Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1979)4SCC530
A.D. Koshal,; A.P. Sen and; Y.V. Chandrachud, JJ.1. In view of the concurrent findings of the Sessions Court and the High Court on the principal issues arising in the case we see no justification for granting special leave for a reconsideration of the question as regards the guilt of the petitioners. The evidence establishes the complicity of the petitioners in the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond perhaps even an unreasonable doubt. So explicit and eloquent are the facts of the case. There is hardly a case, civil or criminal, which does not raise some question of law or the other. But no question of law of general public importance is involved in these petitions. It is time that it was realised that the jurisdiction of this Court to grant special leave to appeal can be invoked in very exceptional circumstances. A question of law of general public importance or a decision which shock the conscience of the Court are some of the prime requisites for the grant of special lea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1421; 1978MhLJ700(SC); (1978)3SCC422; [1978]3SCR1068; 1978(10)LC567(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the High Court of Bombay dated June 17, 1968 summarily rejecting a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.2. A parcel of land, 11 acres 8 gunthas in areas, situated in village Shingayat in Jamner taluka of Jalgaon district belonged originally to Damodar Ganpat Wani. Dhondu Namdeo Wagh was his tenant. In 1954, the landlord served a notice on the tenant Under Section 34 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act of 1948(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Act') calling upon him to deliver possession of the land as he required it for his personal cultivation. The tenant refused to comply. The landlord then filed Tenancy Application No. 61 of 1956 before the Tenancy Awal Karkun at Jamner. The Tenancy Awal Karkun allowed the application and made an order terminating the tenancy and restoring the land to the landlord. The tenant appealed to the District Deputy Collector, Chalisgaon Division. On June 20, 1957, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1978)4SCC299; 1978(10)LC529(SC)
R.S. Pathak, J. 1. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against an order of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court substantially confirming au order of a learned Single Judge of that Court on a receivership application in a pending suit.2. The thirteen respondent, the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank') instituted Suit No. 521 of 1974 in the High Court of Calcutta against the appellant, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., and the first respondent, the Raneegunge Coal Association Ltd., and others praying for a decree for Rs. 1,15,76,464.45 and a declaration that (a) all stocks of coal, plant and machinery and (b) present and future book-debts, outstanding moneys, bills and documents belonging to the first respondent had remained hypothecated with the Bank as security by way of first charge for payment of the Bank's claims, and that the charge in respect of (a) and, if the law so compelled, in respect of (b) also now stood shifted to the amount receivable by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1410; [1978(37)FLR136]; (1978)IILLJ397SC; (1978)4SCC257; [1978]3SCR1073; 1978(1)SLJ675(SC); 1978(10)LC565(SC)
1. The petitioner before us in this special leave petition is a factory owner manufacturing ropes. A number of workmen were engaged to make ropes from within the factory, but those workmen, according to the petitioner, were hired by contractors who had executed agreements with the petitioner to get such work done. Therefore, the petitioner contended that the workmen were not his workmen but the contractors' workmen. The industrial award, made on a reference by the State Government, was attacked on this ground. The learned single Judge of the High Court, in an elaborate judgment, rightly held that the petitioner was the employer and the members of the respondent-Union were employees under the petitioner. A division Bench upheld this stand and the petitioner has sought special leave from this Court.2. It is not in dispute that 29 workmen were denied employment which led to the reference. It is not in dispute that the work done by these workmen was an integral part of the industry concern...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1978)4SCC420
S.M. SIKRI, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 815 of 1967, whereby the High Court altered the conviction of Ram Das, under Section 366 to Section 363 of the IPC and reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment from four years to two years. Subject to this modification the High Court dismissed the appeal.2. The prosecution story, as accepted by the High Court, is that Mullu Singh, PW 1, Kumari Padma, PW 17, daughter of Mullu Singh and his wife Haribai, PW 2, lived in a quarter at Khamaria. The girl was at the relevant time a regular student of the Higher Secondary School, Khamaria. Ram Das, appellant, who was also a student, lived in a nearby quarter across the street and knew Kumari Padma. On November 25, 1966, Ram Das and Kumari Padma went to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jabalpur and got an agreement, stated to be a marriage agreement, Ex. P-11, registered.3. In her evidence Kumari Padma stated that she had g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1412; [1978]114ITR471(SC); (1978)3SCC426; [1978]3SCR1059; 1978(10)LC584(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave raises an important question as to whether the sum of Rs. 3,08,187, being the share income of three minor sons from the firm of M/s. Grand Smithy Works for the period from 19-12-1967 to 31-8-1968 is liable to be assessed as the income of the Hindu Undivided Family- M/s. Y. L. Agarwalla & Company-for the assessment year 1969-70 2. The facts giving rise to the question may briefly be stated as follows : One Yudhisthir Lal Agarwalla, since deceased, was the Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family known as M/s. Y. L. Agarwalla & Co. (the Assessee herein). During his life time in his capacity as the Karta of the said Hindu Undivided Family he carried on business in partnership with three others (Shiv Charan Laul, Ram Gopal Garodia and Tula Ram Budhia) in the name and style of M/s. Grand Smithy Works. His share in that firm was 36%. Under Clause 13 of the Partnership Deed dated September 20, 1961, pursuant to which the said firm used to carry on its business, it was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1978]114ITR454(SC); (1978)3SCC499; [1978]3SCR1038; 1978(10)LC531(SC)
1. This appeal, by certificate Under Section 261 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala disposing of a reference made to it by the Income-Tax Appellaffc Tribunal Under Section 256(1) of the Act.2. The appellant is an association constituted under a licence granted Under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 on January 5, 1967. The relevant provisions of its Memorandum of Association are :3. (a) : The main objects to be pursued by the Company on its incorporation are :(i) To give charity.(ii) To promote education.(iii) To establish or aid in the establishment of associations, institutions, funds, trusts with the object of promoting charity and/or education provided that the Company shall not support its funds or endeavour to impose on, or procure to be observed by, its members or others any regulation or restriction which if an object of the company, would make it a trade union.(b) The objects incidental or ancillary to the attainment o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1428; [1978(37)FLR98]; (1978)IILLJ354SC; (1978)3SCC504; [1978]3SCR1044; 1978(10)LC574(SC)
1. This appeal on certificate granted by the Patna High Court under Article 133(1) of the Constitution of India as it stands after the 30th Constitution Amendment Act is by the Management of the Monghyr Factory of India Tobacco Company Limited impleading the Labour Union as respondent No. 2 and the concerned workman as respondent No. 3. The State of Bihar is respondent No. 4.2. Respondent No. 3 was working as an operator on a packing machine in the appellant's factory at Monghyr on May 21, 1966 when he is said to have committed certain acts of misconduct. A charge-sheet was served on him by the Management on May 24. At the domestic inquiry held by the Management, he was found guilty and eventually dismissed from service on June 9, 1966. On the raising of an industrial dispute, it was referred for adjudication by the Government of Bihar to the Labour Court, Patna, respondent No. 1 by a notification dated the 6th/17th February, 1968. The Labour Court made an award on November 23, 1970 or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1978]114ITR463(SC); (1978)3SCC414; [1978]3SCR1030
1. These appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in references disposed of by it Under Section 256 of the Act.2. The appellant is the Dharmaposhanam Company Irinjalakuda. It is an association constituted under a licence issued in January, 1931 by the then Government of Cochin and registered with limited liability Under Section 26(1) of the Indian Companies Act 1913 as applied to Cochin. The appellant was governed by a Memorandum of Association, Clause (3) of which provided :3. The objects of the company are :(a) To raise funds by conducting kuries with company as foreman, receiving donations and subscription, by lending money on interest and by such other means as the company deem fit.(b) To do the needful for the promotion of charity, education, industries etc. and public good.(c) For carrying on the business of the company and for the advancement of the purpose mentioned above in so far as is appropriate, to construct buildings or ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1441; (1979)1SCC128; 1978(10)LC894(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J. 1. The appellants were tried and acquitted by the Magistrate in respect of a charge under Section 332 IPC. On appeal by the state, the High Court set aside their acquittal and convicted and sentenced them under Section 332 IPC to three months' rigorous imprisonment each.2. They have come to this Court by special leave granted under Article 136 of the Constitution.3. At the material time, the complainant Shaikh Masthan was a Typist of the Panchayat Samiti, Ipur. In the same office, appellants 1 and 2 and the accused. Guravareddy were working as Health Inspector, Lower Division Clerk and Health Worker, respectively, attached to the Primary Health center, Ipur.4. The Charge on which the accused were tried ran as follows-That you, on or about the 29th day of the November, 1968 in the Panchayat Samiti office at Ipur, caused hurt to Typist, Shaikh Masthan of the same office, which in discharge of his duties as such public servant with intent to deter him from discharging du...
Tag this Judgment!