Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1630; (1980)4SCC569
A.C. Gupta, J.1. This is an appeal at the instance of a tenant against the decision of the Delhi High Court dismissing summarily his second appeal on the ground that it did not involve any question of law. The second appeal was from an order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi setting aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi who had dismissed the application made by the respondent before us under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviction of the tenant.2. The appellant is a tenant of the first floor of the house 132 Jor Bagh, New Delhi, owned by the respondent; and the ground floor of the house is also tenanted. The case made by the respondent in her application under Section 14(1)(e) was that her son who was employed as a mechanical engineer in a Calcutta firm was suffering from cancer and he wanted to come and live with her at Delhi, that she was residing on the first floor of premises No. 535, Defence Colony, New Delhi which was ow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC461; (1980)4SCC311; [1981]1SCR847
Pathak, J.1. In these three petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners separately pray for a restoration of the quota originally granted to them in their respective licences for the manufacture of fire-arms.2. Writ Petition No. 833 of 1979 has been filed by Ranjit Singh who alleges that his father Pritam Singh commenced the business of manufacturing guns in 1950 under a licence issued by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. The licence permitted him to manufacture 30 guns per month. The guns were manufactured by hand and were not proof-tested. The licence was renewed annually and the quota was maintained throughout. Later, with the enactment of the Arms Act, 1959, the licence was issued under that statute. The Government insisted that the guns manufactured by Pritam Singh should undergo proof-testing, and for that purpose it became necessary for the manufacturer to purchase and install the necessary machinery and plant. The machinery was installed shortly after 196...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC510; (1980)82BOMLR462; 1981CriLJ331; (1980)4SCC470; [1981]1SCR852
Sen J.1. This petition for the grant of writ of Habeas Corpus is for the release of one Bhalabhai Motiram Patel, who has been detained by an order of the State Government of Maharashtra dated February 12, 1980 under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on being satisfied that it was necessary to detain him 'with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods and engaging in transport of smuggled goods'. At the conclusion of the hearing on July 30, 1980 we made an order for the release of the detenu since we were of the view that his 'continued detention' was invalid. We now proceed to give reasons therefore.2. The facts emerging from the grounds of detention are that the detenu was acting as a 'courier' between Messrs S.K. Malhotra Imports & Exports, Brussels having a widespread network abroad and Messrs Apex Distributors, Bombay who were engaged in a c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1647; 1980Supp(1)SCC608
D.A. Desai, J.1. Special Leave to appeal granted.2. Appellant Moola filed a suit under Section 5 of the Punjab Tenancy Act in the Court of Assistant Collector, Hissar, for acquisition of occupancy rights. Third respondent Lorinda Ram, a displaced person was the allottee of the land in respect of which Moola claimed occupancy rights. When the matter reached the High Court, the learned single Judge of the High Court relying upon Section 9 of the Displaced Persons (Land Resettlement) Act, 1947, held that even if the appellant Moola was on the land since the time of his fore fathers, the lease is deemed to have been terminated effective from July 21, 1949, because there is nothing to show that the lease in question was exempted by the Custodian from the operation of Section 9. With this observation, the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed and this Order was affirmed by a Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 150 of 1979.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant here pointed out t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC170; (1980)4SCC430; [1981]1SCR815
S. Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by certificate is directed against a judgment dated January 6, 1969 of the Allahabad High Court and arises in the following circumstances.2. The land in dispute originally belonged to Smt. Jawahar Devi who had inherited the same from her father Shankar Das who died sometime in or before the year 1905. Jawahar Devi had a daughter Putli Bibi who had three sons, namely, Basantlal, Shankarlal and Girdharilal. Jawahar Devi died in the year 1934.3. On the 25th February 1905, Jawahar Devi let out the land to the late Lala Lachman Das for the construction of a mill which was known as 'Narain Das Lachman Das Oil Mill'. The lease was to continue for 50 years and contained a clause for renewal. In the year 1936-37, the lessee Lachman Das transferred his rights in the lease to Northern India Oil Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company'). Thereafter, the three sons of Putli Bibi sent a notice on the 15th of December 1937 to M/s. Narain Dass Lachman...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC463; (1980)4SCC697; [1981]1SCR823
Desai, J..1. Constitutional validity of Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1979 ('Act' for short), and the Notification No. FD 66 CSL 79 dated May 31, 1979, issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Act is involved in this appeal by special leave at the instance of the State of Karnataka and one other.2. Karnataka State enacted the Act to provide for the levy of tax on entry of goods into local areas for consumption, use or sale therein, being Karnataka Act No. 27 of 1979. Section 3 empowers the State Government to levy and collect tax on entry of scheduled goods into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein at such rate not exceeding 2% ad valorem, as may be specified by the State Government. Armed with the power conferred by Section 3, the State Government issued notification-1 No. FD 66 CSL 79 dated May 31, 1979, specifying the local areas and the rates of tax at which the t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC477; 1980Supp(1)SCC318; 1980(12)LC914(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961. In a proceeding transferred to it under Section 36B of the Act, the Bar Council of India by its order dated 17 April, 1977 found that the appellant was guilty of professional misconduct and suspended him from practice for a period of one year. The complaint on which the proceeding was initiated was filed in the Gujarat Bar Council on 9 October, 1971.2. Section 35(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 reads:Where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise a State Bar Council has reason to believe that any advocate on its roll has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal to its disciplinary Committee.In Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dhholkar etc, etc this Court having examined the scheme and the provisions of the Advocates Act observed:It is apparent that a State Bar Council not only receives a complaint but is required to apply its mind to find out whether there is any r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC504; (1984)4SCC507; [1981]1SCR801; 1980(12)LC962(SC)
Krishna Iyer, J.1. Section 2(e) of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (Act 43 of 1978) (for short, the Act) defines a 'Prize chit' inclusively :-2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- * * * * * * * * *(e) 'prize chit' includes any transaction or arrangement by whatever name called under which a person collects whether as a promoter, foreman, agent or in any other capacity, monies in one lump sum or in instalments by way of contributions or subscriptions or by sale of units, certificates or other instruments or in any other manner or as membership fees or admission fees or service charges to or in respect of any savings, mutual benefit, thrift, or any other scheme or arrangement by whatever name called, and utilises the monies so collected or any part thereof or the income accruing from investment or other use of such monies for all or any of the following purposes, namely :-(i) giving or awarding periodically or otherwise to a specified n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC451; 1980CriLJ1501; 1980Supp(1)SCC641
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. The facts leading to these Criminal Appeals 151 of 1975 and 185 of 1976 are as follows:In the General Elections held to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in 1972, two candidates, namely, Rangil Singh (Congress) and Lala Sain Dass (Independent) contested from Ranbirsinghpura constituency, Two years earlier, in the election to the office of the Lambardar of Village Bahu, two factions came into existence. One of them was led by Pritam Singh, complainant, while the other was led by Piyara Singh and Hazara Singh, respondents in Criminal Appeal 151 of 1975. Pritam Singh's faction supported Sant Singh candidate, while Piyara Singh's faction canvassed for Gulab Singh, the rival candidate. The relations between Pritam Singh, complainant and his brother on one side and Piyara Singh and Hazara Singh on the other, which were already bitter became further strained due to this rivalry in the elections.2. On February 28, 1972 in the evening, a public meeti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC644; 1981CriLJ162; 19(1981)DLT7(SC); 1980Supp(1)SCC470
1. The appellant Ram Shankar was tried and convicted by the Sessions Judge Bench under Sections 392/397, I.P.C. and sentenced under the latter count to seven years' rigorous imprisonment which is the minimum punishment prescribed for that offence. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court. He has now come before us in appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution,2. The prosecution case against the appellant, as it emerges from the record was that on Dassara Day, the 17th October, 1972, ten persons including P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 of village Maniriban and P.W. 2 a resident of village Aslama, came to Damoh to see procession of Goddess Kali. After seeing the procession at about 3 a.m. in the night these persons came to the booking office at the Railway Station Damoh as they had to buy tickets for taking the train to Aslama. There was a big crowd at the Booking Office. All these eleven persons gave 35 paise each to Ram Singh (P.W. 1) and asked him to purchase tickets for all o...
Tag this Judgment!