Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC149; 1981Supp(1)SCC87; [1982]2SCR365
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These writ petitions filed in different High Courts and transferred to this Court under Article 139 of the Constitution raise issues of great constitutional importance affecting the independence of the judiciary and they have been argued at great length before us. The arguments have occupied as many as thirty five days and they have ranged over a large number of issues comprising every imaginable aspect of the judicial institution, Voluminous written submissions have been filed before us which reflect the enormous industry and vast erudition of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and a large number of authorities, Indian as well as foreign, have been brought to our attention. We must acknowledge with gratitude our indebtedness to the learned Counsel for the great assistance they have rendered to us in the delicate and difficult task of adjudicating upon highly sensitive issues arising in these writ petitions. We find, and this is not unusual in cases of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC710; 1982CriLJ340; 1981(4)SCALE1904; (1982)1SCC271; [1982]2SCR272
Chandrachud, C.J.1. This is a group of Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the National Security Ordinance, 2 of 1980, and certain provisions of the National Security Act, 65 of 1980, which replaced the Ordinance. Writ Petition No. 5724 of 1980 is by Shri A.K. Roy, a Marxist member of the Parliament, who was detained under the Ordinance by an order passed by the District Magistrate, Dhanbad, on the ground that he was indulging in activities which were prejudicial to public order. Ten members of the Parliament, one an Independent and the others belonging to various political parties in opposition applied for permission to intervene in the Writ Petition on the ground that since the Ordinance-making power of the President is destructive of the system of Parliamentary democracy, it is necessary to define the scope of that power. We allowed the intervention. So did we allow the applications for intervention by the People's Union of Civil Liberties...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1126; (1982)ILLJ110SC; (1982)1SCC205; [1982]2SCR246
A.C. Gupta and R.S. Pathak, JJ.1. The validity of the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1981 and the Life Insurance Corporation (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981 which preceded it is challenged in this batch of writ petitions. The writ petitions have a history behind them which can be conveniently divided into three chapters. However, it will be easier to follow this history if we refer to some of the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 first The Life Insurance Corporation was constituted under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 to provide for the nationalisation of life insurance business in India by transferring all such business to the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Under Section 11(1) of the Act the services of the employees of insurers whose business has vested in the Corporation are transferred to the Corporation. Sub-section (2) of Section 11 provides:Where the Central Government is satisfied that for the purpose of securing u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC679; 1982(1)SCALE157; (1982)1SCC180; [1982]2SCR238; 1982(14)LC69(SC)
Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in two connected Second Appeals-Second Appeal Nos. 719 and 826 of 1967. Those Second Appeals arose out of a suit filed by the appellant herein for setting aside the summary order passed in E.A. No. 90 of 1958 in E.P. 7 of 1956 in O.S. No. 26 of 1952 on the file of the Sub-Court, Anantapur, and for recovery of possession of plaint 'C Schedule property or, in the alternative, for partition and recovery of one-half of the property described in the plaint 'B' Schedule. The plaint 'C' Schedule plot is a southern portion of the property described in the 'B' Schedule.2. The plaint 'B' Schedule property consisting of 1 acre and 90 cents of land together with two houses situated therein belonged to one Allabaksh. He was adjudged an insolvent and the Official Receiver sold a half right in the said property to one Moola Narayanaswamy under Exh. A-3 dated December 6, 1939. The re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC673; (1982)ILLJ54SC; 1981(3)SCALE1884; (1982)1SCC143; [1982]2SCR227; 1982(2)SLJ96(SC); 1982(14)LC73(SC)
Baharul Islam, J.1. This appeal by special leave is by the appellant, J.D. Jain, who was a workman and whose services have been terminated by the management of the State Bank of India (hereinafter called the respondant).2. The material facts are these:The appellant was working as a cashier in the Meerut City Branch of the State Bank of India. On June 21, 1971, one Dishan Prakash Kansal ('Kansal' for short) who had a Savings Bank account with the said branch of the State Bank came to the Bank to receive his Pass Book. On receipt of the Pass Book from the counter clerk, Kansal complained to Wadhera who was the Ledger-keeper, that on February 8, 1971, he had withdrawn only Rs. 500.00 but a debit entry of Rs. 1,500.00 had been shown in the Pass Book. Wadhera thereupon took Kansal to the Supervisor, R.P. Gupta, before whom Kansal repeated his complaint. Necessary documents pertaining to the said withdrawal were then examined and it was found that Kansal had given a 'letter of authority' (wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC989; 1982(1)SCALE191; (1982)1SCC237; [1982]2SCR186
Desai, J.1. What constitutes part performance within the meaning of the expression in Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act ('Act' for short) so as to clothe a mortgagee in possession with the title of ownership which would defeat the suit of the erstwhile mortgagor for redemption, is the question canvassed in these two appeals by common certificate.2. Facts first. Sardar Govindrao Mahadik original plaintiff 1 (now deceased prosecuting these appeals through his legal representatives) and Gyarsilal original plaintiff 2 (appellant 2) filed Civil Suit No. 14/51 in the Court of the District Judge, Indore, for redemption of a mortgage in respect of house No. 41 more particularly described in plaint paragraph 1, dated February 22, 1951. A loan of Rs. 10,000 was secured by the mortgage. The mortgage was mortgage with possession. Plaintiff 1 was the mortgagor and the sole defendant Devi Sahai was the mortgagee. Plaintiff 2 is a purchaser of the mortgaged property from plaintiff 1 under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC98; 1982(30)BLJR176; 1982(1)SCALE161; (1982)1SCC232; [1982]2SCR178; 1982(14)LC86(SC)
Misra, J.1. These eight appeals by special leave raise a common question of law regarding the scope of Order 41, Rule 22 and Order 41, Rule 33 of the CPC. We, therefore, propose to dispose of these appeals by a common judgment. Since these appeals raise similar questions, we will refer to the facts of civil appeal No. 2084 of 1977 only.2. The appellant in this appeal is a land holder in terms of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A notice Under Section 8(1) of the Act was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to submit return with all the particulars of the lands held by him. The petitioner in response to the said notice filed his return. On the basis of the verification report the Additional Collector came to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to five units and accordingly ordered for the publication of the draft statement Under Section 10 of the Act. The petitioner was agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC121; (1982)1GLR325; 1981(3)SCALE1861; (1982)1SCC223; [1982]2SCR166; 1982(14)LC120(SC)
Misra, J.1. The present appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Letters Patent Appeal No. 6 of 1966 dated the 18th of February, 1970 decreeing the suit for redemption.2. The property in dispute, situated in Baroda City, originally belonged to Motibhai Bapubhai Shibandi Baxi (for short Motibhai). He created a mortgage with possession of the disputed property in favour of one Nanaji Balwant Pilkhanewala (for short Nanaji) in 1871 for a sum of Rs. 800. In 1890 a second mortgage was created in favour of the same mortgage and the amount secured by this second mortgage was Rs. 375. Somewhere between 1890 and 1912 the original mortgagee Nanaji died leaving behind his two sons Hari and Purshottam as his heirs and legal representatives. The two sons of Nanaji sold the entire mortgagee rights and interest to one Ganpatram Mugutram Vyas (for short Ganpatram) on 4th of July, 1912. Ganpatram in his turn sold the mortgagee rights in a part ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC978; 1982CriLJ848; 1981(3)SCALE1890; (1982)1SCC174; [1982]2SCR142
Pathak, J.1. The petitioners Ashok Kumar Binny and Hans Raj have been detained by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir Under Section 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. They have filed these petitions for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing their release.2. The petitioner Hans Raj was detained on 17th August, 1981 while the petitioner Ashok Kumar Binny was detained on 1st October, 1981. It is pointed out that although their cases have been referred to the Advisory Board, the Advisory Board has not submitted its report yet to the Government, and as eight weeks from the date of detention have expired there has been a violation of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Public Safety Act. In the circumstances, it is urged, the further detention of the petitioners is invalid. When these petitions were called on for hearing, Mr. Altaf Ahmed, appearing for the respondents, placed before us a wireless communication received by him from the State Government stating the Ad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC137a; 1982(14)LC100(SC)
Desai, J.1. Respondents in each of these appeals are the landlords of the land more particularly described in the three different petitions filed by them in the Court of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal in Tamil Nadu State seeking to evict tenants of different parcels of land on the allegation that the concerned tenants were in arrears of rent for the years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61. The tenants who are appellants in these three appeals appeared in the respective petitions and contested the same on diverse grounds but the only one now surviving at this stage is; whether in view of the language employed in Section 3, 4(a) and (b) of the Madras (now Tamil Nadu) Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 ('Act for short), the Revenue Divisional Officer erred in passing a composite order for payment of rent found to be in arrears within the time prescribed by him and on default, without any further proceeding, directing eviction of the tenants.2. The respondents purchased the land...
Tag this Judgment!