Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1981(Supp)SCC73
R.S. SARKARIA, J.1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Counsel for the appellant has raised two contentions:(1) That the order of the Consolidation Officer was appealable under Section 11 of the Act.(2) In any case, the Director of Consolidation had exceeded his jurisdiction under Section 48, inasmuch as he allowed additional evidence to be produced before him in revision, which the revision-petitioner could have produced before the Consolidation Officer, but neglected to do so.2. Learned counsel for the respondents strenuously opposed these contentions.3. We find that Contention (1) is not correct. The order against which Gian Chand Bansari went in revision before the Director did not fall within the purview of Section 9-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and, as such, was not appealable under Section 11 of that Act. We however find a good deal of force in the second contention of the appellant. Whether or not there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay, is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1981Supp(1)SCC71
V.R. KRISHNA IYER, J.— 1. A matrimonial embroglio between the two young persons who are parties before us, had led to more than one litigation. It has eventually reached the Supreme Court and we thought that such a case should not be driven to a bitter legal finish. On the other hand, every possible effort to restore the conjugal home and bring back harmony between husband and wife should be attempted. We are happy to note that in this essay, counsel for both sides, Shri Tarkunde and Dr Chitale have helped us considerably, without reference to their appearance on behalf of any particular party. Indeed, it is largely due to their efforts and some amount of discussion, persuasion and suggestion from us that the two parties Annapurna and Saikumar have agreed to live together at Rajamundri in a separate house. They will live together for one month or more jointly like this and it is also understood and assumed on a trial basis that the parents or grandparents of both spouses will not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC847; 1980CriLJ546; (1980)2SCC406; [1980]2SCR1105; 1980(12)LC452(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. No Constitution nor Code nor Court can interdict illegal incarceration where conscientized agencies of the law at the grass-roots level are absent. Such is the only explanation for the lawless lot of the two prisoners who are petitioner before us. These two humans sojourning for long years in some jail or other in Bihar since 1972 found their personal liberty subverted by the police, prison officials and the magistracy that they wrote letters to the Hon. Chief Justice in desperation. The above habeas corpus petition is a legal2. Incarnation of those letters. Sensitized by the prima facie hideous facts disclosed the court directed a rule to issue. Somehow, despite several adjournments the State did not even furnish the basic facts about the imprisonment of the petitioners, the offences for which they were kept in judicial custody, for how long and at what stage were the proceedings and the like. This gross indifference of the Bihar State in regard to citizens dep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC849; [1981]51CompCas343(SC); 1980CriLJ548; (1980)2SCC275; [1980]2SCR1095
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J 1. Mrs. Frances Coralie Mullin, a British National was served on November 23, 1979. with an order of detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. The grounds of detention were also served on her on the same day. On december 1, 1979, her Advocate sent a telegram to the detaining authority, namely, the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, asking for copies of statements and documents upon which reliance placed in the grounds of detention. The telegram was received by the detaining authority on December 3, 1979. the Director of Revenue Intelligence who was directed by the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, to supply copies of statements and documents to the detenu, so supplied them on December 7, 1979. Seventeen documents were mentioned in the accompanying letter. Alleging that one of the documents (item No. 14) was not sent, the Advocate wrote a letter by Registered post on December 17, 1979, asking for a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC882; (1980)2SCC295; [1980]2SCR1111
E.S. Venkataramiah, J. 1. This appeal by certificate arises out of Suit No. 416 of 1960 on the file of the Munsif, Utraula at Gonda instituted by the Tulsipur Sugar Company (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff) against the Town Area Committee, Tulsipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant') for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from levying octroi on goods brought into the premises of the sugar factory belonging to the plaintiff pursuant to the Notification bearing No. 540/XXHI-102 (58-59) -7 dated December 15,1959 issued by the Commissioner of Faizabad Division in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the U.P. Town Area Act, 1914 (U.P. No. II of 1914) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with the Notification bearing No. 1375(1)/XXIII-102(58-59)-24 dated April 14, 1960. The name of the defendant was altered into the Notified Area Committee of Tulsipur by virtue of an order made by the Munsif on August 18, 1962 sin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1141; 1980CriLJ802; (1980)82PLR743; (1980)3SCC291; [1980]2SCR1152; 1980(12)LC443(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. While we decline to grant special leave in this case, an unsavoury feature of the judgment which rather stares into our face, and surfaces at regular intervals, makes it obligatory to make a few observations.2. Petitioner was convicted for having committed offences under Section 161 of the I.P.C. and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year on each count and on the second count, also to pay a fine of Rs. 400/- or in default to suffer further R.I. for three months by the learned Special Judge. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.3. Petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 989 of 1977 against his conviction and sentence to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.4. This appeal came up for final hearing before a learned single judge of the High Court on 31st October, 1979. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioner appearing in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1173; 1980Supp(1)SCC298; [1980]2SCR1130
D.A. Desai, J.1. On a certificate granted by the Full Bench of the High Court of Kerala, original plaintiff, a Hindu widow who was seeking partition of a share to which her deceased husband was entitled, having lost in both the Courts, has filed this appeal. The High Court granted the certificate under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution as in its opinion the following substantial questions of law arise from the judgment rendered by it:1. Whether under the Mitakshara Law the parties are governed by customary law, and, in the absence of any rule of customary law on the point in question, by Mitakshara Law property can be divided, albeit by a family settlement, between two artificial units of a joint family, one comprising the sons of a father by his first wife, the first wife and his step mother, and the other comprising his son by his second wife and the second wife so as to constitute each unit into a coparcenary with rights of survivorship between its members; and2. Whether the use...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1329; (1980)2SCC349; 1980(12)LC330(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J. 1. This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 3.2 1969 dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant in limine. The undisputed facts of the case are that Smt. Badami Kaur was a widow of the last proprietor of the lands in dispute and she was recorded as such. The case was decided before the Consolidation authorities mainly on the basis of a statement alleged to have been given by Smt, Badami Kaur some time in the year 1931 as a result of which she was mutated as a widow of her husband. It was pleaded by the reversioners that the mentation was only by way of consolation without any rights in the properties which were to go to her collaterals; namely the respondents This statement was made at a time when neither the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was passed nor the Hindu Succession Act came into force. At the time when the matter was decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation both the A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC953; (1980)3SCC309; [1980]2SCR1092; 1980(1)SLJ314(SC); 1980(12)LC422(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. Two government servants have been retired from service in exercise of the powers vested in the Central Government by Rule 56(j)(i) of the Fundamental Rules. They have successfully challenged compulsory retirement by petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution and the Union of India has come up in appeal to this Court by special leave. The sole question to be decided is whether a government servant officiating in a Class I or Class II service or post can be retired compulsorily by exercising the power under Rule 56(j)(i) after he has attained the age of 50 years.2. The biographical details of these two officials in government service need not detain us because the facts are admitted and the only point at issue is whether Rule 56(j)(i) will apply to a government servant who is only officiating in a Class I or Class II post or service. We agree with the High Court that on a correct interpretation of that Rule, an officiating hand will not be caught in the claws...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1888; 1980Supp(1)SCC505
ORDER1. The only ground on which the order for eviction passed by the Prescribed Authority and confirmed by the Second Additional Distt. Judge, Agra, has been set aside by the High Court is that the Union of India was not impleaded as a party in the application for eviction made by the appellant before the Prescribed Authority. This is a hyper-technical plea taken by the respondents which does not deserve any consideration, since the Director, Small Industries Services Institute, Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Industrial Development and the Deputy Director/ Office-in-charge of the Small Industries Services Institute were all joined as parties in the application for eviction and an order for eviction was sought against them. It is common ground between the parties that the premises were occupied by the Small Industries Services Institute and the Director and the Deputy Director, who were in charge of the affairs of the Institute sufficiently represented the interest o...
Tag this Judgment!