Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1226; 1980CriLJ925; (1980)3SCC301; [1980]3SCR280; 1980(12)LC421(SC)
ORDERV.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. Wife burning-that atrocious species of murder horrendously escalating in some parts of this country-is the shocking crime proved, according to two courts, by the prosecution in this case. Concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed save on enormity of improbability which we are unable to see in the present case. The three dying declarations corroborated by other circumstances are sufficient in our view to bring home the offence. Counsel has sought to discredit these declarations relevant Under Section 32 of the Evidence Act forgetting that they are the groaning utterances of a dying woman in the grip of dreadful agony which cannot be judged by the standards of fullness of particulars which witnesses may give in other situations. To discredit such dying declarations for shortfalls here or there or even in many places is unrealistic, unnatural and unconscionable if basically there is credibility. The terrible in this case has taken place in the house and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1087; 1980CriLJ801; (1980)3SCC70; [1980]3SCR277; 1980(12)LC424(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. The criminal scenario with a tragic crescendo which has been unfurled in this Special Leave Petition starts with'a bunch of 'suspects' being brought up to the police post which was in charge of the petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector. A case of theft in some officer's house had been reported to the police the previous night and so as part of the investigation the suspects were picked up and suffered as part of the process of investigation severe flagellation. Chhabila, one of those so tortured, succumbed to his injuries. This triggered off investigation into the murderous conduct of the investigator, the petitioner, and another. Medical examination revealed the cruel cause of death as asphyxiation. One of the injuries which, according to the doctor, made the deceased unconscious was torture on both the soles of the foot of the victim. A trial for murder followed, a conviction Under Section 302 was entered and eventually the High Court confirmed the conviction...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1983)1SCC400
BHAGWATI, J.1. We are not impressed by the argument of Dr Chitale that on the release of the land in question from the management of the Court the tenancy of the person who was inducted on the land by the Administrator appointed by the Court, came to an end on the ground that the Administrator had only limited power to grant tenancy of the land. On this view, we would have ordinarily dismissed the appeal, but Dr Chitale, appearing on behalf of the appellants, urged before us that the 1st repondent was only a subtenant of the land and by reason of Section 27 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the subtenancy was illegal andhence the 1st respondent was not entitled to protection from eviction. Mrs Wad. appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent, raised an objection that this contention had not been taken by the appellants at any stage in the proceedings and it was for the first time in this Court that it was being put forward on behalf of the appellants and we should n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1098; 1980LabIC644; (1980)3SCC174; [1980]3SCR254
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. These two appeals by special leave are directed against a judgment dated January 31,1977 of the Allahabad High Court by which the High Court accepted the writ petitions filed by the present respondents 1 to 12 and quashed the order dated December 31, 1971 of the Government of U.P. insofar as it related to respondents numbers 3 to 12 and 14 to 39 before the High Court. The High Court further directed the State to redetermine the seniority of the regular PMS II officers and the temporary PMS I officers in the light of the observations made and the findings given by the High Court.2. Against the order of the High Court two appeals have been filed to this Court-one by the State of Uttar Pradesh (which is Civil Appeal No. 2870 of 1977) and the other by the appellants 1 to 8 (Civil Appeal No. 2869 of 1977) who were respondents numbers 3 and 33 to 39 before the High Court. For the purpose of brevity and to avoid confusion we would refer to respondents 1 to 12 before...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)3SCC183
A.D. Koshal and; S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, JJ.1. We have heard counsel for the parties and also have gone through judgments of the High Court and the trial court. We find that the property allotted to the appellant Mst Laxmi Bai is disproportionate and inequitable. Taking an overall view of the situation we modify the decree of the High Court to this extent that the following more items shall be given to her :1. Kuwawala, Holding No. 929 in Ward No. 7, the property described in the Schedule to the plaint as the first item (actually the plot number of this item is 929 as recorded in Municipal records).2. Remaining portion of Holding Number 952 in Ward No. 7 after excluding the residential house of Respondent 4 situate thereon with land appurtenant thereto within the boundary walls enclosing the said residential premises of Respondent 4 (actually the plot number of this item is 952 as recorded in Municipal records).2. The appeal is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid modification with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1157; (1980)3SCC1; [1980]3SCR248; 1980(12)LC418(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. A notice issued Under Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the Act) gives rise to this appeal brought on a certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court on August 18, 1969 under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Sub-section (1) of Section 7 states :Where the Custodian is of opinion that any property is evacuee property within the meaning of this Act, he may, after causing notice thereof to be given in such manner as may be prescribed to the persons interested, and after holding such inquiry into the matter as the circumstances of the case permit, pass an order declaring any such property to be evacuee property.Rule 6 of the Administration of Evacuee Property (Central) Rules, 1950 (hereinafter called the Rules) which lays down the manner of inquiry Under Section 7 provides in Sub-rule (1) that where the Custodian is satisfied from information in his possession or otherwise that any property or an interest ther...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1201; (1980)82BOMLR421; (1980)3SCC162; [1980]3SCR224
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The respondents in Civil Appeal No. 708 of 1978, Mamanchand Ratilal Agarwal and others, who are the landlords of premises bearing door No. 16 in Nawa Bazar Area Kirkee Cantonment, filed civil suit No. 1730 of 1964 against the appellant-tenant for recovery of possession and arrears of rent under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rate Control Act, 1947. The suit was decreed. There was an appeal by the tenant. It resulted in a compromise decree dated July 12, 1967 by which some time was given to the tenant to vacate the premises. As the tenant failed to vacate the premises within the time given to him, the landlords were compelled to take out execution.2. On April 29,1969, in the case of Indu Bhitsan Base v. Rama Sundari Devi and Anr. : [1970]1SCR443 , this Court held that Parliament alone had and the State Legislature did not have the necessary competence to make a law in regard to the 'regulation of house accommodation in Cantonment are...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)2SCC54
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.,; N.L. Untwalia and; E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.1. Heard counsel. Special leave granted.2. We are of the opinion that this is a proper case in which execution of the decree should be stayed. We, therefore direct that the decree passed by the High Court on January 21, 1980, shall not be executed until disposal of the second appeal which is pending in the High Court.3. As a condition of stay, however, we direct that the appellants shall furnish security, as agreed by them, in the sum of Rs 10,000 towards mesne profits, to the satisfaction of the Registrar of the High Court, within one month from today. The amount of Rs 96,000 and odd which has been deposited by the respondents in the District Court shall be invested in a short-term deposit for six months. The interest which this amount will bear and the security in the sum of Rs 10,000 which the appellants have agreed to furnish shall be adjusted by the High Court in the light of its decision in the second appeal. Cons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1118; (1980)3SCC223; [1980]3SCR235; 1980(12)LC457(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment dated November 3, 1970 of the Bombay High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant against a decision of a Single Judge allowing a writ petition filed by the first respondent.2. The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass and may briefly summarised as follows :3. The appellant was a private company which was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of artificial marbles and tiles and other accessories at village Majas Mogra, Jogeshwari, East Bombay. The company was spread over about 10 acres of land. Sometime in 1957 or 1958 the company moved the Government for acquiring additional land for purposes of the company. Accordingly, on the 7th January 1958, the Government issued a notification Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') which was followed by a separate notice by the Land Acquisition Officer acquiring the la...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1524; (1980)4SCC336; 1980(12)LC526(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment, dated August 23, 1979, of the High Court of Assam at Gauhati.2. The material facts are that the Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar Invited tenders for settlement of the Meleng Country Spirit Shop No. 3 of Jorhat Sub-Division for the period June 1, 1979 to March 31, 1980 Fourteen other persons, including respondent 1, also submitted tenders for settlement of the said shop.3. The Deputy Commissioner (hereinafter called the Primary Authoriry) on the advice of the Advisory Committee constituted under Rule 208 of the Assam Excise Rules, by an Order dated April 30, 1979, settled the shop with the appellant for the aforesaid period.4. Mukunda Bore, respondent I, preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the Assam Excise Act before the Assam Board of Revenue. The Board on the application of respondent 1 herein, by an order dated May 31, 1979, stayed the operation of the aforesaid settlement order, dated April 30, 1979, ob...
Tag this Judgment!