Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC274; 1978CriLJ186; (1978)1SCC17; [1978]2SCR270; 1977(9)LC796(SC)
Krishna Iyer, J.1. A toddy tapper, young in age and a mental? case, returning after a day-long toil with his tool, the sickle, and tense in state, was provoked by some trivias and went into tantrums and inflicted triple killings, all in one sombre sunset. This bleeding tragedy led to prosecution and conviction, appeal and confirmation, the unimpeachable offence being murder. The defence of insanity tested by the hoary rule in McNaghten's case, codified in the Indian Penal Code over hundred years ago, was rightly dismissed, the testimony of dementia falling far short of the prescription in Section 84 I.P.C. We have discovered no error in the factual finding and must therefore confirm the conviction. Indeed, leave itself was granted confined to the question of sentence. 2. The trial Judge, whose horror at the multiple homicide unsheathed the terror of death penalty, decreed capital sentence on the culprit, and the High Court, deeply disturbed by 'the brutal triple murder', set its seal o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC300; (1978)1SCC109; [1978]2SCR261; 1978(10)LC7(SC)
Kailasam, J.1. This appeal is by certificate granted by the Calcutta High Court against its judgment dated 18th May, 1967 in appeal No. 14 of 1957, upholding and affirming the judgment and decree dated 13-9-1956 in suit No. 1607 of 1938. The appellants in this appeal are defendants 12 and 13 in the suit. The suit was filed by Beharilal and his mother Ginni praying amongst other reliefs for a declaration that the respondent is entitled to 1/8th share in the assets and properties belonging to the joint family, for setting aside all conveyances and transfers and for a declaration that plaintiff is entitled to separate properties and funds of Laloolal Murarka, the father of the plaintiff and husband of second plaintiff. After written statements were filed, the plaint was amended on 6-7-1939 whereby an alternative claim for 1/8th share of the Company's property was made if it was held that there was no joint family but only a company.2. One Ram Niranjandas Murarka died on 29th October, 1930...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC306; (1978)1SCC102; [1978]2SCR254; 1977(9)LC818(SC)
1. The appellant before us by grant of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution is a partner in a firm carrying on the business of running a cinema house called 'Jai Talkies' in the town of Pilibhit in Uttar Pradesh. The municipal Board of Pilibhit passed a resolution on 11th of April, 1971, imposing a theatre tax of Rs. 25/- per show under Section 128(1)(iii-a) read with Sections 296 and 299 of the Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The resolution was duly published in a Hindi newspaper on 16. May, 1972, as required by Section 94(3) read with Section 131(1)(a) of the Act. The preliminary proposals for imposition of a tax were framed under Section 131 of the Act which reads as follows:131. Framing of preliminary proposals:-(1) Where a board desires to impose a tax, it shall, by special resolution, frame proposals specifying :-(a) the tax, being one of the taxes described in Sub-section (1) of Section 128, which it desires to impose; (b) the persons or c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC284; [1978(36)FLR159]; 1978LabIC169; (1978)ILLJ208SC; (1978)1SCC158; 1977(9)LC802(SC)
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave. The appellants are the Railway Board and some officers of the Southern Railway concerned with the passing of the impugned orders. Respondents 1 to 9 were clerks in the Southern Railway in Grade II. They were all promoted eventually to Accounts Clerks, Grade I. In the seniority list, however, respondents 3 to 9 were shown as senior to respondents 1 and 2 Hence the letter challenged the order Ext. P 4 dated the 6th of March, 1972 by filing a writ petition in the Kerala High Court. The petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge, but their appeal was allowed by the Division Bench. Hence the Railway administration has filed the present appeal. Mr. U.R. Lalit appeared for the appellants and Mr.S. Bala Krishnan contested the appeal on behalf of respondent No. 1. No other respondent appeared2. For getting promotion from Grade II to Grade I, the respondents had to pass a departmental examination known as Appendix II A Examination. In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC287; (1978)1SCC44; [1978]2SCR249; 1977(9)LC799(SC)
Kailasm, J.1. On November 8, 1977 when the hearing of the appear was concluded we pronounced an order dismissing the appeal with costs stating that a-reasoned judgment would follow. We now, proceed to give our reasons.2. This appeal by special leave is preferred by Khadi Gram Udyog Trust, the tenant against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court gassed in Civil Revision No. 2217 of 1975 directing its eviction. The respondent Shri Ram Chandraji Virajman Mandir, Sarsaiya Ghat, Kanpur, the owner of premises No. 49/4 General Ganj, Kanpur, served a notice on the appellant who was a tenant of a shop in the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- from 1958 demanding payment of arrears as well as to quit the premises. The notice was served on 9th July, 1973. Subsequently the respondent filed the suit No. O.S.5 of 1973 before the District Judge, Kanpur, restricting its claim for recovery of arrears of rent from 1-5-1973 to 8-8-1973 for Rs. 3200/-as damages and Rs. 322.93 as water tax alleged ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC368; 1978CriLJ359; (1978)1SCC142
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. This appeal is by the State of Utter Pradesh by special leave against the judgment dated April 25, 1973 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowing the Criminal Appeal filed by the respondents against their conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge Pilibhit and acquitting them of all the charges.2. The four respondents were committed to the Court of Sessions to stand their trial on charges under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, relating to the murder of three persons, Phool Singh, Mukhtar Singh and Srimati Jhabbo. on June 18, 1971. They were also charged for offences under Section 201, Indian Penal Code, for removing the dead bodies of these persons and thereby causing the disappearance of evidence and screening themselves from these offences.3. Ram Swarup Singh and Brij Raj Singh respondents 3 and 4 are brothers. They are the brothers-in-law of Lalla Singh, the first respondent. The second respondent, Bhagwan Singh, is their friend and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC389; (1978)1SCC69; [1978]2SCR219
1. I have gone through the differing judgments of my learned brethren Gupta and Kailasam. The difference arises, I find primarily from divergent interpretations of what was pleaded by the parties. What Kailasam J. considers as having been admitted in the pleadings, by implication, was assumed by Gupta J. to be the matter put in issue by pleadings of the two sides which had to be decided2. After having considered the pleadings of the parties, I am unable to agree, with great respect, with my learned brother Kailasam that this case can be decided in favour of the plaintiff on the pleadings o the parties. It is true that the defendant admits the contract under which goods were to be delivered to the defendant under delivery note to be supplied by the plaintiff for which payments were to be made by the defendant. But, that did not mean that the defendant accepted what the plaintiff alleges to be the contract between the parties with all its alleged implications. The crux of the whole matte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC312; (1978)1SCC98; 1977(9)LC771(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is by a defendant in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The property in dispute consists of two survey plotes, 2677/5782 measuring Order, 18 acres and 2677/5783 measuring Order 10 acres, the total area being Order 20 acres, in Tetanga Basti, House Sahchi, Police Station Colmuri in Pargana Dhalbhum, District Singhbhum. The suit was dismissed by the trial court, concerned by the first appellate court, and the Patna High Court on second appeal affirmed the decision of the lower appellate court decreeing the suit. The relevant facts are as follows : The fourth respondent Tata Iron and Steel Co. Limited (hereinafter referred to as TISCO) were the proprietors of the disputed plots of land which formed part of the area acquired under the Land Acquisition Act by the local government for TISCO. In 1924 these two plots of land along with other lands were leased out by TISCO to the plaintiff, the Indian Cable Co. Limited (her...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC299; (1978)1SCC66; 1977(9)LC791(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave by a tenant who lost in the High Court although he had succeeded before the Board of Revenue and the Revenue Appellate Authority. The subject matter of the litigation stems from a suit for a declaration by the plaintiff (who is the appellant before us) to the effect that he is a tenant of the lands covered by the suit. The landlord respondent is the deity of Shri. Jai Narayanji represented by the hevait. The trial court (the revenue court at the floor level) dismissed the suit. But in appeal the plaintiff appellant was held to be a khatedar tenant under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. When a Second Appeal was carried to the Board of Revenue the appellants' position as a khatedar tenant was maintained but rested on Section 15 of the Act. When the matter reached the High Court at the instance of the landlord, the decision earlier rendered by the revenue authority was reversed on grounds which we find difficult to follow ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC290; 1978CriLJ339; 1977(0)KLT981(SC); (1978)1SCC18; [1978]2SCR209
P.K. Goswami,J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala of June 13, 1977, sanctioning a complaint against the appellant along with two others, who are not before us, for an offence under Section 193 I.P.C. after making an enquiry under Section 340(1) CrPC, 1973. At the time of granting special leave this Court ordered for impleading the State of Kerala and the State is represented before us by its Advocate General who adopts the arguments of the appellant's counsel, Mr. Debabrata Mookerjee, and also addressed us in support of the appeal.2. This particular proceeding is an off-shoot out of a habeas corpus application instituted on March 25, 1977, in the High Court of Kerala by T. V. Eachara Warrier who is a retired Professor of Hindi of the Government Arts and Science College, Calicut. His son Rajan who was a final year student in the Regional Engineering College, Calicut, was a resident of the College Hostel. Shri Warrier re...
Tag this Judgment!