Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC53; 1982CriLJ193; (1982)3SCC405
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. By this petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner has challenged his father's continued illegal detention under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the COFEPOSA Act') and has sought his release.2. A few facts giving rise to the petition may be stated, Bakshi Balraj Dutt, the detenu, was arrested and detained on July 11, 1980 pursuant to a detention order passed by the Administrator, Delhi Administration on July 9, 1980 under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. On the very date on which he was detained i.e. on July 11, 1980, grounds of detention running into 8 closely typed pages were supplied to him. However, copies of the documents and the statements relied upon by the detaining authority, on the basis of which the grounds of detention were made out, were served upon the detenu as late as on July 19, 1980. The detenu made an incomplete representation on July 26, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1639; 1981(1)SCALE838; (1981)4SCC513; 1981(13)LC444(SC)
1. The point raised in this group of writ petitions and special leave petitions is covered by the decision rendered by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 1029 of 1981 and allied appeals pronounced on March 13, 1981: reported in : [1981]3SCR234 . Therefore, this group of writ petitions and special leave petitions will be governed by the aforementioned judgment and will stand disposed of in terms of that judgment.2. The order herein indicated would have been sufficient for disposal of this group of matters but learned Counsel appearing for the Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation very vehemently urged that an attempt is being made by the operators to take an unfair advantage of the judgment of this Court as if the judgment mandates the authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act to grant them permits which they are not otherwise entitled to. One has to guard against such a situation. Being conscious of this fact, in the judgment dated 13th March, 1981, in Civil Appeal No. 1029 of 1981: rep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1395; 1981CriLJ871; [1981(43)FLR272]; (1981)IILLJ230SC; (1981)IILLJ231SC; 1981(1)SCALE919; (1981)3SCC431; [1981]3SCR864; 1981(13)LC803(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Delhi High Court upholding an order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, raises a question of some public importance. The question is as to whether the appellant, who is a member of the Indian Administrative Service, and whose services were placed at the disposal of the Cooperative Store Ltd., a society registered under the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 (hereinafter called the Society), was a public servant within the meaning of Clause Twelfth of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for purposes of Section 197 of the CrPC, 1973. The question arises in this way.2. The appellant is a member of the Indian Administrative Service. By notification No. 27-942-Estt. 1, dated 23rd April, 1972, issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Agriculture (Department Agriculture), the services of the appellant, who was a Joint Commissioner (State Liaison) in that Ministry, were placed at the disposal of the Department for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1495a; [1981(43)FLR297]; 1981LabIC861; (1981)IILLJ198SC; 1981(1)SCALE891; (1981)3SCC271; [1981]3SCR875; 1981(2)SLJ6(SC)
1. In this petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners-31 in number-who are all officers serving in the Aviation Research center (for short, the 'ARC') have challenged the constitutionality of Rules 6 to 8 of the 'Aviation Research center (Technical) Service Rules, 1976' issued by the President of India under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, as also the legality and validity of the 'absorption' of respondents Nos. 8 to 67 in the said Department pursuant to the impugned Rules. There is a further prayer in the writ petition to declare the Seniority List dated November 6, 1978 (Annexure 'G') published by the the Department as illegal, unconstitutional and void. Yet another relief claimed by the petitioners is that all the promotions granted to respondents Nos. 8 to 67 in the ARC service from 1968 till 1978 should be declared by this Court as illegal and void, and that a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction should be iss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1633; (1982)1GLR169; 1981(1)SCALE832; (1981)4SCC542; 1981(13)LC434(SC)
ORDER1. Petitioners and several others were admitted to different institutions 'preparing students for primary teachers' training course certificate examination under five different orders dated August 29, 1980, September 17, 1980, September 22, 1980, October 3, 1980 and October 9, 1980, issued by the Director of Education, State of Gujarat. Validity of these orders was challenged on the ground that they were arbitrary, without authority and in flagrant violation of the guidelines issued by the State Government, in several writ petitions filed in the Gujarat High Court. At the hearing of one of these petitions learned Counsel appearing for the State of Gujarat informed the Court that the State Government had decided to withdraw and cancel the aforementioned five orders. As a sequel admissions granted under the aforementioned orders were withdrawn and cancelled. Some of the students, including the petitioners in this petition, questioned the action of the State Government in withdrawing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1759; (1981)23CTR(SC)146; [1981]130ITR244(SC); (1981)3SCC441; [1981]3SCR849
1. I agree. The acceptance of a disclosure statement made by a declarant under Section 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965 cannot confer immunity on another person from tax liability in respect of the same sum of money. As was held by this Court in Ahmed Ibrahim S. Dhoraji v. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax Gujarat : [1981]129ITR314(SC) . the liability imposed under Section 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965 is identifiable with the income tax liability under the Income-tax Act. The scheme for voluntary disclosure of income and its taxation is only another mode provided by law for imposing income tax and recovering it. Consequently, the general principles which apply to assessments made under the Income-Tax Act would except for the provision to the contrary, be applicable to assessments made under Section 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965. Accordingly, when the assessment to income tax is made under the latter enactment, it will be governed by the general principle that a finding rec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1552; 1981CriLJ1136; 1981(3)SCALE1807; (1981)3SCC616; [1981]3SCR839; 1981(13)LC820(SC)
1. The short point involved in this appeal is whether the appellant is guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, or only of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called 'the Code'). It is not disputed that the appellant, Jagrup Singh, struck a blow with the blunt side of a gandhala on the head of the deceased, Chanan Singh, who was his uncle, resulting in his death. It appears that after the death of Joginder Singh, the deceased Chanan Singh was looking after the family of his brother, Joginder Singh consisting of his widow Mst. Dalip Kaur and her children. He had settled the betrothal and marriage of Mst. Dalip Kaur's daughter, Tej Kaur. The prosecution case is that the appellant Jagrup Singh and his brothers, Billaur Singh, Jarmail Singh and Waryam Singh, coaccused, although they were collaterals of Joginder Singh, were not invited by Mst. Dalip Kaur to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1298; (1982)1CompLJ1(SC); 1981(2)SCALE959; (1981)3SCC333; [1981]3SCR698
1. These three appeals by special leave arise out of a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras dated October 6, 1978 allowing an appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge, dated May 17, 1978 in Company Petition No. 39 of 1977. The main contending parties in these appeals are : (i) the Needle Industries (India) Limited and (ii) the Needle Industries-Newey (Indian Holdings) Limited. These two companies have often been referred to in the proceedings as the Indian Company and the English Company respectively, but it would be convenient for us to refer to the former as 'NIIL' and to the latter as the 'Holding Company'. The Holding Company has been referred to in a part of the proceedings as 'NINIH'.2. In Civil Appeal 2139 of 1978, which was argued as the main appeal, NIIL is appellant No. 1 while one T.A. Devagnanam is appellant No. 2. The latter figures very prominently in these proceedings and is indeed one of the moving spirits of this acrimonious litigation....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1374; (1981)3SCC251; [1981]3SCR686; 1981(13)LC454(SC)
1. By this judgment we shall dispose of Civil Appeal Nos. 1665 and 1666 of 1970 in which common questions of law have arisen for determination by this Court.2. The facts leading to the two appeals are un-disputed and may be briefly stated thus. Licences to run liquor vends in various parts of Punjab during the financial year 1965-66 were sold by public auction shortly before the 1st April, 1965. Auctions were held at numerous places subject to identical conditions which were supplied to the bidders in writing. Condition No. 8 which is material for our purposes is reproduced below :That the licencee shall lift each month the proportionate quota for the month fixed for his vend (s) or deposit still-head duty realisable thereon. In the event of any deficiency in the amount of still-head duty realisable from the lifting of the full proportionate quota due to the short lifting of the quota by the licencee or non-deposit of the amount of the still-head duty, the said deficiency may be realis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1468; 1981CriLJ867; 1981(1)SCALE913; (1981)3SCC301; [1981]3SCR829
1. In this appeal, by special leave, from the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, the only issue between the parties is as to the legality and propriety of the order of confiscation passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum, of a consignment of 7,200 kg. of groundnut oil seized for contravention of Sub-clause (2)(a) and (b) of Clause 3 of the Edible Oil, Edible Oil Seeds and Oil Cakes (Declaration of Stocks) Order, 1976 (hereinafter called the Order).2. Briefly stated the facts are these: On 6.6 1977 at about 11.30 a.m., the Sub Inspector of Police, Hukeri, intercepted a truck bearing registration No. MHL 2675 laden with 40 barrels of groundnut oil weighing 7,200 kg. which were being transported from Kampli to Nippani, without furnishing a declaration in Form II to Tahsildar, Hospet, as required under Sub-clause (2)(a) and (b) of Clause 3 of the Order. The Sub Inspector of Police, after seizing the vehicle and the oil registered a case and thereafter reported the matter to the Deput...
Tag this Judgment!