Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1829; 1981LabIC1313; (1981)IILLJ314SC; 1981(3)SCALE1275; (1981)4SCC335; [1982]1SCR438; 1981(2)SLJ349(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. Transferred Case No. 3 of 1981 and the writ petitions filed by the petitioners raise common constitutional and legal questions and we propose to decide all these cases by one common judgment. So far as Transferred Case No. 3/81 is concerned, it arises out of writ petition No. 1186/1980 filed by Nergesh Meerza and Ors. Respondent No. 1 (Air India) moved this Court for transfer of the writ petition filed by the petitioners, Nergesh Meerza & Ors in the Bombay High Court to this Court because the constitutional validity of Regulation 46(1)(c) of Air India Employees Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as 'A.I. Regulations') and other questions of law were involved. Another ground taken by the applicant-Air India in the transfer petition was that other writ petitions filed by the Air Hostesses employed by the Indian Airlines Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'I.A.C.') which were pending hearing in this Court involved almost identical reliefs. After h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1965; (1981)24CTR(SC)345; [1981]131ITR451(SC); 1981(3)SCALE1330; (1981)4SCC317; [1982]1SCR505; 1981(13)LC746(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The only question which arises for consideration in these six appeals by certificate is whether an order of assessment passed under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') by the Income-tax Officer in the case of a Hindu undivided family without holding an inquiry into the validity of the claim made within a reasonable time by a member of the Hindu family that a partition had taken place among the family is liable to be merely cancelled in appeal by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') without a further direction to the assessing authority either to modify the assessment suitably or to pass a fresh order of assessment in accordance with law.2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family and the assessment years are 1955-56 and 1957-58 to 1961-62. An assessment order made on May 30, 1959 in respect of the assessment year 1955-56 had been set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on February 24, 1962 w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1981)4SCC428
A.P. Sen,; Baharul Islam and; O. Chinnappa Reddy, JJ.1. This is an appeal by a detenu detained under the National Security Act. His application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus was rejected by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, and hence this appeal.2. The order of detention recites that the District Magistrate is satisfied that Aidal Singh should be detained “with an intention to protect him from commission of any act in contravention with maintenance of public security”. Grounds of detention were served on the detenu. Certain incidents which appear to relate to law and order were mentioned therein and the detaining authority concluded the grounds with the statement “from the aforesaid facts it is clear that you are involved in such activities by which a terror and panic is created in the mind of general public which has caused a danger to law and order”. A perusal of the order of detention and the grounds of detention reveals that the detaining authorit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC2084a; 1981CriLJ1703; (1981)4SCC145
ORDER1. This is an application under Article 32 of the Constitution for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to release the detenu, Sunder Shankar das Devidasani, detained under the provisions of the COFEPOSA. An identical writ petition on almost the same grounds was rejected by us on July 28, 1981 since reported in : [1982]1SCR138 after a full-dressed debate. At that hearing the detenu was represented by Shri Ram Jethmalani. He is now represented by Shri R.K. Garg. The grounds now taken in the petition are generally the same as the grounds taken then, except that the present petition contains a trenchant criticism of the judgment pronounced by us on July 28, 1981 and asks for a virtual review of the earlier judgment. Advantage has been taken of our ruling in Lallu Bhai v. Union of India : 1981CriLJ288 that the principle of res judicata is not applicable in all its vigour in applications for that issue of writs of Habeas Corpus, and, instead of filing a petition for review, the present...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1946; 1981(3)SCALE1459; (1981)4SCC226; [1982]1SCR392
Y.N. Chandrachud, C.J.1. These appeals are by certificates granted by the Delhi High Court under Article 133(1)(a) and (c) of the Constitution in regard to its judgment dated February 20, 1970 in C. W. No. 712 of 1968. 2. The dispute in these appeals relates to the grant of mining rights in respect of an area situated in the villages of Karanzol and Sonau-lim in Goa, the rival claimants being the appellant and Respondent 1. Respondent 1 claims preference over the appellant by reason of certain events which happened prior to the conquest and annexation of Goa by the Government of India on December 20, 1961. Before we turn to those events, it would be useful to notice the relevant provisions of the Mining Laws which were in force in Portuguese Goa. 3. During the Portuguese rule, matters relating to grant, transfer and vesting of mining rights in Goa, Daman and Diu were governed by the 'Portuguese Colonial Mining Laws'. Under those laws a person could, in stated circumstances, make a 'dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1981)4SCC430
A.P. Sen,; Baharul Islam and; O. Chinnappa Reddy, JJ.1. These four appeals are directed against an Order of the High Court of Rajasthan under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 543 of 1977 in the Court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Beswar.2. Two questions were raised before the High Court. The first was that the Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. The second was that there was no dishonest intention at the time when the representation is said to have been made. Though the High Court appeared to be inclined to hold that the Court had no territorial jurisdiction it preferred to rest its decision on the second ground. The High Court took the view that the case appeared to be of a civil nature and that the respondents could not be said to have had a dishonest intention from the beginning.3. We think that the High Court was wrong in going into the question of initial dishonest intention at that stage. It...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1937; (1981)4SCC613; [1982]1SCR417
R.B. Misra, J. 1. These two connected appeals are directed against a common judgment dated 28th February, 1968 of the Patna High Court, the first one by certificate and the second by special leave. 2. Bhaiya Rudra Pratap Deo was the holder of an impartible estate, known as Nagaruntari estate, in the district of Palamau. The succession to the estate was governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture. Under the said rule the eldest male member of the eldest line was to succeed to the estate while the junior members of the family were entitled only to maintenance grants subject to resumption on extinction of an heir in the male line of the eldest branch. 3. It appears that the estate was accorded protection under the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act, 1876, on the application of Bhaiya Rudra Pratap Deo as per notification dated 17th March, 1932 published in the Bihar Gazette dated 23rd March, 1932 and after liquidation of debt it was released from the operation of Chota Nagar Encumbered E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC2030; 1981(3)SCALE1413; (1981)4SCC471
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. 1.These Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution and Petitions for special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution may be disposed of by a common order since they raise the same questions. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and delegated to it by the Government of India by its Order No. GSR 1088 dated November 15, 1958, Ministry of Food and Agriculture (Department of Food), the Government of Madhya Pradesh made the Madhya Pradesh Foodstuffs (Distribution) Control Order 1960. The undoubted object of the Order was to provide for better distribution of foodstuffs to such class of consumers as required a regular supply of such foodstuffs. Detailed provision was made for the issue of 'family cards', the registration of the holders of such 'family cards' with 'appointed retailers', the appointment of 'appointed retailers', the supply of foodstuffs to 'appointed retailers' by the Government, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1910; 1981(3)SCALE1263; (1981)4SCC105; [1982]1SCR380; 1981(13)LC790(SC)
A.D. Koshal, J.1. The bone of contention in this appeal by special leave consists of two stage carriage permits granted under the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called the Act) in relation to the route Chirala Railway Station to Vetapalem, the claimants to which now are Venkaiah (the appellant), Krishna Rao (respondent No. 1) and Nagendrudu (respondent No. 5). By the impugned judgment a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has dismissed an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and has upheld the judgment of a Single Judge of that Court by which the order of the State Government was reversed and the permits were granted to respondents Nos. 1 and 5. 2. Before we proceed to lay down the facts leading to the present contest we may refer with advantage to Rule 212 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964 which have been framed under the Act and are hereinafter referred to as the Rules. The marginal note to that rule reads: Grant, Variation, Suspension or Cancel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1917; 1981CriLJ1683; 1981(3)SCALE1249; (1981)4SCC2; [1982]1SCR360
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.1. This Special Leave Petition is filed by the State of West Bengal against the judgment of acquittal dated August 1, 1980 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1980. 2. The respondents, who are all Police Officers, were tried by the learned Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, on the charge that at about 10.00 p.m. on November 11, 1970 they, along with Bibhuti Chakraborty, the then Deputy Commissioner of Police (North Division), P. R. Dey, the then Assistant Commissioner of Police (N. S.) and some others, caused the death of Ranjit Chakraborty and Samir Chakraborty by causing them gunshot injuries. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Ranjit and his brother Samir were sitting outside their house when three police vehicles carrying the respondents and other Police Officers, numbering about 15 or 20 in all, suddenly stopped in front of the house. The Police Officer...
Tag this Judgment!