Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1611; 1980Supp(1)SCC677
R.S. Pathak, J.1. This appeal by special leave granted by this Court is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay allowing a writ petition filed by the respondent.2. The appellant is the owner of a bungalow situated at Dhulia. The bungalow was let out to the respondent. On 27th Sept. 1963 the appellant issued a notice to the respondent terminating his tenancy. It was alleged that the respondent had raised an unauthorised construction and was, therefore, liable to forfeit the tenancy. The appellant then filed a suit for the ejectment of the respondent. The trial Court appointed a Commissioner to report on the question whether an unauthorised construction had been raised. On receipt of the report the trial Court found that no unauthorised construction had been raised by the defendant but that it was the plaintiff who had constructed a trellis work. On appeal by the respondent the decree of the trial Court was reversed by the first appellate Court and the suit wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC2080; (1980)4SCC224; 1980(12)LC744(SC)
S. Murtaza Fathak, J.1. This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Allahabad under Sub-clauses (a)(b) and (c) of Clause (1) of Article 133 of the Constitution is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court all owing a special appeal arising out of a writ petition filed by the respondent.2. A suit was brought in 1935 by one Nawab Ali Raza Khan against; Nawab Nawazish Ali Khan for recovery of property After a chequered career the suit was disposed of in appeal by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by a decree granting a declaration in favour of the plaintiff, A claim for mesne profits was left to the trial Court for adjudication. On 27th September, 1955 the trial Court passed a decree against Nawab Nawazish Ali Khan in the following terms:It is hereby decreed that the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 11,53,600/ with interest thereon at 3% per annum to the date of realization on account of mesne profits which haves accrued since the inst...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1980Supp(1)SCC340; 1981(13)LC152(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal All, J.1. After having heard counsel for the parties we reserved judgment. On going through the judgment of the judicial Commissioner and the documents and after a careful consideration of the arguments of the Parties, we find that these appeals involve a substantial question of law of great importance which is likely to govern a number of cases arising out of mining leases in the present territory of Goa, Daman & Diu. We, therefore, direct that this case be placed before a larger Bench. Let these appeals be placed before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice for orders....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1567; 1980Supp(1)SCC320; [1981]47STC313(SC); 1980(12)LC747(SC)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. Both these writ petitions have been filed under Act. 32 of the Constitution against assessments made under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Assessment) Special Circle, Ernakulam for the assessment years 1970 71 and 1971-72 respectively. The petitioner contends that the assessing authority has acted without power in its total turnover certain amounts recovered by the petitioner from its customer as tentative deposits on the sale of goods made to them.2. It appears that the petitioner sells liquor and on some sales of liquor it not only charged the purchasers for freight and excise duly but aha included in the bills a certain amount by way of 'deposit' to be charged as tax in the event of freight and excise duty being included in the total turnover for the purpose of assessment. In the assessment orders, the assessing authority did not clearly pronounce on the true nature of amounts recovered by way of deposit but it is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1708; 1980Supp(1)SCC679; 1980(12)LC842(SC)
P.S. Kailasam J.1. This appeal by Sjed Aleem @ Syed Baba is under Section 379 Cr, P.C. and Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appeal Jurisdiction Act, 1970 against the conviction and sentence imposed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka. The appellant was tiled by the first Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore for an offence under Section 201 and 302 I.P.C, and was acquitted .On appeal by the State of Karnataka the High Court found the accused guilty under 83. 201 and 302 I.P.C and sentenced him to imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C. No separate sentence was passed under Section 201. The case against the accused is purely circumstantial and the question for our consideration is whether the High Court was right in holding that the circumstantial evidence adduced is sufficient to bring home the accused the charge framed against him.2. The circumstances relied on by the prosecution are enumerated at page 138 of the paper book. The accused wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC2138; (1980)4SCC174; [1981]1SCR85; 1980(12)LC753(SC)
Gupta, J.1. This appeal by certificate granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court is from the judgment of a Full Bench of that Court answering the following question referred to it:Whether by universal custom among the Sikh Jats of the Punjab, a widow does not forfeit her life estate in her husband's property by reason of her remarriage in Karewa form with her husband's brother, and if so, whether the custom admits of exceptions among different tribes of Sikh Jats and in particular among Dhaliwal Jats of Muktsar Tehsil of Ferozepur District.The relevant facts are these. The first three respondents, Bakhtawar Singh, Jit Singh and Chand Singh, and the deceased husband of the appellant Sada Kaur were brothers. The appellant's husband died sometime in the year 1937 and a few months later she married the third respondent Chand Singh who was a younger brother of her husband in Karewa form. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the first two respondents, Bakhtawar Singh an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1887; 1980Supp(1)SCC689; 1980(12)LC746(SC)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Bombay under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution is directed against the judgment and order dated 16th July, 1969, of the High Court, dismissing on limine a Writ Petition filed by the appellants.2. The appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the validity of proceedings taken under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of certain parcels of land which the appellants allege, belong to them. It appears that the lands are sought to be acquired for the benefit of the third respondent M/s. Bayer (India) Limited. The case of the appellants was that the acquisition was intended mala fide, the object merely being to maintain the possession of the third respondent in the land, which it had entered upon consequent on an agreement with one Sitaram Babu Patil, who in fact, had no right title or interest in the said land. We have examined the record of the case and we find that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC2044; (1980)4SCC122; [1981]1SCR69; 1980(12)LC748(SC)
Shinghal, J.1. These appeals by special leave are directed against a common judgment of the Madras High Court dated August 22, 1977, in three revision petitions against the orders of the State Transport Corporation, Madras, dated February 16, 1977, by which the High Court allowed the revision petitions and remitted the cases to the Regional Transport Authority for fresh consideration in the light of its observations. The High Court directed further that the revision petitioners before it as well as the present appellant Corporation would continue to provide transport facilities on the route in question until the disposal of the renewal applications of the revision petitioners.2. The facts of the three appeals are quite simple and are not in controversy. They have been heard together at the instance of the learned Counsel for the parties and will be disposed of by this common judgment.3. The controversy relates to the plying of vehicles on the Salem-Krishnagiri route. The facts of one o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC116; (1980)4SCC62; [1981]1SCR73; 1980(12)LC760(SC)
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. This appeal by Shri Thammanna is directed against a judgment, dated April 24, 1979 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, whereby the election petition filed by Shri V. Krishna Reddy, respondent 7 herein, against the returned candidate, Shri K. Veera Reddy (Respondent 1 herein) was dismissed. The material facts are these:2. In the elections held for the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly in February, 1978 respondents 1 to 4, 6, 7 and the appellant filed their nominations for Amarchinta Assembly Constituency. Polling took place on February 25, 1978 and Shri K. Veera Reddy, respondent 1, was declared elected on February 27, 1978. He secured 34727 votes, while his nearest rival, respondent 2, got 29,419 votes. The appellant obtained 822 votes only.3. Shri V. Krishna Reddy, (Respondent 7 herein), being a voter for 198 Amarchinta Assembly Constituency in Mahabubnagar District filed an election petition in the High Court to get the election of the first respondent declared...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1944; [1980(41)FLR221]; (1981)0GLR40; (1980)IILLJ252SC; (1980)4SCC106; [1981]1SCR64; 1981(1)SLJ101(SC); 1980(12)LC750(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. A common question arises for consideration in these two appeals relating to the mode of calculating fifteen days' wages of a monthly rated employee under Section 4(2) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 4(2) provides :For every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months, the employer shall pay gratuity to an employee at the rate of fifteen days' wages based on the rate of wages last drawn by the employee concerned :Provided that in the case of a piece-rated employee, daily wages shall be computed on the average of the total wages received by him for a period of three months immediately preceding the termination of his employment, and, for this purpose, the wages paid for any overtime work shall not be taken into account :Provided further that in the case of an employee employed in a seasonal establishment, the employer shall pay the gratuity at the rate of seven days' wages for each season.2. 'Wages'...
Tag this Judgment!