Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC209; (1978)1SCC1; [1978]1SCR761; 1977(9)LC719(SC)
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. In this batch of seven appeals by special leave the points involved are identical. It is a glaring example of unnecessary litigation between the various stage carriage operators, which could have been avoided if the State Government of Uttar Pradesh would not have come out with varying laws and oscillating policies. The facts of all the appeals are similar and common except in regard to the parties, routes in question and some other consequential details. We proceed to state the facts from Civil Appeal No. 1214 of 1977 only.2. Under Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-hereinafter to be referred to as the Central Act the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut had limited the number of stage carriage permits to be thirty only for the route Meerut-Rohta-Sinali-Baraut. In or about the year 1971 an advertisement was made calling for the applications to fill up eight vacancies, as twenty-two permits out of the limit of thirty having been already granted were opera...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC47; 1978CriLJ165; 1978MhLJ1(SC); (1977)4SCC551; [1978]1SCR749; 1977(9)LC733(SC)
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the order of the Bombay High Court rejecting the application in revision filed by the appellant under Section 397(1) of the CrPC, 1973 hereinafter to be referred to as the 1973 Code or the new Code, on the ground that it was not maintainable in view of the provision contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 397. The High Court has not gene into its merits.2. It is not necessary to state the facts of the case in any detail for the disposal of this appeal. A bare skeleton of them will suffice. In a press conference held at New Delhi on the 27th September, 1974 the appellant is said to have made certain statements and handed over a 'press hand-out' containing allegedly some defamatory statements concerning Shri A. R. Antulay, the then Law Minister of the Government of Maharashtra. The said statements were published in various newpapers. The State Government decided to prosecute the appellant for an offence under Section 500 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC35; 1978CriLJ177; (1977)4SCC433; 1977(9)LC729(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death for causing the death of his brother's widow, Smt. Nazira. Special leave was granted by this Court in this case confined only to the question of sentence. 2. Mr. Bana appearing for the appellant has submitted that the Sessions Judge has not complied with the provisions of Section 235(2) of the CrPC, 1973 and given an opportunity to the appellant on the question of the imposition of the sentence. It appears that after passing the order of conviction the Sessions Judge record in the order sheet that he has heard the accused on the sentence and then proceeds to pass the sentence of death. The learned Sessions Judge should have postponed the proceedings after passing the order of conviction and given an opportunity to the accused to produce evidence of circumstances which may lead the court to pass a lesser sentence. The Session Judge has also not recorded the statement of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC36; 1978CriLJ155; (1978)1SCC149
Jaswant Singh, J.1. Bhaiyan and Dibia alias Devideen who were tried along with three others by the additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh, and found guilty by him of rioting under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code as well as constructively responsible for the murder of one Harprasad Mishra alias Bape, aged 55, a resident of Garhi Malehra, under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code and each of whom was awarded rigorous imprisonment for two years under the first count and imprisonment for life under the second count and whose convictions and sentences under both the counts have been maintained on appeal by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh have come up in further appeal (by special leave) to this Court against their aforesaid convictions and sentences.2. The prosecution case in brief is that bad blood existed for some time past between the deceased, who was a staunch supporter of Congress Party and the appellants and their co-accused who were supporters of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1608; (1978)1SCC68; [1978]1SCR746; 1977(9)LC793(SC)
ORDERV.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. This special leave to appeal is sought against a discretionary order passed by the Subordinate Judge declining to stay a suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. This order was challenged in appeal and the High Court, after an exhaustive consideration, felt that the exercise of discretion was not so improper as to deserve interference.2. Shri Hardev Singh is right to the limited extent that where parties have by contract agreed to refer their disputes to arbitration the courts should as far as possible proceed to give an opportunity for resolution of disputes by arbitration rather than by judicial adjudication. Even so, there is a residual discretion vested in the court to stay or not to stay having regard to the totality of circumstances. One weighty factor obviously is to find out whether the party who invokes the arbitration clause has expressed his readiness to rely on it at the earliest stage. We are not investigating the merits of the matter unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2421; 1977(0)KLT965(SC); (1977)4SCC467; [1978]1SCR742; 1977(9)LC697(SC)
1. The pathology of litigative addiction ruins the poor of this country and the Bar has a role to cure this deleterious tendency of parties to launch frivolous and vexatious cases.2. Here is an audacious application by a determined engineer of fake litigations asking for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court on an interlocutory application for injunction. The sharp practice or legal legerdemain of the petitioner, who is the son of the 2nd respondent, stultifies the court process and makes decrees with judicial seals brutum fulmen. The long arm of the law must throttle such litigative caricatures if the confidence and credibility of the community in the judicature is to survive. The contempt power of the Court is meant for such persons as the present petitioner. We desist from taking action because of the sweet reasonableness of counsel Sri Ramasesh.3. What is the horrendous enterprise of the petitioner? The learned Judge has, with a touch of personal poignancy, jud...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1; 1978CriLJ1; 1978(1)KarLJ1; 1978MhLJ35(SC); (1978)1SCC27; [1978]1SCR732
D.A. Desai, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order made by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No. 90 of 1973 setting aside the order made by the Sessions Judge, Mandsaur Division in Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1972 against the order made by the Collector of Mandsaur confiscating the foodgrains in the quantity of 484 quintals 74 kg. of wheat and 135 quintals 36 kg. of rice under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.2. The petitioner Thakur Das son of Lila Ram Sindhi who died pending the petition, was a licenced dealer in foodgrains having obtained a licence under the Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1965 (for short 'the order') issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ('Act' for short). The licence enabled him to store for sale and sell foodgrains set out in Schedule I to the Order. By the terms of the licence the licensee was obligated to maintain a register of daily accounts in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC22; 1978MPLJ1(SC); (1978)1SCC58; [1978]1SCR723; 1977(9)LC712(SC)
P.K. Goswami, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court of August 19, 1970. The facts and circumstances in this appeal disclose the highly tortuous-nature of litigation between the landlord and the tenants. To high-light this aspect we may briefly state the facts.2. A suit was filed by the appellant on February 17, 1959, for eviction of the respondents (tenants) from a three-storeyed premises. The tenants resisted the claim and trial proceeded in which, after the close of the plaintiff's case, the tenants examined two witnesses and the suit was adjourned for their further evidence to July 12, 1960. On that day a joint compromise petition was filed settling the matter. Statement of counsel on both sides was recorded by the court on the same day and an order was passed on the following day, namely, July. 13, 1960 and a decree was passed in terms of the compromise. Without referring to the details of the terms of compromise at th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2255; [1978]48CompCas522(SC); 1977CriLJ1933; 1983(13)ELT1600(SC); (1977)4SCC437; [1978]1SCR719; 1977(9)LC730(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. This appeal is by special leave, from a Judgment of the Calcutta High Court, this Court in granting special leave limited the appeal to only one ground, whether the trial court had power to order confiscation of the goods found in appellant's possession while convicting him under Section 135 of the Customs Act.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of the appeal are these. The; appellant is a foreigner who arrived at Calcutta by air from Bangkok on June 28, 1975. On a search of his room in the hotel where he was staying in Calcutta, the Customs authorities found in his possession 1701 U.S. dollars and 4400 Canadian dollars which they seized as smuggled goods. On September 23, 1975 an Assistant Collector of Customs filed a petition of complaint in the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, alleging, inter alia, that the appellant had brought in the foreign currency seized from his possession in violation of Section 13(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2252; 1977CriLJ1930; (1977)4SCC396; [1978]1SCR714; 1977(9)LC725(SC)
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 by three persons who are brothers. On the 10th of November, 1967 at about 7.00 A. M. an occurrence took place in a village near Barpeta in Assam. The prosecution case was that Shashi Mohan Sarma, a person who lost his life as a result of the assault on him, in the company of his elder brother Gopi Nath Sarma, P.W. 2, was proceeding to his field with some mustard seeds in a basket. Gopi Nath was going with some cattle to tether them in the field. When they proceeded to some distance Shashi Mohan was chased by the three appellants, appellant Bhaba Nanda Sarma who was aged about 20 years at the time of the occurrence was armed with a lathi, appellant Phanidhar Sarma had a dolibari (a wooden hammer with along handle) and appellant Harendra Nath Sarma carried an iron rod in his hand. They all chased Shashi Mohan. Shashi Mohan ran towards his brother Gopi N...
Tag this Judgment!