Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1257; 1982CriLJ1737; 1982(1)SCALE563; (1982)2SCC469; [1983]1SCR42
A. Varadarajan, J.1. On 31st March, 1982, after hearing learned Counsel for both the parties, we quashed the order of detention in this case, observing that our reasons will follow. We proceed to give the reasons.2. This Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is by Smt. Bimla Dewan, wife of the detenu Shri Dev Raj Dewan, resident of House No. 53, Gadodia Road, 146/2 Than Singh Nagar, Anand Parbat, Delhi, for quashing the order of detention dated 25.9.1981 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The detenu was detained from 26.9.1981. The order of detention is said to have been approved by the respondent, Lieutenant, Governor, Delhi, by order dated 1.10.1981 under Section 3(4) of the Act. The detenu had been detained in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi.3. It is alleged in the petition that the detenu is a social worker, who is in active politics, and had contested the Municipal Elections of the Municipal C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1261; 1982(1)SCALE566; (1982)2SCC474; [1983]1SCR32; 1982(14)LC570(SC)
R.S. Pathak, J.1.The appellants, who belong to the Roman Catholic community, were married on December 30, 1967 in Podannur in the State of Tamil Nadu under Section 27 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872. On July 26, 1979 they put in a joint petition under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act for a decree of divorce by mutual consent in the Court of the learned District Judge, Delhi. On March 11, 1980 the trial court dismissed the petition oil the ground that Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act could not be availed of. The appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi which having been dismissed they proceeded in appeal to this Court. In the appeal they applied for permission to amend the joint petition to enable them to rely upon Section 7 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 read with Section 1(2)(d) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973 of England. The amendment was allowed and the appellants filed an amended joint petition in the trial court seeking divorce on the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1268; (1982)3CompLJ117(SC); 1982(1)SCALE575; (1982)2SCC482; [1982]1SCR16; 1982(14)LC561(SC)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. These appeals by certificate granted by the Additional Judicial Commissioner of Goa, Daman and Diu arise out of suits for the recovery of loans made to the appellants at various branches of the Banco Nacional Ultramarino in Goa during Portuguese rule.2. The territories of Goa, Daman and Diu constituted the Estado de India of the sovereign State of Portugal. The Banco National Ultramarino (the National Overseas Bank) with its Head Office at Lisbon in Portugal, carried on banking business in Goa at different Branches, some of them being situate at Vasco Da Gama, Margao and Panjim. It was also a currency issuing Bank and discharged the functions of a Government Treasury. It issued Portuguese currency notes in Goa and in its banking capacity it received deposits and granted loans.3. On December 20, 1961 the territories of Goa, Daman and Diu were liberated from Portuguese rule and integrated with India. On the eve of the transfer of power the Banco National Ultramarino clo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1297; 1982CriLJ1777; 1982(1)SCALE558; (1982)2SCC538; 1982(14)LC859(SC)
1. On May 6, 1982, we made the following order:This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus for release of Riaz Ahmed who has been detained under the Public Safety Act, 1978. The petition has been brought by the petitioner for release of Riaz Ahmed from the detention on various grounds set out in the writ petition. We are of the view for the reasons which we shall record later that the detention of Riaz Ahmed is invalid and we accordingly allow the writ petition and direct that Riaz Ahmed be set at liberty forthwith.Here are the reasons.2. District Magistrate, Jammu, respondent 5 herein, made an order dated October 17, 1981, directing detention of Riaz Ahmed @ Riaz, son of Mir Mohammad, resident of Julaka Mohalla, Jammu Tawi, under Section 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 ('Act' for short). Pursuant to this order the detenu was arrested on October 18, 1981, and 'detained in Sub-Jail, Rasi, but this order was modified on October 19, 1981, and the detenu was detained in C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1249; 1982CriLJ1581; 1983(1)Crimes335(SC); 1982(1)SCALE545; (1982)2SCC463; [1983]1SCR8
ORDERO. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. Abdul Rehman Antulay was the Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra till January 12, 1982. While he was yet holding the office of Chief Minister one Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, an erstwhile Member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, professing a keen interest in clean administration and so keeping a watchful eye on centers of power and sources of corruption, filed a complaint against Shri Antulay, in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Bombay charging him with the commission of offences punishable under Section 161 and 185 of the Indian Penal Code and 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The substance of the allegation was that Shri Antulay founded and controlled a number of trusts called by various names freely, and falsely, making it appear that the Prime Minister and the Government of Maharashtra were either interested or had sponsored the trusts, collected contributions and donations for the alleged benefit of the Tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1253; [1982(45)FLR283]; 1982LabIC1334; (1982)IILLJ399SC; 1982(1)SCALE532; (1982)2SCC458; [1983]1SCR1; 1982(2)SLJ232(SC); 1982(14)LC575(SC)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. The Petitioners are Radio operators Grade-(III) (Naik) in the Signals branch of the Central Reserve Police Force. They complain that under the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1973 they have been placed in the pay scale Rs. 225-308 when they were entitled to the pay scale Rs. 260-430.2. When the writ petition came on for hearing in the first instance, a Bench of this Court made an order on December 19, 1979 providing an opportunity to the petitioners to put in a representation before the Government and requiring the Government to dispose of the representation. The petitioners did make the representation and the Government considered it but the relief claimed by the petitioners was denied. In accordance with the further directions contained in the order dated December 19, 1979 this writ petition has now come on for consideration on its merits.3. The Central Reserve Police Force forms a part of the Ministry of Home Affairs in the Government of India and it ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC578; 1982(30)BLJR455; (1983)IILLJ263SC; 1982(1)SCALE561; (1982)2SCC497; 1982(14)LC592(SC)
ORDER1. Mr Goburdhan has handed over to us a telegram received by him from the State Government stating that the relief granted to the petitioner by the High Court of Patna in the shape of payment of full pay from October 1957 to September 20, 1961 and subsistence allowance from September 21, 1961 to April 20, 1966 is being worked out and payment would be made to him shortly. The telegram does not state as to how soon the payment would be made.2. Though the order for payment in favour of the petitioner was made about four years ago it is surprising that the payment due to the petitioner in respect of salary and subsistence allowance has not yet been made by the State Government. The salary due is for a period of almost four years and the subsistence allowance is also payable for a further period of five years and it is difficult to understand how the State Government could so callous as not to make this payment to the petitioner even though he was entitled to the same under the order m...
Tag this Judgment!