Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1982(1)SCALE266; (1982)1SCC514; [1982]3SCR186; 1982(14)LC242(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of K.K. Dube, J. of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 167 of 1980, with whom the learned Chief Justice of that High Court had agreed on a difference of opinion between the learned Judge and A. R. Navkar, J. The petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution was for the issue of a writ, order or direction for the writ petitioner's admission into one of the medical colleges in Madhya Pradesh for the M.B.B.S. course, commencing in the academic year 1979-80. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties we allowed the appeal by a brief order on 14.1.1982 without any order as to costs, on account of the urgency of the matter, reserving our reasons to be given later, and directed the respondents to admit the appellant to the M.B.B.S course for the academic year 1981-82 for which admissions are admittedly going on even now. We are presently giving reasons.2. The Government of Madhya Pradesh, Public Hea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC878; 1982CriLJ630; (1982)3SCC320
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. In this petition the detenu Munna alias Mohsin Raza was detained by an order dated 15th Apr., 1981 passed by District Magistrate, Lucknow. The detenu was arrested on 18th Apr., 1981 and was supplied the grounds of detention at the time of his arrest. In support of the rule. Mr. Goyal has raised two short point. In the first place he, submitted that one of the important documents on which reliance was placed by the detaining authority was an inquiry report which was not supplied to him along with grounds and this is sufficient to vitiate the order of detention. Secondly, it was argued that the counter affidavit was filed by an incompetent person, namely Shri Pratap Chandra Saxena who was a mere clerk in the Judicial Section and was not therefore authorised to file counter affidavit in the highest Court of the country and could not be expected to know the truth and the. details of the matter. The District Magistrate should have filed counter affidavit himself. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC949; (1982)1CompLJ217(SC); 1982CriLJ819; 1982(1)SCALE38; (1982)1SCC561; [1982]3SCR121
1. My learned Brother A.N. Sen has dealt fully with the various points argued before us. I agree respectfully with his judgment, but desire to add a few words in view of the importance which this matter has acquired by reason of the immense circulation of 'black money' clearly and almost concededly involved in the affairs of the firm which is facing a prosecution.2. These appeals by special leave arise out of the judgment dated March 5, 1981 of a learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in Matters Nos. 2829 of 1980 and 37 of 1981. The appeals are, in substance, by the State of West Bengal while the contesting respondents are a firm called 'Sanchaita Investments' and its three partners, Swapan Kumar Guha, Sambhu Prasad Mukherjee and Beharilal Murarka. The two Matters in the Calcutta High Court were in the nature of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution which were filed by the firm and its partners for quashing an investigation commenced against the firm. Allowing t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC810; 1982(1)SCALE135; (1982)1SCC520; [1982]3SCR114; 1982(14)LC162(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment dated November 23, 1979 of the Allahabad High Court allowing a writ petition quashing the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and remanding the case to him for considering the question afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by the High Court.2. The appeal involves a short and simple point but the case appears to have had rather a long and chequered career. Put briefly, the facts of the case fall within a narrow compass so far as the points for decision are concerned. The first respondent, Smt. Rajkumari Jain, inducted Shri Thapalayal as a tenant in the premises in dispute which are situated in the town of Bijnor. The tenant intimated his intention to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to vacate the premises on 25.6.1974. On receipt of the aforesaid application of the tenant a Rent Control Inspector was directed to visit the spot and after visiting the same he reported that the ...
Tag this Judgment!