Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC354B; 1983(1)SCALE203; (1983)3SCC40
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. The only question raised in this appeal is whether the deposit of rent made by the appellant is a valid deposit.3. We heard Dr. Y.S. Chitale, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Sen, learned Counsel for respondents. After hearing learned Counsel we are satisfied that in the peculiar facts of the case deposit of rent made by the appellant for the purposes of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act must be treated as valid. An application was moved by the respondents for striking out the appellant's defence on the ground that the deposit of rent is not a valid deposit. The deposit having held to be valid, there is no question of striking out the defence. Decision of the High Court reversing the decision of the Trial Court in a revision petition at the instance of respondent landlord does not commend to us and must be reversed. Accordingly, we set aside the decision of the High Court and restore the order of the learned trial Judge and remit the case t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1983(1)SCALE715; 1984Supp(1)SCC601
ORDER1. When the special leave petition came up for admission before the Court on December 14, 1981, the Court rejected the prayer for granting leave against the decree of eviction and gave a direction to issue notice confined to the question of quantum of damages by way of use and occupation charges. We grant leave limited to that question only.2. We heard Mr. D. P. Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Uma Datta, learned Counsel for respondents. The trial court has awarded damages at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month from August 1, 1969. The learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the amount of damages payable by the appellants would be in the vicinity of Rs. 16,000/- and odd. This calculation was disputed by Mr. Mukherjee on behalf of the appellants. Having regard to the annual rent that was payable by the appellants in the past and with the consent of the respondents, who are entitled to the benefit of the order, we direct that Rs. 5000/- in all must be p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC488; 1983CriLJ826; 1983(1)Crimes980(SC); (1983)2GLR1136; 1983(1)SCALE196; (1983)2SCC270
1. This is an appeal under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act and is directed against a judgment of the Gujarat High Court by which the acquittal of accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 was reversed by the High Court and after reversal the respondents were convicted under Section 302/34 and also 302/114 and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The sessions Judge had acquitted accused 2 and 3 completely but had convicted accused 1 and 4 under Section 304(1) and sentenced them to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment on the finding that these two accused had exceeded the right of private defence. The facts of the case have been detailed in the judgments of the High Court and the Sessions Judge and it is not necessary for us to detail the same.2. It appears that the present dispute arose out of a chronic land dispute between the accused and the deceased party. In fact there is evidence to show that about three weeks before the present occurrence, one of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC493; 1983(0)KLT289(SC); 1983(1)SCALE102; (1983)2SCC79
Venkataramiah, J.1. These appeals by certificate are filed against the judgment and order dated November 6, 1978 of the High Court of Kerala in T.R.C. No. 154/77 and T.R.C. No. 155/77 which arose out of sales tax assessment proceedings under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the years 1970-71 and 1971-72 respectively.2. The assessee Kelappan (since deceased) who was a dealer in ornaments and other jewels made of gold had filed a return showing a taxable turnover of Rs. 13,757.65 for the year 1970-71. He did not, however, file any return for the year 1971-72. He claimed that he was liable to be taxed at one per cent on the taxable turnover relating to the purchase of ornaments and other articles of gold purchased by him under Section 5(1) of the Act read with Entry 56 of the First Schedule to the Act contending that the goods in question constituted 'bullion and specie.' But the Sales Tax Officer, Badagara determined the taxable turnover a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1983(1)SCALE785; (1983)2SCC264
ORDER1. We made an Order on 30th August 1982 expressing our sense of satisfaction that in response to various orders and directions given by us from time to time, the Government of India issued an Order dated 16th October, 1981 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 for regulating the manufacture, storage and sale of power threshers. We pointed out that the highly laudable consequence of this order would be that since the making of that order, no one would be able to manufacture, store for sale, sell or distribute any power thresher without the requisite safety device. But, we felt that it was not enough merely to issue this order because there were many power threshers already in use in the country which were not fitted with any safety device. We accordingly made a suggestion to the Government of India to take suitable steps for the purpose of making the existing power threshers safe by making it obligatory on the owners of such power...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1983(1)SCALE785a; 1984Supp(1)SCC397
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. Having gone through the record and having heard Mr. Kailash Yasdev, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. H.N. Chowdhary, learned Counsel for respondent, we are satisfied that this is a matter in which leave to contest the petition of the respondent filed under Section 14(1) proviso (e) of the Delhi Rent Act ought to have been granted. And the other side so concedes. That has absolved us from the necessity of giving reasons to substantiate the conclusion. To avoid delay in disposal of the matter, after granting leave to contest the petition filed by the respondent-landlord for eviction on the ground of personal requirement, the matter must be remanded to the learned Rent Controller. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the learned Rent Controller as well as of the High Court refusing leave to contest the petition for eviction. By consent of the parties we grant leave to the appellant-tenant to contest the petition for eviction. Both the parties s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1983)2SCC322
ORDER1. We are not inclined to grant leave in these matters. But we dispose of the petitions with certain observations and directions.2. Both the matters arise out of a company petition filed by different creditors-respondents here for winding up the company-petitioner herein. On a notice being issued by the learned Company Judge, the petitioner-Company entered appearance and filed an affidavit contending that the debt claimed as recoverable by the creditor is bonafide disputed.3. The learned Company Judge after framing the issues, gave a direction that the petition for winding- up be advertised. The petitioner-company against whom the petition for winding up is made, preferred an appeal in each case under Section 483 of the Companies Act 1956.4. When appeal came up for admission, a Division Bench of the High Court admitted the appeal but declined to grant stay of order directing the advertisement of winding up petition. Present petitions are directed against the order of the Division ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1983(1)SCALE103; 1984Supp(1)SCC599
ORDER1. In this appeal by the State the High Court altered the conviction of the respondent Jeet Singh from Sections 302 and 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC to Section 323 IPC. We see no reason to differ with the view taken by the High Court as it is clear from the evidence on record that Jeet Singh did not share the common intention to cause the death with the main accused. There is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC359; 1983(1)SCALE716; (1983)2SCC64
ORDER1. In this case the only point involved is as to whether the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act would apply to the present case where the respondent was convicted under Sections 409, 467 and 471 IPC and Section 5(1)(C) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The High Court gave the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused and since last six years the respondent is enjoying this benefit. The matter seems to be concluded by the decision of this Court reported in : 1972CriLJ897 where it has been held that the benefit of Probation of offenders Act cannot be given to an accused convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment for life. We entirely agree with this decision and hold that the Probation of Offenders Act is not applicable, but in the instant case, as the respondents has already been given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, we do not think it is in the interest of justice to interfere with it at this stage, after s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC360; 1983(1)SCALE17; (1983)2SCC251
ORDER1. The appellant was charge sheeted under Section 302 IPC but on trial the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence against him to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The State of orissa filed an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge and the High Court, on appeal, reversed the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge and convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. We have gone through the judgment of the Sessions Judge and that of the High Court and we are clearly of the opinion that the evidence against the appellant is very slender. The main evidence against the appellant consists of the retracted confession made by the accused before the Magistrate where he admitted to have assaulted the deceased with a lathi as a result of some altercation with the deceased. This confession has been held to be voluntary both by the High Court and Sessi...
Tag this Judgment!