Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1579; [1982(45)FLR436]; 1982LabIC1970; 1982(2)SCALE913; (1982)3SCC412; [1983]1SCR593; 1982(1)SLJ82(SC)
ORDER NO. 717-LD (A) of 1981 dated 26.11.198127. Sanction is accorded to the officiating appointing of the following sub-Judges as District and Sessions Judges in the scale of Rs. 1100-1600 against available vacancies with the posting as shown against each in consultation with the Hon'ble High Court :(1) Shri Pavitar Singh - District and Sessions Judge, Leh-Kargil (2) Shri Harchran Singh - District and Sessions Judge, Bahri Rajouri (3) Sheikh Maqbool - 1st Additional District and Hussain Sessions Judge, Srinagar, Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Kashmir, Srinagar. By order of the GovernorSd/- G.H. NehviSecretary to GovernmentLaw Department.28. Mr. Venugopal, learned Counsel for the Petitioners has argued that the High Court after due consideration of the respective merits and suitability of all the officers, recommended the names of the petitioners for appointment as District Judges and thereafter at the request of the Government, the High Court had on 5.10.1981 forwarded to the Governm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1511; 1983(1)Crimes20(SC); 1982(2)SCALE879; (1982)3SCC466; [1983]1SCR569; 1982(14)LC885(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. Appellant Kishan Chand Mangal was convicted by the learned Special Judge (A.C.D. Cases), Jaipur, Rajasthan, for having committed offences under Section 161, Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month on each count with a further direction that both the sentences will run concurrently. After an unsuccessful appeal to the High Court of Rajasthan, he has preferred this appeal by special leave.2. Appellant at the relevant time was serving as Factory Inspector, Ajmer and in that capacity he accompanied by his friend paid a visit on November 20, 1974, to the factory named 'Krishna Industries' whose proprietor was one Rajendra Dutt. Appellant said that his visit being after a lapse of one and a half year, the proprietor should pay him pocket money. Rajendra D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1497; 1983(0)KLT1(SC); 1982(2)SCALE875; (1982)3SCC358; [1983]1SCR561; 1982(14)LC839(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the Judgment and order dated November 13, 1978 of the High Court of Kerala in M.F.A. No. 145 of 1976.2. The facts leading to this appeal may be briefly stated thus : The appellant is the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Electricity Board'). Cochin Malleables (P) Ltd. (in liquidation) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company in liquidation') used to enter into contracts with the Electricity Board before it was ordered to be wound up by the High Court of Kerala to supply goods to the Electricity Board pursuant to tenders which were being issued from time to time. One of the terms usually found in such tenders was that the intending supplier of goods should pay as earnest money and/or security to the Electricity Board alongwith every tender a sum approximately equivalent to 10% of the estimated price of the goods in question. There was, however, a p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1500; 1983(1)Crimes275(SC); 1982(2)SCALE888; (1982)3SCC440; [1983]1SCR540
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. By this petition Ibrahim Ahmad Batti, the detenu herein, is seeking to challenge the detention order dated 1st July, 1982 issued by the respondent No. 1 (State of Gujarat) under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short, 'the COFEPOSA') and praying for a writ of habeas corpus directing his release after quashing the same.2. On 15th April, 1982, the Custom Officers raided Bungalow No. 3, Sweta Park Society, Bhuderpura, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad, allegedly belonging to the petitioner but standing benami in the name of Rekhaben Champaklal Sheth and during the search that followed in the presence of the petitioner and one Hasmukh Prabhudas Sharma contraband comprising 700 pieces of gold with foreign markings weighing 7000 tolas, radios, camera, Video cassette recorder, colour T.V. synthetic fabrics, crockery, etc. of considerable value and Indian Currency of Rs. 72,766 were recovered; the said gold and ot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1493; [1982(45)FLR382]; 1982LabIC1783; 1982(2)SCALE1106; (1982)3SCC331; 1983(1)SLJ440(SC); 1982(14)LC626(SC)
ORDER1. Respondent Mahendra Singh Chawla was appointed as an Overseer by the appellant Municipal Board, Pratabgarh (Board for short) as per its resolution dated October 15, 1956. Respondent was prosecuted and convicted for an offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code on the charge that he attempted to accept illegal gratification. During the pendency of trial respondent was suspended from service. It is not clear as to whether service of the respondent was terminated consequent upon his conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude. By Resolution of the appellant Board, Ext. 6 dated August 28, 1963, respondent was given fresh appointment from that day as an oversear on a pay of Rs. 145/- p.m. as basic pay plus D.A. @ Rs. 40/-p.m. and cycle allowance of Rs. 10/- p.m. This Resolution appears to have been passed pursuant to an application made by the respondent and the last paragraph of the Resolution makes it clear that a fresh appointment was given. By another Resolution ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1518; 1982(1)SCALE849; (1982)3SCC270; [1983]1SCR498; 1982(14)LC631(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. A provision conferring power enacted to mollify slogans chanting public opinion of speedy justice, if not wisely interpreted may not only prove counter-productive but disastrous. And that is the only raison d'etre for this judgment because in the course of hearing at the stage of granting special leave Mr. D.V. Patel, learned Counsel for the respondent straightway conceded that this is such a case in which leave to defend could never have been refused. Unfortunately, however, not a day passes without the routine refusal of leave, tackled as a run of mill case by the High Court in revision with one word judgment 'rejected', has much to our discomfiture impelled us write to this short judgment.2. First the brief narration of facts. Respondent M/s. Prem Deva Niranjun Dava Tayal (Hindu Undivided Family) through Prem Deva Tayal, constituted attorney of Niranjan Deva Tayal (landlord) moved the Controller having jurisdiction by a petition under Section 14(1) proviso (e) [for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1492; 1982CriLJ2364; 1983(1)Crimes402(SC); 1982(1)SCALE842; (1982)3SCC223; [1983]1SCR496
ORDERO. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The respondent was charged with an offence under Section 34(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act on the allegation that he was found in possession of a quantity of eight litres of illicitly distilled arrack, an intoxicant, in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made under the Act. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate convicted him and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, which was the minimum sentence that could be awarded for an offence under Section 34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act. On an appeal preferred by the respondent, the Sessions Judge, Anantapur confirmed the conviction and sentence. The respondent preferred a revision petition before the High Court. The learned Single Judge who heard the revision confirmed the conviction. But, on the question of sentence, he observed :Mr. T. Ramulu, appearing for the petitioner who has filed this revision through jail, has submitted that the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!