Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC983; 1982(1)SCALE115; (1982)1SCC691; [1982]3SCR318; 1982(14)LC186(SC)
1. The first appellant, Jyoti Basu, is the Chief Minister and appellants two and three Budhadeb Bhattacharya and Hasbim Abdul Halim, are two Ministers of the Government of West Bengal. They have been impleaded by the first respondent as parties to an election petition filed by him questioning the election of the second respondent to the House of the People from the 19-Barrackpore Parliamentary Constituency in the midterm Parliamentary election held in January, 1980. There were five candidates who sought election from the Constituency. Mod. Ismail, the first respondent, whose candidature was sponsored by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) was, elected securing 2,66,698 votes as against Debi Ghosal, a candidate sponsored by the Indian National Congress led by Smt. Indira Gandhi who secured 1,62,770 votes. The other candidates Ramjit Ram, Robi Shankar Pandey and Bejoy Narayan Mishra secured 25,734, 12,271 and 2,763 votes respectively. The first respondent filed an election petition in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC844; 1982(1)SCALE436; (1982)1SCC637; [1982]3SCR307; 1982(14)LC198(SC)
1. The aforesaid five appeals, the first two on a certificate granted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the last three by special leave granted by this Court, raise a common question in regard to refund of octori duty collected by the appellant-Council from the respondent firms and are, therefore, disposed of by common judgment. The principal question raised in these appeals relates to the proper construction of Rule 27 of the Octroi Rules of Damoh Municipal Council (the appellant) framed in exercise of powers conferred by Sections 71, 76 and 85 of the Central Provinces & Berar Municipalities Act, 1922-which Rules were continued in operation even after the coming into force of the new Act, the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 and the question arises in these circumstances :2. The two respondent firms in the two sets of appeals (M/s. Vraj Lal Manilal & Co. and M/s. Prabhudas Kishoredas) carry on business of manufacturing and selling bidis in Damoh and other cities in Madhya Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1982(1)SCALE539; (1982)2SCC40
1. Special leave granted.2. On hearing Counsel on either side, it is not possible for us to sustain the order of the High Court dismissing the petition 'in limini'. Since the questions which are involved in this petition are also pending in several other matters in the High Court, this petition is also directed to be heard on merits along with those petitions. In the meantime, the guarantee furnished persuant to the orders of this Court will continue to operate till the disposal of the petition by the High Court....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC879; 1982(30)BLJR275; [1982(44)FLR299]; 1982LabIC806; (1982)ILLJ344SC; (1982)ILLJ344SC; 1982(1)SCALE110; (1982)1SCC618; [1982]3SCR298; 1982(1)SLJ490(SC); 1982(14)U
1. 'Equal pay for equal work' is not a mere demagogic slogan. It is a constitutional goal capable of attainment through constitutional remedies by the enforcement of constitutional rights. So the petitioner claims; so the petitioner asserts. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims, as a Directive Principle, the Constitutional goal of 'equal pay for equal work for both men and women'. Articles 14 and 19 guarantee respectively the fundamental rights to equality before the law and equality of opportunity in the matter of public employment and Article 32 provides the remedy for the enforcement of the fundamental rights. So the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 and has asked us to direct the respondents to give him his due, the same as they have given others like him. True, he is the merest microbe in the mighty organism of the State, a little clog in a giant wheel. But, the glory of our Constitution is that it enables him to directly approach the hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)2SCC31
A. Varadarajan,; E.S. Venkataramiah and; S. Murtaza Fazawl Ali, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case the sentence is reduced to the period already served and in lieu of the sentence remitted, we impose a fine of Rs 7000 to be paid within two months from today. The entire amount of fine, if realised, shall be paid to injured PW 1. In default of payment of fine, the appellants shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appeal is accordingly disposed of....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC872; 1982(1)SCALE148; (1982)1SCC627; [1982]3SCR288; 1982(14)LC254(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court quashing the grant of Nazul land to the appellants on a writ petition filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 16.2. The respondents Nos. 1 to 16 applied on March 15, 1963 for the grant of sixteen plots of land included in Government Nazul Plot No. 31/1 (Sheet No. 49-D) in Yeotmal Town for the purpose of constructing shops thereon. They alleged that they had not been allotted any land yet for carrying on business at Yeotmal, and inasmuch as land sites were being released to refugees or displaced persons they claimed that having been compelled to migrate from West Pakistan to India during the partition of 1947 they were entitled to the grant of such plots. The appellants made a similar application on May 16, 1964 and it is their case that they had also applied earlier in the same behalf on February 27, 1962. There were applications from other claimants also. The State Government, acti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1982(1)SCALE544; (1982)2SCC32
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the High Court of Calcutta made under Section 266(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 declining to call for a statement of the case.2. The appellant was assessed to Income-tax under Section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 for the assessment year 1955-56. Subsequently, the assessment proceedings were reopened under Section 34(1)(a) of the Act and the Income-tax Officer refused to allow a loss originally claimed by the appellant on the sale of an item of property purchased by it. The order under Section 34(1)(a) was assailed by the appellant before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who allowed the appeal on the finding that the notice was invalid. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, on appeal filed by the Income-tax Department, took the view that the appellant had not disclosed all material facts before the Income-tax Officer during the original assessment and that therefore the reopening of the assessment proceeding...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC293; 1982(1)SCALE540; (1982)2SCC400; 1982(14)LC289(SC)
ORDER1. Special Leave is of Ghanshyam. In rejected.2. The appellant Kehar Singh with his brother Dhir Singh and father Ghanshyam and acquitted accused Hukam Singh were tried by the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, for having committed offences under Section 302/34 and Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hukam Singh was acquitted. The remaining three accused including Kehar Singh were convicted for both the offences and with respect to the first offence each one of 10 them was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and in respect of the second offence, rigorous imprisonment for six months. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.3. The appellant, his father Ghanshyam and brother Dhir Singh preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2170 of 1976 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence of Ghanshyam and Dhir Singh but while confirming the convictio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC839; 1983(1)Crimes83(SC); 1982(1)SCALE143; (1982)1SCC700; [1982]3SCR277
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment dated 29 August 1975/lst September 1975, of the Bombay High Court convicting the appellant, Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani (hereinafter referred to as A-1) under Section 326, I.P.C. and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for three years. He was also convicted under Section 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. but no separate sentence was awarded.2. The trial court had convicted A-1 under Section 326/34 I.P.C. which was altered by the High Court to one under Section 326 simpliciter. The details of the prosecution case are to be found in the judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same. We shall, however, give a brief resume of the important facts which are germane for deciding the short points raised by Mr. Jethmalani, counsel for the appellant.3. The occurrence out of which the present appeal arises appears to have taken place on April 2, 1972 at about 11-11.30 p.m. According to the prosecution whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC836; [1983]53CompCas333(SC); [1982(44)FLR271]; 1982(1)SCALE107; (1982)1SCC613; [1982]3SCR244; 1982(14)LC248(SC)
1. This appeal by certificate of fitness arises out of the judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated January 9,1976 in Misc. First Appeal No. 19 of 1973.2. On April 5, 1970, the appellant's husband was driving a scooter, MYL 8574, on the Kasturba Road, Bangalore, when a goods truck, MYT 3298, knocked him dead. The owner of the truck had taken a statutory insurance policy with the respondent. The Premier Insurance Co. Ltd., Gandhinagar, Bangalore, which was operative from June 30, 1969 to June 29, 1970. The appellant filed an application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, seeking compensation for her husband's death. The respondent denied its liability on the ground, amongst others, that its record did not disclose that it had issued any insurance policy in respect of the particular truck. On a consideration of the entire evidence, the Tribunal passed an award on November 20, 1972, holding that the appellant was e...
Tag this Judgment!