Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC1146; (1983)IILLJ11SC; 1983(1)SCALE312; (1983)2SCC397; [1983]2SCR622
1. This appeal arises out of a judgment dated May 5, 1982 of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad, dismissing the Writ petition filed by the appellants against an order passed by Respondent 1, the Vice-Chancellor, Meerut University, Meerut. In an election held on May 10, 1981 to the Executive Committee of the Meerut College, Appellant 3, Shri J.D. Singhal, was elected as an Honorary Secretary. That election was set aside by the Vice-Chancellor on the ground that Shri J.D. Singhal's brother, Shri A.P. Singhal, was a lecturer in the Law Department of the College and therefore the former was disqualified from being chosen as a member of the Executive Committee of the College. This disqualification is said to arise out of the provision of Section 39 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 10 of 1973, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The High Court dismissed the writ petition mainly on the ground that the writ-petitioners had not exhausted their remedies, that is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC550; 1983(1)SCALE321; (1983)2SCC402; [1983]2SCR665
1. This group of four appeals by special leave is directed against a common judgment and order of the Karnataka High Court in four writ petitions whereby the High Court struck down Sub-rule (2) inserted in Rule 5 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963, by Notification No. HD 16 TMR 73 dated July 7, 1976 as being ultra vires the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act 4 of 1939) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The Respondent in Civil Appeal No. 2488 of 1977 had obtained a learner's licence for driving heavy motor vehicles under the said Rules and had obtained training in Crown Motor Driving School, Bangalore, which was an institution recognised by the Government of Karnataka under Rule 30 of the said Rules. He also held a licence to impart training in driving heavy motor vehicles. After completion of his training he obtained a certificate from the said driving school and applied on July 22, 1976 through it for a licence to drive heavy motor vehicles. The Respondent in Civil Appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC554; 1983CriLJ985; 1983(1)SCALE299; (1983)2SCC411; [1983]2SCR605
1. Ten persons were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, for offencesunder Section 302 read with Sections 120B and 149 of the Penal Code on the charge that, in pursuance of a conspiracy, they caused the death of five persons and injuries to three others on the night between the 29th and the 30th September 1978 in the village of Kaile. Convicting nine out of these for the offences of conspiracy and murder, the learned Judge sentenced accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 to death and accused Nos. 2, 8 and 9 to life imprisonment. Accused No. 10 Harbans Kaur, wife of accused No. 2 Darshan Singh alias Bhasuri, was acquitted. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana confirmed the death sentence imposed upon accused Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7, but reduced the sentence of accused No. 4 to life imprisonment. Thus, in these appeals by special leave, we have before us five persons who are sentenced to death and two who are sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. Buta Singh, the son of accu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC541; 1983CriLJ967; 1983(1)Crimes1013(SC); 1983(1)SCALE308; (1983)2SCC392; [1983]2SCR614
1. By this Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner Mohd. Shakeel Wahid Ahmed challenges the validity of an order of detention dated November 7, 1981 passed against him by the first respondent, the State of Maharashtra, under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, herein referred to as 'the Act'. Earlier, the petitioner's wife had filed a habeas corpus petition in the Bombay High Court for the release of the petitioner, but that petition (Writ Petition No. 579 of 1982) was dismissed by the High Court on October 28, 1982. The High Court held that three out of the four grounds on which the petitioner was detained were bad for one reason or another but that the remaining ground, namely, ground No, 1 did not suffer from any defect and was enough to sustain the order of detention. While upholding the detention on one of the four grounds only, the High Court relied upon the provisions of Section 5-A of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(1984)ACC34; (1984)86PLR259; (1983)4SCC707
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2 This appeal by special leave is directed against an order made by the High Court of Allahabad rejecting the revision application preferred by the appellant against an order made by the Court of Civil Judge, Allahabad holding that it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the respondents against the appellant claiming damages for the loss suffered by them in respect of the goods Carried by the appellant. The goods were entrusted by the consignor to the appellant for, carriage at Baroda and under the consignment , note issued by the appellant, the goods were to be carried to Naini. It appears that the truck in which the goods were carried met with an accident, as a result of which the goods were damaged and since the goods were delivered to the first respondent who were the endorsees of the consignment note, in damaged condition, the respondents, filed a suit claiming damages for the loss suffered by the first respondent. The consignment note cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC558; 1983(1)SCALE344; (1983)2SCC473; [1983]2SCR629
1. These appeals by special leave and the connected special leave petitions from the judgment and orders of the High Court of Madras raise the same question and therefore they are disposed of by this common judgment. In Civil Appeal No. 38 (NCE) of 1981, there is a further question involved.2. The facts are more or less similar in all these appeals, except that in Civil Appeal No. 38(NCE) of 1981 there are certain additional facts. It will suffice for our purposes to set out the facts giving rise to that appeal.3. At the last general election to the State Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu from the Anna Nagar Assembly Constituency No. 8 held in May 1980, the appellant, M. Karunanidhi, leader of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party, contested as a candidate of that party and secured 51290 votes. As against this, the respondent Dr. H.V. Hande sponsored as a candidate by the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam secured 50591 votes. On June 1, 1980 the appellant, M. Karunanidhi, was con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC599; 1983CriLJ1049; (1983)2GLR1161; 1983(1)SCALE304
Thakkar, J.1. One Aher Pitha Vajshi and his five sons, belonging to Village Kenedi in Kalyanpur Taluk of Jamnagar District were tried by the learned Sessions Judge Jamnagar in Sessions Case No. 71 of 1973 in connection with the homocidal death of one Nabha Ram who was the victim of a criminal assault mounted on him at about 9 p.m. on August 24, 1973. The learned Sessions Judge accorded benefit of doubt and acquitted all the six persons accused of the crime. The State of Gujarat called into question the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge by way of Criminal Appeal No. 384 of 1974. A Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad by its Judgment dated 29/30th September, 1975 reversed the Judgment learned Sessions Judge party by setting aside the order of acquittal insofar as Aher Pitha and his three sons (viz. Accused nos. 1 to 4) were concerned. The High Court was of the view that the appreciation of evidence made by the learned Session Judge was unreasonab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1984Supp(1)SCC683
Order Special leave granted. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that this was not a fit case in which the High Court should have interfered with the criminal proceedings in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. The question relating to the application of Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and its effect have been considered and decided by this Court in State of Kerala v. Alasserry Mohammed1. In view of that decision the High Court should not have quashed the criminal proceedings before the Magistrate. The order of the High Court in Crl. Misc. No. 1978/M of 1981 is, therefore set aside. The Magistrate shall now proceed to try the case and dispose it of in accordance with law. It is open to the respondent to raise all contentions before the Magistrate including the one based on Rule 22-A and Rule 22-B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the case is remande...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC1143; (1983)ILLJ502SC; 1983(1)SCALE316; (1983)3SCC33; [1983]2SCR598; 1983(1)SLJ454(SC)
1. The appellant who was unsuccessful before the High Court of Allahabad in a writ petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution has filed this appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court. In the writ petition the appellant had questioned the validity of the appointment of Mr. A.P. Joseph, respondent No. 2 herein as the Principal of the Ranikhet Intermediate College, Ranikhet, which was a minority institution having the protection of Article 30 of the Constitution in preference to him. The proceedings for the selection of a qualified person to the post in question commenced in the year 1973. The Selection Committee constituted under Section 16-E of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) recommended three persons viz. Shri Bindeshwari Prasad, Shri S.C. Khyali and the appellant. The appellant was given the third rank in that recommendation. The Regional Deputy Director of Education did not approve of the said selec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC852; (1983)IILLJ23SC; 1983(1)SCALE296; (1983)3SCC284
Misra, J.1. These two sets of appeals by special leave are directed against a common order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated the 20th August, 1980; the first one by Y. V. Rangaiah and others, and the other by the State of Andhra Pradesh and another. By the said order the Administrative Tribunal disposed of two representation petitions Nos. 302 of 1978 and 1036 of 1978. As the two sets of appeals raise common questions of law, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The petitioners in the two representation petitions are working as Lower Division Clerks in the Department of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh. Rule 4(a)(1)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Registration and Subordinate Service Rules, lays down that all first appointments to a service, State or Subordidate, and all promotions in a service otherwise than in accordance with Clause (ii) of Sub-rule (b) of Rule 34 shall be made by the appointing authority or the authority specified in Sub-ru...
Tag this Judgment!