Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1841; 1979CriLJ1367; 1979CENCUS461D; (1979)4SCC177; [1980]1SCR111
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This appeal by special leave directed against a judgment, dated May 3, 1962, of the Delhi High Court, arises out of these circumstances :M.S. Kochar, the respondent herein, filed a complaint in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi, alleging that the appellants herein, who are officers of the Customs Department, had committed offences under Sections 120B/166/409, Indian Penal Code. It was stated in the complaint as follows : The complainant was the sole representative in India of various manufacturing concerns in West Germany, and was carrying on business under the style of 'House of German Machinery'. He imported certain items of machinery from the German firms for displaying them in the International Industries Fair held in New Delhi in November, 1961. In spite of the fact that he had obtained a valid Customs Clearance Permit for the import of these items of machinery, the Customs Authorities prevented him from clearing the goods from the Railway Stati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1889; 1979(4)ELT511(SC); (1979)4SCC22; [1980]1SCR134
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. The Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Petitioner, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, complains that the Order of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is a wrong exercise of its jurisdiction because there is an alternative statutory remedy under the Central Excise Act for relief When goods are seized. It is correct to say that the High Court must have regard to the well established principles for the exercise of its writ jurisdiction and unless it is satisfied that the normal statutory remedy is likely to be too dilatory or difficult to give reasonably quick relief, it should be loath to act under Article 226. May be, in exceptional cases-the present one does not appear to be one-that extra-ordinary power may be exercised. So it is right to point out that the High Courts will be careful to be extremely circumspect in granting these reliefs especially during the pendency of criminal investigations. The investigation of a crimin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1911; (1979)81PLR629; (1979)4SCC83; [1980]1SCR122; 1979(11)LC578(SC)
N.L. Untwalia J.1. This appeal arises out of an unfortunate litigation where the plaintiff appellant in this appeal has got to fail in this Court too on some technical grounds.2. One Sardar Balwant Singh died on 10th March, 1955 leaving only three sons according to the case of appellants, namely, the two appellants and respondent No. 2. Respondent No.1 claimed to be a fourth son of Balwant Singh entitled to l/4th share in the property left by him. The appellants filed Suit No. 41 of 1958, in the Court of Sub Judge, Bassi. The Civil Court on the objection of Respondent No. 1 framed a preliminary issue whether the said Court was competent to try the suit or was it a matter which could be decided only by the Settlement Commissioner. By Order dated 7.7.1958 the learned Subordinate Judge decided that the Civil Court had ho jurisdiction to try this suit and directed the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Revenue Court. When the appellants filed their claim in the Revenue Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC16; [1979(39)FLR347]; (1979)IILLJ444SC; (1979)4SCC12; [1980]1SCR125; 1979(1)SLJ552(SC)
ORDERN.L. Untwalia, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit in the Trial Court in the year 1963 alleging certain unjustifiable and illegal actions on the part of his employer, the respondent in this appeal. The reliefs claimed in the suit were the following :-(a) That it may be declared that the defendant has removed the plaintiff from service illegally and without any reason.(b) That it may be declared that the defendant failed and neglected to re-employ the plaintiff although the defendant restarted the factory. (c) That the defendant be ordered to reinstate the plaintiff to his former job with due benefits and advantages.(d) In the alternative the defendant may be ordered to pay to the plaintiff such compensation as to the Hon'ble Court may deem fit.(e) For costs of the suit.(f) For such further and other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.2. On contest by the respondent, the Trial Court held that the dispute raised by the appellant was in the nature of an industrial dispu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1848; 1979CriLJ1374; (1980)1SCC30; [1980]1SCR95
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. By a short order we had allowed this appeal by special leave directed against a judgment, dated March 22, 1978, of the High Court of Karnataka, and acquitted the appellant. We now give our reasons in support of that Order :2. On March 18, 1974 at about 8.30 p.m., the appellant was driving a passenger bus No. MYM-5859 on Dharampura-Hiriyur Road towards Hiriyur. When the bus reached at a place from where a kacha path bifurcates for villages Hariyabbe, a girl named Gundamma, aged 4 years, ran across the road. The appellant swerved the vehicle towards the extreme right side of the road. In spite of it, the child was hit and died at the spot. A complaint was lodged by the Patel of the village, Gunde Gowda, at Hariyabbe Police Station. The Station House Officer (P.W. 7) after registering a case, reached the spot and sent the dead body of the child for post-mortem examination, and recorded the statements of witnesses, including some of the passengers in the Bus.3. On these...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1948; 1979CriLJ1309; (1979)3SCC760; [1980]1SCR91; 1979(11)LC594(SC)
ORDER1. Parvati, an unsophisticated girl of 17 was wending her way home at about sunset along a public street in the artless town of Sitalpur in Bihar when Smt. Devki, the petitioner before us, with diabolic design, swooped down and snatched her into a taxi-cab and blitzed away. The weeping victim was medicated into unconsciousness, removed to Dhanbad and further on, to destination Haryana. Tragically, where tourists abound, satellite industries in female flesh flourish, unless the State crusades with militant zeal to stamp out this terrible vice. Anyway, Parvati, by now enslaved in & village villa, was offered for marital sale to affluent lecherous youths. The damsel in distress desperately escaped through a half-ajar door and eventually landed in a police station. The police investigation unravelled the pathetic story and ended up in a case, conviction, appeal, confirmation and, finally, in this special leave petition to this Court which is the last refuge of every vanquished litigan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1742; 1980CriLJ1261; (1980)1SCC611
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. Mohammad Koya was searched on suspicion by the Railway Police when he alighted at the Madras Central Station on 29th January, 1970 by the West Coast Express. A sum of rupees one lakh in currency notes of 100 rupee denomination was seized from his person. Mohd. Koya was arrested and produced before the Second Presidency Magistrate, Madras, who remanded him to custody. After investigation, the Inspector, Railway Police Madras Central, reported to the Magistrate that no cognizable offence was disclosed against Mohd. Koya and. the proceedings may, therefore, be dropped. Mohd. Kunhi filed a petition before the Presidency Magistrate claiming that the money belonged to him and that he had entrusted Mohammed Koya with the money for being paid to a constituent at Bombay. Mohammed Koya also supported the petition filed by Mohammed Kunhi. Meanwhile Vth Income-tax Officer, V Madras, having been duly authorised by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, Kerala and Bombay, f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC768; (1981)2SCC673; 1979(11)LC829(SC)
1. Leave granted.2. Having beard tbe counsel on both sides, we disposed of this Appeal as it Involves only a solitary point of law already covered by a decision of this Court.3. By virtue of Ex P-1, the State (Respondent) held out certain specific promises as an inducement for the appellants to move into a new Department (Agriculture Department). After they had gone over to the Agriculture Department, the State, by virtue of its Ex. P-3, sought to go back upon the earlier promise made in Ex P-1. The appellants having believed the representation made by the State and having further acted thereon cannot now be defeated of their hopes which have crystallised into rights, thanks to the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Therefore, it is not open to the State, according to the law laid down by this Court, to backtrack. We, there fore, direct the State to implement Ex. P-1 and confer such rights and benefits as are promised thereunder in entirety. Shri B. Datta says that a l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1936; (1980)1SCC202; 1979(11)LC580(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. The only question for consideration here is whether the suit is barred by the proviso of the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagir Act. In the suit the plaintiff sought to have a declaration that the order of the Tehsildar, which was affirmed by the Collector, holding that the defendant was a 'pacca Krishak' was invalid. The Trial Court held that the suit was barred and rejected the plaint. The first Appellate Court was of the view that the suit was maintainable and remanded it to the trial Court for hearing on the merits. The High Court on a consideration of the language of Section 34 of the aforesaid Act held that the suit was barred and the order of the Tehsildar could not be challenged in the Civil Court except on the ground that it was nullity. We find no reason to differ from the view taken by the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1594; (1979)4SCC485; [1980]1SCR93; 1979(11)LC599(SC)
ORDER1. In this appeal filed by certificate, several points have been urged by learned Counsel for the appellant. We do not consider it necessary either to state all the points or discuss them as none of them except one has got any substance. The point of substance which in our opinion must succeed in this appeal is as to whether even on the face of the Notification issued under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called, the Act), an order under Section 17(4) dispensing with the compliance with the provisions of Section 5-A was validly made. The paragraph of the Notification which incorporated apparently the order exercising the power under Sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act reads as follows:Further in exercise of the powers under the said Act, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to direct that action under Section 17 shall be taken in this case on the grounds of urgency and provisions of Section 5-A will not 'apply in regard to this acquisition.2. It is to be cle...
Tag this Judgment!