Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)2SCC42
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, J. (Vacation Judge)1. In this case, after the undertaking given by the tenant a new development appears to have taken place which is contested by both the parties. According to the tenant, after the undertaking was given by him what happened was that through the efforts of one Mr P.C. Gupta, a common friend of the parties, the landlord agreed to create a fresh tenancy by increasing the rent of Rs 325 to 375 per month and allowed the tenant to continue, thus resulting into a novation of the contract. In support of his plea the tenant has produced two rent receipts alleged to have been signed by the landlord as also a cheque which was given by the tenant to the landlord which appears to have been deposited in the Bank. The stand taken by the landlord, however, is that no such fresh tenancy was created at all and the entire case has been cooked up by the tenant in order to defeat his eviction. The photostat copy of the rent receipt has been produced before me which i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)1SCC422a
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, J. (Vacation Judge)1. This is an application by the wife of the detenu praying that the detenu be released as the order of detention passed against him is illegal. In support of the rule, Mr Ramjethmalani, learned Counsel for the detenu submitted three points before me. In the first place it was argued that although the detenu had taken a specific plea in para 17 of the petition and Ground XIII that being an Arab, he did not know English yet the grounds served on the detenu were not explained to him at all in a language which he could understand. In this connection, the allegations in para 17 may be extracted as follows:“That the detenu did not understand English nor he knows English. The grounds of detention were not explained to him nor the detention order was explained to the detenu in the language known by the detenu. The detenu can only sign paper in Arabic. He understands only Arabic.”2. It is clear from the averment of the detenu that he knew on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)1SCC422
V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J.1. This appeal by certificate granted by the Gujarat High Court arises out of a suit instituted by the appellant — a partnership firm engaged in the business of undertaking and executing building contracts — involves mainly the question whether the High Court was justified in modifying the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff by the court of first instance by disallowing a sum of Rs 32,044 being the amount of deductions made by the Government from the plaintiff's bills on the ground that certain items of work included in the original Schedule were subsequently omitted and the deductions represented the costs of the items of work so omitted.2. The work had been originally entrusted to another firm of contractors by name M/s Kalyandas. Apparently in view of unsatisfactory progress and quality of the work carried out by that firm, the contract with it was terminated and fresh tenders were invited for the execution of the balance work which remained ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC2129; 1980CriLJ1479; (1980)4SCC427; 1980(12)LC682(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. The detenu-petitioner in this case was detained by as order dated 4th of March, 1980 of the Central Government under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). The only point argued before me by learned Counsel for the detenu is that the grounds of detention furnished to the detenu were in English language which he did not know or understand and no translated script was supplied to him. This averment is clearly made in para 21 (Grounds) of the Petition, the relevant portion of which may be extracted thus.That the detenu was served with order of detention and grounds thereof in English. The detenu does not know English and therefore, the detenu could not understand the said grounds of detention nor he was given by any copy of the grounds of detention, duly translated in vernacular language. It was the duty of the detaining authority to have supplied the detenu in a regional language or at lea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1751; 1980Supp(1)SCC195; [1980]3SCR1398; 1980(12)LC866(SC)
ORDERS. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. The detenu was detained under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (in short COFEPOSA) by the Government of Gujarat by its order dated January 30, 1980. The order was passed by Mr. P.M. Shah, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Gujarat who authenticated the said order on behalf of the State Government. The detenu while making a representation to the State Government also prayed for supply of documents to him in order to make a more effective representation. These documents however were supplied on March 27, 1980 although the order of detention was itself confirmed on March 21, 1980. In the representation sent to the Government, the detenu had made a specific prayer that his representation should be forwarded to the Central Government for being considered.2. In support of the rule, Mr. Ram Jethamalani, counsel appearing for the detenu raised two points before this Court. In the f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1558; 1980CriLJ1096; (1980)0GLR965; 1980Supp(1)SCC684; 1980(12)LC878(SC)
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. This appeal is by special leave by the appellant against the Judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Crl. A. No. 827/73 dt. 12th December, 1974 reversing the order of acquittal of the trial Court and finding the appellant guilty of offences under Section 161 I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentencing him to three months rigorous Imprisonment,2. The appellant is a Bench Clerk in the Court of the City Magistrate, 3rd Court, Ahmedabad. The charge against him is that on 7-7 72 he accepted from one Natvarlal Govindlal Patel a sum of Rs. 2/- as illegal gratification for the favour of granting an adjournment to 18-7-72 In Crl. Case No. 497/72 and for accepting another sum of Rs. 2/- on 18-7-72 from Natvarlal Govindlal Patel for showing favour in granting a date for the next hearing3. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant Natvarlal Govindlal Patel was accused in the Court in about four cases befor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1547; (1980)3SCC619; [1980]3SCR1388; 1980(12)LC774(SC)
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. These three appeals are by special leave granted by this Court against the judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala in Writ Appeals Nos. 451, 630 and 807 of 1969 respectively. The questions that arise for consideration in all the three appeals are the same and can be dealt with together. As the facts so far as they are necessary for decision in these appeals are similar, we will confine the judgment to the facts ha Civil Appeal No. 437 of 1970.2. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 437 of 1970 is Travancore Tea Estates Co Ltd. Vandiperiyar in Kerala State. The 1st respondent is the State of Kerala and respondents nos. 2 and 4 are the authorities functioning under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (Act 24 of 1963) which will hereafter be referred to as the Act, was brought into force on 1-7-1963. The Act provides that 'a tax at the rates fixed by the Government by notification in the Gazette not exceeding the maximum rates specified in the First Schedule sha...
Tag this Judgment!