Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1170; 1982(1)SCALE446; (1982)2SCC380; 1982(14)LC392(SC)
1. Ali Abbas Jaafri was arrested on September 8, 1981, pursuant to an order of detention made on July 26, 1980 under the COFEPOSA. The grounds of detention along within the documents necessary to enable the detenu to make a representation were served on him on September 16, 1981. The detenu claims to have made a representation against his detention on October 1, 1981. He has made an assertion to this effect in para 11 of the Writ Petition filed in this Court. While this is not expressly denied in the counter-Affidavit filed on behalf of the Government, it is stated therein that an undated representation was received by the Government from the District Magistrate, Unnao on 23r'd October, 1981. We will come back to this later. The Advisory Board which met October 23, 1981, gave a personal hearing to the detenu and submitted its report on October 26, 1981. Thereafter the Government rejected the representation of the detenu on October 29, 1981. The representation, we may mention here, was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1043; (1982)84BOMLR352; 1982MhLJ484(SC); 1982(1)SCALE377; (1982)2SCC244; [1982]3SCR681; 1982(14)LC434(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated April 21, 1981 raises a question of some importance. The question is whether a claim for ejectment by a housing cooperative society, of an occupant of a flat who had been let into possession of the premises under an agreement of leave and licence executed between him and a member of the society, by virtue of his being a nominal member thereof, is a 'dispute touching the business of the society' within the meaning of Sub-section (1) of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act').2. The material facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows. The respondent No. 2 herein, Shyam Cooperative Housing Society Limited is constituted under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 as a tenant co-partnership type housing society to which Regulations in Form-A apply viz. Regulations relating to tenancies to be granted by the society to membe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1091; 1982(1)SCALE366; (1982)2SCC210; [1982]3SCR670; 1982(14)LC405(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment dated February 20, 1980 of the Delhi High Court decreeing the landlord's suit for ejectment of the tenant.2. The facts giving rise to the present litigation are summarised in the judgments of the Rent Controller and the High Court and need not be repeated.3. Shorn of details, the position seems to be that Baldev Singh took the premises on rent on May 12, 1961 at a monthly rental of Rs. 95/-. At the time when the tenancy started, the tenant was living in the tenanted house with his father, mother, two sisters and a brother. The tenant himself was at that time a bachelor but seems to have married subsequently One of his sisters was married in this very house.4. As it happened, in 1971 the tenant went to Canada followed by his wife and children. It is alleged that after having gone to Canada, the husband along with his wife took up some employment there. Admittedly, the tenant did not return to India after 1971. While leaving ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1107; 1982LabIC876; (1982)IILLJ259SC; 1982(1)SCALE342; (1982)2SCC273; [1982]3SCR628; 1982(1)SLJ604(SC); 1982(14)LC445(SC)
1. In these writ' petitions, the petitioners who were holders of posts of part-time village officers in the State of Tamil Nadu or associations of such persons have questioned the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Abolition of posts of part-time Village Officers Ordinance, 1980 Tamil Nadu Ordinance No. 10 of 1980) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance') and the Tamil Nadu Abolition of posts of part-time Village Officers Act, 1981 (Tamil Nadu Act No. 3 of 1981) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) which replaced the Ordinance. The total number of posts abolished by the Act is 23,010.2. In Tamil Nadu, as in other parts of India, the village has been the basic unit of revenue administration from the earliest times of which we have any record. The administration was being carried on at the lowest level by a chain of officers in regular gradation one above the other at the commencement of the Christian era. The same system has been in vogue uptil now. It was generally known as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1157; 1982CriLJ1243; 1982(1)SCALE388; (1982)2SCC351; 1982(14)LC475(SC)
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court at Nagpur dated 19th/25th of June, 1979, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to death for the murder of Laxmi and her two children.2. One Namdeo Gopal, resident of Shelgaon-Jahagir, was in the employment of Shankarrao Shewale, resident of the same village, as an agricultural labourer. Shankarrao Shewale had also land in another village Andhrud at a distance of 15 miles from Shelgaon-Jahagir. Shankarrao had deputed Namdeo to cultivate his fields at Andrul about three weeks prior to the date of occurrence on 26th of February, 1975. He accordingly went to village Andrul leaving his wife Laxmi and daughter Manda aged about years and his son Samadhan aged about 4 years at his residence in a locality known as Tagwale locality. During his absence Gambhir the appellant used to visit the house of Laxmi off and on.3. The prosecution story as unfolded in evidence is t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1085; (1982)30CTR(SC)375; [1982]135ITR620(SC); 1982(1)SCALE371; (1982)2SCC330; 1982(14)LC359(SC)
1. This appeal at the instance of Commissioner of Income-Tax and by a certificate granted by the Calcutta High Court raises the question whether the respondent-assessee is entitled to relief under Section 25(4) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922 for the assessment year 1959-60 which in turn depends upon the proper answer to the question whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of the Deed dated 30th March, 1959 it is a case of mere re Constitution of the old firm or a new firm succeeding to the business of the old firm entitling the respondent-assessee to claim the relief2. The undisputed facts giving rise to the above question are these: M/s. Pigot Champan & Co. is a firm of foreign exchange brokers which had been operating in Calcutta for a very long time. There is no dispute that the firm had been taxed on its business income under the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1918 and that the other conditions laid down in Section 25(4) of the 1922 Act for entit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1097; 1982(1)SCALE299; (1982)2SCC258; [1982]3SCR607; 1982(14)LC394(SC)
1. Whether on a proper construction of the terms of tenancy and the provisions of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949, the appellant is liable to be evicted from the premises in his occupation as tenant, on the ground of wrongful sub-letting of the premises, is the question which falls for consideration in this appeal by special leave granted by this Court.2. The appellant came into occupation of the shop-cum-flat No. 48, Sector 3-C, Chandigarh on and from 1st of April, 1974 as a tenant under the respondent who happens to be the owner of the said premises on terms and conditions contained in the rent-note dated 2 4.1974. For the sake of convenience we shall describe the appellant as the tenant and the respondent as the landlady of the premises.3. The landlady filed her present petition (R.A. No. 163 of 1977) in the Court of Rent Controller Chandigarh, under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the eviction of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1052; 1982CriLJ977; 1982(1)SCALE310; (1982)2SCC177; [1982]3SCR595
1. The appeal as well as the special leave petition are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 9 July, 1981. Criminal appeal has been filed by the complainant while the special leave petition has been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh. Vinay Kumar and his mother Chhano Devi were convicted for the murder of Asha, the wife of Vinay Kumar by burning her alive and sentenced to life imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. On appeal by the accused, the High Court acquitted them by the impugned judgment.2. The prosecution case set up at the trial was that the deceased Asha was married with Vinay Kumar in July, 1972. The marriage was an arranged marriage. It did not prove to be a success, the apparent cause for the failure of marriage was that Asha was only a matriculate and not cultured enough to move about in the society with the husband. To make up this deficiency the deceased again resumed her studies and started attend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1057; 1982(1)SCALE335; (1982)2SCC202; [1982]3SCR583; 1982(14)LC426(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment dated June 29, 1974 of the Rajasthan High Court overruling a preliminary objection taken by the accused before the Sessions Judge to the effect that the Sessions Judge, Tonk was not competent to try the case as the accused Umesh Chandra was a child as contemplated by the provisions of the Rajasthan Children Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on the date of the alleged occurrence. This Act appears to have been passed by the Rajasthan Legislature, but after receiving assent of the President was enforced in various districts from time to time. Under the provisions of the Act any person below the age of 16 (sixteen) would be presumed to be a child and the trial of a delinquent child was to be conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down therein. The objection taken by the appellant was that as he was below the age of 16 at the time of the occurrence on 12.3.1973, he could not be tried by the Additional Ses...
Tag this Judgment!