Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1977CriLJ833; (1977)2SCC216; [1977]3SCR78
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. These four appeals arise out of four prosecutions which were disposed of by a common judgment by the learned Presidency Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon. Bombay. The facts leading to the prosecution are not in all respects identical in the four cases but it is obvious from the judgments under consideration that the cases were heard and disposed of on the basis that the variation in the facts would not make difference to the result. The four respondents in these appeals are shopkeepers in Bombay --some run grocery shops while some deal only in oils of different varieties. The charge against the respondents is that they failed to display prices of vanaspati which they were selling, in their shops in tinned and loose form.2. Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 10 of 1955, empowers the Central Government, by order, to provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution or trade and commerce in any essential commodity for the purposes ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1059; 1977CriLJ613; (1977)2SCC205; [1977]3SCR68; 1977(9)LC276(SC)
P.K. Goswami, J. 1. The day, April 4, 1966, broke ominously for Lal Barhi (deceased) who used to tender physical training and swimming lessons to young boys. One such boy, Sabir Hanif (PW 9), aged about 18 years, went to the house of Lala Barhi (hereinafter. Lala) at Purani Bazar, in the town of Muzaffarpur. Lala was then asleep. Sabir Hanfi woke him up and they both went to the Ashram Ghat (known also as Balu Ghat) on the Bank of the Gandak river. There when Lala was cleaning his teeth and washing his face, the appellant Rajendra Prasad (hereinafter to be described as the accused) came there with four or 5 persons. It is said that the accused had some differences with Lala over some money which he had given to him to assault somebody which Lala failed to accomplish. As his companions were keeping Lala engaged in talk, the accused thrust a dagger on the back of Lala who then called Sabir Hanfi, Lala, himself a robust young man, rushed towards the accused who took to his heels with his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1120; (1977)2SCC646; [1977]3SCR75; 1977(9)LC194(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This appeal by special leave raises a short question relating in to the validity of a notice is quit given by the appellant terminating the tenancy of the respondents. The appellant, as landlord, filed a suit for eviction against the respondents as tenants, after giving a notice to quit dated 25th September, 1962.The Trial Court dismissed the suit but on appeal, the first Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the Trial Court and passed a decree of eviction against the respondents. The respondents preferred a second appeal to the High Court and the only question debated before the High Court was in regard to the validity of the notice to quit. There were two grounds on which the notice to quit was assailed as invalid. The first is immaterial since the decision of the High Court negativing it has not been challenged before us on behalf of the respondents. The second was that the notice to quit was invalid as it was not in conformity with the requirements of Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1455; (1977)3SCC588
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, leaves much to be desired in the matter of pleadings, issues and proof. Nevertheless, we are not inclined to interfere with the dismissal of the second appeal, in limine, by the High Court, challenging the decree of the First Appellate Court in affirmance of the trial Court's decree. The judgment of this Court which merely confirms the High Court's judgment can be abbreviated since elaborate reasoning and discussion are otiose. Therefore, we will be brief although we have heard arguments at great length from counsel on both sides.2. A pre-emption action was brought by the plaintiffs-respondents based on Section 4 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 which still prevails in the State of Haryana where the land in dispute is situate. Admittedly there was a registered sale deed executed by Kabul Singh, who is respondent No. 2 before us, purporting to be the absolute owner of the land. If really there was a sale, the action for pre empti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1201; (1977)2SCC662; [1977]3SCR60
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This appeal by certificate raises a short but interesting question of law relating to the interpretation and effect of the proviso to Section 3 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The dispute in this appeal relates to a shop situate on the ground floor of a building bearing Municipal No. 624-36 (Old) 530-35 (New) situate in Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The building was an evacuee property and it was acquired by the Central Government under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and formed part of the compensation pool. It was sold by public auction and the appellant being the highest bidder was accepted as the auction purchaser by the managing officer on 5th September, 1955. It does not appear from the record as to when the appellant paid the full purchase price to the managing officer but presumably he did so before 23rd September, 1955 when the sale was confirmed in his favour by the managing officer. The sale certificate was not i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1146; 1977LabIC710; (1977)IILLJ1SC; (1977)2SCC616; [1977]3SCR43
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. We pronounced our order on this appeal on 17th December, 1976 and we now proceed to give our reasons. We may point out that the respondent was not represented by a lawyer and he argued his case in person and though he is a lay man, not well versed in the science of law and in the art and skill of advocacy, we must admit that he argued his case with conspicuous ability.2. Prior to 5th September, 1969 there was only one University for the entire territory of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, namely, the University of Jammu & Kashmir. It was constituted under the Jammu & Kashmir University Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1965) and, as provided in Section 20, its central authorities included the Senate and the Central Council. The Central Council was the executive body of the University and it had the power inter alia to appoint teachers and to define their duties. The respondent was appointed as a lecturer in English by the Central Council on 25-4-1966 and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1307; 1977CriLJ817; (1977)3SCC41
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. In these appeals by-special leave the appellant Pratap Misra (hereinafter referred to as 'A-1') in Criminal Appeal No. 564 of 1976 and appellant Suresh Chandra Sahu referred to as 'A-2' and Khitish Chandra Paltasingh referred to as 'A-3' in Criminal Appeal No. 565 of 1976 have been convicted under Section 452, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year, under Section 376, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years, under Section 342 I.P.C. to rigorous imprisonment for two months, and under Section 313 I.P.C. to rigorous imprisonment for three years. Suresh Chandra Sahu A-2 was also convicted under Section 325 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The learned Sessions Judge directed the sentences to run concurrently. The appellants filed appeals against their convictions and sentences to the High Court of Orissa which affirmed the judgment of the Sessions Judge and upheld the eonvietions as also the sente...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1116; 1977CriLJ950; (1977)4SCC597d
P.N. Shingal, J.1.This appeal and criminal appeal No. 579 of 1976 were ordered to be listed for hearing together. As the respondents in criminal appeal No. 579 of 1976 do not appear to have been arrested in pursuance of the non-bailable warrants which were issued against them, and are not before this Court, we have heard the arguments only in Vidya Sagar's appeal No, 236 of 1971 and shall examine the evidence which bears on it.2. The case arose out of first information report Ex. Ka 1 lodged by Mohan Singh P.W. 1 at 6.40 p.m. , at police station Lar situated at a distance of about a mile from Lar town where the incident is alleged to have taken place at about 4 p.m. on July 6, 1988. Vinod Kumar alias Jhabar was a poor boy aged about 12 years. He lived in village Lar, where the accused also used to live. Vinod Kumar is said to have been employed by Kapil Deo, (accused), some 4 or 5 days before the incident, to work at his house. He therefore lived in his employer's house and took his me...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1210; (1977)2SCC715; [1977]3SCR38; 1977(9)LC263(SC)
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. Civil appeal No. 2070 of 1968 is by special leave by the appellants against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the appellant's petition for revising an order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Ambala City, allowing an application by the State, respondent and appointing the Arbitration Committee. The appellant entered into an agreement with the Public Works Department, Punjab State, for execution of certain construction works in August, 952. They entered into an agreement, Ex.A-1. The agreement provided an arbitration clause in the following terms; In the matter of dispute, the case shall be referred to the Settlement Committee consisting of a Superintendent Engineer, an officer of the Finance Department of the rank of at least Deputy Secretary and an Accounts Officer, all to be nominated by the Government for arbitration whose decision will be final.Disputes arose between the parties and the State of Punjab appointed a Settlement Committee by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1351; [1977(34)FLR258]; 1977LabIC884; (1977)ILLJ479SC; (1977)2SCC581; [1977]3SCR35; 1977(9)LC217(SC)
M.H. Beg, C.J.1. This appeal by special leave arises out of the proceedings initiated on 12-7-1961 by the appellant Corporation, under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming contributions from the respondents for various periods between 27-9-1959 and 31-3-1965, which they are liable to pay under Section 40 of the Act.2. It appears that the respondents employers failed to maintain the registers or records and to submit returns of wages paid as required under Section 44 of the Act. Hence, the Insurance Court, which was called upon to adjucate under Section 75(1)(c) of the Act, on the matter in dispute, found itself unable to decide the question in issue. It dismissed the application on the ground that there was no provision for deciding such a dispute on an ad hoc basis. We fail to understand what is precisely meant by 'ad hoc basis'. We find that Section 75(2) of the Act provides, inter alia, that a claim for the recovery of c...
Tag this Judgment!