Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC656; 1983(1)SCALE577; (1983)3SCC275; [1983]3SCR124
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The petitioners are nomad graziers of Guiarat and Rajasthan, who wander from place to place with their sheen goats and cattle in search of pasture and foliage. Boundaries of States present no barriers to them. After all, to them and to their livestock, it is a question of survival. In their wanderings they often pass through the State of Madhya Pradesh en route some tunes to Uttar Pradesh and some times to Maharashtra. This happens particularly in times of drought in Gujarat and Rajasthan. The powers that be in the State of Madhya Pradesh became apprehensive Sat uninhibited passage of large herds of these an.mals through Madhya Pradesh may lead to large scale devastation of their forest wealth So they hit upon a plan to prevent 'foreign cattle from browsing in Madhya Pradesh forests. For the moment, it was forgotten that India is one country and no Indian is a foreigner in any of the constituent States of India. The plan was this: The Indian Forest Act 1927 ena...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC826; 1983CriLJ1081; 1983(2)Crimes480(SC); 1983(1)SCALE611; (1983)3SCC344; [1983]3SCR109
R.S. Pathak, J.1. The petitioner, Shri Bhagwant Singh, has applied to this Court for relief in the matter of the death of his married daughter, Gurinder Kaur. Shri Bhagwant Singh is a member of the Indian Revenue Service. His daughter, Gurinder Kaur, was one of three children. She was an intelligent and talented girl who secured a first division in the Senior Cambridge Examination and had obtained a B.Sc. (Home Science) Degree from Lady Irwin College. She was endowed with good looks and a pleasing personality, and her education and deportment attracted notice. It is apparent that the father was proud of his daughter.2. Shri Bhagwant Singh and Shri Kartar Singh Sawhney were colleagues in the office. They had been friends for over thirty years. Shri Kartar Singh has a son, Amarjit Singh. The family lived at J-7/93, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. The son ran a motor parts shop at Kashmere Gate, Delhi. It appears that the two colleagues decided on a marriage between Gurinder Kaur and Amarjit S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC658; 1983(2)Crimes392(SC); (1983)IILLJ157SC; 1983(1)SCALE497; (1983)3SCC401; [1983]3SCR60
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These writ petitions raise a short but interesting question of law relating to the interpretation of Article 33 of the Constitution. The question is whether Section 21 of the Army Act 1950 read with Chapter IV of the Army Rules 1954 is within the scope and ambit of Article 33 and if it is, whether Central Government Notifications Nos. SRO 329 and 330 dated 23rd September 1960 making inter alia Section 21 of the Army Act 1950 and Chapter IV of the Army Rules 1954 applicable to the General Reserve Engineering Force are ultra vires that Article since the General Reserve Engineering Force is neither an Armed Force nor a Force charged with the maintenance of public order. It is a question of some importance since it affects the fundamental rights of a large number of persons belonging to the General Reserve Engineering Force and in order to arrive at a correct decision of this question, it is necessary first of all to consider the true nature and character of the General...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC1019; [1985]154ITR64(SC); 1983(1)SCALE723; (1983)4SCC45; [1983]3SCR130; [1984]55STC1(SC)
A.P. Sen, J.1. These are appeals by special leave from a judgment and order of the High Court of Patna dated April 30, 1982 by which the High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 ('Act'; for short) which provides for the levy of a surcharge on every dealer whose gross turnover during a year exceeds Rs. 5 lakhs, in addition to the tax payable by him, at such rate not exceeding 10 per centum of the total amount of tax, and of Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act which prohibits such dealer from collecting the amount of surcharge payable by him from the purchasers.2. The Bihar Finance Act 1981, is not only an Act for the levy of a tax on the sale or purchase of goods but also is an Act to consolidate and amend various other laws. We are here concerned with Section 5 of the Act which finds place in Part I of the Act which bears the heading 'Levy of tax on the sale and, purchase of goods in Bihar and is relatable to Entry...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1194; [1984]148ITR664(SC); 1983(1)SCALE590; (1983)3SCC529; [1983]3SCR198; [1983]53STC289(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The petitioners in these two batches of petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution have questioned the Constitutional validity of Sub-section (2-A) of Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act No. 74 of 1956} (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as amended by the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No. 103 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amending Act') and Section 9 of the Amending Act Validating the levy of penalties under the Act with retrospective effect.2. The petitioners are dealers under the Act having their places of business in the States of Maharashtra, Haryana, etc.3. For the purpose of understanding the points of dispute raised in these cases, it is necessary to deal with the history of the legislation relating to taxes on inter-State Sales and purchases of goods during the post Constitution period. Under Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, the power to levy tax (in sale or purchase ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC839; 1983CriLJ1112; 1983(2)Crimes332(SC); (1983)2GLR1189; 1983(1)SCALE569; (1983)3SCC316
Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the Gujarat High Court by which the respondents had been acquitted of the charges framed against them and the conviction and sentences imposed on them were set aside.2. The trial court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Broach had convicted only A 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 13 (for facility, 'A indicates 'accused') and acquitted the other five accused who were placed for trial before the learned Judge. Apart from the convictions for individual offences, the aforesaid accused were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to imprisonment for life plus a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of the payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for six months. At this stage, it is not necessary to give any detail of the other convictions because after hearing counsel for the parties and going through the judgments of the courts below we are satisfied that so far as the char...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC762b; 1983(1)SCALE618; (1983)3SCC253; [1983]3SCR93
D.A. Desai, J1. Civil Appeals Nos. 1221-1222/70 1221-1222/70 arise from a decision of the Division Bench of the then High,Court of Mysore at Bangalore in Writ Petition Nos. 672/63 and 193/64 by which the High Court quashed the demand of Non-Agricultural assessement (N. A. assessment for short) made by the respondents on the ground that Rule 71 as amended on July 4, 1958 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Rules which appeared to have been repealed and re-enacted as the Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) Land Revenue Rules, 1951 was unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and hence void.2. Civil Appeals Nos. 1407 to 1413/70 arise from a decision of the Division Bench of the same High Court in a group of writ petitions by which the High Court quashed the demand of Non-Agricultural assessment on the ground that Rule 81 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules as amended on March 27, 1958 was unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 and hence void.3. Appellants in both the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC759; 1983CriLJ1102; (1983)ILLJ45aSC; 1983(1)SCALE530; (1983)3SCC105; [1983]3SCR12
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.1. While special leave petition No. 9661 of 1981 (National Textile Workers' Union v. P.R. Ramakrishnan) was being argued before a five Judge Bench on September 8, 1982, Shri G. Vasantha Pai, who was appearing on behalf of the respondents, drew the attention of the Court to certain statements which had appeared in the Press under the name of one P. M. Kumaraswamy alias Kailaimannan. On a petition presented by Shri Pai on behalf of one R. Baba Chandresekhar under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Court issued a notice to P. Kumaraswamy asking him to show cause why he should not be committed for committing contempt Of Court.2. Thereafter, the Contempt Petition came up for hearing before us on various dates. On some of those dates the contemner asked for adjournment on the ground of his illness while on some dates he remained absent. On one occasion, he was absent without informing the Court as to the reasons of his absence. At long last, the contempt petition was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC846; 1983(1)SCALE582; (1983)3SCC376; [1983]3SCR20
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. Smt. Dipo, plaintiff in Suit No. 8 of 1692 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Amritsar is the appellant in this appeal by special leave. She sued to recover possession of the properties which belonged to her brother, Bua Singh, who died in 1952. She claimed to be the nearest heir of Bua Singh. The suit was filed in forma pauperis. The suit was contested by the defendants who are the sons of Ganda Singh, paternal uncle of Bua Singh. The grounds of contest were that Smt. Dipo was not the sister of Bua Singh and that even if she was the sister, the defendants were preferential heirs according to custom, as the whole of the land was ancestral in the hands of Bua Singh. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff, Smt. Dipo was the sister of Bua Singh. He found that most of the suit properties were ancestral properties, in the hands of Bua Singh, while a few were not ancestral. Proceeding on the basis that according to the custom, the sister ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC786; (1983)2CompLJ163(SC); 1983(1)SCALE548; (1983)3SCC75; [1983]3SCR25
Amarendra Nath Sen, J.1. The maintainability of an appeal filed by the defendant in the suit against a money-decree payable in instalment after the defendant had filed an appeal only against the part concerning the direction with regard to the instalments and had withdrawn the same, is the question for consideration in this appeal by certificate granted by the High Court under Article 133(1) of the Constitution.2. The facts material for the purpose of the decision involved in this appeal are brief and may be stated.3. The State Trading Corporation, the respondent in this appeal, as plaintiff, filed a suit against the appellant who was the defendant in the suit on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court for the enforcement of the plaintiff's claim for a large amount which inclusive of interest worked out to over Rs. 40,00,000.00. For the purpose of deciding this appeal, it does not become necessary to refer to the nature of the claim and the averments made by the plaintiff in the pla...
Tag this Judgment!