Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC284; 1983CriLJ429; 1983(1)SCALE60; (1983)4SCC159
ORDER1. Special leave granted limited to the nature of offence and sentence.2. Two appellants, who are brothers, alongwith their father Sardari'' Lai were prosecuted for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 and under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Prosecution case is that the appellants have a sweet meat shop in Katra Baghian, Amritsar. P.W. 6 Amrilc Singh is residing in a house opposite to the shop. On April 13, 1980, Sardari Lai, the father of the appellants requested Amrik Singh to permit him to tie a rope of the canopy with the projection of the house of the witness, but he did not allow the same. Sardari Lai was offended. On April 18, 1980, a wet underwear drying-up on the roof flew away which was picked up by the 1st appellant Jawahar Lai. But when witness Amrik Singh demanded the same, the appellant had declined to return the same saying that he had found the same lying in the bazar and moreover he had not allowed his father to tie the rope. There was an ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC653; (1983)2CompLJ190(SC); [1983]142ITR824(SC); 1983(0)KLT405(SC); 1983(1)SCALE100a; (1983)2SCC1
1. We are of the view that so far as Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is concerned, there can be no hard and fast rule of 90 days by way of period of limitation but the general rule of laches alone can be applied and this must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The High Court has said in its order that 'the writ petition was beyond time by 136 days. Neither the explanation of 136 days nor the explanation for filling it today, was given.' This view does not appear to be correct because the High Court has proceeded on the assumption that there is a period of limitation of 90 days and unless sufficient cause is shown as contemplated under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, a writ petition filed after the expiration of 90 days is liable to be rejected. This assumption is wholly unjustified. There is no period of limitation prescribed by any law for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is in fact doubtful whether any ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC288; 1983CriLJ433; 1983(1)SCALE718; (1983)1SCC391
ORDER1. There is no substance in this criminal appeal which has been preferred by Shri Mahant Amar Nath challenging the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hissar under Section 319 of Cr. P.C. directing the appellant along with three others should be arraigned as accused in a case being tried before him for offences under Sections 302, 323, 324, 325, 148, 149, 341, 364 and 120-B I.P.C, which has been confirmed by the High Court in revision.2. On 18th January, 1980 an incident occurred during the course of which three persons were assaulted in Sanghar-Sherishta village out of whom Munshi Ram died but Gobind Ram and Bachan Singh were injured. In respect of this offence police investigation was undertaken on the basis of the First Information Report lodged by Bachan Singh on 19.1.1980 and the police after recording statements of witnesses challaned 8 accused persons. It appears that the police did not challan Mahant Amar Nath and three others and showed their names in Column 2 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC274b; 1983CriLJ426; 1983(1)Crimes380(SC); 1983(1)SCALE16; (1983)2SCC14; [1983]2SCR241
1. The present appeal by special leave has been filed by the State of Assam against the judgment of the Gauhati High Court dated 25th of September, 1975 whereby it set aside the conviction of the respondent Mafizuddin Ahmed and acquitted him of the charge of murder.2. The prosecution case as unfolded in the first information report and the evidence is that the respondent Mafizuddin Ahmed was a sub-Inspector of Police posted at Gauhati. His wife and children lived at his village home at Bholagaon within the Palashbari Police Station. The respondent had first married Jaygun Bibi and had one son and two daughters from her. Later on he married another lady Smt. Lal Bari and thereafter he started maltreating Jaygun Bibi. On 10th of April 1973 he went to his village home and at about 2 p.m. he poured kerosene oil on his wife Jaygun Bibi and set fire to her body with the help of a match box. When she screamed the accused gagged her mouth and then wrapped her with a quilt and threw her on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC271; 1983(1)SCALE11; (1983)2SCC8; [1983]2SCR233
1. The simple question which arises for consideration in this case is whether the application made by the appellant for impleading an additional defendant to the suit out of which this appeal arises was in time.2. The appellant filed a Suit in the Court of Sub Judge, Kaithal for possession of a piece of land in exercise of his right of preemption against respondents 1 and 2 alleging that they had purchased the land from his father, Baburam under a registered sale deed dated May 16, 1977 in total disregard of his right of pre-emption. He stated in the plaint that the cause of action had arisen on May 16, 1977 and hence the suit filed on January 29, 1978 was in time. Along with the plaint he produced a certified copy of the sale deed dated May 16, 1977 and in that certified copy it had been recited that the land in question had been sold in favour of respondents 1 and 2 only. Respondents 1 and 2 appeared in the trial Court and filed their written statement on May 17, 1978. One of the ple...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC282; 1983(1)SCALE29; (1983)2SCC5
ORDER1. Special leave granted limited to the question of compensation.2. Appellant-Northern Carriers Pvt. Ltd. filed Civil Writ Petition No. 7515 of 1976 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh under Article 226 of the Constitution questioning the validity of a notice issued under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922(Act for short) as also the award dated October 5, 1972 made by the Collector determining the compensation of the land acquired under the impugned notification.3. The appellant purchased land admeasuring 29 kanals and 1 marla comprised in various Khasra Nos. more particularly set out in the petition for Rs. 2,43,050/- under a deed of transfer executed on behalf of the Central Government on June 25, 1971. The appellant immediately entered into possession and since then, he has been in possession of the land. It appears that a notice under Section 36 of the Act was issued on November 4, 1966. In view of the provision contained in Clauses 1 and 2 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC168; 1983CriLJ225; 1985(5)ECC215; 1983(12)ELT193(SC); 1983(1)SCALE20; (1983)1SCC370; [1983]2SCR225
Venkataramiah, J.1. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calicut has filed this appeal obtaining the special leave of this Court against the judgment and order dated January 5, 1973 of the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Revision Petition No. 426 of 1972. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are these : In the early hours of August 9, 1969 the respondent alighted from the Kerala Express at the Trichur Railway Station with a steel trunk in his hand. C. C. Mathan, Inspector of Central Excise Special Customs, Preventive, Trichur (PW 1) who was on patrol duty at the railway station suspected that the respondent was carrying contraband goods and on coming to know from the Ticket Examiner that the respondent had arrived from Bombay he asked the respondent to hand over the steel trunk which he was carrying. When C. C. Mathan (PW 1) opened and searched the steel trunk, be found in it 28 gold bars with foreign markings. The respondent was arrested by C. C. Mathan (PW 1) and when ques...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1512; 1983LabIC867; (1983)IILLJ190SC; 1983(1)SCALE721; (1984)1SCC158
Sen J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Madias High Court quashing the resolution of the syndicate of the Madurai Kamaraj University dated July 26, 1980 and directing the reinstatement of the appellant under Section 19(1) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 on the ground that the termination of his services without the prior approval of the competent authority viz. the University was illegal, void and inoperative.2. Shri Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition riled by respondent No. 1, i.e. Ayya Nadar Janaki Ammal College when there was an alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 37 of the Act. It is urged that the University had ordered reinstatement of the appellant by passing the impugned order on the basis that the order of termination of service of the appellant.fell within the ambit of Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC269; [1985]57CompCas469(SC); (1983)2CompLJ1(SC); 1983(1)SCALE708; (1983)1SCC295
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. Petitioners filed Company Petition No. 306 of 1980 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay complaining about the oppression by the respondents in their management of the affairs to the 1st respondent-Company Sakal Papers Pvt, Ltd. The matter came-up before the learned Company Judge, who by its judgment and order dated 2nd/3rd February, 1981 dismissed the petition and directed the petitioners to pay Rs. 10,000/- as and by way of costs to the respondents. Petitioners preferred an appeal against the decision of the learned Company Judge under the Companies Act, 1956. This appeal was placed for admission before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court and it was dismised in limine. Appellants have preferred this appeal by special leave against the order dismissing their appeal by the Division Bench in limine.3. As we are of the opinion that it was not open to the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court to dismiss the appeal in limine, we are at this stag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC299; 1983(1)SCALE27; (1984)2SCC442
1. We do not find any merit in the contentions urged by the petitioner in the writ petition. The disability which is imposed under Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act is equally applicable to all persons similarly situate mentioned therein and they are even prevented from contesting the election or offering themselves as candidates for such election. The provision is reasonable and in public interest to maintain purity in electing peoples' representatives and there is no arbitrariness or discrimination involved. Rule is discharged and the writ Petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!