Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1123; 1980CriLJ804; 1980(12)LC513(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. For the reasons that we have given in Writ Petition No. 1376 of 1979 which fully cover the present case where also there is an inordinate and unexplained delay In considering the representation filed by the detenu, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order of detention passed against the petitioner is set aside and the petitioner-detenu is directed to be released forthwith.2. In view of the order relating the detenu, Writ Petition No. 1377/79, being a petition from Jail, becomes infructuous and hence no orders need be passed in relation thereto....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC695; (1980)2SCC180; [1980]2SCR866; 1980(12)LC325(SC); 1980()WLN60
ORDERV.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. These three petitions for special leave relate to a road tragedy where many lost their limbs while travelling in a bus belonging to the nationalised transport system of Rajasthan. A flimsy plea was put forward by the operator to escape liability for compensation that the lights of the bus accidentally failed and thus the unfortunate episode occurred. Other embellishments were also set up for the purpose of exoneration. The Accidents Tribunal was not taken in and, having disbelieved the evidence, awarded compensation in sums far lower than were claimed by the victims.2. Two contentions were raised and rightly over-ruled and they have been repeated in the Petition for special leave and we similarly reject them. The nature of the accident and the surrounding circumstances are such that the doctrine res ipsa loquitur was rightly invoked by the court. Indeed, the terrible accidents attributable to reckless driving and escalating year after year make our high-way...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC798; [1981]51CompCas450(SC); (1980)2SCC338; [1980]2SCR869; 1980(12)LC507(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed with a prayer that an order of detention passed against the petitioner on the 7th September, 1979, under Section 3(1) of1 the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 be quashed. After the order was served on the detenu he made a representation on the 27th September, 1979 to the Govt. who received it on the 28th September, 1979. In support of the Rule. Mr. A.K. Sen has raised a number of points, but in view of one of them which is to the effect that there has been an inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the detaining authority in deciding the representation and that the detention is therefore vitiated, we need not go into the other points. On the question of delay the petitioner had expressly taken a plea in para 11 of the petition but in their reply the respondents have not at all explained or detailed any reason why there was inordinate delay in disposing of the representa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1341; 1980CriLJ1010; 1980Supp(1)SCC215; 1980(Supp)SCC215; 1980(12)LC541(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment, dated December 2, 1978, of the High Court of Delhi, maintaining the conviction of Mohd. Ramzani, appellant under Section 302, Penal Code, with a sentence of life imprisonment.2. Appellant's father, Mohd. Shafi, is the eldest of four brothers, others being Chhottey Khan, deceased, Mohd. Din and Abdul Rashid. Abdul Rashid and Mohd Din were residing in the ground floor of House No. 2934 in Gali No. 5, Sarai Khalil, Sadar Bazar, Delhi; while the appellant, his father Mohd. Shafi, his mother and brothers and sisters were residing in the first floor of the same House No. 2934. Opposite House No. 2934, is House No. 2931 in which Chhottey Khan deceased along with his wife's brother, Fakira, and Abdul Rashid used 1o reside. Abdul Rashid was unmarried,3. On April 8, 1974, Chhottey Khan deceased and Abdul Rashid gave a beating and caused injuries to Fatima, mother of appellant and his sisters, Amina and Ashia. At that time, no men-fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC636; 1980CriLJ444; (1980)82PLR504; (1980)2SCC282; [1980]2SCR863
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. The common appellant in both these appeals is a teen-aged student turned criminal adventurer in the elitist area of car-lifting and scooter-poaching current in our fashionable cities, including Delhi. While he was a college student and but 19 years old, the appellant tried his hand at stealing a scooter way back in 1971. He was arrested but bailed out and while on bail was accused of committing a car theft. Both these cases were tried and he was found guilty. The scooter offence resulted in a sentence of two years' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000. The car theft case got converted into an offence under Section 411 I.P.C. and, consequently, a reduced sentence of imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 500.2. The convictions being concurrent and no substantial infirmity being present, we have confined leave to appeal to the question of sentence only. But sentencing-the cutting edge of the judicial process is the crucial strategy of the criminal law in ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1980)3SCC90; 1980(12)LC522(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. This Petition by the wife of the detenu is directed against an order of detention dated 28th June, 1979 passed by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA) on 27th June, 1979. The grounds of detention dated 28th June, 1979 were supplied to the detenu on the 30th June, 1979. We have gone through them and have heard Counsel for the parties at great length. We are satisfied that if the detention authority had considered the grounds carefully it would have it self been convinced that there was no material to justify the detention.2. On a persual of the grounds of detention it is manifest that there is no allegation of the dentenu's direct or indirect participation in or connection with the recovery of the smuggled goods. It appears that the detenu was arrested as far back as 18th February, 1979 and was produce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1218; (1980)82PLR638; (1980)4SCC270
ORDER1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard Counsel on both sides in this short rent control case. The ground on which eviction was sought was in terms of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The Sub-section reads thus:3. (a) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an Order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession:(i) in case of the residential building,(a) he requires it for his own occupation; (b) he is not occupying any other residential building in the urban area concerned; and(c) has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act, in the said urban area; It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the Sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC838; (1980)2SCC216; [1980]2SCR829; 1980(12)LC327(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. The petitioner, an aspirant for admission to the M.B.B.S. course in one or other of the medical college in Kerala, has failed to qualify for selection from the Kerala University pool, not having secured high enough marks, and has failed to fall within the Calicut University pool, not having been a student of that University.2. What is urged, as a claim for inclusion, is that had she been treated as a Calicut University student her marks would have been sufficient to gain admission and since she belongs to the Malabar region, which is broadly served by the Calicut University, she should be given the benefit of Calicut University students and consequential admission- a mixture of district-wise backwardness and university-wise preference to reach the desired advantage.3. We cannot agree. Under the existing scheme, the classification for purpose of quota is university-wise, not territory-wise. Belonging to backward Calicut District is not the same as being an alumnu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC820; (1980)2SCC768; [1980]2SCR831
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. Many a case in this Court is the dramatisation. on the forensic stage, of social stress or community conflict which seeks resolution or release through the litigative process. This Writ Petition turns the focus on one such tense issue and ventilates a widespread grievance which deserves constitutional examination.2. The petitioner, Dr. Ramesh, is a medical graduate from the Madras University. His father, an officer under the Central Government, was transferred to Delhi and the son, desirous of taking a post-graduate degree in Dermatology, applied for admissison to the University of Delhi which offers that course. He took the common entrance test and secured enough marks to qualify for admission but was turned down because of a rule reserving 70% of the seats, at the post-graduate level, to Delhi graduates (if we may use that abbreviation for describing student-applicants who have taken their M.B.B.S. degree from the University of Delhi). The remaining 30% was op...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC575; [1982]52CompCas62(SC); (1980)2SCC253; [1980]2SCR821; 1980(12)LC361(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. Hulas Chand and Bilas Chand, original owners of a certain plot of land in Saharanpur, granted a permanent lease of the land to Patel Mills Ltd., in May, 1930. The annual rent was Rs. 75/-. The lease was empowered to use the land for any purpose whatsoever. The rights of the lessee were expressly made transferable. Though the lease was permanent, there was a condition that the lessor could forfeit the lease if the lessee failed to pay rent for three consecutive years. On November 1, 1932 Hulas Chand and Bilas Chand transferred their interest to Budh Singh and Jialal. Jugal Kishore, became entitled to the rights of Budh Singh and Jialal by purchase under sale deeds dated April 17, 1943 and May 11, 1943. But, Shankerlal and Piareylal (present plaintiff) filed a suit for presumption against the vendors and Jugal Kishore and as a result of the decree passed in the suit, they became entitled to the lessor's interest in the suit plot of land on August 13, 1945.2. Mean...
Tag this Judgment!