Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1983)2SCC255
A.C. Gupta,; O. Chinnappa Reddy and; R.S. Pathak, JJ.1. The appellant is the defendant in a suit for perpetual injunction. The suit was dismissed by the trial court but on appeal the appellate court reversed that decision and decreed the suit. The defendant preferred a second appeal to the High Court. During the pendency of the second appeal three of the respondents, namely, Mangal, Leel, Mohan Lal, died on April 20, 1974, December 8, 1976 and August 15, 1975 respectively. It appears that the fact of death of these respondents was not communicated to the counsel for the appellant. Sometime in May 1980 the defendant-appellant made an application for substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased respondents after setting aside abatement of the appeal. The High Court rejected this application and dismissed the appeal as having abated. There is no finding that the appellant was guilty of any laches or that he purposely delayed in making the application for substitution. Conside...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1473; 1981CriLJ876; 1981(1)SCALE706; (1981)3SCC132; [1981]3SCR474
1. What is the effect of the declaration by the Supreme Court that the appointment of an Additional Sessions Judge was invalid on judgments pronounced by the Judge prior to such declaration is the question for consideration in these criminal appeals. The question may seem to be short and simple but it cannot be answered without enquiry and research. An answer, on first impression, may be 'a judgment by a judge who is not a judge is no judgment' a simple, sophisticated answer. But it appears second thoughts are necessary. What is to happen to titles settled, declarations made, rules issued, injunctions and decrees granted and even executed What is to happen to sentences imposed Are convicted offenders to be set at liberty and to be tried again Are acquitted accused to be arrested and tried again Public Policy is clearly involved. And, in the tangled web of human affairs, law must recognise some consequences as relevant, not on grounds of pure logic but for reasons of practical necessity...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1390; 1981CriLJ1012; 1981(1)SCALE645; (1981)2SCC752; [1981]3SCR504; 1981()WLN84
1. This appeal by special leave on behalf of the State of Rajasthan is directed against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court acquitting the two respondents, Shrimati Kalki alias Kali and her husband, Amara (alongwith four other co-accused). Respondent Kalki was convicted under Section 302 and Section 148 of the Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and for rigorous imprisonment for two years, respectively. The five other accused persons including respondent, Amara, were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 and under Section 147 of the Penal Code, and each of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life and to one and a half years rigorous imprisonment respectively.2. The material facts of the prosecution case were that there was a land dispute between Nimba (P.W. 6) father of the deceased, Poona, on the one hand, and respondent Amara and the members of his family, on the other. On July 17, 1970 at about sunset the accused persons of whom respondent Kalki was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1408; (1982)2CompLJ451(SC); (2009)22CTR(SC)124; [1981]130ITR186(SC); 1981(1)SCALE637; (1981)3SCC156; [1981]3SCR489; 1981(13)LC540(SC)
1. In view of the majority opinion of this Court in Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat v. Swat Art Silk Cloth Manufactures the reference must be answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.A.P. Sen, J.2. This direct reference under Section 257 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench 'B' at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi II, New Delhi raises the much vexed question as to whether the words 'not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit' in the definition of 'charitable purpose' contained in Section 2(15) of the Act, govern the word 'advancement' and not the words 'object of general public utility.3. The facts giving rise to the reference are as follows : The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, New Delhi-hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'-is an existing company under the Companies Act, 1956. It was registered under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC785; 1982CriLJ625; (1982)3SCC219
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. We have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment of the High Court. We agree with the High Court that against an order passed in appeal under Section 341 of the Criminal P.C, the order would not be revisable by the High Court under Section 397(2) of the Criminal P.C. , but there can be no doubt that the Court is entitled to examine the matter under Section 482 of the Criminal P.C. which expressly overrules the bar contained in Section 341 of the Code. In the instant case, the High Court has merely indicated that this is not a fit case for invoking the inherent power without at all applying its mind whether or not in the circumstances, it was a fit case for filing a complaint, particularly when the matter rested merely on oath against oath.2. For this reason, therefore, we allow this appeal and remit the case to the High Court to send for the records and satisfy itself whether the order directing complaint to be filed is expedient in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC31; 1982CriLJ157; (1982)3SCC225
D.A. Desai, J,1. Special leave to appeal granted.2. The only defence in this case put forward in the Sessions Court was that the accused acted under grave and sudden provocation having been enraged on finding that his wife Jayashree had deviated from the path of virtue and she had become pregnant on account of her illicit intimacy with Jayaram son of P.W. Rukmini. Undoubtedly the learned Sessions Judge has fully considered this defence and rejected the same. However, upon a conviction in a criminal trial on a charge of murder under Section 302, there is only one appeal on facts. That appeal lies to High Court. Accused preferred an appeal. The High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant in limine after making a brief laconic order. And in this order, this defence suggested, is conspicuously silent by its absence. Grave and sudden provocation is a mixed question of law and facts. It was incumbent upon the High Court to examine that defence and record its own findings on th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC18; (1981)3SCC122
D.A. Desai, J.1. Special leave to appeal granted.2. We heard learned Counsel Mr. O. P. Verma for the appellant, learned Counsel Mr. J.P. Goyal for respondent No. 1 and learned Counsel Mr. J.L. Nain for respondent No. 2. The only point involved in this appeal at this stage is that the present appellant who had preferred an appeal against an award made by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was dismissed by the High Court on the short ground that it was barred by limitation, after rejecting the application for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal.3. The Award was made by II Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Meerut on 31-3-1977. Appellant was the owner of the truck involved in the accident in which respondent No. 1 was injured. Respondent No. 1 preferred 1st Appeal No. 266 of 1977 against the aforementioned award. Respondent No. 2, insurer, preferred 1st Appeal No. 248 of 1977 against the same award. We are informed that both these appeals are pending in the High Court.4. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1442; 1981CriLJ1034; 1981(1)SCALE939; (1982)1SCC352
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment dated November 4, 1974 of the Allahabad High Court by which respondents 1 to 4 were acquitted of the charges under Section 302/149 as also under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, of which they were convicted by the trial court of the Sessions Judge, Hardoi. The grotesque details of the various aspects of the prosecution case are to be found in the judgments of the trial court and the High Court and it is, therefore, not necessary for us to dwell or dilate on the comprehensive facts of the case and the circumstances which led to the conviction of the respondents by the Sessions Judge and their acquittal by the High Court.2. In order however to appreciate the judgment of the High Court it may be necessary to give a bare and concise summary of the circumstances under which the occurrence had taken place. The occurrence as a result of which four persons died was undoubtedly a very unfortunate and gha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC24; (1982)3SCC233
D.A. Desai, J.1. Special leave to appeal granted.2. The only dispute in this appeal is whether the application for amendment of the written statement under Order 6, Rule 17 should be allowed as a whole or in part as has been done by the learned District Judge and confirmed by the High Court in revision. The real dispute is with regard to para. 16-A in the proposed amendment extracted at page 5. The contention which found favour with the High Court is that by this paragraph, the appellant seeks to reopen the concluded findings of facts about the personal requirement of the respondent-landlord. Respondent No. 2, Shri Lal Krishan referred to as landlord commenced an action for eviction of appellants interalia on the ground of his personal requirement. Courts including the High Court accepted the case that landlord requires premises involved in the suit for his personal requirement. It is obligatory for the courts while granting decree for eviction on the ground of bona fide personal requi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1384; 1981CriLJ1032; (1981)3SCC584
D.A. Desai, J.1. Special leave to appeal granted limited to the question of sentence only.2. We heard Mr. A. P. Mohanty, for the appellant and Mr. R. K. Bhatt for the State of U.P. The appellant is convicted for having committed offences under Sections 120B, 420 and 471 of I.P.C. In respect of last mentioned two offences has been convicted on two separate and independent counts.3. The appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for an offence under Section 120B. He has been convicted for committing an offence under Section 420, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rupees 5000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. For the same charge under a second count, identical punishment has been imposed upon him. He has also been convicted for committing an offence under Section 471, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years an...
Tag this Judgment!