Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC419; [1978(36)FLR92]; (1978)GLR278; (1978)0GLR78; 1978LabIC515; (1978)ILLJ170SC; (1978)1SCC235; [1978]2SCR466; 1978(10)LC36(SC)
Goswami, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat, of October 8, 1976. Although it is a composite award disposing of two references by the State Government, we are concerned in this appeal with Reference (IT) No. 11 of 1975 as per the State Government notification of January 21, 1975 and even out of the two questions referred to therein only with regard to one of these regarding dearness allowance.2. The relevant issue which arises for consideration in this appeal may be quoted below :All workmen should be paid dearness allowance at the rate of 100% dearness allowance paid to the workers of the Cotton Textile Mills at Ahmedabad.3. Before we advert to the submission of Mr. H.R. Gokhale, appearing on behalf of the appellant, it will be appropriate to indicate that there is no dispute about granting of dearness allowance of the pattern of what is known as the Ahmedabad Textile D.A. The question to be determined by the Tribunal was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC422; 1978CriLJ496; (1978)1SCC226; [1978]2SCR419
ORDERBeg, C.J.1. This review application seems quite unnecessary. Since, however, learned Counsel for the petitioners have earnestly tried to impress upon us that, unless we mentioned the correct principles on which jurisdiction is to be exercised under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code by Magistrates, they may continue to exercise them on wrong principles, we may clear up these possibly imaginary difficulties. We find it hard to believe that Magistrates will deliberately shut their eyes to the requirements of law as laid down clearly in Section 144, Cr. P.C., but, as what is not easily conceivable sometimes does happen, we will explain the provisions of Section 144 Criminal Procedure Code a little.2. This provision confers a jurisdiction to 'direct any person to abstain from a certain act or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management' with the object, inter alia, of preventing 'a disturbance of the public tranquility, or a riot, or a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1978)7CTR(SC)0089B
Chandrachud, J. (In agreement with Bhagwati, Krishna Iyer, Untwalia, Fazal Ali & Kailasam, JJ.) - These appeals have been placed for bearing before a seven-Judge Bench in order to set at rest, to the extent foreseeable, the controversy whether what is conveniently, though somewhat namely called a 'compulsory sale' is exigible to Sales-tax. When essential goods are in short supply, various types of Orders are issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, with a view to making the goods available to the consumer at a fair price. Such orders sometimes provide that a person in need of an essential commodity like cement, cotton, coal or iron and steel must apply to the prescribed authority for a permit for obtaining the commodity. Those wanting to engage in the business of supplying the commodity are also required to possess a dealers licence. The permit-holder can obtain the supply of goods, to the extent of the quantity specified in the permit, from the named dealer only and at contro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC424; 1978CriLJ489; (1978)0GLR268; (1978)1SCC228; [1978]2SCR471
Goswami, J.1. Deceased Minakshi is the wife of the accused Umbedbhai Jadavbhai, who is the appellant in this appeal under Section 2(a) of the Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction (Act 28), Act 1970 against the judgment and order of the Gujarat High Court. He was acquitted by the Sessions Judge, but on appeal by the State, the High Court convicted him, under Section 302 I.P.C. for murder of his wife and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Minakshi was a young girl of 20 years and was married to the accused on June 30, 1972. On the very day of marriage, she came to the house of the accused and returned to her parents' house at Umalla after about 5 or 7 days. She was sent back to Panolkampa to the house of the parents' in law on or about October 14, 1972. From Panolkampa, she came to the house of the accused at Zadeshwar on 19-11-72 and she was to leave for Umalla, her parents' place on 21-11-72.2. On the night between 20th and 21st November, 1972 at about 3.30 A.M., the nei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC449; (1978)1SCC520; [1978]2SCR433; [1978]42STC31(SC)
Beg, C.J.1. I am in general agreement with my learned brother Chandrachud who has discussed all the authorities so admirably and comprehensively. I, however, would like to add a few observations stating the general conclusion, as I see it. emerging from an application of general principles and accumulation of case law on the subject of what may be called 'statutory' or 'compulsory' sales. Are they sales at all so as to be exigible to sales tax or purchase tax under the relevant statutory provisions 2. The term 'sale' is defined as follows in Eenjamin on Sale (Eighth Edn.) :To constitute a valid sale there must be a concurrence of the following elements, namely :-(1) parties competent to contract; (2) mutual assent; (3) a thing, the absolute or general property in which istransferred from the seller to the buyer; and(4) a price in money paid or promised.3. It is true that a considerable part of the field over which what are called 'sales' take place under either regulatory orders or lev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC375; [1978]48CompCas312(SC); (1977)1SCC215; [1978]2SCR422; 1978(10)LC43(SC)
Desai, J.1. This miscellaneous petition by interveners raises a short but interesting question in the field of Company Law.2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the present miscellaneous petition are that Company Petition No. 85 of 1975 was filed by Jairam Das Gupta and others (for short 'Gupta Group') in the Calcutta High Court under Sections 397-398 of the Companies Act, 1956, complaining of oppression by the majority, and praying for various reliefs. Respondents in this petition were Cosmosteels Private Limited (for short 'the Company') and three others who would be referred to in this judgment as 'Jain Group'. By an order made by the Company Judge on 21st April 1977 the Board of Directors of the Company was superseded and one Mr. Sachin Sinha, Advocate, was appointed as Administrator to discharge various functions set out in the order. The Court also appointed Mr. N. Chakraborty, a Chartered Accountant and Auditor to investigate into the accounts of the Company and one Mr. A. K. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC434; 1978CriLJ507; (1978)1SCC596; [1978]2SCR479
Tulzapurkar, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court dated September 30, 1974, convicting the appellant-accused for offences under Section 471 read with Section 467, Sections 408 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to one day's imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 408 with no separate sentence for the offences under Section 471 read with Section 467 and Section 477A I.P.C.2. The prosecution case against the appellant-accused may briefly be stated thus : There is a Rosary Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. in a suburb of Bombay. It owns a building having 48 flats of which 23 flats belong to the well-known Tata concerns. Sir Dorabji Tata Trust holds 3 flats out of these 23 flats. It appears that in view of the large number of flats held by the Tatas they wanted to have a representation on the managing committee of the society and parti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC480; 1978CriLJ641; (1978)1SCC208; [1978]2SCR403
ORDERKrishna Iyer, J.1. Leave is granted on the question of sentence only.2. This is a case where the accused have been acquitted of counterfeiting but have been convicted of possession of materials for counterfeiting. It makes little difference from the point of view of guilt and injury to society. The trial court awarded a sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and that has been affirmed by the High Court. We think' that health and prolonged incarceration may sometimes be self-defeating. The most hurtful part of imprisonment is the initial stage when a person is confined in prison. Thereafter he gets sufficiently hardened and callous with the result that by the time he is processed through the years inside the prison he 'becomes more dehumanised. The whole goal of punishment being curative is thereby defeated. The, accent must therefore be more and more on rehabilitation, rather than retributive punitivity inside the prison. In this context, it is helpful to remember items 58 & 5...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC383; 1978CriLJ481; (1978)2SCC382; 1978(10)LC123(SC)
P.N. Shighal, J. 1. petition for special leave to appeal to this Court was filed Baidyanath Ghosh, Dharam Ghosh and Nitya Sen against the 'appellate judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated March 3, 1975, upholding their conviction for an offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. When the matter came up before this Court on December 13, 1976, special leave was granted only to the appellant Nitya Sen and the petition in so far as at it related to Baidyanath Ghosh and Dharam Ghosh, was dismissed. We have therefore heard argument of the counsel for the appellant.2. It is not in dispute that Chintamoni Ghosh and appellant Nitya Sen belonged to the same village Chintamoni Ghosh was serving in the Thermal Power Plant at Tribeni in the Hooghly district. He used to come to his village Dadupur (within the jurisdiction of police station Nakaspara) on every Saturday, to meet his mother, wife and brothers. It is alleged that when he came to his house ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC297; 1978CriLJ159; (1978)1SCC161; [1978]2SCR401; 1978(10)LC118(SC)
ORDERfazal Ali , J.1. In support of the rule Mr. Jethmalani submitted; a short point before us. It was argued that the representation filed by the detenu through his counsel has not been considered by the Government at all. The High Court was of the view that the aforesaid representation was not given by the detenu himself but by Mr. Jethmalani in his capacity as a member of the Parliament. The representation has been placed before us and it clearly recites that Mr. Jethmalani acted not as a member of the Parliament but on instructions from his client, namely, the detenu. In the circumstances, therefore, the High Court was in error in construing the representation made by the petitioner as being made not by him but by his counsel. It is manifest that the counsel had no personal matter and he was only advocating the cause of his client. In matters where the liberty of the subject is concerned and a highly cherished right is involved, the representations made by the detenu should be cons...
Tag this Judgment!