Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1158; 1978CriLJ1097; (1978)3SCC149
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated September 21, 1973, dismissing the appeal of all the ten appellants against their conviction for offences under Section 148 and Section 302/149. I.P.C. on two counts, for the murder of Gurbax Singh and his wife Smt. Pal Kaur, and under Section 307/149, I.P.C. on two counts for inflicting gun shot injuries on Chanan Singh (P.W. 4) and Harvinder Kaur (P.W. 14). The appellants have been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment including the sentence for imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offences under Section 302/149, I.P.C.2. The deceased Gurbax Singh and his wife Smt. Pal Kaur used to live in their house in village Ayalki, at a distance of some 5 miles from police station Fatehabad in the Hussar district. Smt. Pal Kaur's father Chanan Singh (P.W. 4) also used to live with them. He and Gurbax Singh had licensed guns of their own, and so als...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1409; (1978)4SCC159; 1978(10)LC332(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J. 1. On August 15, 1958 the State of West Bengal requisitioned Block 'N' in a three storied building situated at No. 153/3, Upper Circular Road, Calcutta. The Block was allotted to the appellant's brother but on his transfer from Calcutta, it was allotted to the appellant in April 1, 1965. Respondent 1, Suraiya Properties Private Ltd., who are the owners of the building, thereupon filed a suit to challenge the requisition and allotment. That suit having been dismissed in May, 1965, they tiled a writ Petition to challenge the validity of the requisition. By a judgment dated July 17, 1973 a learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court upheld the order of requisition but quashed the order of allotment in favour of thr appellant. On the very next day, that is, on July 18, 1973 the appellant applied for a certified copy of the judgment. Hi obtained the certified copy on May 31, 1975 and filed Letters Patent Appeal 164 of 1975 against the judgment of the single Judge ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC944; (1978)2SCC461; [1978]3SCR509
1. The Supreme Court is more than a Court of appeal. It exercises power only when there is supreme need. It is not the fifth court of appeal but the final court of the nation. Therefore, even if legal flaws may be electronically detected, we cannot interfere sans manifest injustice or substantial question of public importance. By this token, the petitioner has missed the bus. Dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC921; 1978CriLJ917; 1978MhLJ579(SC); (1978)2SCC630; [1978]3SCR497
1. An Advocate, the appellant in this appeal Under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, by a Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court for committing criminal contempt by scandalising or tending to scandalise, or lowering or tending to lower the authority of the Court of Additional District Magistrate (J), Umaria, then presided over by Shri A. N. Thakur, by publishing a pamphlet on 1st January 1974 commenting upon a judgment rendered by Shri Thakur in a criminal case of which he had taken cognizance on a challan filed by the police upon a report made by one Lal Chand against Betai Lal and his servant Abdul Majid. The High Court took cognizance of the criminal contempt alleged to have been committed by the appellant upon a reference made to it by the Presiding Officer of the Court of Additional District Magistrate (J) Under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1019; 1978CriLJ778; (1978)2SCC165; [1978]3SCR493; 1978(10)LC301(SC)
1. The petitioner appears in person and seeks permission to be represented by another person, who is not an advocate, falling within, the definition in Section 2(a) of the Advocates Act, 1961. On an earlier occasion Sri R. K. Jain, Advocate of this Court was requested to act as amicus curiae since the petitioner represented that he could not engage counsel. However, Sri Jain, for reasons which we need not go into here, has been discharged from the brief at his request. The short question that I have to decide here is whether a person who is not an advocate by profession, can be permitted to plead on behalf of the petitioner 2. Advocates are entitled as of right to practise in this Court (Section 30(i) of the Advocates Act, 1961). But, this privilege cannot be claimed as of right by any one else. While it is true that Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees the freedom to practise any profession, it is open to the State to make a law imposing, in the interest of the general public, re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1980Supp(1)SCC777; 1978(10)LC373(SC)
Jaswant Singh, J. 1. This appeal by special leave which is directed against the judgment and older dated November 17, 1976 of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in S.A. No. 886 of 1975 raises a very Interesting question of law via. whether a lessee of land taken by him for building a house can for his own benefit acquire an easement of way or of flow of water over other land of his lessor. Though this question seems to have arisen a number of times in different High Court of India, it is a question of first impression so far as this Court is concerned as it was left open in Chapsibhai Dhamjibhai Damed Purusbottam : [1971]1SCR335 .2. For a proper determination of this question, it is necessary to refer a few provisions of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 (Act V of 1882)(hereinafter called 'the Act').3. Section 4 of the Act defines 'Easement' as a right which the owner or occupier of certain land possesses, as such, for the beneficial enjoyment of that land, to do and continue to do...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1011; 1978CriLJ769; (1978)2SCC184; [1978]3SCR488; 1978(10)LC308(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 21st October, 1975 by which the High Court set aside the order of the Magistrate discharging the appellant and directed his commitment to the Court of Session.2. The facts of the case have been detailed in the judgment of the High Court and that of the trial Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same all over again. It will be enough to say that the complainant Pratap Bhanu Prakash Singh purchased 27.000 shares of Rohtas Industries which were entrusted to the appellant against a loan of Rs. 1.82 lacs advanced by the appellant. Accordingly, the allegation was made in the complaint that the appellant committed a breach of trust of the amount covered by the shares by selling them against the express directions of the complainant. The allegations were denied by the appellant who put forward a plea that there was no entrustment and that the shares were placed in the hands of the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1137; [1978(36)FLR333]; 1978LabIC848; (1978)IILLJ11SC; (1978)2SCC188; [1978]3SCR473; 1978(10)LC334(SC)
1. A free press can summon its flaming vigour only if its journalistic and non-journalistic wings go into full swing with courage and contentment to make the printed end product that issues daily from the machine, so that the office of education and information the Fourth Estate must perform does not suffer. The community itself has vital concern in the working conditions of the dual human groups whose invisible work is crystallised daily and moved into mass circulation. In a democracy, news media and the men behind have a special value. Therefore, a few legislative and non-legislative measures have taken care of the working conditions of the journalists and the non-journalists. We are concerned here with non-journalists and that portion of an award which has conferred standardised gratuity benefit on them.2. The importance of the enthusiasm, integrity and thoroughness of the silent army, which speaks daily in every issue of a newspaper, once underscored, the necessity for a square eco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC979; 1978(26)BLJR225; 1978LabIC709; (1978)IILLJ17SC; (1978)2SCC175; [1978]3SCR482; 1978(10)LC329(SC)
1. The correct interpretation of Section 9 of the Coking Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, 1972, (for short, the Act), read along with Section 17 settles the fate of this appeal by special leave. We may start off by narrating a few admitted facts sufficient to bring out the legal controversy which demands resolution.2. The subject matter of the appeal is an industrial dispute. The management of the New Dharmaband Colliery dismissed 40 workmen in October, 1969, and an industrial dispute sprung up and reference followed in October, 1970. The Industrial Tribunal held an elaborate enquiry into the dispute and made an award on July 1, 1972.3. In the meanwhile, the Colliery was nationalised with effect from May 1, 1972, as provided for in the Act. The New Dharmaband Colliery vested in the Central Government and thereafter in the Bharat Coking Coal Company Ltd. Apparently by order of the Tribunal dated 24th March, 1972, the successor Company namely, the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (the respondent) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC845; 1978(26)BLJR229; (1978)3SCC30; [1978]3SCR467; 1978(10)LC281(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave, is directed against a judgment, dated March 20, 1967, of the High Court of Judicature at Patna. it arises from these circumstances :2. The defendant respondent purchased 3/16 share for Rs. 2,250/. in the suit premises by a sale deed, dated March 25, 1957. Before this sale, the respondent was already in occupation of the premises as a tenant paying a monthly rent of Rs. 53/-, inclusive of water-tax, to the then proprietor.3. The plaintiffs-appellants, who, at the material time, were members of a joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara Law, purchased the remaining 13/16 share in the suit premises for Rs. 9,000/- by a sale deed, dated April 27, 1957. They already owned and possessed a parcel of land adjacent to the suit premises and they intended to open a market there after amalgamating the same with their share in the suit premises. They asked the respondent to partition and separate their share. The respondent did not agree. Therefore, on August 8, 19...
Tag this Judgment!