Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1256; 1982CriLJ1741; (1981)4SCC558
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad dismissing an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus.2. On February 4, 1980 some electronic goods of foreign origin were seized from the shop of the appellant in the course of a raid. The seizure was communicated to the Government on August 8, 1980. The Government made an order of detention under COFEPOSA on September 19, 1980.3. In this appeal Shri Vimal Dave, learned Counsel for the appellant, argues that no activity was alleged against the appellant from February 4, 1980 until September 24, 1980 when he was arrested and that circumstance coupled with the fact that proceedings under the Customs Act were pending against the appellant made it abundantly clear that there could be no apprehension in the mind of the detaining authority that the appellant would indulge in future in any smuggling activity. We are unable to agree with the submission of Shri Dave. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1641; [1983]53CompCas384(SC); 1981(3)SCALE1117; (1981)3SCC558; [1982]1SCR138
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. These two Writ Petitions (Criminal) may be disposed of by a single judgment as some of the questions raised are common to both. To begin with, we may refer to the facts in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 2690 of 1981. The Government of Maharashtra, in exercise of the powers under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA, directed the detention of Sunder Shankardas Devidasani by an order dated March 9, 1981, with a view to prevent him from smuggling goods and abetting the smuggling of goods. The grounds of detention, also of the same date, were duly served on the detenu. The detenu made a representation on April 14, 1981 and this was rejected by the Government on April 25, 1981. A further representation made by the detenu on April 25, 1981 was also rejected on May 2, 1981. In the mean time the Advisory Board met on April 29, 1981 and considered the case of the detenu. By a letter dated May 6, 1981 the detenu was informed by the Advisory Board that the Board had reported to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1656; 1981(3)SCALE1101; (1981)3SCC542; [1982]1SCR149; [1981]48STC254(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The short point for consideration in this appeal is whether the expression 'cooked food' used in certain notifications issued under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (U.P. Act XV of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') can be construed as including within its meaning 'biscuits' also.2. The assessee, the appellant herein, is a registered firm engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of biscuits intended for human consumption. The assessee is a registered dealer under the Act. During the assessment proceedings under the Act for the year 1972-73 the assessee claimed that the turn-over relating to biscuits manufactured and sold by it amounting to Rs. 35,09,920.38 P. was liable to be taxed at two per cent which was the rate prescribed by a notification issued by the State Government for cooked food contending that 'cooked food' included 'biscuits' also. The notification relied on was one issued on October 6, 1971 under Sub-section (2) of Section 3-A of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC776a; 1982LabIC442; (1981)4SCC150; 1982(2)SLJ20(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. This is a somewhat extraordinary case. The special leave petition is directed against an order of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court affirming an order passed by a single Judge of that Court dismissing a writ petition filed by the petitioner before us. In the writ petition the petitioner questioned the validity of an order of compulsory retirement made against him. He was posted as Director of Posts and Telegraphs. Orissa Circle, with headquarters at Cuttack, in Jan. 1964 when he was asked to go to Ambala as Director of Posts and Telegraphs. The order of compulsory retirement appears to have been made because the petitioner disobeyed the order of transfer. The petitioner took leave up to Aug. 2, 1964 and even thereafter he did not report for duty at Ambala. The charges against the petitioner were that he had overstayed leave, without permission and that he deliberately disobeyed the order of transfer. According to the petitioner the order of transfer was mala fid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1649; 1983(13)ELT1656(SC); 1981(3)SCALE1130; (1981)3SCC578; [1982]1SCR129; [1981]48STC411(SC); 1981(13)LC605(SC)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. These appeals by special leave raise the question whether aluminium rolled products and extrusions can be described as 'metal' for the purposes of the notifications dated December 1, 1973 and May 30, 1975 issued under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948.2. The appellant, the Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited, carries on the business of manufacturing and dealing in aluminium metal and various aluminium products. 3. On December 1, 1973 the State of Uttar Pradesh notified under Section 3-A(2) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 that the turnover in respect of the following goods set forth in item No. 6 of the attached schedule would be liable to tax at all points of sale at 3 1/2%-6. All kinds of minerals and ores and alloys except copper, tin, zinc, nickel or alloy of these metals only. On May 30, 1975 the State of Uttar Pradesh published a notification, under Section 3A (2-A) of the Act, in which item No. 1 of the schedule read as follows: 1. All kinds of minerals, ores, me...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)3SCC511
A.P. Sen and; S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, JJ.1. Special leave granted limited to the question of sentence.2. The appellant has settled the differences with the complainant, but as the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable, however, having regard to the peculiar circumstances of this case we uphold the conviction of the appellant but reduce his sentence to the period already undergone. In lieu of remission in sentence we impose a fine of Rs 3000 to be paid to the complainant, in default of payment of fine the appellant will suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Counsel for the appellant states that a sum of Rs 2000 has already been deposited, out of which a sum of Rs 1000 has already been paid to the complainant. We further direct that the appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs 1000 within three months from today if he has already deposited a sum of Rs 2000. The whole amount of Rs 3000 shall be paid to the complainant....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)3SCC480
Order 1. After taking into consideration the report submitted by the learned Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court, we are of the opinion that it is necessary in the interest of justice to transfer case No. 1456 C of 1979 (Parthajoy Das v.K.P.S. Gill) pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta, District Kamrup, Assam, to the Court of a Magistrate to be nominated by the learned Sessions Judge, Delhi. We order accordingly. The parties will appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Delhi on September 15, 1981 for taking further directions in the matter. 2. Since we are transferring the case at the instance of the accused we direct that the expenses of the prosecution shall be borne to a reasonable extent by the Government of Assam, subject to the expenses being sanctioned by the court concerned. The learned Magistrate who will try the case (or the learned Sessions Judge who will eventually try it) will consider the question as to what expenses it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1699; [1981(43)FLR278]; 1981LabIC1103; (1981)IILLJ223SC; 1981(3)SCALE1105; (1981)3SCC545; [1982]1SCR107; 1981(2)SLJ292(SC); 1981(13)LC861(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. These are four appeals by special leave from an Award of the National Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, made on September 3, 1980 disposing of two complaints under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 holding that the employer, Reserve Bank of India, Bombay had changed to the prejudice of the complainants their conditions of service by modifying the existing scheme of promotion during the pendency of a reference before the Tribunal and had thereby contravened the provisions of Section 33(1)(a) of the Act. Civil Appeals 2815 and 2816 of 1980 have been preferred by the Reserve Bank of India, Bombay. In civil appeal 2607 of 1980 the appellants are some of the stenographers employed in the Bombay office of the Reserve Bank of India. The four appellants in civil appeal 3150 of 1980 are also employees of the Reserve Bank of India, Bombay, one of whom is a clerk grade I and the other three are officiating as staff officers grade A. How the appellants in Civil Appeals ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1657; 1982(2)SCALE1384; (1981)3SCC486; [1982]1SCR124
R.S. Pathak, J.1. In a suit for ejectment of a lessee and for recovery of arrears of rent, does the court enjoy any discretion not to strike off the defence in case the defendant has defaulted in depositing the rent and has also failed to make any representation within the terms of Rule 5 of Order XV, CPC? That question is raised in this defendant's appeal by special leave against an order of the Allahabad High Court maintaining in revision that the trial court has no discretion in the circumstances but must strike off the defence.2. The respondent as lessor filed a suit against the appellant as lessee for his ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent. The appellant filed a written statement and resisted the suit. During the pendency of the suit the respondent filed an application praying that the appellant's defence be struck off in view of Rule 5 of Order XV, CPC, inasmuch as the appellant had committed default in depositing the rent regularly. The appellant opposed the applicati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC685; 1982CriLJ1000; (1981)4SCC149
ORDERY.V. Chandrachud, C.J. 1. Heard counsel. Special leave to appeal is granted to Appellant 1 Jayendra.2. We had called for a report from the Doctor in charge of the jail hospital as regards the age of appellant No. 1, Jayendra. The report of the Chief Medical Officer, Bareilly, Dr. P. D. P. Mathur, dated Feb. 17, 1981 shows that by general appearance, physical examination and radiological findings, the appellant Jayendra was about 23 years of age on the date of the report. That would mean that on June 17, 1974 which is the date of the offence, the appellant was about 16 years and 4 months old. The estimate given by the Chief Medical Officer, Bareilly is a rough estimate by approximation but we have on the record the statement of the appellant himself which is uncontradicted that he was above 15 years of age on the date of the offence.3. Section 2(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Children Act, 1951 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1952) defines a child to mean a person under the age of 16 years. Taking int...
Tag this Judgment!