Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC925; 1981CriLJ466; 1981(1)SCALE59; (1981)1SCC605; 1981(13)LC421(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgement and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana maintaining on appeal the conviction and sentence of the appellants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.2. The appellants were tried for the murder of Jit Singh and Kehar Singh. The case of the prosecution was that Jit Singh, Kehar Singh and Sarwan Singh (P.W. 4) were three brothers. They were accused of murdering the appellant Kaka Singh's uncle Ilari Singh, but were acquitted. Some time later on 30th December, 1971 at Mandi Ahmedgarh when the appellants Kaka Singh, Ilarchand Singh and Dalip Singh met Kehar Singh a quarrel took place between them. Kehar Singh returned to his fields and informed Jit Singh and Sarwan Singh and the latter's son, Mohinder Singh, of what had taken place. Towards sunset, it was alleged, when the four started for their village, Jit Singh riding on a mare and the other there walking behind him, including Kehar Singh who had a bicy...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC771b; 1981(1)SCALE50; (1981)1SCC427; [1981]2SCR504; 1981(13)LC76(SC)
Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against an Order dated November 16, 1978 of the High Court of Allahabad dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants.2. The facts of the case fall within a narrow compass and may be summarised thus.3. The premises in question which are situated in Nainital were commonly known as 'Waverly Quarters' and properly called as 'Hotel Waldrof'. According to the appellants the premises were rented out to one Keshar Singh on an annual rent of Rs. 14,000 on November 17, 1953 and the allotment of Hotel Waldrof to the tenant, Keshar Singh, was confirmed by the Rent Controller sometime in the year 1954. Thereafter, the tenant-Keshar Singh defaulted in the payment of rent resulting in a suit filed by the appellants for his eviction. This suit was filed on 9-4-72 for ejectment and for recovery of arrears amounting to Rs. 26,743, due up to June 4, 1971. On March 12, 1973 the tenant was asked to furnish security for arrears which he failed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC733; 1981CriLJ293; (1981)GLR268(SC); 1981(1)SCALE54; (1981)1SCC495; [1981]2SCR509; 1980(12)LC830(SC)
Pathak, J.1. This appeal, preferred under the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Gujarat setting aside the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court and convicting and sentencing the appellants for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, and under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Code.2. The appellants, Ajit Singh and Balwant Singh, are father and son. Another son is Mohan Singh. All three were charged with the murder of Manilal and with causing injuries to Parmabhai, Bhulabhai and Natwarlal. The prosecution case is that Manilal, Bhulabhai and Bhikabhai were three brothers residing in a chawl belonging to the appellant Ajit Singh, that on 9th April, 1975 Manilal drew his salary from the factory where he worked and at about 6.45 p.m. on returning to his room in the chawl he was met by the appellants and Mohan Singh. They demanded payme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1550a; (1981)2SCC199
1. The only point involved in this appeal from a judgment of the Calcutta High Court, in reversal of the judgment and decree of the Addl. District Judge, affirming those of the Subordinate Judge, Birbhum, and dismissing the plaintiff's suit for ejectment, is whether the plaintiff's suit for ejectment was not maintainable without a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.2. The material facts of this case are as follows : By an indenture of lease dated March 19, 1956, the appellant who was the plaintiff, demised a cinema theatre known as 'Shanti House' situate at Sainthia under Anchal Panchayat in district Birbhum, to the respondent-defendant for a term of four years with a covenant of two renewals of three years each. The lease of this cinema theatre was to commence from the date on which the defendant was able to procure a licence. On May 2, 1970, the plaintiff brought a suit for ejectment on the ground that the lease had expired by efflux of time and also plead...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1981Supp(S)SCC17
A. Varadarajan and; S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, JJ.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh affirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-A IPC for 2 years' RI and a fine of Rs 500. After having gone through the judgment of the courts below, we do not find any reason to interfere with the merits of the appeal. The only question that may be considered is if it is a proper case in which the appellant may be released on probation. The Sessions Judge had found that there was some amount of contributory negligence on the part of the appellant and having regard to the peculiar circumstances of this case we think it is eminently a fit case in which the appellant may be released on probation. We therefore suspend the sentence of imprisonment only maintaining the fine imposed on the appellant and. instead release him on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 361 CrPC. The appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1577b; [1981(43)FLR263]; (1981)IILLJ312SC; (1981)2SCC72; 1981(2)SLJ435(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order of the Patna High Court dated February 4, 1980 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, who was posted as Auxiliary Nurse Mid-Wife at Bowstead Zanana Hospital at Barh, in limine by which she had challenged the impugned order of the Regional Deputy Director of Health Services, Patna Division, Patna dated January 13, 1979 transferring her from Barh to the Urban Family Welfare center of the Sub-Divisional Hospital, Danapur. The High Court, however, while declining to interfere, directed the appellant to file a representation to the State Government for her transfer to a place in her home district, except Barh and that if such representation was filed, it should be considered by the State Government. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court rightly declined to interfere with the impugned order. Transfer of a Government servant may be due to exigencies of service or due...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC2074; 1981CriLJ1702; (1981)4SCC508
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by Special Leave is directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in which the conviction of the appellant under Section 397 to 7 years' R. I, under Section 394/34 to 2 1/2 years' R.I. and under Section 323 to 2 months' R.I. has been upheld. The prosecution case is detailed in the judgments of the High Court and that of the trial Court. According to the complainant Bhagwant Singh he was robbed by Satbir and Daya Nand (Daya Nand acquitted accused) of a watch and a cycle. It was also alleged that the complainant was assaulted by fists and kicks by Daya Nand and also at a later stage by the appellant. F.I.R. was lodged on September 23, 1973 giving the details of the properties robbed. The appellant was arrested on 29th September1973 and identification parade was arranged to be held on the 9th October, 1973 but the parade could not take place because the appellant refused to participate in the same on the ground that he had been s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC789; [1981(42)FLR170]; 1981LabIC189; (1981)ILLJ358SC; 1981(1)SCALE38; (1981)1SCC405; [1981]2SCR490; 1981(13)LC101(SC)
Sen, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the Madras High Court dated October 11, 1979 quashing an order of the State Government of Tamil Nadu dated December 20, 1978 passed in appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 20 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', by which the Government held that the resignation submitted by him on March 19, 1976 from his post as Lecturer in the Department of Electronics in P.S.G. College of Technology, Coimbatore, was not voluntary and, therefore, directed his reinstatement with immediate effect.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are these : On February 28, 1976, the appellant while he was on probation as a Lecturer in the Department of Electronics in P.S.G. College of Technology, Coimbatore, was subjected to a departmental enquiry for dereliction of duty and irresponsible conduct by the Principal and the two charges levelled against him were (1) on Februar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC736; 1981CriLJ296; 1981(1)SCALE46; (1981)1SCC500; [1981]2SCR485; 1981(13)LC262(SC)
Pathak, J :1. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing an application for 'clarification' of an earlier order made by the court in a criminal proceeding.2. The dispute in this appeal relates to a property described as house No. 24/47, Birhana Road, Kanpur. A suit filed by the South India Trading Company against Jethmal Laxmichand was decreed and execution proceedings were taken for the attachment and sale of the aforesaid house property. The house was owned by one Khem Raj, who died leaving a widow, Smt. Sooraj Devi (the appellant) and a son, Kailash Chandra Jain (the second respondent). The property was purchased by Pyare Lal (the first respondent). Pyare Lal obtained possession through the Civil Court Amin on 8th October, 1965, but in his absence Kailash Chandra Jain is said to have removed the lock and entered into possession. In a criminal proceeding against him on a complaint by Pyare Lal, he was ultimately convicted and sent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1480; 1981CriLJ1042; (1981)0GLR468; (1981)GLR468(SC); 1981(1)SCALE257; (1981)2SCC24; [1981]2SCR500; 1981(13)LC150(SC)
Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated December 22, 1978 in a Criminal Habeas Corpus Writ for quashing the order of detention passed against the detenu. The detenu was arrested on October 20, 1978 and grounds of detention were served on him that very day. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition mainly on the ground that, as one of the grounds, namely, ground No. 7 was irrelevant, the entire order of detention is vitiated. In coming to this finding, the High Court, has put, in our opinion, a wrong interpretation on Section 5(A) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 5A reads thus :5A. Grounds of detention severable.-Where a person has been detained in pursuance of an order of detention under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 which has been made on two or more grounds, such order of detention shall be deemed to have been made s...
Tag this Judgment!