Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC64; (1979)0GLR810; (1979)3SCC202; [1979]3SCR905; 1979(11)LC558(SC)
Desai, J.1. These two appeals by certificate under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution arise from a judgment rendered by the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 720/68, being a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of a notification issued by the Government of Gujarat on 10th October 1967 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act' for short). Civil Appeal No. 2316/69 is preferred by the original respondent No. 2 Gujarat State Transport Corporation, and the cognate Civil Appeal No. 1598/70 is preferred by the State of Gujarat, the first respondent in the petition. As both the appeals arise from the same proceedings and raise identical contentions they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. A notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued by the former Government of Bombay on 10th October 1952 notifying that final plots 41, 42 and 43 were likely to be needed for a public purpose, viz.,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1255; 1979CriLJ1069; (1979)4SCC5; [1979]3SCR928
Kailasam, J.1. The question that arises in this appeal is whether the Special Judge tinder the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 can exercise the power conferred on a Magistrate under Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code to authorise detention of the accused in the custody of the police.2. This appeal by certificate is preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu against an Order of the Madras High Court in C.M.Ps. Nos. 1582 and 1605 of 1976 dated 22.4.1976.3. The first respondent V. Krishnaswami Naidu is the son of the second respondent L. Venkataswami Naidu. The first respondent Was the Gazetted Personal Assistant to the former Minister for Health, State of Tamil Nadu. He and the second respondent were arrested by the Vigilance and Anti-corruption unit of the Tamil Nadu Police on April 2, 1976 for alleged offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. They were produced before the Special Judge on the next day i.e. 3.4.1976. The respondents moved Special Judge for enlargement of bail...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1573; (1980)1SCC499; [1979]3SCR839
Shinghal, J.1. The learned Counsel for the appellants have categorically stated at the Bar that no question relating to the validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964), hereafter referred to as the Act, or any of its provisions, arises in these appeals by special leave. We have heard them together virtually as companion appeals at the instance of learned Counsel for they arise out of several Judgments of the High Court of Kerala in matters relating to the implementation of the provisions for the restriction on ownership and possession of land in excess of the ceiling area and the disposal of excess land. These are the subject mater of Chapter III of the Act, as amended from time to time. It is not necessary to refer to the dates of all Judgments of the High Court of Kerala, or to all the points of controversy there, as under Counsel have been able to channelise their arguments into three main points of controversy, which have been argued at length. It is true that all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1495; 1979CriLJ1127; (1979)4SCC204; [1979]3SCR832; 1979(11)LC800(SC)
Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala dated 11th July, 1975 dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by the appellant before the High Court.2. The point involved in the present appeal lies within a very narrow compass. The appellant was being prosecuted for offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 471 and 468 read with Section 34 I.P.C., Section 167(72) of the Sea Customs Act and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. At the time when the charge-sheet was filed and the Special Judge took cognizance against the appellant sometime in October, 1970 the appellant ceased to be a public servant and, therefore, no sanction under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was obtained. It appears that in pursuance of a departmental enquiry held against the appellant he was charge-sheeted and ultimately dismissed by the appointing authority. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1415; (1979)3SCC324; [1979]3SCR802
Sen, J.1. These appeals, by certificate, are directed against the Judgment and order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated December 3, 1976 allowing a batch of thirty-seven writ petitions. The appeals raise an important question, namely, whether the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is ultra vires the Parliament so far as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned. A subsidiary question is also involved as to whether even assuming the Act is in force in the State, it is not applicable to Warangal because there was no master plan prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 244(1)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) District Municipalities Act, 1956.2. A further question arises in a connected writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, whether the inclusion of the State of Rajasthan in Schedule I to the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the categorisation of the urban agglomerations of the cities and towns of Jaipur and Jodhpur in cate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1098; (1979)3SCC347; [1979]3SCR788; [1979]44STC137(SC); 1979(11)LC509(SC)
Sarkaria, J.1. This judgment will dispose of two batches of appeals. The first batch includes Civil Appeals 287 to 290 and 2529 of 1972 and Civil Appeal 303 of 1974 preferred by the State of Gujarat/Sales Tax Officer on the basis of a certificate granted by the High Court. Of this batch, Civil Appeals 287 to 290 of 1972 are directed against a common judgment, dated July 8, 1970, of the High Court of Gujarat : while Civil Appeal 303 of 1974 is preferred against a judgment, dated July 4, 1973, of the Gujarat High Court, which follows its earlier decision in Patel Ranjibhai Dhanbhai and Ors. v. A.S. Tambe, Sales Tax Officer, Anand.2. The Second batch comprises of Civil Appeals 2450 and 2451 of 1972 and Civil Appeals 1260 and 1213 of 1975. They have been preferred by the State of Maharashtra after obtaining special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution. Of these, the first two are directed against an Order dated April 19, 1972, of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal winch, in turn, is...
Tag this Judgment!