Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1981)3SCC689; [1980]2SCR660
ORDER10, Rule 1 of the CPC, The fact that the 'Sant Mat' Sampradaya is one of the Dashnami sects cannot be doubted.24. There is unimpeachable testimony of Swami Viveksukhanand, who along with Swami Atmavivekanand and others was initiated as a chela by Swami Sarupanand on the same day, at the same time. During his cross-exmination, this witness states:Sri Swarupanandji was Sadhu of Sant Sanyas Sampradai. Sant Sanyas Sampradai has been obtaining from ancient time. This Sampradai is of those ten Sampradai which were founded by Swami Shankracharji. This (Sampradai) out of the Dasnam is Purinama. There is no branch in Purinama (Sampradai) ....Niranjani and Nirvani Akharas are the Akharas of Giri Sampradai. If a Sanyasi of Gin, Puri, Bharti, or of any Das Nam Sampradai abandons sanyas and re-enters into the Grahast Ashram he is called a Gosain. The rules for making disciples in Giri and Puri Sampradai arc one and the same. The rules in both these Sampradai for making chief disciples, and app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC738; (1980)2SCC129; [1980]2SCR704
D.A. Desai, J.1. Allottees of flats, constructed by the Delhi Development Authority ('Authority' for short), located at Rajouri Garden, Prasad Nagar and Lawrence Road comprised in Middle Income Group scheme, question the decision of first respondent (Delhi Development Authority) to collect surcharge as part of the sale price of each flat from each of them as unauthorised and discriminatory in character, in these two petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution Both the petitions raise identical contentions and it was said that Writ Petition No. 562 of 1979 is more comprehensive in character and therefore, the facts alleged therein may be taken as representative in character. They may be briefly stated.2. Delhi Development Authority was set up under the Delhi Development Act, 1957. The Act was enacted to provide for the development of Delhi according to plan and for matters ancillary thereto any for carrying out the objects underlying the Act, the Authority has prepared Master and Zon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC674; (1980)2SCC167; [1980]2SCR650; [1980]45STC212(SC); 1980(12)LC494(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. A plea for review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result. I agree with my learned brother Pathak J, both on the restrictive review jurisdiction and the rejection of the prayer in this case subject to the qualifications made below.2. Indeed, a reading of the last paragraph of my learned brother, with which I concur, makes it clear that Sri Soli Sorabjee has more or less won the war, although he has rightly lost this battle because of factual constraints. A case is decided on its particular conspectus of facts. When the facts materially vary, the law selectively shifts its focus. Here, the factual setting in which the decision is founded becomes critical. My learned brother has made it perfectly plain that the appeal proceeded on the admitted footing that the visitor to the restaurant who sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC522; 1980CriLJ393; (1980)1SCC667; [1980]2SCR697
1. This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment dated 27th April 1973 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the revisional application and quashing the proceedings taken against the respondent for offences committed under Section 5(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act.2. In the view that we take in the case, it is not necessary to give the facts in detail. It appears that the respondent was a member of the Indian Air Force having entered the service on 17th November 1941. He retired from the service on the 15th June 1965 but was re-employed for a period of two years with effect from 16th June 1965. On 7th September 1966, the respondent was transferred to the Regular Air Force Reserve with effect from 16th June 1965 to 15th June 1970, i.e., for a period of five years. In other words, the respondent was transferred to the Auxiliary Reserve Air Force under the provisions of the Reserve and Auxiliary Air Forces Act 1952 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act') and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC727; (1980)3SCC72; [1980]2SCR628; 1979()WLN788
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. These two cross appeals by certificate arise out of a suit for possession of a house situate in Bikaner and for damages for use and occupation thereof filed in Civil Original Case No. 17 of 1957 on the file of the District Judge, Bikaner. The plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 626 of 1971 and the defendant is the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 629 of 1971. The genealogy showing the relationship between the parties is given below:Sur Singh | | _________________________________|____________________________ | | | | Gad Singh Bharat Singh Bhim Singh Kan Singh | Died in (p.I.) (Deft.) | Sept. 1955) | |____________________________ | | | | | | | | | Duley Dhaney Dee | Singh Singh Singh | | | | ____________________|_ | | Himmat Dalip Singh Singh (P.2.) (Died in Sept. 56)2. Gad Singh, Bharat Singh, Bhim Singh (plaintiff No. 1) and Kan Singh (defendant) are the sons of Sur Singh. Bharat Singh died unmarried in September, 1955. Gad Singh died the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC557; 1980LabIC383; (1980)2SCC205; [1980]2SCR554; 1980(12)LC293(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. This appeal by special leave raises a short question as to whether the appellant, who was retired under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules was so retired by a competent authority contemplated by the rule. Admittedly he was appointed by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The only point that arises or, at any rate, we are concerned with is, as to whether the retirement order is in conformity with Rule 2(a) of the C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules 1965. The appointing authority according to Rule 56(j) is the competent authority. Who then, is the appointing authority in the context of this case The answer is to be sought under Rule 2(a) which reads thus:In these rules, unless the context otherwise, requires....2(a) appointing authority in relation to a Government servant means-(i) the authority empowered to make appointments to the Service of which the Government servant is for the time being a member or to the grade of the Service in which the Government servant is for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1358; (1980)2SCC350; 1980(12)LC124(SC)
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. Asd Lal, who contested the election to the Punjab Legislative Assembly from the Fazilka constituency in June, 1977, filed a petition Co challenge the election of Kanshi Ram, hereinafter referred to as the respondent. He has filed the present appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated February 20, 1978, as his petition has been dismissed with costs. While the appellant was a candidate of the Janata Party and secured 19,929 votes, the respondent was a candidate of the Congress Party and secured 23,409 votes. There were other contestants at the election, but they fared badly and it is not necessary to refer to them. The appellant challenged the election of the respondent on the ground that he was not qualified to contest the election Under Section 100(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act,1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act as he did not make the subscribe the oath prescribed by Clause (a) of Article 173 of the Constitution. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC541; [1980]122ITR700(SC); (1980)1SCC685; [1980]2SCR607
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These appeals by certificate raise a common question of law relating to assessment of annual value for levy of house-tax where the building is governed by the provisions of Rent Control legislation, but the standard rent has not yet been fixed. One appeal relates to a case where the building is situate within the jurisdiction of the New Delhi Municipal Committee and is liable to be assessed to house fax under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 while the other two relate to cases where the building is situate within the limits of the Corporation of Delhi and is assessable to house tax under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. The house tax under both statutes is levied with reference to the annual value of the building. Section 3(1)(b) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 defines 'annual value' to mean, in the case of any house or building 'the gross annual rent at which such house or building...may reasonably be expected to let from year to year' subject to certain ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1270; 1980CriLJ1009; 1980Supp(1)SCC194; [1980]2SCR1209; 1980(12)LC571a(SC)
ORDERV.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. Shri Pramod Swarup appearing as amicus curiae has presented the case of the accused as effectively as the record permits. Indeed, he has gone to the extent of pressing into service points which do not appear to us to have any force. Moreover, he has tried to persuade us to believe that a dying declaration made by the lady who was burnt to death by the husband-accused-that is the charge on which the trial court and the High Court have found the petitioner guilty-is exonerative of the accused-husband and does not implicate him as the Court has construed. The declarant as she was dying was conscious enough to make a statement and in one of the several statements she made, it would appear, she said when her husband was being beaten up that even though she had been burnt, her husband should not be beaten. This is a sentiment too touching for tears and stems from the values of the culture of the Indian womanhood. A wife when she has been set fire to by her husban...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC614; (1980)2SCC441; [1980]2SCR531
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. These batches of Civil Appeals, Writ Petitions and Special Leave Petitions raise the same question and can be disposed of by a common judgment.2. C.A. No. 1130/76 is by the State. The other Appeals, Writ Petitions and Special Leave Petitions are by the aggrieved parties.3. For the sake of convenience appellants in Civil, Appeals by Special Leave except the State would be referred as the appellants in this judgment. Similarly the petitioners in Writ Petitions and Special Leave Petitions will be referred to as petitioners.4. The appellants in Civil Appeals by Special Leave filed writ petitions before the High Court of Allahabad praying for quashing the Excise Commissioner's order dated 18th September, 1974 whereby it was provided that the vend fee be continued to be charged for the wholesale licence dealer of denatured spirit. They also prayed for a direction to the Excise Commissioner to refund the vend fee actually paid by the appellants for a period of three years ...
Tag this Judgment!