Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC622; 1983(1)SCALE580; (1983)3SCC333; [1983]2SCR1037
1. In the above matters since a dispute was. raised as to whether the provisional admissions granted to the two petitioners had continued till 1st October, 1982 or were cancelled long prior to that date, an issue was sent to the District Judge Rohtak for inquiry and a finding thereon. The District Judge Rohtak was required to submit his report within a specified time. Later for some reasons, which it is unnecessary to mention, the enquiry was transferred to the District Judge, Hissar who has now submitted his report to this Court through his letter dated 4th February, 1983. After holding a Full-fledged enquiry during the course of which oral as well as documentary evidence was produced by the parties in support of their respective versions, the District Judge has recorded a finding against the petitioners to the effect that to their knowledge their provisional admissions had been cancelled by the concerned Authorities much before the crucial date namely, 1.10.1982. In other words, it i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1983(2)SCALE70; (1984)1SCC302
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard counsel for both the parties.3. It is not possible to sustain the impugned orders though they ace of interlocutory nature. As a result of the reduction of the age of superannuation from 58 to 55 the concerned employees (including the individual Writ Petitioners in the High Court) were actually relieved from duty with effect from the afternoon of 28.2.83, with a result that the initial order dated 3rd March, 1983 directing the maintenance of status quo as obtaining on that day (3rd March, 1983) did not carry the concerned employees any further, and while after they had been so relieved other officiating appointments having been made, the impugned orders dated 11th March, 1983 directing that the employees be continued in service provided the posts held by them had not been already filled up really amounted to granting monsatory relief and dislodging the officiating appointments. It was in this situation that this Court by its order dated 17th March, 1983 gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC648; (1983)2GLR1152; 1983(1)SCALE524; (1983)3SCC294; [1983]2SCR992
1. Appellant Sureshbhai is the owner of land bearing Survey No. 21 situated at Village Ode, Taluka Anand, District Kaira in Gujarat State. One Nathabhai Zaveribhai and. the present respondent were recorded as tenants on the tillers' day i.e. 1st April, 1957. Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ('Tenancy Act for short) provided that on the 1st day of April, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the tillers' day) every tenant shall subject to the other provisions of the section and the provisions of the next succeeding sections, be deemed to have purchased from his landlord, free from all encumbrances subsisting thereon on the same date the land held by him as tenant. Section 32G provided for the follow up action of the compulsory purchase that ensues by the operation of Section 32. Section 32G thus envisages the determination of the price in accordance with the various provisions of the Act, of the land deemed to have been purchased by the tenant on the tillers'...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC634; 1983(1)SCALE534; (1983)3SCC237; [1983]2SCR1009
1. In these writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 3 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1924 (Act No. 4 of 1924) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as amended by the Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 1981 (Punjab Act No. 13 of 1981) and the Notification dated March 19, 1981 issued by the Government of the State of Punjab under Section 3(1) of the Act.2. The petitioners are owners of motor vehicles and are carrying on the business of running stage carriages in the State of Punjab. While the operation of the stage carriage services run by the petitioners is controlled by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which is a Central Act, they are liable to pay taxes on the motor vehicles owned by them under the Act. The Act is a pre-Constitutional one. After the Constitution came into force, the power to levy taxes on goods and passengers carried by road or on inland w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC15; 1983(1)SCALE481; (1983)3SCC61; [1983]2SCR1027
1. M/S M.G. Brothers Lorry Service, the appellant is a firm, which carried on at the relevant time transport business and on the 1st of May, 1969 under a Way Bill, the plaintiff firm, M/s. Prasad Textiles, the respondent herein had consigned one bale of yarn worth about Rs. 5,000 from their head office at Guntur to Vijayawada, at which place there was a branch office consigned 'to self'. The Way Bill and the invoice were in the usual course delivered to the State Bank of India with the instructions to deliver the same to the plaintiff-respondent M/s. Prasad Textiles at Vijayawada. It appears that the defendant-appellant M/s. M.G. Brothers Lorry Service failed to deliver the said goods to the respondent-plaintiff at Vijayawada. The appellant's case was that the said goods had actually arrived at Vijayawada on the very next day, but the same were, however, not taken delivery of at Vijayawada for some time and that between 16th and 20th of May, 1969 there was a cyclone at Vijayawada as a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC617; (1983)37CTR(SC)133; [1983]142ITR737(SC); 1983(1)SCALE492; (1983)3SCC229; [1983]2SCR999
1. By a notification dated 31.1.68, the Delhi Municipal Corporation purported to enhance the fee for slaughtering animals in its slaughter houses from Re. 00.25p to Rs. 2.00 for each animal, in the case of sheep, goats and pigs, and from Re. 1.00 to Rs. 8.00 for each animal, in the case of buffaloes. The notification was quashed by the High Court of Delhi on the ground that the Corporation was really proposing to levy a tax under the guise of enhancing the fee. The original rates were fixed in March 1953 and the revised rates were to take effect from February 1, 1968. Some butchers of the city questioned the revision of rates on the ground that the proposed enhanced fee was wholly disproportionate to the cost of the services and supervision and was in fact not a fee, but a tax. The High Court accepted the contention of the butchers on what appears to us a superficial view of the facts and principles. Fortunately, the High Court has certified the case as a fit one for appeal under Artic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1120; 1984CriLJ928; 1983(2)Crimes941(SC); 1983(1)SCALE861; (1984)1SCC278
Fazal Ali, J.1. The appellants have been convicted under Section 303 I.P.C. to death. As Section 303 has been struck down as void being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India it is no longer available for conviction of any offender. The facts of the case are fully narrated in the judgment of the High Court. It appears that on the date of occurrence i.e. 25th December, 1978 the deceased Brij Nath was coming back along with his son and others after listening to Bhagwat Katha. When they were passing through the jungle the two appellants accosted the deceased and assaulted him. The appellant Bhagwan Bax Singh shot with his gun on the chest of the deceased. The other appellant assaulted him on the head with a Banka. As Section 303 I.P.C. no longer survives the conviction and sentence under Section 303 has to be set aside and conviction has to be altered to one under Section 302 I.P.C. The main question is as to what sentence should be awarded to the appellant. Mr. Mull...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC838; 1983CriLJ1111; 1983(1)SCALE699; (1983)3SCC565
1. Appellant, Surjit Singh, has been convicted under Section 303 I.C.P. and the other two appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. for having committed the murder of the deceased Dhan Kaur. The facts of the case are detailed in the judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary to repeat the same. According to the prosecution appellant Surjit Singh was undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life for having committed the murder of his own mother resulting from a land dispute when this offence was committed.2. On 6th July, 1979 he was released on parole on personal grounds and within about a month from that date, that is to say, on 8th August, 1979 the present occurrence took place in the consequence of which Dhan Kaur was done to death. The accused pleaded innocence but the prosecution case has been established and Mr. Mulla with his usual fairness did not press this appeal on facts and confined his argument only to the question of sentence upon the conviction b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC623; 1983(1)SCALE528; (1983)3SCC638
Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff-appellant is directed against a judgment dated September 22, 1980 of the Rajasthan High Court by which the plaintiff-landlady-who had field a suit for a decree of eviction of the entire premises in possession of the tenant-respondent was given only marginal relief by granting a decree for partial eviction. The cases of the parties have been fully detailed in the judgments of the High Court and that of the trial court.2. The High Court has approached all the aspects and shades of the question very thoroughly and in a very well reasoned judgment come to the conclusion that the plaintiff-landlady has not been able to prove the case of complete eviction of the tenant-respondent from the premises.3. In the view that we take in the case it is not necessary for us to dilate further on the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the admitted position is that the plaintiff-landlady requires the shop in question for personal necessity, viz., to sett...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC751a; (1983)3SCC300a
Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The Aluminium Corporation of India Limited, the appellant in the civil appeal, has not appeared before us at the hearing. However, Dr. Y.V. Chitale appearing for the Bharat Aluminium Corporation, who were appointed as Authorised Agents on the take over of the Aluminium Corporation of India Limited under the provisions of the Industries Development and Regulation Act, has assisted us and we are grateful to him for his assistance. The question for consideration in the appeal is about the interpretation of a provision of the Emergency Risks (Factories) Insurance Scheme and it arises this way: The Aluminium Corporation of India Limited was obliged to insure its factories, factory buildings, plants, machinery, etc., under the Emergency Risks (Factories) Insurance Act, 1962 and the Emergency Risks (Factories) Insurance Scheme made under that Act. A sum of Rs. 2,43,750/- was determined by the Chief Enforcement Officer as the amount payable by the Aluminium Corporation of...
Tag this Judgment!