Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1741; 49(1980)CLT112(SC); 1979CriLJ1324; (1979)4SCC552; [1979]3SCR320
Koshal, J.1. By this judgment we shall dispose of Civil Appeal No. 2036 of 1973 and Criminal Appeal No. 286 of 1973, both of which have arisen from a dispute over a single piece of land and the facts leading to which may be briefly stated. Long before the year 1949, the ancestors of Shri Lal Anup Singh Deo, ex-zamindar of Khariar dedicated their maufi interest in village Konabira in favour of Sri Samaleswari Devi (hereinafter referred to as the deity). On the 10th May 1949 Shri Lal Anup Singh Deo aforesaid, acting on behalf of the deity, created a lease of thikadari rights in the village for a period of 10 years beginning with the 1st of June 1950 and ending on the 31st May 1960 in favour of Gayaram Patel, who figures as the appellant in each of the appeals and is hereinafter called Patel. The deed of lease appears at pages 5 and 6 of the paper book in Civil Appeal No. 2036 of 1973 and describes Patel thus:Gayaram Patel son of Bisram Patel, the legal guardian of gaontia thikadari patta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1413; (1979)ILLJ362SC; (1979)4SCC593; 1979(11)LC373(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. The appellant was a former employee of the West Coast Electric Supply Corporation, Cannanore. He joined the service of that Corporation as a Typist and store-keeper on September 23, 1943 and was promoted as a Chief Clerk from April 15, 1945.2. The said Corporation was engaged in the business of supply of electricity on license under the Electricity Act, 1910, and the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. The Corporation was running three units in Cannanore, Tellicherry and Calicut. The classification of ministerial and executive staff, rules of pro motion, designation of posts, salary and other emoluments etc., were the same in all the three Units. The Units at Cannanore and Tellicherry were taken over by the Government in exercise of its power under the Madras Electricity Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1954, and these Units were transferred to the newly formed Kerala State Electricity Board with effect from April 1, 1957, on condition that the Board shall retain the forme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1782; 1979CriLJ1343; (1980)1SCC605
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. The appellant was tried and convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, for selling adulterated rock salt, by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Delhi, and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- on March 17, 1971. The Additional Sessions Judge on September, 6, 1971 accepted his appeal and set aside his conviction and sentence. Against that acquittal an appeal was filed in the High Court of Delhi which reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellant, restoring the sentence awarded by the Judicial Magistrate.2. Dhan Kumar has now come in appeal after obtaining special- leave under Article 136 of the Constitution, to this Court.3. The prosecution case was as follows:On May 30, 1970, at about 11.30 A. M. Shri R.P. Singh, Food Inspector, found five bags of white (rock) salt belonging to the appellant lying on the foot-path near the entrance to Munshi Ram Flour Mills. The appellant, Dhan Kumar, was there....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1128; 1979CriLJ921; (1979)4SCC709; [1979]3SCR313
koshal, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against a judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 25th March, 1975 convicting the appellant of an offence under Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 read with Clause (i) of Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (hereinafter called the Act) and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000/-., the sentence in default of payment of fine being rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal may be briefly stated. Food Inspector V.P. Anand, (P.W.2) visited the premises of Messrs Mebrose Ice-Cream and Frozen Food Co. (which carries on business in Greater Kailash No.l, a locality of New Delhi and is hereinafter referred to as the Company) on the 22nd May 1970 and bought for purposes of analysis a sample of chocolate ice-cream from the appellant who was one of the employees of the Company. An inventory of the sample was prepared by the Food Inspector and a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC898; 1979CriLJ773; (1979)3SCC431; [1979]3SCR254
Fazal Ali, J.1. These two appeals by certificate are directed against a common order of the Madras High Court dated 10th May, 1977 dismissing the applications filed before the High Court by the appellant for quashing the order of the Special Judge, Madras dated 4th January, 1977 refusing to discharge the appellant under Section 239 of the CrPC (hereinafter referred to as the Code).2. The facts of the case have been detailed in the judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same all over again. However, in order to understand the points in issue, it may be necessary to give a resume of the important stages through which the case has passed and the constitutional points argued before us.3. The appellant, M. Karunanidhi, was a former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and was the petitioner before the High Court in the applications filed by him before the High Court. On 15.6.1976 a D.O. letter was written by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC993; (1979)0GLR641; (1979)3SCC300; [1979]3SCR291
Koshal, J.1. The facts giving rise to this appeal by special leave against a decree dated November 5, 1976 of the High Court of Gujarat may be better appreciated with reference to the following pedigree-table: NARANJI ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : : : : Dahyabhai Haribhai : : : : Ranchhodji : : ----------------------- : : Bhimbhai Mohanbhai (died childless in 1913) : : ------------------------------- : : : : Parvatiben=Dayalji Dahyabhai (Plaintiff 8) (Plaintiff 7) : : ------------------------------------------------------ : : : : : : : : Bhikhubhai Thakorbhai Nirmalben Padmaben (Plaintiff 5) (Plaintiff 6) (Plaintiff 9) (Plaintiff 10) NARANJI (contd.) : : Gulabbhai Vallabhbhai : : Motabhai ------------------ : : : : : Nichhabhai = Surbhai : Amba Bai Bai Vijia : (Defendant 1) : : -------------------------------------------------- : : : : Ghelabhai Lallubhai Chhotubhai Manibhai : (Plaintiff 3) (Plaintiff 4) : ----------------------- ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1506; 1979CriLJ1123; (1979)4SCC595; 1979(11)LC870(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Mysore High Court dated 1-12-1971. The appellant was charged of various offences before the trial court but acquitted of all of them, including a charge under Section 471, IPC. The High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the trial court maintained the acquittal on other charges but reversed the acquittal so far as the charge under Section 471 was concerned and acquitted the appellant under Section 471. The facts of the case have been set out in the judgment of the High Court and we need not reiterate them here. In fact she case lies within a very narrow compass. The accused who started as a Clerk of the complainant working in a Bank rose to the position of a Manager. The case of the prosecution was that the complainant PW 7 had entrusted a cheque book with serial Nos. 151 to 194 to the appellant. All the cheques contained in the cheque book had been signed by him except...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1309; (1979)4SCC734
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and Order dated July 25, 1968 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No. 426 of 1966, whereby the appellant-landlord's suit seeking eviction of the tenant (respondents) was dismissed by the High Court.2. The appellant owns the suit property situated at 29A, Burr Road, Kirkee, Poona. It is an extensive property covering about 3.03 acres of land with a main dwelling house, out-houses, garden etc. By an Order dated Dec. 16, 1929, issued by one J.S. Harison, Brigadier, Commanding the Cantonments of Poona and Kirkee, under the Cantonment (House Accommodation) Act (MI) 1923 the said property was requisitioned (appropriated) for the purpose of the residence of Military Officers. Thereupon appellant executed a lease (1st lease) in Feb., 1930 in respect of the said property with the Secretary of State for India for a period of five years on the terms and conditions set out in said lease. On the e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1432; 1980Supp(1)SCC432; 1979(11)LC355(SC); 1979()WLN112
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. In this appeal by special leave, the appellant has been convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to three years R.L and fins of Rs. 500/ and in default of payment thereof to further urdergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. He has been farther convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year. Both the substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and we do not find any error of law in the judgment of the High Court. The case depends purely on appreciation of evidence and he courts below have accepted the prosecution story. Mr. Mookherjee appearing for the appellant submitted that a lenient view on the question ot sentence may be taken in view of the animus between the parties. The nature of the injury shows that both hands of the victim were almost maimed by the shots fired by the appellant. In these circumstances we do not think that there is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1211; [1979(38)FLR275]; 1979LabIC600; (1979)ILLJ352SC; (1979)3SCC257; [1979]3SCR236; 1979(11)LC356(SC)
Chandrachud, J.1. This appeal by special leave arises out of the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow, U.P. dated November 28, 1969. On September 7, 1968 the Government of U.P. referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 4(K) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 28 of 1947:Whether the action of the employers in deducting half wages corresponding to the sickness benefit to which workmen are entitled under the E.S.I. Act in the event of the workmen not availing the services of the E.S.I. is legal and/or justified? If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled and with what details?2. The respondent-workmen contended that the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the E.S.I. Act) was adopted by the appellant, M/s. Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd., in 1957, that the workmen used to enjoy, prior to 1957, 15 days sick leave with full wages every year in accordance with the terms of an award given by the State Tribunal, ...
Tag this Judgment!