Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC150; (1980)1SCC621; [1980]1SCR1135; 1980(12)LC26(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act No. 43 of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in Election Petition No. 2 of 1978 by which the election of the appellant to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from the Armori Constituency (No. 151) in Chandrapur District at the general election, held in February, 1978 was set aside. The Armori Constituency was reserved for Scheduled Tribes, The appellant and respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were the candidates at the election. As the appellant secured the highest number of votes, he was declared as having been elected by the Returning Officer. In his nomination paper, the appellant declared that he belonged to 'Mana' community. Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 declared themselves as belonging to 'Pradhan' community and respondent No. 3 claimed that he belonged to 'Raj Gond' community. After the result of the elec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1980Supp(1)SCC655; 1980(12)LC357(SC)
A.D. Koshal, J.1. The appellants are three out of sixteen accused who faced a trial on a charge under four heads for offences under Section 147, Section 302 read with Section 149, Section 325 read with Section 149 and Section 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The three appellants were further charged with an offence under Section 392 of the Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who held the trial acquitted one of the accused named Kanchan Singh of all the charges while the other fifteen were convicted of an offence under Section 325 read with Section 149 of the Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a year and a fine of Rs. 100/- each, the sentence in default of payment of fine being rigorous imprisonment for two months. Three of the accused other than the appellants were convicted of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Code and were sentenced to imprisonment for life. The substantive sentences of imprisonment passed by the learned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC514; (1980)1SCC304; [1980]1SCR1125; 1980(12)LC15(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The only question for consideration in this. appeal is whether the plaint-schedule properties are properties in respect of which there is a trust of a public or religious nature so as to attract the provisions of Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act (Act I off 1951). The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit out of which the appeal arises for a declaration that the properties were his personal properties and that there was no trust of a religious or public nature so as to attract the provisions of the Bihar Act I of 1951, His case, as set out in the plaint, was that one Gurdyal Singh constructed a temple on his own land in the village of Dumri and installed the deities of Ramji, Lakshmanji and Sitaji in the temple. He used to perform puja and rajbhog till his death. The public had no concern with the idols. After his death he was succeeded by his son Gulab Singh who became a bairagi assuming the name of Gulab Das. Apart from the properties left by Gurdyal Singh, Gulab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC591; (1980)1SCC198; [1980]1SCR1131; 1980(12)LC12(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. A second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC 1908 was allowed by the Allahabad High Court and the matter was remanded to the Lower Appellate Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law point. The order of remand was made under the provisions of Order XLI Rule 23 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, as amended by the Allahabad High Court. The successful appellant before the High Court filed an application under Section 13 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 claiming a refund of the Court Fees Act, 1870 claiming a refund of the Court fee paid in the Second Appeal. The application came before G.C. Mathur, J., who entertained a doubt whether Section 13 of the Court Fees Act applied to a case of remand under the provisions of Order XLI Rule 23 Civil Procedure Code as amended by the High Court and referred the question for the consideration of a Full Bench. Thereafter the application was heard by the Full Bench consisting of Jagdish Sahai, Pathak and Kirty, JJ. Pathak and K...
Tag this Judgment!