Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC354; 1982(2)SCALE1370; 1982(14)LC878(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. After hearing the learned Attorney-General for the appellants and Counsel for the respondents we are satisfied that the impugned order of the High Court is quite unjust as it serves no purpose at all. By the impugned order admission of original respondents Nos. 7 to 17 (in the Writ Petition before the High Court) has been suspended but thereby the writ petitioners before the High Court do not get any benefit by way of any admission to the medical course and the result is that the seats would remain vacant till the writ petition is finally disposed of. This in our view is not a satisfactory or just solution, when an appropriate order after considering all the aspects could have been passed. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order suspending the admission of original respondents Nos. 7 to 17. Counsel for writ petitioners made a grievance before us that respondents whose admission has been suspended are avoiding service and are thereby del...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC65; 1982(2)SCALE1073; (1983)1SCC140; [1983]1SCR841; 1982(14)LC880(SC)
ORDERY.V. Chandrachud, C.J.1. By these writ petitions, the petitioners, some of whom are practising lawyers and some Members of the Parliament, ask for an appropriate writ directing the State of Haryana and the State of Uttar Pradesh to remove all obstructions on the highways and to allow unhindered and unintercepted the use of highways, railways and airways without making any discrimination against the Akali Sikhs on the ground of religion. Stated briefly, the case of the petitioners is that in the recent past, a movement was set afoot in the State of Punjab consequent upon certain demands made by the members of the Akali Party and as a result of that movement, large scale arrests of Sikhs were effected, bordering on harassment and persecution. It would appear that a declaration was made by certain Akali leaders that a Morcha would be taken to Delhi on November 19, 1982 which coincides with the inauguration of the Asiad games. Apprehending that the Morcha will interfere with the holdi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC523; 1982(2)SCALE1078; (1983)1SCC22; 1982(14)LC882(SC)
ORDER1. Special Leave granted.2. At the request of the parties we proceeded to hear the matter on merits. We heard Dr. Y.S. Chitaley for the appellant and Mr. S.C. Birla for the respondents.3. Appellant as plaintiff filed a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts of a firm styled as 'Shyam Bracketing Udyog' having its principal place of business at Etah in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The trial Court in this suit granted relief of dissolution of firm effective from November 23, 1976, and passed a preliminary decree for taking accounts. The defendants after an unsuccessful appeal to the first appellate Court approached the High Court in second appeal. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the concurrent findings and dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout. Hence this appeal by special leave.4. Plaintiff appellant filed the suit for dissolution of firm and rendition of accounts alleging that the partnership was a partnership at will and by the not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC654; 1983CriLJ1043; 1982(2)SCALE1130; (1982)3SCC458
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. We heard Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.V. Rangam, learned standing counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu. A question of very limited importance has been raised by Mr. Sampath in this appeal. He contends that the petitioner should have been given the benefit of the Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (Act for short).3. Section 6 of the Act provides that when any person under twenty one years of age is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable with imprisonment (but not imprisonment for life) the Court by which the person is found guilty shall not sentence him to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender it would not be desirable to deal with him under Section 3 or 4, and if the Court passes any sentence of imprisonment on the offender, it shall record its reasons for doing so. Sub-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC506; 1983CriLJ855; 1982(2)SCALE1190; (1984)1SCC670
1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and confirmed by the High Court of Delhi acquitting the first respondent of the offence under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The first respondent was charged with the offence of selling adulterated besan and the, contention of the prosecution was that the besan sold by the first respondent was insect infested and was, therefore, unfit for human consumption and was accordingly adulterated within the meaning of Section 2(1)(a)(f) of the Act. The learned Magistrate who tried the first respondent took the view that the besan was insect infested and must therefore be taken to be unfit for human consumption and he accordingly convicted the first respondent of the offence under Section 16 read with Section 7 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a furt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC61; 1983CriLJ155; 1983(1)Crimes141(SC); 1982(2)SCALE1057; (1982)3SCC462; [1983]1SCR822; 1983(15)LC3(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. The appellant, Prem Thakur, was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to death for the former offence. The conviction and sentence having been upheld by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.2. The charge against the appellant is that he committed the murder of five co-labourers on the night between the 8th and 9th November, 1980 in the village of Rolu Majra. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant came to India from Nepal in search of work along with his companion workers and a few others. They worked with one Mohinder Singh for about 14 days for which they were paid a sum of Rs. 2,900. The appellant and his co-workers spent a sum of Rs. 800 therefrom and the balance of Rs. 2100 was kept with Rama Nand who was one of the five co-workers of the appellant. The appellant and his companions thereafter went to the village o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1982(2)SCALE1104; (1982)3SCC510; 1983(15)LC18(SC)
ORDER1. The High Court was clearly in error in thinking that the Magistrate could not take cognizance of a case upon complaint because he had earlier refused to take cognizance of the case on a police report. The Order of the High Court is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna for disposal according to law. If the accused have any further objections to raise, they may do so before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.2. The appeal is disposed of accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC109; (1983)ILLJ1SC; 1983MhLJ1(SC); 1982(2)SCALE1097; (1983)1SCC124; [1983]1SCR828; 1983(1)SLJ256(SC); 1982(14)LC897(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. No Special leave granted.2. We heard Mr. F.S. Nariman for the appellant and Dr. Y.S. Chitale for the first respondent. With the consent of parties we proceed to dispose of the appeal.3. A charge-sheet was drawn-up against the first respondent for the alleged misconduct and an Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold the enquiry against the first respondent. Before the enquiry opened, the first respondent submitted a request seeking permission to engage a legal practitioner for his defence. The Chairman of the appellant rejected this request and simultaneously appointed two officers, namely, Shri R.K. Shetty and Shri A.B. Chaudhary, Legal Adviser and Junior Assistant Legal Adviser respectively of the appellant as Presenting Officers before the Enquiry Officer. A copy of this letter was endorsed to the first respondent with a foot note that his request for permitting him to appear through a legal practitioner in the enquiry has been rejected by the Chairman. As a sequel to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC43; 1982(2)SCALE1075; (1982)3SCC408; 1982(14)LC832(SC)
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. By a notification dated June 29, 1966, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ('Act' for short), respondent State of Haryana acquired land admeasuring 495 bighas, 9 biswas and 12 biswansis pukhta situate in Village Faridabad, for the planned development of Sector 14 of Faiidabad Complex. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act followed. Thereafter the Land Acquisition Collector proceeded to determine the compensation on the footing that the land was agricultural land. The measure of compensation determined by him was as under : (i) cultivated land at the rate of Rs. 190/- per biswa pukhta; (ii) Banjar jadid and banjar qadim at the rate of Rs. 152/- per biswa pukhta; and (iii) Ghair mumkin land at the rate of Rs. 100/- per biswa pukhta. Various claimants who were covered by the Award sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The learned District Judge enhanced the compensation in respect of some plantation land but otherwise affirmed the Award ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1982(2)SCALE1096; (1982)3SCC506; 1983(15)LC19(SC)
ORDER1. Heard counsel on either side. We find that the case of the petitioner was recommended for release by the Superintendent of Jail on his completion of 10 years of imprisonment inclusive of remission since he was below the age of 20 years at the date of the commission of the offence. It appears that the only ground on which his release has not been ordered and consideration of his case deferred is that the Sentence Revising Board is yet to ascertain his date of birth and the proof of age at the date of the commission of offence. Obviously the material in this respect would be with the authorities; (i) the judgment of the trial Court where the age must have been mentioned and (ii) when he was admitted to jail as a convict under Rule 101 his age must have been noted on his case papers. It is, therefore, clear that there is no sufficient reason why his case for release should not have been disposed of by now. We, therefore, issue a mandamus directing that the petitioner be released f...
Tag this Judgment!