Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1800; 1977CriLJ1446; (1977)4SCC601D; 1977(9)LC359(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. The evidence of Rakhpal Singh (P.W. 2) is by itself sufficient to prove the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code for which the appellants have been convicted. We are unable to accept Mr. Mookherjee's submission that the appellants can, at the highest, be held guilty under Section 304 Part II of the Penal Code. In view of the evidence of Dr. Beant Kaur (P.W. 1) that the injuries found on the person of the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, we have no doubt that the appellants have been rightly convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 Penal Code. The appeal is accordingly dismissed and the judgment of the High Court is confirmed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1694; (1977)2SCC501; [1977]3SCR400; 1977(9)LC349(SC)
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant in the suit on a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir under Article 133 of the Constitution.2. The respondent, Ishroo Devi, filed a suit for a decree for possession of all the three items of property mentioned in the plaint and for future mesne profits. It was alleged that the three items of property mentioned in the plaint were the self-acquired properties of one Purohit Mani Ram. He executed a will on 25th May, 1959, out of his own free will in favour of the respondent. The original will was attached to the plaint. Purohit Mani Ram died on 24th March, 1960, at Jammu and the respondent claimed to be the sole owner of the properties.3. The first appellant is the son, the second appellant is the wife and the third appellant is the grand daughter of Purohit Mani Ram. In the plaint it is alleged that the first appellant after the death of Purohit Mani Ram got rent deed executed in his favour and a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1815; (1977)3SCC225; 1977(9)LC347(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. The facts are similar in these two appeals on certificate from a common judgment of the Gujarat High Court disposing of two letters patent appeals. Respondents 1 and 2 in C. A. 2283 and the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents in G. A. 2284 were forest contractOrs. The said respondents in C. A. 2283 acquired from the jagirdars of village Jinjarvani in Ghhotaudepur Taluka in District Baroda the right to cut certain trees standing on 32 survey numbers and also on survey No. 200 by two documents executed on April 25, 1954 by the jagirdars. The predecessor of the respondents in G. A. 2284 obtained a similar right in respect of certain trees in 80 survey numbers situated in village Sanada in the same taluka and district the transaction in this case is evidenced by two documents dated May 25, 1953 and June 25, 1954. Respondents 1 and 2 in C. A. 2283 instituted a suit in the court of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baroda, on October 16, 1954 for a declaration o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1870; (1977)4SCC601C; 1977(9)LC338(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. In view of Section 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the appellants cannot obtain a decree for possession of the suit Properties, those properties having vested in the State Government on January 1, 1956. Mr. Desai has, therefore, not been able to challenge the decree passed by the High Court dismissing the appellant's suit for possession. Mr. Desai has also not been able to press his claim for past mesne profits in view of the concurrent finding on that question against him. He, however, argues that the appellants are entitled to mesne profits from January 25, 1952 when the suit was filed until January 1, 1956, the date of vesting. Since the respondents were wrongfully in possession of the suit properties during this period, we are of the opinion that the appellants are entitled to a decree for mesne profits limited to that period.2. We therefore, confirm the judgment dated May 7, 1965 passed by the High Court in the letters Patent Appeal, with the modifica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1979; 1977CriLJ1574; (1977)2SCC584; 1977(9)UJ355(SC)
1. The appellant was dismissed from service by an order of the Court Martial dated May 17,1966. He filed an appeal from that order to the Chief of Army Staff, who by his order dated December 21, 1966 set aside the order of dismissal and substituted in its place an order of discharge with retrospective effect from July 11, 1966. Four years thereafter, the appellant filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court on September 22, 1970 which was dismissed in limine by the High Court on November 25, 1970. This appeal by special leave is directed against that order.2. The writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court shows that various ill conceived remedies were adopted by him after the Chief of Army Staff passed the order dated December 21, 1966. In December 1968, which it self was two years later, the appellant filed a writ petition in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution which he withdrew on March 19, 1969. In May, 1969 he filed another writ petition under Article 32 w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1485; 1977CriLJ1121; (1977)2SCC485; [1977]3SCR393; 1977(9)LC436(SC)
P.K. Goswami, J.1. The short question in this appeal by special leave is whether a person sentenced to imprisonment for life and later released by the Government by remission of the sentence under Section 401, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, continues to 'being under sentence of imprisonment for life' for the purpose of Section 303, Indian Penal Code. 2. The appellant had earlier been convicted on July 26, 1961, by the High Court of Mysore under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life in an appeal by the State against his acquittal. 3. The earlier murder was on December 3, 1959. The State Government in exercise of its power under Section 401 Cr.P.C. conditionally remitted his sentence on February 8, 1972. Thus he was conditionally released from Jail on February 8, 1972. Tragically enough, on January 27, 1973, the appellant got himself involved in the presents murder charge even before the expiry of the first year of the release. He was convicted under Section 302 and S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1509; [1977(34)FLR296]; (1977)IILLJ13SC; (1977)2SCC728; [1977]3SCR389; 1977(1)SLJ412(SC); 1977(9)LC335(SC)
M.H. Beg, C.J.1. The petitioner alleges infringement of his rights under Articles 16(1) and 31(1) of the Constitution. He joined the service of the erstwhile Transport Department of the State of Kerala as a Cleaner in the Mechanical Wing in 1949. He was promoted to the post of Helper and then Assistant Mechanic. On the 15th March, 1965, the Kerala State Transport Corporation was set up under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') so that he became a servant of the Corporation. He alleges that, as the Kerala State is administering the Corporation and appoints its Chairman and Members Under Section 5 of the Act, he is entitled to the protection given by the State is to its servants. According to him, the Corporation is really an arm or an agent of the State. We need not, however, consider the correctness of this proposition as the petitioner has not, in our opinion, succeeded in showing how any of his rights under Article 16(1) of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1735; (1977)2SCC745; [1977]3SCR372
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. This is an appeal by certificate under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution granted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The appellants filed a claim for compensation of a sum of rupees one lakh under Section 110 of he Motor Vehicles Act before the Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur. The first claimant is the wife and the claimants 2 to 8 are the children of one Purshottam Tulsidas Udeshi who met with his death in a motor car accident on 18-12-1960 when he was travelling in the car which was driven by Madhav-jibhai Mathuradas Ved, the Manager of the first opponent company, M/s. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. Private Ltd., in a rash and negligent manner near a village called Chin-choli-Vad which was 16 miles from Saoner. The car which was a Hindustan Ambassador Saloon was insured with second opponent, Union Fire Accident and General Insurance Co. Ltd. The deceased was aged 58 years at the time of his death and according to the petitioners was earning annually about Rs. 9,00...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1494; (1977)79PLR490; (1977)2SCC499; [1977]3SCR369; 1977(9)LC345(SC)
M.H. Beg, C.J.1. This appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution is directed against a very detailed judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on a Writ Petition No. 1875 of 1965 filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution, assailing an order of the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, passed on 8 June, 1965. A perusal of that order, together with the earlier order of 4 May, 1965 and the application for restoration dated 15 May, 1965, filed by Gurdev Singh, respondent No. 3, shows; Gurdev Singh, who had some complaint against the Consolidation Scheme, was not present so that petition was ordered to be filed by the Additional Director, Consolidation on 4 May, 1965. Gurdev Singh, soon therefore, i.e. on 15 May, 1965, filed an application for restoration supported by an affidavit, attributing his absence on 4 May, 1965 to his illness. The order dated 8 June, 1965 of the Additional Director, shows that the applicant Gurdev Singh's assertion that he could not attend d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC30; (1977)3SCC530
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. The appellants brought in the court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Begusarai a suit against the respondents and others for a declaration of their title in regard to certain property situated in the village of Matihani and for possession thereof. They also asked for manse profits for the years 1357 fasli to 1360 fasli and for future manse profits. The trial court decreed the suit. Under the decree, the appellants became entitled as owners of the suit property to recover possession thereof from the respondents and for manse profits from the year 1357 fasli until recovery of possession. In an appeal filed by the respondents, the High Court dismissed the suit on the ground, firstly, that the appellants were not entitled to recover possession of the suit property by reason of the provisions contained in Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act XXX of 1950, and secondly, that the suit was barred by limitation by virtue of Article 3 of Schedule III of t...
Tag this Judgment!