Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC137; 1981(3)SCALE1891; (1982)1SCC159; [1982]2SCR146
D.A. 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 is 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 th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC682; [1983]54CompCas262(SC); 1982CriLJ420; 1981(3)SCALE1883; (1982)1SCC116; [1982]2SCR139
Koshal J1. In this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, the prayer made by the petitioner is that his brother, Narinder Singh, who has been detained in pursuance of an order dated 4th November, 1980 passed under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 be released from custody. The main ground urged in support of the petition is that there is no nexus between the unlawful activities attributed to the detenu and his incarceration. That ground we do not find to be without substance. A case covering offences Under Sections 307, 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code, amongst others, was registered against the detenu at Police Station Lopoke in Amritsar district on 27th February, 1983 and those offences are the only acts which form the basis of the impugned order Those acts are also the subject-matter of a prosecution launched against the detenu, pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)2SCC446
[ A.N. Ray and; I.D. Dua, JJ.] - Partnership Act, 1932 (9 of 1932) — Section 48 — Settlement of accounts after dissolution of firm — Amounts to be paid to each partner — Determination of — Liability for withdrawing more than the due amountSettlement of accounts after dissolution of firm — Assets — Stock-in-trade and stock-in-hand — Stock-in-trade taken into account in arriving profits each year -- The High Court disagreed with the trial court on certain matters. Defendant 1 preferred an appeal to the High Court against that decree. The High Court modified the trial court's decree in certain respects. The next item relates to tobacco account, also called Ondiputhur tobacco account. The next item is regarding a sum of Rs 18,111-12-8 towards Ondiputhur tobacco account. Deducting the above sum of Rs 18,451-12-0 in the Ondiputhur Vasakattu account the balance of Rs 21,791-6-11 is the profit of the tobacco business to be credited to the assets ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1260; 1982CriLJ1740; (1982)1SCC438
ORDERY.V. Chandrachud, J.1. We see no substance in the grievance of the accused that they will not get a fair and impartial trial in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, who is trying them, namely, the Court of Shri S. P. Khare; We, therefore, reject their prayer for transfer of the case to the Court of some other learned Judge.2. One of the grounds on which the learned Sessions Judge is said to be biased against the accused is that he did not allow them to sit down during the trial. It is not right or proper that the accused were not provided with a sitting place during the trial which has gone on for the past seven months. We direct that the learned Sessions Judge will permit the accused to sit down during the trial. In fact, we are unable to understand how any Court in our country can at all insist that the accused shall keep on standing during the trial, particularly when the trial is long and arduous as in this case. We hope that all the High Courts in India will take appropri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC71b; 1981(3)SCALE1817; (1982)1SCC149; [1982]2SCR53; 1982(14)LC90(SC)
1 This appeal by special leave is directed against the one word order dated 1.2.1980 of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing Civil Revision Petition No. 122 of 1980 in limine. The tenants who were respondents in the Rent Control Eviction Petition, filed the Civil Revision Petition against the Rent Controller's order dated 30.10.1979, declining to permit them to raise certain grounds of defence while granting leave to defend the eviction petition on certain other grounds. Special leave to appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court has been granted by this Court only on the question whether Section 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is applicable or not to the facts and circumstances of the case 'in view of the later Circular of 1977.' The 'later Circular of 1977' mentioned in the special leave granted by this Court on 5.8.1980 is the Office Memorandum dated 14.7.1977 of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Wo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC71
Varadarajan J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the one word order dated 1.2.1980 of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing Civil Revision Petition No. 122 of 1980 in limine. The tenants who were respondents in the Rent Control Eviction Petition, filed the Civil Revision Petition against the Rent Controller's order dated 30.10.1979, declining to permit them to raise certain grounds of defence while granting leave to defend the eviction petition on certain other grounds. Special leave to appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court has been granted by this Court only on the question whether Section 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is applicable or not to the facts and circumstances of the case 'in view of the later Circular of 1977'. The 'later Circular of 1977' mentioned in the special leave granted by this Court on 5.8.1980 is the Office Memorandum dated 14.7.1977 of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC101; 1982LabIC38; 1981(3)SCALE1837; (1982)1SCC379; [1982]2SCR69
Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. The second world war left in its wake conditions of scarcity of foodgrains and other essential commodities in different parts of the country. To tide over that situation and with intent to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of the available supply of foodgrains etc., schemes of rationing of foodgrains were periodically introduced in the different States in the country.2. In the State of Bombay, an informal (non-statutory) scheme of rationing was introduced in November, 1957 and for administering the said scheme, an ad hoc Organisation was set up under the Controller of Foodgrains Distribution. Since this Organisation (hereinafter referred to as CFD) was intended to be only a temporary and short-term set up, no recruitment rules were framed for appointment to the various categories of posts created therein. The CFD was manned principally by (1) personnel who had been working in the temporary Civil Supplies Department created during the second world war peri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC84; 1981(3)SCALE1867; (1982)1SCC185; [1982]2SCR109; 1982(14)LC326(SC)
Misra J.1. The present appeals by certificate are directed against the judgment dated 6th November, 1968 of the Madras High Court.2. The dispute between the parties centers around 48.70 acres of land, partly wet and partly dry in village Pichanur, Gudiyattam Taluk, North Arcot District and one house in Gudiyattam town. Admittedly the said properties belonged to one Varadayya Chetty. He had two sons, K.V. Purushotham and K.V. Sriramalu. K.V. Purushotham in his turn had four sons while K.V. Sriramulu had three sons. They constituted a joint Hindu family. The family owned and possessed 48.70 acres of land and three houses. Varadayya Chetty died about 30 years prior to the institution of the suits giving rise to these appeals. At the time of his death his eldest son K.V. Purushotham was the only adult male member, the other son, K.V. Sriramulu being only 4-5 years old. Purushotham thus came into the sole management of the entire family affairs and he brought up his younger brother Sriramal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC78; (1982)ILLJ33SC; 1981(3)SCALE1825; (1982)1SCC117; [1982]2SCR42; 1982(1)SLJ163(SC); 1982(14)LC79(SC)
Baharul Islam, J.1. These two connected appeals by special leave are on behalf of Workmen of M/s. Williamson Magor & Co. Ltd. (renamed as M/s. Macneill & Magor Ltd.) represented by Williamson Magor & Company Employees' Union (hereinafter called 'the union') and are directed against the award of the 7th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal.2. The material facts may be stated thus:According to the union, all the employees of the aforesaid company, the respondent before us (who will hereinafter be called 'the management') are the members of the union. Disputes had arisen between the workmen and the management but they ended in a number of agreements as a result whereof the employees derived some benefits. Subsequently the management appointed one Mr. P.K. Kaul as a staff officer, who, according to the union, started to create a cleavage between the workmen, and with that end in view, at his instance, the management started giving indiscriminate and arbitrary promotions and/or upgradations to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC65; 1981(3)SCALE1795; (1982)1SCC31; [1982]2SCR31; 1982(14)LC113(SC)
ORDERSen, J.1. These petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution and the connected special leave petitions mainly challenge the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Sub-clause (1) of Clause 11 of the Punjab Foodgrains Dealers Licensing and Price Control Order, 1978 (for short 'the Order'), as inserted by the Punjab Foodgrains Dealers Licensing and Price Control (First Amendment) Order, 1980, with effect from March 27, 1980, as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, as also the legality and propriety of the action of the licensing authorities in suspending the licences held by the petitioners.2. It appears that the licences held by the petitioners who are foodgrains dealers in the State of Punjab, have been suspended by orders passed by the District Food and Supplies Controllers, Faridkot and Bhatinda, for a period not exceeding ninety days under the second proviso to Sub-clause (1) of Clause 11 of the Order. The orders of suspension of licence in each...
Tag this Judgment!