Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1981(Supp)SCC50; 1981(13)LC281(SC)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, it appears to us to be eminently just and reasonable that the interim order made by the High Court on 10th February, 1981 be modified in so far that a sum of Rupees twenty lakhs shall be paid by the appellants and the stay order will operate in respect of the balance The payment will be made within one month from today. The undertaking for repayment rendered before the High Court will continue in force as also the remaining directions contained in the High Court order.2. Having regard to the urgent nature of the dispute pending before the High Court in the Writ Petition, it is hoped that the High Court will ensure expeditious disposal of the Writ Petition, if possible, within two months from today.3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)3SCC371
A.N. RAY, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, dated August 25, 1967.2. The appellants are Mohan and Ranbir, two brothers and Ram Singh the father-in-law of Mohan. They were convicted under Section 326, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to four years1 rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 400 each and in default of payment of fine to a further rigorous imprisonment for six months. They were also convicted under Section 325, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years1 rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 200 each and in default of payment of fine to a further rigorous imprisonment for six months. They were further convicted under Sections 324 and 323, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and on the former offence sentenced to two years1 rigorous imprisonment while on the latter offence to six months1 rigorous imprisonment. The sentences were orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC998; 1981(1)SCALE422; (1981)2SCC293; [1981]3SCR29; 1981(13)LC341(SC)
ORDER1. Having heard counsel for the parties at great length we are satisfied that there is no violation of the fundamental right of the petitioners enshrined in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India nor is Article 14 attracted to the facts of the present case. There is, therefore, no good ground to entertain the petitions. We would, however, like to add that on the materials placed before us the Government may consider the desirability of adopting such measures as may soften the rigours of the impugned orders which, though not arbitrary or excessive so as to violate Article 14 or 19, do merit some consideration by the Government in order to effectuate the policy under which the impugned notification was made.2. There are, however, two arguments urged before us which need special mention. In the first place it was submitted that in the U.P. cases the order impugned imposing a levy on the khandsari produced by the petitioners cannot have any retrospective operation so as to appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1009; 1981(1)SCALE437; (1981)2SCC484; [1981]3SCR34; 1981(13)LC333(SC)
1. The petitioner challenges the admission of a number of candidates to the M.B.B.S. course in the Government Medical College Srinagar for the session 1980-81. The petitioner, who had also applied for admission, was denied it. She contends that the criteria adopted in granting admission is discriminatory, unreasonable and void.2. The Principal, Government Medical College, Srinagar invited applications by 3rd April, 1980 for admission to the M.B.B.S. course for the session 1980-81, and the notice specified the qualifying examinations of the Board of Secondary Education, Kashmir, or any other equivalent Board or University which constituted the if basis of eligibility. The manner and procedure governing the eligibility for admission had been set forth in a Government order of 3rd April, 1978, which laid down that a Selection Committee constituted by the Government would determine the inter se merit of eligible candidates on the basis of an interview for judging their (a) physical fitness...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC626; (1981)83BOMLR536; [1981(43)FLR78]; 1984LabIC179; (1981)IILLJ6SC; 1981(1)SCALE503; (1981)2SCC714; [1981]3SCR22; 1981(13)LC316(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order of the High Court of Bombay of 2/3rd October, 1979 by which an order passed suspending the two respondents was quashed on the ground that the order of suspension pending a departmental inquiry was passed by the Municipal Commissioner who was not competent to suspend the respondents pending a departmental inquiry. (J The High Court was of the view that under the Rules and Bye-laws of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 (her respendentsreferred to as the 'Act') as amended upto date, the competent authority to pass orders of suspension against the respondents was the Corporation itself and not the Chief Executive Officer. It appears that originally the order of suspension was passed by the Municipal Commissioner on the 23rd September, 1974 which was confirmed by the Corporation by its order dated 23rd September, 1974. It is alleged by the respondents that latter order was not communicated to them. The suspension was ordered...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC51; (1982)1SCC411
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by special leave is confined to the question of sentence only.2. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and going through the Judgment of the courts below we feel that there is some room for reduction in the sentence of the appellant. The appellant was a Government servant and by virtue of his conviction he has lost his service and is also likely to lose his pensionary benefits. He has already served three months. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we therefore uphold the conviction and reduce the sentence to the period already served which, according to the appellant, is about three months. In lieu of the sentence remitted we impose a fine of Rs. 500, in default three months' rigorous imprisonment. The fine to be paid within two months from today and the entire fine realised shall be paid to the temple.3. The appeal to disposed of accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1709; (1981)2SCC713
1. Special leave granted. 2. It appears from the order of the Dy. Director (Consolidation) that he has not considered the question in regard to khatas Nos. 135 and 356 on merits and he has set aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) without proper consideration of the matter. We would, therefore, set aside the order passed by the High Court as also the order of the Dy. Director (Consolidation) in so far as these orders relate to khatas Nos. 135 and 356 and remand the case to the Dy. Director (Consolidation) so that he may consider the revision application of respondents Nos. 4 to 11 in regard to khatas Nos. 135 and 356 and dispose it of on merits after considering the oral and documentary evidence in regard to these two khatas. Since the case is an old one we direct the Dy. Director (Consolidation) to dispose of the case as early as possible and in any event not later than the expiration of two months from today.3. The parties will appear before the Dy. Dire...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1706; (1981)2SCC721
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties we are a! the opinion that neither the District Judge nor the prescribed authority seems to have gone into the real question in the case as to whether Mumtaz Ali, who was the original owner of properties comprising 103 Bighas, 16 Biswas and 9 Biswansis, continued to be in cultivatory possession of the land until his death which occurred long after the coming into force of the Act. The District Judge as also the prescribed authority have merely relied on the notice under Section 10(2) issued by the prescribed authority where it was mentioned that Mumtaz Ali continued to be in possession. This fact was seriously controverted by the appellants before the prescribed authority as also before the District Judge but there is no clear finding by any of these authorities regarding the question of possession. The definite case of the appellants was that Mumtaz Ali and Irshad Ali had separated each getting half of the t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)3SCC230
R.S. PATHAK, J.1. Special leave granted.2. The only point agitated before the learned District Judge related to the service of notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned District Judge held that the notice had not been served on the respondent. The High Court dismissed the plaintiff's second appeal in limine, on the ground that the case was concluded by findings of fact. In this appeal before us, the only question which can conceivably be considered is whether the failure to serve notice precludes the appellant from claiming a decree for eviction. In view of the opinion of this Court in Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal1 no notice is necessary under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act in cases where the possession of the tenant is protected by the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947. In the circumstances, the finding rendered by the learned District Judge can be of no avail to the respondent.3. In the result, the appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1738; (1981)3SCC127
S. Murtuza Fazal Ali, J.1. We have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgments of the courts below. We find no merit in this appeal. Special leave appears to have been granted only on the question of notice which no longer survives in view of a 7-Judge Bench decision of this Court holding that in cases governed by the Rent Act, no notice Under Section 106 T.P. Act is necessary unless expressly so provided. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances, without any order as to costs.2. Time till 30th September, 1981 is allowed to vacate the premises and to hand over vacant possession to the respondent-landlord, subject to filing the usual undertaking within six weeks from today. In the meantime, the appellant shall pay compensation equivalent to rent regularly and will also carry out all necessary repairs at his own costs without being reimbursed by the respondent....
Tag this Judgment!