, is the widow of Beer Chand. Beer Chand died on 26 March 1960 in an accident with a tractor belonging to the Punjab Public Works Department (Electricity Branch), Ludhiana.3. The widow made an application under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 2000/- to the applicant.4. The learned single Judge on appeal upheld the order of the Tribunal. Thereupon the respondent filed Letters Patent Appeal which was allowed by the High Court. The High Court awarded Rs. 3000/- to each of the seven children and Rs. 4,200/- to the widow.5. Counsel for the State contended that the number of children was not seven. We have examined the evidence. The applicant stated that she had seven children. She mentioned three daughters and four sons. When she gave evidence they were all mino...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC302; (1976)4SCC535; [1977]1SCR731
M.H. Beg, J.1.This appeal by special leave is directed against the unanimous decision of a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court. The case before us arose from a Writ Petition filed by the respondent, M.N. Soi, praying that certain assessment orders, together with the order under Section 84 of the Punjab Municipal Act III of 1911, passed on 11th February, 1966, by an Additional District Magistrate of Delhi relating to the house of the petitioner at 15, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi, modifying assessments on appeal, be quashed. The respondent landlord submitted that assessment for purposes of rating, in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(1 )(b) of the Punjab Municipal Act III of 1911 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and, in particular, the interpretation of the words 'may reasonably be expected to be let from year to year', impose upon the assessing authorities the obligation not to assess at a higher rental value than the 'standard rent'. It is not disputed that standard rent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1799; 1977CriLJ1445; (1977)1SCC632
A.C. Gupta, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order of acquittal passed by the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench). The two respondents were convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, for the murder of two brothers, Chandrika and Sita Ram, on the night between 26th and 27th of April, 1971 in village Barkhurdarpur, police station Chinhat, district Lucknow. The Additional Sessions Judge described this as a case of 'cold blooded revolting double murder'. The High Court has ac quitted both the accused giving them the benefit of doubt. The appellant, State of Uttar Pradesh, seeks to have the acquittal set aside. 2. The trial Court relied on the three eye-witnesses. P.W. 2 Ram Lal father of the victims, P.W. 3 Buddha Pasi and P.W. 7 Bhellar. All the three claimed to have seen the respondents clearly in the light of the torches they were carrying. The trial Court found that there was 'n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC451; (1977)ILLJ12SC; (1976)4SCC226; [1977]1SCR702; 1976(1)SLJ725(SC); 1976(8)LC837(SC)
A.C. Gupta J.1. This appeal by special leave arises out of a writ petition made by the respondents before us in the Andhra Pradesh High Court questioning the inclusion in the list of Deputy Tehsildars eligible for promotion to the post of Tehsildar of the names of 63 persons, impleaded as respondents Nos. 4 to 66 in the writ petition. These 63 persons were working as Upper Division Clerks in the erstwhile Stale of Hyderabad when, on November 1, 1956, the State of Andhra Pradesh was formed. The State Government in consultation with the Government of India issued an order on April 1, 1960 stating that the first stage promotion of the employees of the erstwhile Government of Hyderabad, that is, promotion to posts one stage above those held by them prior to November 1, 1956, would be governed by the Hyderabad Cadre and Recruitment Rules for promotion which were applicable to them before that date, but subsequent promotions after the first stage of promotion would be governed by the relevan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC680; (1976)4SCC320; [1977]1SCR728
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. This appeal is by Special Leave from the judgment dated 8 August, 1975 of the High Court of Allahabad. The appellants are defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in suit out of which this appeal arises.2. The plaintiff's suit is for a decree for Rs. 1,30,000/- on the cause of action as laid in the plaint.3. The suit was instituted sometime in the month of May, 1971.4. The defendants filed written statement.5. Two paragraphs of the written statement contained additional pleas Paragraph 25 states that the agreement dated 7 April, 1967 is applicable to the transactions in which the plaintiff works as stockist-cum-distributor of the defendants. The defendants further allege in paragraph 25 that the agreement is not applicable to transactions in which the plaintiff acts as a principal. In paragraph 26 the defendants/appellants in the alternative allege that even if agreement dated 7 April, 1967 is applied to the dealings in suit, plaintiff's position is merely that o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC540; (1977)1SCC120; [1977]1SCR716; [1977]39STC19(SC)
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. In these two appeals by special leave a common question of law falls for our determination, hence, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.2. The Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd., appellant No. 1 in both the appeals has got its factory at Faridabad in the Slate of Haryana. It sells and supplies aluminium cables to several State Electricity Undertakings or Boards situated in the various States. In respect of the assessment year 1962-63, the Company raised a dispute that it was not liable to pay Central Sales Tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as it claimed to be exempt from inter-State tax on the sales of its products to the various State Undertakings or Boards by reason of the provisions contained in Section 5(2)(a)(iv) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Tribunal decided the matter in favour of the assessee Company but the High Court of Punjab and Haryana answered the Sales Tax Refer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2584; [1977(35)FLR325]; (1977)ILLJ22SC; (1977)1SCC28; [1977]1SCR709; 1976(8)LC832(SC)
P.K. Goswami, J.1.A complaint was made to the Labour Court by the respondent,) Mazdoor Mahajan Mandal, Baroda (briefly the union) alleging the lock-out declared by the appellant to be illegal. The appellant, Priya Laxmi Mills Ltd. (briefly the management) resisted the petition. After examining the oral and documentary evidence the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the lock-out was illegal under Clauses (a) and (h) of Sub-section (1) of Section 98 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (briefly the Act).2. A brief reference to the facts will be appropriate at this stage,3. The present appellant purchased this textile mill from M/s. Sayaji Mills Ltd, in 1972 when it had about 2500 workmen besides officers. It is said that in 1974 the textile industry suffered adverse market conditions, accumulation of stocks, shortage of raw materials and bank credit squeeze in consequence of which the management started experiencing acute financial difficulties which were aggravated by a sp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC24; (1977)1SCC34; [1977]1SCR661; 1976(8)LC844(SC)
A.N. Ray, C.J.1.This appeal by special leave is from the judgment dated 15 February 1974 of the Patna High Court. The High Court dismissed in limine the application of the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The appellant challenged the scheme framed under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 published in the Bihar Gazette on 13 September 1972. The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation published a scheme for nationalisation of fifteen routes including the route Ranchi-Daltonganj via Kuru. The scheme concerned inter alia the area and the route between Ranchi and Daltonganj. The area included Ranchi, Kuru, Chandwa Daltonganj. This is a rural service. The scheme stated that private operators would be able to run their buses till the expiry of their current permits and no private bus would be operated by the private operators after the expiry of their permits. The scheme further provided that the Government bus operators would operate in the area as shown in the Sche...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC418; 1976(2)KarLJ358; (1977)1SCC37; [1977]1SCR665; 1976(8)LC929(SC)
M.H. Beg, J.1.This appeal by special leave raises the question whether the State Government could, by a general direction given under Section 43(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') fix the charges to be imposed upon, operators of stage carriages for carrying mails as conditions of their permits.2. Section 48 of the Act lays down the power of the Regional Transport Authority to grant stage carriage permits with conditions annexed thereto. The first stage of exercise of this power is preceded by the quasi-judicial enquiry, under Section 47 of the Act, into the matters affecting the interests of public in general. Section 48, sub. Section (1), subjecting the power to grant stage carriage permits to provisions of Section 47 of the Act, includes what may be correctly characterised as the 'quasi-judicial' power either to grant or refuse to grant a permit after consideration of matters stated in Section 47 of the Act. After that, we come to the power to a...
Tag this Judgment!