Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC83; (1982)3SCC403
1. Procedural wrangle has been brought to this Court, and that too at an interlocutory stage wherein this Court is most reluctant to interfere but this 'hands off' attitude may cause irreparable injustice and that is the justification for interference. The respondent-landlord filed a suit for eviction on the allegation that tenancy of appellant-tenant is determined and he is not entitled to protection of Karnataka Rent Control Act 1961 (Rent Act for short). Prior to the institution of this suit, the appellant claiming to be a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 650/-, had filed an application before the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent. Learned Counsel on both sides agree that if fair rent is fixed in an amount exceeding Rs. 500/- per month such a tenant is not entitled to the protection of the Rent Act. If, on the other hand, fair rent is fixed at Rs. 500/- or below per month and if other ingredients of expression tenant are satisfied, he will be entitled to the protection of Ren...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC8; 1982CriLJ150; 1981(3)SCALE1657; (1981)4SCC647; [1982]1SCR1028
Baharul Islam, J.1. By this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, Smt. Hemlata Kantilal Shah (hereinafter the 'wife') has challenged the detention of her husband Shri Kantilal Nagar Das Shah (hereinafter the detenu) who was detained by the State of Maharashtra (Respondent No. 1) by order dated June 3, 1981 under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter the 'Act'). The material facts on which the grounds of detention have been based may be briefly stated as follows: 2. On January 8, 1981, the detenu with his wife and their minor daughter, Miss Chaya Kantilal Shah, arrived in Bombay from Muscat by Flight No. AI 883. The petitioner at the customs clearance counter of the airport appeared nervous and was hasty in clearing her baggage. The Intelligence Officer of the Air Customs Unit who had been present at the counter on receipt of secret information kept a close watch on her. When t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)1SCC270
A.V. Varadarajan; A.N.Sen; Y.V. Chandrachud, JJ.1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be best served by giving to the landlady, who is Respondent 1 before us, an area admeasuring 22 acres and by allowing the appellant-tenant to retain the remaining land. Two lands are involved in these proceedings, namely, Survey 15 which admeasures 18 acres and 17 gunthas and Survey 17 which admeasures 11 acres and 15 gunthas. We direct that the landlady (Respondent 1) shall be put in possession of 15 acres from out of Survey 15 and 7 acres from out of Survey 17. The Tahsildar, Taleda, District Dhulia, will put her in possession of the aforesaid 22 acres of land after effecting an equitable partition of the two lands, bearing in mind the quality of the lands, including the right to use the well in Survey 17.2. It is needless to add that the appellant-tenant shall be deemed to have become a statutory purchaser of the land of which he is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC2235; 1981(3)SCALE1652; (1981)4SCC569; [1982]1SCR1020; 1982(14)LC61(SC)
R.B. Misra, J.1. The present appeal by special leave arises out of an execution proceeding and is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated 21st of January, 1970 in Letters Patent Appeal setting aside the order of the Single Judge in Second Appeal. The appeal came up for hearing on September 24, 1981. After the conclusion of the arguments of the counsel for the parties, we allowed the appeal with costs, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored that of the District Judge for reasons to be recorded later, in the following terms:This appeal is allowed with costs of this Court and the decree passed by the District Judge is restored. Reasons will follow later on.2. We now proceed to give the reasons.3. Respondent No. 1, Ramachandra Gangadhar Ashtekar (since dead and represented by his legal representatives) fled a regular suit No. 215 of 1959 for the recovery of his dues from Kamla Pictures, Kolhapur of which Bapusaheb Narayanrao Mohite (since dead and rep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1983)1SCC524
R.B. Mishra,; V. Balakrishana Eradi and; Y.V. Chandrachud, JJ.1. We direct that the cases of such of the petitioners who have already been redesignated as Lower Division Clerks will be considered for appointment as Upper Division Clerks and such appointments shall be effective from the date on which they are held to be entitled to be appointed as Upper Division Clerks. In considering the cases of the petitioners for appointment to the promotion post of Upper Division Clerks, the test which has to be applied according to the rules is the test of seniority-cum-fitness.2. Insofar as the promotion to the post of Office Superintendent is concerned, that being a selection post, the concerned authorities shall have to decide in each individual case as to the date from which such promotion shall take place, keeping in view the suitability of the incumbent for that post.3. The petitioners will be entitled to all the consequential monetary benefits from the date with effect from which they are p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1981(3)SCALE1640; (1981)4SCC632; 1982(14)LC65(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. These petitions for review have been filed by Mst. Karbalai Begum who was appellant in civil appeal No. 1204 of 1978 decided by this Court on October 7, 1980. We have heard counsel for the parties and the short point raised by counsel for the applicant is that although the suit for joint possession filed by Karbalai Begum was decreed by this Court after setting aside the judgment of the High Court yet when she applied for execution of the decree, possession was not given to her. According to the findings of fact, it appears that according to our decision, the suit of the plaintiff-applicant was decreed for joint possession in chakbandi plots Nos. 201 and 274 in village Zainabad, Tehsil Nawabganj, District Barabanki (U.P.) According to the admitted genealogy, Karbalai Begum was the widow of Syed Laek Husain who was the son of Khadim Husain and the respondents are the sons of the brothers of Khadim Husain. It is, therefore, clear that Karbalai Begum would, acco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC683a; 1982CriLJ421; (1982)1GLR113; 1981(3)SCALE1645; (1981)4SCC609; [1982]1SCR1014
Baharul Islam, J.1. This appeal by special leave is by the State of Gujarat and is directed against the judgment and order of the Gujarat High Court quashing the order of detention passed by the appellant against respondent, Ismail Juma. The respondent was detained by the appellant in exercise of powers conferred on it by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The grounds of detention inter alia were that the respondent, Hasan Malabari and Abdul Latif Fakirmohmed were the members of the crew of a vessel that was engaged in smuggling of wrist watches and some other contraband articles worth Rs. 33,70,819.00. The respondent moved the High Court of Gujarat. A Division Bench of the High Court by its impugned order dated January 16, 1980 quashed the order of detention. The High Court found:.the order of detention made against him (detenu) clearly shows that the detaining authority ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1a; 1982CriLJ146; 1981(3)SCALE1625; (1981)4SCC481; [1982]1SCR1010
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.1. By this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges the validity of an order dated March 27, 1981 passed by respondent 1, the State of Punjab, under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.2. On April 19, 1981, while the petitioner was in detention, his advocate, Shri Harjinder Singh, wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Central Jail, Amritsar, enclosing therewith two representations drafted on behalf of the petitioner, one of which was addressed to the Joint Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Punjab, Chandigarh, and the other to the Secretary, Union Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi. The Jail Superintendent was requested by the aforesaid letter that the representations be forwarded to the State Government and the Central Government after obtaining the signatures of the detenu thereon. The contention of the petitioner is that in spite of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)1SCC412
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 : (1982)1SCC270a
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.,; A. Varadarajan and; Amarendra Nath Sen, JJ.1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be best served by giving to the landlady, who is Respondent 1 before us, an area admeasuring 22 acres and by allowing the appellant-tenant to retain the remaining land. Two lands are involved in these proceedings, namely, Survey 15 which admeasures 18 acres and 17 gunthas and Survey 17 which admeasures 11 acres and 15 gunthas. We direct that the landlady (Respondent 1) shall be put in possession of 15 acres from out of Survey 15 and 7 acres from out of Survey 17. The Tahsildar, Taleda, District Dhulia, will put her in possession of the aforesaid 22 acres of land after effecting an equitable partition of the two lands, bearing in mind the quality of the lands, including the right to use the well in Survey 17.2. It is needless to add that the appellant-tenant shall be deemed to have become a statutory purchaser of the...
Tag this Judgment!