Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC411; 1978CriLJ494; (1978)2SCC462; [1978]2SCR397; 1978(10)LC132(SC)
fazal Ali , J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Patna High Court dated 29-11-1971 by which the High Court has quashed an order of the magistrate, directing the respondent to be evicted from the railway premises. The appeal arises in the following circumstances :The respondent was a contractor employed by the railway for supplying food in the refreshment room at Kishanganj station. The last agreement signed with the contractor is dated 10-7-1967, which expired on 10-7-1970. Thereafter, a notice was given by the railway administration to the respondent for vacating the premises, and as he failed to do so, a complaint under Section 138 of the Indian Railways Act was filed by the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent N.F. Railway to the Sub-divisional magistrate for passing an order in terms of Section 138 of the Railways Act. The magistrate accepted the application and directed the eviction of the respondent. 2. The respondent thereupon filed a writ ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC202; [1978(36)FLR82]; (1978)0GLR259; 1978LabIC1; (1978)ILLJ174SC; (1978)1SCC162; [1978]2SCR387; 1978(10)LC13(SC)
Jaswant Singh, J.1. This appeal by special leave which is directed against the order dated November 16,1976 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad summarily dismissing Special Civil Application No. 1845 of 1976 filed by the appellant and another under Article 227 of the Constitution raises an interesting question regarding the right of individual employees to appear or act in a proceeding under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (Bombay Act No. XI of 1947) (herein- j after referred to as 'the Act') where a representative union has entered appearance as the representative of the employees.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are :Respondent No. 1 herein viz. The Kimatrai Printers and Processors Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedahad is an undertaking in the Textile Processing Industry which was recognised as such vide Notification No. KH-SHMC/ ] 2724/RU dated September 13, 1974 issued by the Assistant Registrar, Bombay Industrial Relations Act in exercise of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC386; [1978(36)FLR106]; (1978)ILLJ212SC; (1978)2SCC349; 1978(1)SLJ576(SC); 1978(10)LC40(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. On August 26, 1938 the appellant was appointed as a clerk by the Divisional Superintendent, East Indian Railway and was confirmed in that post on August 26, 1939. On May 13, 1948 while he was working in the grade of Senior Clerk in the Establishment (personnel) Branch, his name was put on a panel which was prepared for considering promotions to Selection Posts and Grade I Clerks for the Personnel Branch of the Divisional Superintendent's Lucknow. The appellant officiated twice in the Selection Posts of Grade I. On July 13, 1948, he was again put on a panel for being considered for promotion to the post of Grade I Clerk in the same 'group' of the service as controlled by the Headquarters Office.2. During the course of the Selection proceedings in 1948 a complaint was made against the appellant that he had drawn ration on the ration cards of porters who had already been discharged from service. A preliminary enquiry was held by the Railway Authorities into that com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC191; 1978CriLJ141; (1978)1SCC178
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. This appeal by special leave has, been preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dated October 3i, 1973, in Confirmation Reference No. 25 of 1978 and Criminal Appeal No. 634 of 1973, acquitting respondents 1 to 5 in respect of the offences said to have been committed by them under Sections 147, 148, 379, 302 and 302 read with 149 of the I.P.C.2. The prosecution case as revealed toy the evidence led at, the trial may briefly be stated as follows:The deceased Uma Shanker and his father Mannu Lal (P.W. 1) as also all the five respondent-accused have been the residents of village Karmar, P.S. Oral. The deceased Uma Shanker, his father Mannu Lal (P.W. 1) and respondent-accused Ram Gopal (original accused No. (sic) used to practise the profession of Purohit in villages Karmer, Bambori and surrounding villages. It appears that there was professional rivalry between Uma Shanker and Mannu Lal on the one hand and Ham...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC413; (1978)3SCC539; [1978]2SCR380
ORDER1. Delay condoned and special leave granted on a point raised by the appellant under the proviso to the Explanation to Section 11(1)(h) of the Jammu and Kashmir Souses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 (for short the Act).2. The only ground which we consider tenable and which has been urged by the appellant before us turns on the failure of the courts of fact in. recording a finding as contemplated in the proviso to the Explanation, to Section 11(1)(h) of the Act. Obviously an error has been committed by the High Court in thinking that there is a concurrent finding of fact under the proviso, aforesaid. The. trial court and the first appellate court have really not considered this question on the merits; indeed evidence itself has not been taken on the score that there has been no specific plea in that behalf, We are satisfied that the proviso aforesaid mandates the court to. consider whether partial eviction as contemplated therein; should be ordered or the entire holding should be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC188; 1978CriLJ138; (1978)1SCC173; [1978]2SCR382; 1978(10)LC30(SC)
Goswami, J.1. These appeals by certificate are from the common judgment of the Calcutta High Court of 28th May, 1975 disposing of three Criminal Misc. Revisions Nos, 304, 318 and 371 of 1975. There is a common question of law and will be disposed of by this judgment.2. Briefly the facts are as follows :A complaint was made against the accused by Shri J. F. C. Mc. Mohan, Dock Manager, Calcutta Port Commissioners, to the South Port Police Station alleging offences under Sections 120B/420/379/ 466/468/471. I.P.C. against several accused including the respondents who happened to be public servants at the material time. The State Government issued a Notification No. 3165-J on 8-4-1970 under Section 4 of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) allotting the said case for trial to the Third Additional Special Court, Calcutta constituted under the provisions of the said Act for trial, of the offences mentioned in the schedule to that Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC333; 1978CriLJ356; (1978)1SCC210; [1978]2SCR353; 1978(10)LC27(SC)
Untwalia, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave arising out of a proceeding under Section 145 of the CrPC, 1973-hereinafter called the Code, initiated at the instance of respondent No. 1 (for brevity, hereinafter the respondent). The said respondent filed an application on the 29th July, 1975 against appellants. 1 and 2 before the Magistrate alleging that there is a Hotel known, as 'Suresh Maharashtra Tea & Cold Drinks & Eating House' on the disputed land which was owned by and in occupation of the respondent. The appellants forcibly dispossessed him from the Hotel on the 5th July 1975. The application under Section 145 was filed initially against appellants 1 and 2. But at the instance of appellant number 3 he was also subsequently joined as a party, to the proceeding.2. The Magistrate passed a preliminary order under Section 145(1) of the Code on the 29th July, 1975 asking the parties to appear before him and put in their written statements. On the same date, however, he attached t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC429; 1978CriLJ502; (1978)1SCC240; [1978]2SCR371
ORDERKrishna Iyer, J.1. 'Bail or jail ?'- at the pre-trial or post-conviction stage-belongs to the blurred area of the criminal justice System and largely hinges on the hunch of the bench, otherwise called judicial discretion. The Code is cryptic on this topic and the court prefers to be tacit, be the order custodial or not. And yet, the issue is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitized judicial process. A Chamber judge in this summit court I have to deal with this uncanalised caseflow, ad hoc response to the docket being the flickering candle light. So it is desirable that me subject is disposed of on basic principle, not improvised brevity draped or discretion. Personal liberty, deprived when bail is refused, is too precious a value of our constitutional system recognised under Article 21 that the curial power to negate it is a great trust exercisable, not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC179a; 1978CriLJ129; (1978)1SCC118; [1978]2SCR358
P.K. Goswami, J.1. These two appeals by Special Leave are directed against the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court cancelling the orders of bail of each of the appellants passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Delhi. They were all arrested in pursuance of the First Information report lodged by the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. on 10-6-1977 in what is now described as the 'Sunder Murder Case'. The report at that stage did not disclose names of accused persona and referred to the involvement of 'some Delhi Police Personnel'. Sunder was said to be a notorious dacoit who was wanted in several cases of murder and dacoity alleged to have been committed by him in Delhi and elsewhere. It is stated that by May, 1976 Sunder became a 'security risk for Mr. Sanjay Gandhi'. It appears Sunder was arrested at Jaipur on 31-8-1976 and was in police custody in Delhi between, 2nd of November, 1976 and 28th of November, 1976 under the orders of the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC851; (1978)1SCC405; [1978]2SCR272
Krishna Iyer, J.1. What troubles us in this appeal, coming before a Bench of 5 Judges on a reference under Article 145(3) of the Constitution, is not the profusion of controversial facts nor the thorny bunch of lesser law, but the possible confusion about a few constitutional fundamentals., finer administrative normae and jurisdictional limitations bearing upon elections. What are those fundamentals and limitations We will state them, after mentioning, briefly what the writ petition, from which this appeal, by special leave, has arisen, is about.The basics2. Every significant case has an unwritten legend and indelible lesson. This appeal is no exception, whatever its formal result. The message, as we will see at the end of the decision, relates to the pervasive philosophy of democratic elections which Sir Winston Churchill vivified in matchless words :At the bottom of all tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into a little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cr...
Tag this Judgment!