Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1279; 1979CriLJ870; 1979LabIC222; (1979)3SCC572
Jaswant Singh, J.1. At the hearing of this appeal by special leave against the judgment and order dated October 5/6, 1972 of the High Court of Bombay upholding the conviction of the appellant under three counts viz. under Section 135(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 126-P (2)(ii) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 and the substantive sentence of 9 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 on each of the said three counts, Mr. Porus Mehta appearing in support of the appeal has not assailed, and we think rightly so, the legality of the convictions of the appellant. He has merely urged that in the totality of the circumstances of the case including the fact that the appellant was merely a servant, the substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded to him are harsh and should be reduced to the period already undergone by him, Although we are unable to accede wholly to the submission of Mr. Mehta in view of the provisions of Rule 126-P(2)(iv) of the Defence of India ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC731; (1979)3SCC598; 1978(10)LC904(SC)
P.S. Kailasam, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by Gurdev Singh, unsuccessful candidate in election to the Punjab Assembly from Shauntrana reserve constituency which was held in 1977 under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 against the judgment of the Punjab High Court dismissing the election petition.2. The election to the Punjab Assembly from the Shauntrana reserve constituency was held in June, 1977. The polling took place on 12.6.1977. The appellant Gurdev Singh secured 22422 votes and the returned candidate Beldev Singh, the respondent, secured 22557 votes getting a majority of 137 votes and was declared elected. The election was challenged mainly on the ground that the respondent hired vehicles for carrying voters from their respective villages to the polling booths for casting their votes which is a corrupt practice, under Section 123(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The other grounds on which the election was challenged were that the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC2123; (1979)4SCC493; 1979(11)LC230(SC)
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in C.R.P. No. 459 of 1967 dated 7th November, 1963. The landlord is the Church of Christ, the King, by its Paris Prient in Coimbatore applied for eviction of the tenant, the appellant herein. The tenant occupied the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 165/- . The tenancy agreement was for a period of 5 years. The respondent-Church issued a notice Exh. A 1 on 22-4-63 calling upon the tenant to vacate the premises since the Church wanted to demolish and reconstruct the existing building. Ultimately; the Church filed R.C.O.P. No. 232 of 1953 under Section 14(1)(b) of the Madras Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The petition was contested and the Rent Controller held that the plea of the Church that the premises was required for demolition and reconstruction was not bonafide and dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Court o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1347; 1979CriLJ1031; 1980Supp(1)SCC400
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. Tehal Singh was convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code on three counts and sentenced to death by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot. His brothers Darshan Singh and Gurmal Singh were convicted under Section 502 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Bhal Singh was also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for three years. The convictions and sentences were confirmed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Tehal Singh, Darshan Singh and Gurmel Singh have appealed to this Court by special leave. Chiman Lal and Murari Lal who were also tried with the three appellants for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, There was no appeal to the High Court against their acquittal.2. The brief case of the prosecution was as follows: There was some rivalry between Chiman Lal and Murari Lal who ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1979)3SCC631; 1978(10)LC901(SC)
P.S. Kailasam, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by special leave by the Union of India against the judgment and order of the Calcutta High Court dated 31st July, 1968. The Union of India called for tenders for the construction of a bridge on Imphal River in the State of Manipur. The respondent submitted his tender and the tender was accepted by the appellant at Manipur on 20.2.65. On 11.3 65, a formal agreement was entered into in writing between the parties. On behalf of the President of India, the Executive Engineer, Hydro Electric & Bridges Project Division, Executed the agreement. The deed of agreement contained on arbitration clause which provided that ''except where otherwise provided in the contract, all questions and disputes arising out of or relating to the contract shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the persons appointed by the President of India with such designation only as he may specify for Manipur Territory and if he is unwilling to act, to the sole arbitration ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC472; (1979)1SCC236; [1979]2SCR183; 1979(11)LC41(SC)
Jaswant Singh, J.1. These two cross appeals by certificates of fitness granted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur are directed against the judgment and decree dated December 1, 1961 of the said High Court dismissing the Misc. (First) Appeal No. 42 of 1959 preferred by the appellant from the Award dated December 20, 1958 of the II Additional District Judge, Raigarh in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 59 of 1958 being a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, made at the instance of the appellant in respect of the Award dated August 23, 1957 of the Land Acquisition Officer, Raigarh.2. The facts giving rise to these appeals are : On an undertaking given by him to pay full compensation with interest from the date of possession to the date of payment of compensation as provided in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the District Engineer, South Eastern Railway, Raigarh, took advance possession on January 17, 1957 of five plots of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC882; (1979)4SCC111; 1978(10)LC862(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. Exordially speaking, the point for decision is short but its legal import and human portent are deep, sounding in constitutional values and meriting incisive examination. Where the question wears a simple look but its answer strikes at life and liberty we must proceed on the inarticulate major premise of human law as the solemn delivery system of human justice. In formal terms, the problem to be resolved is the vires of Order XXI, Rule 15(1)(c) of the Supreme Court Rules (the Rules, for short), but in juristic terms it turns on the inflexible stages as against its facultative facets of an appellate hearing when it is a first appeal against a death sentence or life imprisonment. More particularly, is an appeal to the Supreme Court falling within the scope of Article 134(1) or the enlarged jurisdiction permitted by Article 134(2) liable to shorthand hearing and peril of summary dismissal Brevi manu, the appellant urges that Article 134 of the Constitution compels ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1303; (1979)2SCC586; [1979]2SCR175; 1978(10)LC940(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This is an appeal by certificate against a judgment, dated July 28, 1967, passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Special Appeal 352 of 1967. It arises out of these facts :2. Jai Dutt, appellant, was in possession of public land bearing Survey Nos. 230, 131A and 131B, with an aggregate area of 80 Bighas and 19 Biswas in the area of village Guljarpur Purramsingh, Tehsil Kalachungi, Distt. Nainital. The Public Authority, Nainital served a show cause notice, dated August 26, 1963, under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Land (Eviction and Recovery of Rent and Damages) Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the Eviction Act) on the appellant for his eviction from this land on the ground that he was in its unauthorised occupation. The appellant contested the notice on the ground that he was in its possession for more than 12 years and had acquired the rights of a hereditary tenant in the land under Section 180(2) of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 (for short, called the Tenancy Act). On these...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC729; 1979LabIC476; (1979)3SCC475; 1978(10)LC796(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. 1. The appellant Amar Chand who held a degree of 'Ayurvedic Bhishak' of the All India Ayurvedic Vidyapeeth, Delhi, was appointed as Up Veidya in the Punjab Ayurvedic Department on March 3, 1961. On the reorganisation of the erstwhile composite State of Punjab he was allotted to the State of Punjab on 1st November, 1966. In April, 1972 he obtained the degree of Ayurveda Ratan of the Hindi Sahitya Samellan, Prayag. He claims that though he was eligible to be promoted to Vaidya he was not so promoted while a number of persons who held similar qualifications were promoted in the years 1970, 1971 and 1972, to the post of Vaidyam against the 50% quota reserved for appointment by promotion. In June, 1972, it was alleged by the appellant, the Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act was amended and a notification was also issued under the Punjab Ayurvedic Department (Class III-Technical) Service Rules, 1963, the effect of which was to deny to the appellant the right ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC246; (1979)1SCC303; [1979]2SCR169; 1979(11)LC49(SC)
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. These appeals by special leave arise out of a common judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated October 10, 1968, by which the suits which were filed by the present appellants were dismissed in pursuance of the earlier judgment of the same court dated November 9, 1964, on the ground that they were governed by Section 179(2) of the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and were barred by limitation.2. The facts giving rise to the appeals were different in details, but they were examined in the High Court with reference to the common questions of law which arose in all of them and formed the basis of that Court's decision against the plaintiffs. We have heard these as companion appeals, and will decide them by a common judgment.3. It is not necessary to give the detailed facts of all the cases as it will be enough to refer to the suit which was filed by M/s. Surajmal Banshidhar and the developments connected with it, in order to ...
Tag this Judgment!