Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1196; AIR1978SC1196b; [1978]113ITR307(SC); (1978)3SCC23; [1978]3SCR943; 1978(10)LC479(SC)
1. The respondent, Gosalia Shipping Private Limited, which is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act does the business of Clearing and Forwarding and as Steamship Agents. In 1970, respondent acted as the shipping agent of 'Aluminium Company of Canada, Limited' which is a non-resident company. The Aluminium Company time-chartered a ship 'M. V. Sparto' belonging to a non-resident company called Sparto Compania Naviera of Panama. The said ship called at the port of Betul, Goa, on March 1, 1970 where it loaded 13,000 long tons of bauxite belonging to the time-charterers, the Aluminium Company. On March 20, 1970 the ship left for Alfred port, Canada. The ship was allowed to leave the port of Betul on the basis of a guarantee bond executed by the respondent in favour of the President of India, undertaking to pay the income-tax payable by the time-charterers Under Section 172 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On April 15, 1970, the First Income-tax Officer, Margao, Goa, issued a dem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1283; [1978(37)FLR85]; (1978)IILLJ161SC; (1978)3SCC119; [1978]3SCR971; 1978(10)LC489(SC)
1. This appeal by certificate from the judgment and order of the Kerala High Court has been preferred by the workmen of the Cochin Port Trust. The employers are the Board of Trustees of the Cochin Port Trust, respondent No. 1 (hereinafter to be referred to as the respondent). An industrial dispute between the appellants and the respondent was referred by the Central Government to Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, respondent No. 2. The Tribunal gave an award in favour of the workmen but it has been set aside by the High Court on the application of the respondent filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. According to the Union which represented the appellant-workmen, the Traffic Department of the Port Trust is comprised of and assisted by several categories of junior executives for the day to day performance of the shift work of the Cochin Port. Out of the seventeen categories of such junior executives, the first fifteen enumerated in the award from the statemen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC44; 1979CriLJ28; (1978)3SCC391; 1978(10)LC652(SC)
P.S. Kailasam, J. 1. The first accused in Sessions Case No. 105/74 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, is the appellant in this appeal. There were 8 accused before the Sessions Judge relating to an offence that was committed on the night between 30th June, 1972 and first July, 1972 at or near the shop No. 9 in Old Market, Tilak Nagar. The appellant was found guilty of an offence under Section 302. Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to imprisonment for life. It is unnecessary to refer to the convictions and sentences passed on the other accused. The appeal by the appellant to the High Court' also failed and thus the matter is before use.2. The case of the prosecution may be briefly stated. The shop in or near which the occurrence took place is shop No. 9 in Old Market. Tilak Nagar. This shop belonged to Viran Wali (PW 32). The front portion of the' shop was let out of one Mehar Chand and in the back portion Viran Wali was residing Between the two portions there was a part...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC961; 1978CriLJ952; (1978)2SCC411; [1978]3SCR950; 1978(10)LC534(SC)
1. The respondent is arraigned as accused No. 2 in a prosecution instituted by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi. Omitting details which are not necessary for the present purpose, the case of the prosecution is as follows:2. One Shri Amrit Nahata had produced a film called 'Kissa Kursi Ka', which portrayed the story of the political doings of the respondent and his mother, Smt. Indira Gandhi, the former Prime Minister of India. The Board of Censors declined to grant a certificate for exhibition of the film whereupon, Shri Nahata filed a writ petition in this Court for a Writ of Mandamus. On October 29, 1975, a direction was given by the Court that the film be screened on November 17 to enable the Judges to see whether the censorship certificate was refused rightly. In order to prevent this Court from exercising its constitutional jurisdiction and with a view to preventing the film from being publicly exhibited, the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1380; [1978(36)FLR491]; 1978LabIC1096; (1978)IILLJ168SC; 1978MhLJ682(SC); (1978)3SCC78; [1978]3SCR1000; 1978(10)LC484(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave which is directed; against the judgment and order dated July 5, 1977 of the Bombay High Court dismissing the appellant's special civil application No. 614 of 1972 and refusing to quash the order dated April 5, 1972 of the President, Industrial Court, Maharasbtra, Bombay, whereby the latter set aside the order of the 4th Labour Court at Bombay and directed reinstatement in service of Miss M. P. Padgaonkar, respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') with full back wages on the ground that her termination of service was bad in law raises the following questions :whether the termination of service of a permanent employee of the Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Under taking on account of his unsatisfactory record of service can be regarded as punitive so as to compel the employer to hold, a disciplinary enquiry ?orwhether such termination can be effected by giving in writing to the employee the aforesaid reason for termination and one ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1263; [1979]49CompCas130(SC); (1978)3SCC399; [1978]3SCR1009; 1978(10)LC514(SC)
1. This appeal on certificate is directed against a judgment and decree, dated March 3, 1964, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. It arises out of these circumstances :2. On September 17, 1945, the respondent opened a Savings Bank Account, being No. 9001, with the appellant's predecessor, the Imperial Bank of India at its Allahabad Branch. She was introduced to the Bank by one Kapil Deo Shukla, who was an employee of the Bank, and admittedly a close neighbour of the respondent and a friend of her husband, Bhagwati Prasad.3. On November 30, 1948, the respondent made a petition in forma pauperis for the recovery of Rs. 15,547/10/- together with pendente lite and future interest from the Imperial Bank. This petition was later registered as a regular suit in 1950. The plaintiff's case, as pleaded, was as follows :4. The plaintiff had, apart from 1,932/2/- admitted by the defendand-Bank, the under-noted amounts which were deposited by her from time to time with the Bank :Rs. 105 -...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1393; 1978(26)BLJR343; (1978)3SCC236; [1978]3SCR963; 1978(10)LC509(SC)
1. The unsuccessful plaintiff, appellant in this appeal by special leave, who died pending the appeal, seeks a declaration that he is entitled to a right of worship by turn (called Osra) for 10 days in a circuit of 18 months in the temple of Kalyanji Maharaj at Village Diggi, Distt. Tonk, Rajasthan, under the will Ext. I dated 22nd September 1961 executed by deceased Mst. Acharaj, wife of Onkar. The suit was resisted by four amongst five defendants, the 5th defendant having not put in an appearance. Various contentions were raised but the only one surviving for present consideration is whether document Exht. I purporting to be a will of deceased Mst. Acharaj is a will or a gift, and if the latter, whether it is admissible in evidence, on the ground that it was not duly stamped and registered as required by law 2. When the plaintiff referred to the disputed document in his evidence and proceeded to prove the same, an objection was raised on behalf of the defendants that the document was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1978)3SCC373
R.S. PATHAK, J.1.These appeals arise out of two suits for partition of Hindu coparcenary properties.2. The principal parties to the suits are P.S. Narayana Iyer and his four sons. The eldest son, Easwara Iyer, instituted Suit 367 of 1950, and the third son, Ramachandra Iyer, was the plaintiff in Suit 474 of 1950. The suits relate to the same properties.3. There was a joint Hindu family consisting of Narayana Pattar, his three sons, Appu Pattar, Samu Pattar, Venkatarama Pattar and their families. The geneological table is set out below:4. For greater convenience, the parties will be described hereafter as plaintiff and defendants according to their array in Suit No. 367 of 1950.5. The family carried on a banking business and owned forest lands, wet lands and dry lands, tile works, ginning and groundnut factories. The coparcenary properties are situated in territories now included in the States of Tamil Nadu and Kerala.6. On the death of Appu Pattar in 1900, the family affairs were manag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1822; 1980CriLJ832; (1978)3SCC327; 1978(10)LC603(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J. 1. This is an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution by Gopal Singh against a judgment of the High Court of Allahabad, by which the appellant was convicted under Section 302; Penal Code, for the murders of four persons, and sentenced to death.2. The following pedigree table will be helpful in understanding the facts relating to this case: Kunwar Bahadur : ---------------------------- : : By first wife By 2nd wife : : ------------------------ : : Raj Bali Singh Hanuman Singh Beni Madho Singh : (deceased) (deceased) Gopal Singh (appellant) : : ----------------- : : : Smt. Balraj Kunwar By 2nd By 1st (deceased) Wife : wife : Dooraji Prabhawati (injured) : ------------------------------ : : : : Anangpal Singh Raghupal Singh (deceased) Smt. Sheo Devi (injured) Tunnu Singh (deceased)3. Dhanpal Singh, co-accused, the maternal uncle of Gopal Singh who was charged under Section 120B read with Section 302, Penal Code, has been acquitted by the High Court.4. There was a di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1272a; 1978(10)LC503(SC)
1. The appellant, the Mangalore Electric Supply Company Limited, was carrying on the business of distribution of electricity in Mangalore, South Kanara District, under a licence granted by the Government of Madras in favour of Messrs Octavious Steel & Company Limited. The licensee had assigned its right to the appellant with the previous consent of the State Government. Under Section 4 of the Madras Electricity Supply Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1954, the State Government had the power to take over any electricity undertaking, declaring that it shall vest in the Government on the date specified therein. In exercise of that power, the Government of Madras passed an order declaring that the appellant's undertaking would vest in the Government on December 31, 1956, which date was later advanced to October 15, 1956. The appellant's undertaking was accordingly acquired by the Government and its properties were taken over on the date of vesting. Mangalore was then a part of the State of ...
Tag this Judgment!