Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1983(1)SCALE244; 1984Supp(1)SCC503
ORDER1. Special leave petition is granted.2. The tenant of Shop No. 7 in 148, Pantheon Road, Egmore, whose eviction from the premises has been ordered on the ground of 'wilful default' is the appellant in this appeal. We do not think it necessary to narrate the events leading up to the filing of the petition for eviction. Those facts have been set out in the judgment of the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes in detail. We are satisfied that on the facts and cir cumstances of this case, there has been no wilful, default, though default there might have been. We, therefore, set aside orders of the Subordinate Tribunals and dismiss the petition for eviction. But we make it a condition that the petitioner should deposit a sum of Rs. 5,175/- representing the arrears of rent up to 31st December, 1982 in the Trial Court within six weeks from today. We also make it a condition that the rent for the months of January and February 1983 should be de posited before March 15, 1983, and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC454; 1984CriLJ187; 1983(1)Crimes973(SC); 1983(1)SCALE236; (1984)2SCC393
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. P.W. 1 Hari Babu claimed that Plot No. 169 situated in Village Abdul Navipur was in his possession and he had raised crop. On March 11, 1973 around 3 P.M. P.W. 2-Babu Lai a relation of P.W. 1-Hari Babu went to the field and found about 15 persons present in the field. Some of them were cutting the crop and persons including the present two appellants Purna & Guru Prasad were seen removing the crop. He returned to Hari Babu, P.W. 1 and gave him the information of what was happening in Plot No. 169. Immediately P.W. 1-Hari Babu contacted Circle Officer on telephone who directed the Flying Squad of Police to visit the scene of occurrence. P.W, 2-Babu Lai returned to the field. Some policemen came in a jeep to the field. All those who were in the field except one Baij Nath decamped. The Officer Incharge of the Flying Squad took Baij Nath and P.W. 2-Babu Lai to P.S. Kotwali. Presumably, after questioning them no case was registered. P.W. 1-Hari Babu went on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC383; 1983(1)SCALE152; (1983)2SCC195; [1983]2SCR418
1. In these appeals by special leave filed against the common judgment dated March 23, 1982 of the Allahabad High Court, the validity of two Notifications issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under Section 43-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act IV of 1939) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as in force in the State of Uttar Pradesh arises for consideration. The two impugned Notifications are reproduced below: I. 'Notification No. 68 T/XXX-4-15-KM/79Dated : Lucknow : January 10, 1981.Whereas, the Government of Uttar Pradesh is of opinion that it is in the public interest to grant stage carriage permits (except in respect of routes or areas for which schemes have been published under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939) to all eligible applicants:Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers under Section 43-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to direct that the stage carriage permits (except in respect of routes or areas for which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC484; 1983CriLJ822; 1983(1)Crimes625(SC); (1983)2GLR870; 1983(1)SCALE198; (1983)2SCC174
Misra, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Gujarat, dated 15th of July, 1975 allowing the appeal filed by the State of Gujarat and setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, and convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.2. The appellant and the deceased Manorbhai Veribhai had a common ancestor and they were cousins at fourth degree. They lived in the same neighbourhood. The western wall of the house of the deceased touched the eastern wall of the house of the appellant. Beyond the house of the appellant lies the wade land belonging to the deceased which is used for storing fire-wood and cow-dung cakes. There was some bad blood between the appellant and the deceased inasmuch as the brother of the appellant was murdered and Magan, the son of the deceased, was prosecutedin that connection. But eventually he was acquitted. The deceased had also receiv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC403; 1983LabIC495; (1983)ILLJ357SC; 1983(1)SCALE169; (1983)2SCC115; [1983]2SCR404; 1983(1)SLJ445(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision in Writ Petition No. 1021 of 1975 filed in the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad which came to be transferred under para 14(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Order 1975 and which was numbered as Transferred Writ Petition No. 1663 of 1976, by which Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal' for short) allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders permanently absorbing respondents 2 to 10 in the various posts in the office of Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, Nagarjuna Sagar Project. Respondents 2 to 10 in the High Court are the appellants in the present appeal, and original petitioners are respondents 2 to 108. Deputy Chief Accounts Officer is respondent No. 1.2. Nagarjuna Sagar Control Board was constituted in the year 1955 charged with a duty to implement N.S. Project. The Board had the power to recruit required ministerial staff on purely temporary basis. On August 1, 1959, a decision was take...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC374; 1983(31)BLJR220; 1983LabIC511; (1983)ILLJ299SC; 1983(1)SCALE134; (1983)2SCC145; [1983]2SCR393; 1983(1)SLJ392(SC)
1. Since we are clearly of the view that the special leave petition should be dismissed in limine on merits, I would not like to go any further into the details of the facts of the case. I would, therefore, refrain from expressing any opinion on the observations made by my learned brother Chinnappa Reddy, J. CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.2. This special leave petition has to be dismissed. There is no merit in it. The respondent was a teacher employed in a municipal school. The school was taken over by the Government in June 1971. The respondent was absorbed in Government service by an order dated February 28, 1972. The order recited that the absorption was subject to 'verification of antecedents' and medical fitness. The services of the respondent were terminated on November 5, 1974. Though the order terminating the services of the respondent did not purport to stigmatise him in any manner, it was not disputed before the High Court and it is no longer disputed before us that the order was founded...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1983(1)SCALE778; (1983)2SCC256; [1983]2SCR256
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. This matter was heard on various dated and various alternative proposals were examined with a view to safeguarding the interests of both sides by making an arrangement satisfactory to both of them. The landlady seeks possession on the ground that the existing structure is required to be demolished and a new construction be put up adding to it the ground that the reconstructed premises would be required for personal use of the landlady, for commercial purposes.3. There is some dispute between the parties about the extent of area now in possession of the appellant-tenant. The appellant contended that the respondent would not be able to put up the proposed construction until and unless other tenants occupying other portions of the building adjacent to and in the vicinity of the premises occupied by the appellant are evicted. It was further contended that in respect of such tenants no decree for eviction has been obtained and only the present appellant is m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC369; 1983(1)SCALE151; (1983)2SCC81; [1983]2SCR361; [1983]53STC97(SC)
1. This appeal is filed against the judgment dated November 21, 1978 of the High Court of Kerala in The Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. State of Kerala 43 S.C.C. 492.2. In Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Motor Industries Co., Ernakulam : [1983]2SCR384 , we have held that any claim for deduction in respect of goods returned by the purchasers under Rule 9(b)(i) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 should be made in the assessment proceedings relating to the year in which the said goods were sold and not in the assessment proceedings relating to the assessment year in which they were actually returned. Following the above decision we set aside the judgment of the High Court in this case and direct that the assessment order for the year 1972-73 shall be accordingly modified. As a consequence of this order, the Department is directed to modify the assessment order for the assessment year 1971-72 by allowing deduction under Rule 9(b)(i) of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC370; 1983(1)SCALE145; (1983)2SCC108; [1983]2SCR384; [1983]53STC98(SC)
1. In this appeal by special leave arising under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') two questions arise for consideration. They are (i) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to exemption under Rule 9(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules') from payment of sales tax on the turnover relating to 'service discount' and (ii) whether the value of goods returned by the purchasers could be deducted under Rule 9(b)(i) of the Rules from the total turnover of the year of assessment in which the goods were actually returned when they had been sold in the previous assessment year.2. The assessee M/s. Motor Industries Co., Ernakulam is a dealer in diesel, fuel injection parts etc. For the assessment year 1973-74 ending March 31, 1974 the assessment had been completed under the Act on the best judgment basis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1983(1)SCALE784; 1984Supp(1)SCC605
ORDER1. The appeal is allowed and the order made by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court rejecting the Judge's Summons taken out by the appellants is set aside and the Judge's Summons is granted to the extent indicated herein.2. The appellants shall deposit Rs. 1,50,000/- by or before March 1,1983 in this Court. Respondent No. 2-Smt. Sabita V. Adapa shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the property being a shop Nos. 8/9 on the ground floor of the building formerly known as 'Jagmohan Building No. 2' or as 'Ayaz Mansion' and now styled as 'Ram Kutir'situated at Station Road, Andheri, Bombay-400058 to the liquidator on or before February 28, 1983 who shall forthwith hand over possession on March 1, 1983 to the appellants, after taking a statement from the appellants that they have deposited the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in this Court as herein Indicated.3. On respondent No. 2 handing over vacant and peaceful possession of the afore-me...
Tag this Judgment!