Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1301; 1982LabIC1597; (1982)3SCC313; 1982(2)SLJ549(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. We have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment of the High Court. The High Court has considered the matter fully and has pointed out that in view of certain constitutional infirmities appearing in some of the rules framed by the Government and followed by the Public Service Commission, the competitive examination held by the Public Service Commission is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and hence, the selection made by the Commission is invalid and unconstitutional. It appears that a combined examination of Class I and Class II officers was held by the Public Service Commission and the candidates were asked to give several preferences for the post to which they were sought to be recruited. The respondent was one of the candidates and he had given four preferences. We have gone through the rules framed by the Government and adopted by the Public Service Commission and we find that the Rules framed suffer from clear ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1982(1)SCALE263; (1982)2SCC218; 1982(14)LC371(SC)
ORDER1. The Transferred Case and the Appeals connected with it raise important questions which require a careful and dispassionate consideration. The hearing of these matters was concluded four days ago, on Friday, the 26th. Since the judgments will take some time to prepare, we propose, by this Order, to state our conclusions on some of the points involved in the controversy:(1) The High Court acted within its jurisdiction in entertaining the Writ Petition and in issuing a Rule Nisi upon it, since the petition questioned the vires of the laws of election. But, with respect, it was not justified in passing the interim orders dated February 12 and 19, 1982 and in confirming those orders by its judgment dated February 25, 1982. Firstly, the High Court had no material before it to warrant the passing of those orders. The allegations in the Writ Petition are of a vague and general nature, on the basis of which no relief could be granted. Secondly, though the High Court did not lack the jur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1029; [1983]54CompCas571(SC); 1982CriLJ799; 1982(1)SCALE246; (1982)2SCC222; [1982]3SCR553
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (CRL) Nos. 8070 of 1981, 23 and 29 of 1982. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution) Ram Jethmalani and Miss Rani Jethmalani for the Petitioners. Eduardo Falireo and Miss A. Subhashini for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BAHARUL ISLAM, J. These three writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India involve common questions of facts and law. This common order of ours, therefore, will dispose of all of them. It will be sufficient if we refer to the facts only of Writ Petition No. 8070 of 1981. This petition is directed against the order dated 11th September, 1981 made under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (the COFEPOSA) by the Administrator of Goa, Daman and Diu (hereinafter 'the Administrator'), detaining the petitioner "with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods". 2. The material facts in a nutshell as alleged in the grounds of detention...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1174; [1982(45)FLR328]; 1982LabIC1487; 1982(1)SCALE238; (1982)2SCC326; 1982(1)SLJ602(SC); 1982(14)LC312(SC)
1. The respondent Shri V.B. Raju, was a member of the Indian Civil Service and was a Judge first of the Bombay High Court and later of the Gujarat High Court. He was a judge from June 12, 1959 to February 10, 1969 on which date he retired. He filed a Writ Petition in the Gujarat High Court claiming that he was entitled to be paid a pension of 1000 Sterling in addition to the additional pension payable under Part II of the 1st Schedule to the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. Following an earlier judgment of the same Court in J.D. Kapadia v. Union of India : (1971)12GLR938 the Gujarat High Court allowed the Writ Petition and declared that the amount payable under Clause 2(a) of Part II of the first schedule of the High Court Judges (conditions of service) Act 1954, was 1000 Sterling according to the official rate of exchange prevailing on the date when payment became due instead of the fixed sum of Rs. 13,333.33 ps. per annum. The Union of India has filed this appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1996)134CTR(SC)92
AHMEDI, C. J. :Special leave granted in SLP(C) Nos. 5813-14 of 1982.2. The assessee in all these cases is a co-operative society registered under the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies (Amalgamation) Act, 1957, hereinafter called the Act. While framing assessment for the relevant assessment years in question, the ITO included in the taxable income of the assessee interest earned on securities earmarked against reserves and interest earned on provident fund deposits. The assessee contended that it was entitled to the benefit of s. 81 of the IT Act as in force at all material times. The ITO rejected this claim of exemption from tax put forward by the assessee. Since the assessees contention did not find favour at the higher levels also, including the reference to the High Court, the assessee has approached this Court.3. Sec. 81 of the IT Act on which the assessees case is based read thus at all material times :'Income of co-operative societies. - Income-tax shall not be payable by a c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1163; 1982CriLJ1249; 1982(1)SCALE272; (1982)2SCC433; 1982(14)LC422(SC)
1. Dondaji, Ambasad, Pandu Rao, Vittal Rao, Buchiah, M. Ram Reddy and Sangaiah are convicts undergoing sentences of life imprisonment in the Central Jail, Hyderabad. All of them were convicted prior to December 18, 1978, the date on which Section 433A was introduced into the Criminal Procedure Code by Amendment Act 45 of 1978. Section 433A imposes a restriction on the power of the Government under Section 432 to remit sentences. It provides that a person shall not be released from prison unless he has at least served fourteen years of imprisonment where the sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under Section 433 into one of imprisonment for life. A Constitution Bench of this Court has-held in Mam Ram etc. etc. v. Union of India and Anr. that Section 433A is prospective in effect and 'that the mandatory minimum of fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1165; [1983]54CompCas394(SC); 1982(1)SCALE274; (1982)2SCC310; 1982(14)LC419(SC)
1. Shri T.R. Seshagiri Iyer has been in the Recruiting and Travel agency business for over a decade. He has an office at New Delhi, namely 'Viswak Agencies' which is mainly acting as a Recruiting agent for some of the middle east countries in procuring skilled labourers from India for employment purposes in the gulf countries on a Commission basis.2. In connection with his business he attempted to export illegally Indian Currency to the tune of Rs. 2,88, 900/- which was recovered from his possession while he was bound for Abu Dhabi by Air Indian Flight on 19-7-1981 and for that offence he is liable for punishment under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. He was arrested by the Inspector of Central Excise Air Customs, Trivandrum and later on released on conditional bail.3. The Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Central Excise Wing) Cochin, made a report dated 13th of August, 1981, to the State Government that T.R. Seshagiri Iyer had made a genuine attempt to export Indi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1192; 1982CriLJ1570; 1982(1)SCALE402; (1982)2SCC350; 1982(14)LC425(SC)
1. Criminal Appeal No. 694 of 1979 is by Kannan and Special Leave Petition No. 1839 of 1981 is by Lakshmanan, the 7th and 6th accused respectively in a case tried by the Learned IV Additional Session Judge, Madras Division. They alongwith others were convicted by the Learned Session Judge on various counts of conspiracy, murder, robbery, abduction etc and sentenced to death. Having gone through the record, we find that the evidence fully justified the convictions. The only question which requires consideration is that of sentence. The murders were committed for gain and pursuant to plans hatched by some of the fellow accused. The one redeeming feature, so for as these two accused are concerned is that, notwithstanding the fact that they were directly responsible for the murder of one of the victims, they were not the moving spirits of the band of criminals but were really 'junior partners,' if one may use such an expression, in the perpetration of the crimes. Their appearance on the sc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1012; 1982(1)SCALE283; (1982)2SCC168; [1982]3SCR543; 1982(14)LC268(SC)
1. TWO questions were raised for our determination in this appeal by a certificate :(a) Whether the Sugarcane Development Council, Sehore (respondent No. 2) can charge commission under Section 21(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supply & Purchase) Act, 1958 on purchases of sugarcane made by the appellant-company from outside the 'reserved area' and(b) Whether the Sugar Cane-Growers Development Cooperative Union Ltd., Sehore (respondent No. 3: the concerned Cane Growers Co-operative Society) can charge commission under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act in respect of the purchases of sugarcane made by the appellant through the Union when there is no quid pro quo by way of rendering any services by Union to the appellant-company ?2. The short facts giving rise to the above questions may be stated : The appellant-company crushes sugarcane in its factory at Sehore in Madhya Pradesh. For its business it purchases sugarcane from 'reserved area' as well as from outside both directl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1008; 1982(30)BLJR287; 1982CriLJ982; 1982(1)SCALE278; (1982)2SCC195; [1982]3SCR533; 1982(14)LC301(SC)
ORDER1. These Misc. Petitions are an off-shoot of the Windings of undertrial prisoners at Bhagalpur in the State of Bihar. Truth has a strange habit of revealing itself and in spite of the veil of secrecy behind which the Windings of those prisoners lay concealed or suppressed, this Court and the country awoke one day to the incredible fact that, in Bhagalpur, undertrial prisoners were subjected to the most inhuman torture imaginable : their eyes were pierced with needles and acid poured into them. Whether these barbarous acts were committed by members of the public after the prisoners were caught or by the police after they were arrested, is not a matter directly in issue before us. The greater probability is that these acts may have been committed mostly by the police. But this much is certain, that six prisoners were thus blinded between A October 1979 and May 1980 and twelve between June 11 and July 25, 1980. The petitioner Bachcho Lal Das, who has filed these Misc. Petitions, had ...
Tag this Judgment!