Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1181; 1982(30)BLJR415; 1982CriLJ1393; 1982(1)SCALE457; (1982)2SCC412; 1982(14)LC471(SC)
V.D. TULZAPURKAR, J.— 1. In this appeal the question raised is whether the process issued by Shri Om Prakash, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, against the appellant (Smt Manju Gupta) for an offence under Sections 467/ 471 read with Section 34 IPC on a complaint filed by the respondent (Lt.-Col. M.S. Paintal) should be quashed or not? The appellant's attempt to get it quashed under Section 482 CrPC failed before the Delhi High Court and hence this appeal. After hearing counsel on either side at great length we are satisfied that the said process should be quashed and by our order dated April 26, 1982 we directed accordingly and observed that the reasons would follow. We are now indicating our reasons for the Order. 2. The facts in brief are these. The complainant-respondent is the owner/landlord of premises bearing Municipal No. C-221, Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi; he had let out the ground floor of the said premises to South Delhi Public School through Surinder Nath (Acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1195; 1982(30)BLJR413; 1982CriLJ1571; 1982(1)SCALE445; (1982)2SCC436; 1982(14)LC473(SC)
1. We see no merit in the appeal and we accordingly reject it. Frank and fair as usual, Shri K. Parasaran, learned Solicitor General, invited us to consider whether the point of view which he was presenting to us would make any difference to the view expressed by the Court in Morey v. State of Andhra Pradesh. Cr. Appeal No. 247 of 1981 What we now say is, therefore, a post-script to what the court had said in Morey v. State of Andhra Pradesh. The learned Solicitor General argued that G.O.M.S. No. 557 was earlier in point of time than the pronouncement of this Court in Maru Ram v. Union of India : 1980CriLJ1440 and that at that time, it was thought that Section 433A Cr.P.C. was retrospective and applied equally to those convicted and sentenced before that provision came into force as to those convicted and sentenced thereafter. He also suggested that 10 there was no need at all to except those who were governed by Section 433A Cr.P.C. from the G.O., since the Government could not in any...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1198; 1982(1)SCALE443; (1982)2SCC440; 1982(14)LC368(SC)
ORDER1. Having given the matter our anxious consideration, we are of the opinion that Notification No. P-6303/81 dated August 27, 1981 issued by the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court in exercise of his powers under Sub-section (3) of Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (Act No. XXXVII of 1956) (for short 'the Act'), with the prior approval of the Governor of Maharashtra, by which he appointed Aurangabad as a place at which the Judges and Division Courts of the Bombay High Court shall also sit w.e.f. August 27, 1981, does not suffer from any infirmity, legal or constitutional.2. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court 'that the High Court of Bombay was not the High Court for the new State of Bombay within the meaning of Sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Act and that, therefore, the provisions of Section 51 thereof were non est. The Bombay High Court owes its principal seat at Bombay to the Presidential Order issued under Sub-section (1) of Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1515; (1983)IILLJ192SC; (1984)1SCC283
1. Special leave granted.2. After hearing counsel on either side we are satisfied that the last part of the Labour Court's award deserves to be quashed because that question will have to be reconsidered by the Labour Court. The appellant has already reinstated the workman as per the directions of the Labour Court given in the earlier part of the award and the only question that will now be reconsidered by the Labour Court is in regard to the quantum of the back-wages to which the worker is entitled, which will have to be decided having regard to the fact that the worker has admittedly been a seasonal worker. We therefore set aside that part of the award which directs the employer to compensate the worker for the loss of his wages and other benefits from January 25, 1976 to the date of reinstatement. That part of the dispute is referred back to the Labour Court with a direction to consider the question as to whether the worker is entitled to back-wages for all the seasons which he has l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1196; 1982(1)SCALE449; (1982)2SCC447; 1982(14)LC380(SC)
ORDER1. This special leave petition is directed against the judgment dated June 28, 1979 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No. 1444 of 1977.2. As long back as on August 25, 1980 a three-Judge Bench passed an interim order in this special leave petition directing the Government of Maharashtra, the petitioner herein, to decide the question whether the order staying the cancellation of the licences or leases granted by it should be upheld or set aside. The Court observed in its order that the State Government may decide the aforesaid question notwithstanding any finding recorded by the High Court of Bombay in its judgment dated June 28, 1979. The State Government was directed to dispose of the question after hearing the parties and by a reasoned order. The special leave petition was adjourned for four weeks in order to enable the State Government to decide the question.3. The special leave petition came up before the Court three months later, i.e. on November 24, 1980....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1265; [1982(44)FLR391]; 1982(1)SCALE453; (1982)2SCC314; [1982]3SCR700; 1982(1)SLJ630(SC); 1982(14)LC579(SC)
ORDER1. This petition for special leave to appeal by the Union of India is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana holding the respondent, a retired Judge of the High Court, entitled to the payment of the cash equivalent of leave salary in respect of the period of earned leave at his credit on the date of his retirement.2. The respondent, Shri Gurnam Singh, was a member of the Superior Judicial Service in the State of Haryana. On February 24, 1972 he was appointed a Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and retired on March 18, 1980 on attaining the age of 62 years. On the, date of retirement the respondent had to his credit earned leave which had not been availed of by him. He claimed that he was entitled to receive the cash equivalent of leave salary in respect of the period of unutilised earned leave. He also claimed dearness allowance for the period before retirement. The claim being denied, the respondent applied to the High Court of...
Tag this Judgment!