Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC583; 1983(1)SCALE417; (1983)2SCC509
Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. Kanakayya, Appanna (Sr.), Jogulu, Ramulu and Venkataswamy were five brothers. Appanna (Sr) died in 1916, leaving behind him an adopted son Appanna (Jr). Appadna (Jr), we may mention, was the natural son of Jogulu, one of the five brothers. Kanakayya died in 1917 leaving a son, Parupilli. Ramulu and Venkataswamy died in 1918 leaving no issues. Jogulu died in 1951 leaving behind him his widow Seethayamma (2nd Defendant) and a son Venkata Ramanna (1st Defendant). Jogulu's other natural son Appanna (Jr), who was given in adoption to Appanna (Sr), died in 1949 leaving behind him his widow, Atchayyamma (Plaintiff). Atchayyamma filed a suit, out of which the present appeal arises, for partition of the plaint A & B Schedule properties and for separate possession of a half share of the properties, alleging that her husband Appanna (Jr) and Jogulu were members of a joint family. The defendants denied the adoption of Appanna (Jr) by Appana (Sr) and further alleged that the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC906; 1983CriLJ1276; 1983(1)Crimes1070(SC); 1983(1)SCALE411; (1984)1SCC319
Varadarajan, J.1. These Criminal Appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court (C.V. Rane, J.) in Criminal Revision Application No. 462 of 1973 and Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 1973. Thavardas Parasram and Prabhakar Devram, accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, are appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 1975. Bhugdomal Gangaram and Gulabji Jesangji, accused Nos. 3 and 6 respectively, are appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 77 of 1975 and 78 of 1975 respectively. Shyamsunder Parbhuram, accused No. 5, is appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 1975. These five accused and Mohan Hairomal and Chandubhai Jivabhai Ihakur, accused Nos. 4 and 7 respectively, were tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Matar in his Camp Court, Ahmedabad for offences under Sections 65(a)(d)(e), 66(1)(b) and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.2. The fourth accused Mohan Hairomal died before he could be examined under Section 342 of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC610; 1983(1)Crimes1165(SC); 1983(1)SCALE399; (1983)3SCC429; [1983]2SCR791
1. In this appeal by special leave, the short question for consideration is, if sanction under Section 197, CrPC ('Code' for short) is necessary for the prosecution of the appellant for an offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Appellant was Regional Officer of the Directorate of Field Publicity of the Government of India in 1972. He travelled by air from Srinagar to Delhi to and fro on one occasion and from Srinagar to Jammu to and fro on two other occasions by obtaining air tickets in lieu of exchange orders. The cost of the tickets obtained by the appellant was debitable to the account of the Directorate and under the rules the appellant was required to exclude the same from the bills for travelling allowance. On the allegation that the appellant submitted bills including the air fare and received payment for the same, a prosecution report was submitted against him for the offence of cheating under Section 420, I.P.C. in the Court of the Chief J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC855; 1983CriLJ1345; 1983(1)SCALE425; (1983)2SCC454; [1983]2SCR770
1. By this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution the petitioner Naib Singh is challenging his continued detention in jail and is seeking an order in the nature of habeas corpus claiming that he has justly served more than the maximum sentence of imprisonment prescribed under law and should, therefore, be released.2. The petitioner was originally sentenced to death on 18.1.1969 by the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepore, for committing an offence of murder under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Later, on a mercy petition preferred by him, his death sentence was commuted by the Governor of Punjab to imprisonment for life, which he has been undergoing in the Central Jail at Bhatinda. Excluding the period spent by him as an under-trial prisoner (in respect whereof no life-convict is entitled to the benefit of a set-off under Section 428 Cr. P.C. 1973 as interpreted by this Court in Kartar Singh's : 1982CriLJ1772 case), the petitioner appears to have undergone a total imprisonment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC585; 1983CriLJ971; 1983(1)SCALE408; (1983)3SCC354
ORDER1. In these three writ petitions filed by Munawar Harun Shah (original accused No. 4), Shantaram Kanhoji Jagtap (original accused No. 3) and Dilip Dhyanoba Sutar (original accused No. 2) respectively a fervent appeal has 'been made by counsel appearing for each one of them that their death sentences should be commuted to life imprisonment.2. It is pointed out that the concerned offences were committed between January 1976 and March 1977, that each one of them was sentenced to death by the Trial Court on 28th September, 1978; that their sentences were confirmed by the Bombay High Court on 6th April, 1979 and that their Special Leave Petitions against their convictions and sentences were dismissed by this Court on 17th November, 1980. In other words, the death penalty has been broodi ng over each one's head for an excruciatingly long period of about five years. So fares Munawar Harun Shah is concerned, it is urged that he was so to say a junior member of the gang of the killers and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC586; (1983)2CompLJ209(SC); 1983(1)SCALE390; (1983)3SCC1; [1983]2SCR754
1. This Civil Appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the Assistant Director, Entry Tax, Government of West Bengal, the second respondent, dated 25.9.1979 dismissing the case of the appellant Hindustan Milkfood Manufacturers Limited in Appeal Case No. 3970 H of 1976.77. The appeal was filed under Section 27 of Taxes on Entry of Goods into Calcutta Metropolitan Area Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1972') against the assessment of entry tax made in form V No. D-983001 at the Hussenabad Road Check Post in respect of 8736 kgs. of Horlicks Powder contained in 18 steel drums on the 'best Judgment assessment' basis with reference to the sale price of product within the Calcutta Metropolitan Area. The appellant is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Patiala Road, Nabha. The Company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of dairy products including the milk food popularly known as Horlicks. The ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1212; 1983LabIC776; 1983(1)SCALE388; (1983)3SCC371; [1983]2SCR739; 1983(1)SLJ702(SC)
1. Petitioner, who offered himself as a candidate for one of the posts of Stenographer in Hindi, in the establishment of District Judge at Ghaziabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh, has come with this petition under Article 32 alleging the violation of his fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. He has pleaded that he is a member of the scheduled castes and the State Government by a general order in March, 1965 had directed that 'in services subordinate to U.P. Government for recruitment through competition' 18% of the posts should be reserved for members of the scheduled castes. He further alleged that when six vacancies in the post of Stenographer in Hindi were advertised to be filled up and he offered himself as a candidate, he was examined in shorthand test on April 17, 1982, and was shown in the third place in the list of successful candidates published on April 24, 1982 and was called to an interview on May 1, 1982. According to him, in the final lis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC603; (1983)34CTR(SC)393; [1983]142ITR663(SC); 1983(1)SCALE437; (1983)2SCC433; [1983]2SCR743; [1983]53STC315(SC)
ORDER1. These two special leave petitions are directed against an order of the Orissa High Court dated March 18, 1983 dismissing the Writ Petitions filed by the petitioners in limine challenging the two orders of assessment passed by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack II Circle, Cuttack dated February 16, 1983. The connected petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution are by an Officer of the Company challenging the two orders of assessment.2. By one of the Writ Petitions, the petitioners challenged the validity of the order of assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the assessment year 1980-81 passed by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack II Circle, Cuttack dated February 16, 1983 under Rule 15 of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957 treating the gross turnover of Rs. 7,13,94,903.63p. as returned by the petitioners to be their taxable turnover and the tax payable thereon at 10% at Rs. 71,39,490.36p. By the other, the petitioners challenged the validity...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC595; 1983(31)BLJR337; 1983(1)SCALE376; (1983)3SCC42; [1983]2SCR724
1. The question for consideration in this case is whether a person against whom a complaint is filed alongwith some other person and who after an enquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974) (hereinafter referred to as the Code) is not proceeded against by the court can be summoned at a later stage under Section 319 of the Code to stand trial for the very same or connected offence or offences alongwith the other person against whom process had been issued earlier by the court.2. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order dated May 2, 1979 of the High Court of Patna in Criminal Misc. No. 405 of 1979.3. A complaint was preferred by the second respondent herein before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, to take action against the appellant and one Banktesh Prasad alleging that Banktesh Prasad had committed certain acts which amounted to offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. and that the appellant had abetted the offence under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC1137; 1983(1)SCALE370; (1983)2SCC419; [1983]2SCR734
1. This appeal by special leave seeks to assail the decision of the Allahabad High Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution refusing to, quash an order of the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Kanpur, holding that Ceiling Appeal No. 189 of 1976 under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, had abated for non-substitution of the sole appellant's legal representatives.2. The ceiling appeal in question had been carried by one Rameshwar and during its pendency the sole appellant died on January 9, 1980. Balram, Ram Bahadur and Jugal Kishore who are the three sons of Rameshwar moved the appellate Court for substitution of their names as legal representatives in place of Rameshwar on October 25, 1980. They applied for setting aside of abatement and condonation of delay. The Additional Distt. Judge took the view that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of delay and good reasons had not been shown for vacating abatement. Accordingly the appeal was...
Tag this Judgment!