Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC416; (1980)4SCC354; [1981]1SCR732; 1980(12)LC944(SC)
Sarkaria, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment, dated May 4, 1970, of the High Court of Allahabad. It arises in these circumstances :2. One Matadin, father of Ram Lochan, respondent 6 herein, was a fixed rate tenant of the plots in dispute measuring 2.11 acres. One Ram Naresh Singh (deceased), brother of appellant 1 herein, namely Mahadeo Prasad Singh, obtained a money decree against Matadin on February 18, 1953 from the Judge, Small Causes Court, Varanasi in suit No. 847 of 1953. Ram Naresh Singh sought to execute the decree. As a consequence, the decree was transferred from the Court of the Judge of Small Causes to the Court of Munsif, Varanasi, for execution. The plots in dispute were put to auction by the executing court, and were purchased by the decree-holder on July 20, 1956. The sale was confirmed on August 29, 1956 and the sale certificate was issued on September 8, 1956. The decree-holder-purchaser, Ram Naresh Singh, took delivery of possession over these plots on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC440; (1980)4SCC451; [1981]1SCR707; [1980]46STC477(SC); 1980(12)LC921(SC)
Venkataramiah, J.1. The appellant is a firm carrying on business at Mandi Anandganj, Barut, District Meerut in the State of Uttar Pradesh and is a dealer as defined in the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (Act No. XV of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It has filed this appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the order dated July 31, 1979 passed in Appeal No. 1502 of 1978 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Sales Tax, Meerut Range, Meerut upholding the inclusion of the market fee and the commission (otherwise called 'dami') payable to the commission agent operating within a market area established under the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (U.P. Act No. XXV of 1964) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam') in the turnover of purchases of the appellant for purposes of levy of sales tax under Section 3-D of the Act. The assessment year in question is 1974-75. The appellant was granted leave to appeal to file the above appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)1SCC625
P.N. Bhagwati and; S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, JJ.1. It appears from the order of the High Court impugned in the appeal that the High Court has not correctly appreciated the position that the question whether there was discharge of the contract by accord and satisfaction or not, is a dispute arising out of the contract and is liable to be referred to arbitration and hence the application of the respondent under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act should have been allowed and the matters in dispute between the parties, including the question whether or not there was discharge of the contract by accord and satisfaction should have been referred to arbitration. We, therefore, set aside the finding of the High Court that there was no accord and satisfaction of the contract and direct that the matters in dispute between the parties, including the question whether or not there was discharge of the contract by accord and satisfaction, lie referred to the arbitration of Mr V.S. Deshpande, retir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1981)1SCC77; 1980(12)LC908(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against an Order, dated July 3, 1969, of the High Court of Allahabad, by which it quashed the prosecution of the respondents in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, 1973.2. The respondents were being tried In the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad, for offences under Rule 126P(2)(ii), (iv), (v) and (vi) of the Defence of India Rules (for short called the D.I R.), alleged, to have been committed by them on April 20,1967. Under Rule 1260 of the D.I.R,, no prosecution for an offence could be instituted against the respondents without the consent of the Administrator or any person authorised in this behalf Such sanction for prosecution is said to have been granted by the Collector of Customs, under whose orders the Assistant Collector on December 27,1972, filed a complaint against the respondents in Court in respect of the aforesaid offences. The High Court quashed the proceedings with these obse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC22; (1981)83BOMLR64; 1980CriLJ1280; (1980)4SCC286; [1981]1SCR694
Sarkaria, J.1. These two appeals by the State of Maharashtra are directed against a common judgment, dated April 19, 1973, of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. Both will be disposed of by this judgment. They arise out of these facts :2. Three persons, namely, Shankar, Sk. Bannu and Mohamad Nazir were tried for offences punishable under Sections 205, 419, 465, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of a complaint made on August 12, 1978 by Shri R.K. Karandikar, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola, under Section 476 read with Section 195 of the CrPC. Sk. Bannu, accused 2 was, at the relevant time, serving as a Clerk to an Advocate at Akola. Mohamad Nazir, accused 3, is the son of Sk. Bannu. Accused 1, Shankar, was a milkman residing at Dabki Road, Akola.3. On October 25, 1968, in respect of offences under Section 85(1), (2) and (3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, one Deolal Kishan was arrested. He was produced before Shri L.G. Deshpande, Judicial Magistrate (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC459; 1980CriLJ1509; (1980)4SCC478; [1981]1SCR691
Sarkaria, J.1. This is a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, Sarfaraz Maqbool Qureishi who has been detained under Section 3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Act 7 of 1980) (for short, called PKEBLACT). The order was issued by the Commissioner of Police, Bombay on May 28, 1980. It was served on the detenu on May 29, 1980 when, according to the averments in the writ petition, he was an indoor patient in the St. George Hospital, Lucknow, struggling for his life, due to a massive heart attack. The grounds of detention were also supplied to him on the same day.2. The detenu is a dealer in kerosene.3. Mr. Jethmalani, appearing for the petitioner, has canvassed five points before us. The first point is that a representation dated June 27, 1980 was addressed to the detaining authority, Commissioner of Police, Bombay, but the latter refused to consider the same and this amoun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC2130; 1980CriLJ1480; (1981)2SCC202; 1980(12)LC959(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.2. Vasantlal D. Minawala (hereinafter referred to as the detenu resides in Bombay, and carries on business as a gold dealer in partnership in the name and style of 'Jewellers Danabhai Minawala' at 212/58, Naveri Bazar, Bombay-2.3. On December 24, 1979, an order, dated December 18, 1979, issued under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA, by Shri S.D. Deshpande, the Deputy Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), expressed in the name of the Governor, was served on the detenu. On the same date, the grounds of detention were served on the detenu.4. On January 9, 1980, on. behalf of the detenu his Advocate addressed a letter to the Deputy Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), copies of which for immediate action were endorsed to (1) the Chief Minister, Government of Maharashtra, Bombay; (2) the Collector of Customs; and (3) the A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC2128; 1980CriLJ1478; 1980Supp(1)SCC347; 1981(13)LC125(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. This is an appeal under the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970. The appellants were tried by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Barnala for offences under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC and other cognate offences for causing the death of Sajjan Singh and Gurdial Singh and for the injuries caused to Harbans Singh, Bakhtawar Singh and Chamkaur Singh. They were acquitted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge but on appeal by the State, they were convicted of the several offences with which they were charged and awarded appropriate sentences by the High Court. In this appeal Mr. Hardayal Hardy has submitted that the view taken by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge could not be so unreasonable as to warrant interference by the High Court. He made a special plea in regard to Pala Singh appellant No. 3 and submitted that he had not particular enmity with the deceased, and no particular reason to join other five accused in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC92; 1980CriLJ1340; (1980)4SCC525; [1981]1SCR682
Koshal, J.1. The prayer made in this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is that the petitioner who has been detained in pursuance of an order dated the 29th May 1980 issued by the Government of Maharashtra in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Clause (a) of Section 5 of the Conversion of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) shall be immediately released from custody which, according to him, is illegal.2. The arrest of the petitioner in pursuance of the order above mentioned was effected on the 4th June 1980, when a communication addressed to him and signed by the Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, was delivered to him. That communication contained the grounds on the basis of which the petitioner's detention had been ordered. A resume of those grounds appears below :(a) On the 3rd February 1980 the petitioner went to the Airport at Bombay and tried to have a bag c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC82; 1980CriLJ1330; (1981)3SCC675
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment, dated December 21, 1976, of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, reversing the judgment of the Sessions Court, Anantapur, whereby he had acquitted the six accused of offences under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149, Penal Code. The prosecution case, as it emerges from the record, is as follows:The deceased, M. Gangireddy, was a practising Advocate of Cuddapah. He belonged to village Atchavalli. In that village, there are two rival factions. The deceased was the leader of one faction, while the accused appellants belong to the opposite faction led by Kankarla Narayana Reddi. There had been bad blood and criminal litigation between persons belonging to each of these factions. In election to the office of Sarpanch of Atchavalli the deceased had defeated the said Kankarla Narayana Reddi. A criminal case was instituted against the deceased and 4 others including one Samvarpu Chinna Narayan Reddy, under Section 307, Indian...
Tag this Judgment!