Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1984Supp(1)SCC429
ORDER1. The question involved in this special leave petition is directly covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Nagesh Bisto Desai v. Khando Tirmal Desai : [1982]3SCR341 . Following that decision it must be held that Patilki Watan lands on the resumption of Watans and their regrant under the Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Office) Act, 1962 retained their character as joint family property and became partible. It follows that all the members of the joint family had a share in the said property as they had in any other property of the joint family. The special leave petition is therefore dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC1219; (1984)86BOMLR61; 1983(2)Crimes470(SC); 1983(2)SCALE175; (1983)4SCC231; [1983]3SCR762
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Application No. 283 of 1981, quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1634 of 1980 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Anti-Corruption), Pune. The application in the High Court was filed by the respondents in this appeal, who are the two accused in that criminal case, for quashing the criminal proceedings as well as the order of the Judicial Magistrate, issuing processes against them in that case.2. The appellant L.V. Jadhav was She first respondent while State of Maharashtra was the second respondent in the application before the High Court. The first respondent Shankarao Abasaheb Pawar is the father of the second respondent Pradeep Shankarrao Pawar. There was a proposal to get the appellant's daughter Anita, a Science Graduate, married to the second respondent, a double Graduate in Engineering, working in the United States. After Anita and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC1153; 1984(1)Crimes142(SC); 1983(2)SCALE389; (1984)1SCC202
ORDER1. We issued notice in this matter pursuant to a letter received by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India treating it as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The letter was written by Mrs. Susheela Misra wife of one Mr. S. Misra, who retired as Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Commerce. The grievance broadly stated was that the Police Officers working under the Delhi Administration were unnecessarily harassing Mr. Misra by visiting house at odd hours, by compelling Mr. V.S. Misra to go to Police Station under the pretext of questioning him and detained there for long hours and harassed and tortured. In response to the notice, an affidavit was filed by Mr. B.K. Gupta, Deputy Commissioner of Police, stating therein that an enquiry was going on with regard to a suspected case of espionage in which a Western Mission located in India was involved and that Mr. V.S. Misra was in possession of some vital information and was in a position to shed light on some of the im...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC49; 1983CriLJ1731; 1983(2)SCALE266; (1983)4SCC519; [1983]3SCR759
ORDERY.V. Chandrachud C.J.1. These three Special Leave Petitions arise out of a prosecution in which one Dr. V.K. Saxena and a Nurse, Bhagwati Singh were charged, inter alia, for the murder of Sudha, the wife of Dr. Saxena. The learned Sessions Judge, Hardoi convicted Dr. Saxena under Sections 120-B, 302 and 201 of the penal Code and awarded the sentence of death for the offence of murder. Bhagwati Singh was convicted under Section 120-B and was sentenced to life imprisonment.2. The appeals filed by the two accused and the confirmation proceedings came up for hearing in the Allahabad High Court before Hari Swarup and M. Murtaza Husain, JJ. Hari Swarup, J. agreed that the box in which the dead body of Sudha was packed was thrown by the accused Dr. V.K. Saxena from a running train between Lucknow and Kanpur. However, according to the learned Judge, that was not enough to sustain the charges because, the possibility that Sudha died as a result of suicidal hanging could not be excluded ' a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(1984)ACC153; AIR1983SC1225; 1983(2)SCALE206; (1983)4SCC245; [1983]3SCR729
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has declared Section 129-A of the Motor Vehicles Act unconstitutional and it void as offending Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. We may straight away say that the judgment of the High Court suffers from serious infirmities, not the least of which is the total failure to notice and consider the applicability of the provisions of the CrPC to the situation.2. On an oral application by the Advocate General, the High Court granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Presumably, by 'leave' the High Court meant a certificate as provided under the Constitution. The order of the High Court regarding the grant of 'leave' to appeal to this Court is in the following terms: 'An oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has been made by the Learned Advocate General. The question whether 129-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is ultra-vires the Constitution on the ground that it infringes Article 19(1)(g) of the Constituti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC1202; 1983(31)BLJR605; 1983(2)SCALE446; (1984)1SCC121
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. One Shrikrishan son of Surajmal Vaishya was the sole respondent in Civil Second Appeal No. 256 of 1976 on the file of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Gwalior Bench. The sole respondent died on April 19, 1980. Surprisingly, Raj Kumar, who is the present respondent, himself applied by 1A No. 1980/81 stating that he may be impleaded as an heir and legal representative of the deceased respondent, he being the adopted son of the deceased respondent or in the alternative he is the sole legatee under the last will and testament of the deceased. This application was made to the Court on July 1, 1981. Immediately thereafter on July 15, 1981 I.A. No. 2110/81 was moved on behalf of the appellants for substitution. It was averred therein that the appellants case to know about the death of the respondent only when the so-called adopted son of the sole respondent moved an application No. 1980/81 on July 1, 1981 stating that the respondent has died on July...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC1205; 1983(2)SCALE404; 1985Supp(1)SCC698; 1984(16)LC62(SC)
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. The first respondent Pradip Kumar Saha filed C.R. 13232 (W)/82 in the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta against the present appellant-West Bengal Essential Commodities Supply Corporation Ltd. (Corporation for short) and the State of West Bengal for a writ of mandamus directing the present appellant to make allotment of edible oils and pulses at the normal rate and/or at the monthly average rate calculated on the basis of the allotments made from the inception of the respective agencies; or in the alternative for compensation for non-allotment or reduced allotment. The cause of action was founded on an alleged contract between the parties and the breach thereof by the present appellant. In this writ petition, a notice of motion was taken out for an interim order and a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court granted interim relief in terms of Prayer (a) of the petition by which the present appellant was directed; 'to allot every month to the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC23; 1983LabIC1509; (1983)IILLJ413SC; 1983(2)SCALE397; (1983)4SCC464
1. The State of U.P. referred an industrial dispute between the appellant M/s. Shining Tailors, the employer and the respondent workmen for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow.2. Chronology of events leading to the surfacing of the dispute may be briefly slated. Appellant-employer has a fairly big tailoring establishment at Subhashnagar, Faizabad. Respondent-workmen 25 in number formed a Union named Faizabad Tailoring Workers Union (Union for short). The Union espoused the cause of the workmen by making a demand for increasing the tailoring charges and there was a strike in support of the demand. The time worn usual response of the employer was to dismiss some workmen and then declare a lock out, a fact in dispute and terminate the service of all the workmen. This led to the industrial dispute being referred to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The reference was not happily worded but the Tribunal was called upon to adjudi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC1151; 1983CriLJ1499; 1984(1)Crimes143(SC); 1983(2)SCALE138; (1983)4SCC125; [1983]3SCR719
ORDERO. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. Asharam M. Jain sought special leave of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution to appeal against the order of the High Court of Maharashtra in Notice of Motion No. 859 of 1982. The petition for special leave to appeal ran to 84 pages at the foot of the petition, it was stated 'drawn and filed by B. P. Maheshwari & Co., Advocates for the petitioner'. Asharam M. Jain filed an affidavit along with the special leave petition affirming that the statement of facts in paragraphs 1 to 67 in the petition for special leave to appeal were true to his knowledge and belief and based on the record of the lower court. In several paragraphs of the special leave petition, Asharam M. Jain indulged in wild and vicious diatribe against the then Chief Justice of the High Court of Maharashtra. To illustrate the limits of the invective, we wish to refer to but one paragraph of the petition. In paragraph 26 of the petition, it was stated by Asharam M. Jain :The petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1467; 1983LabIC1516; (1983)IILLJ383SC; 1983(2)SCALE136; (1983)4SCC156; [1983]3SCR725; 1983(2)SLJ372(SC)
ORDERO. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. Special leave granted.2. Sadhu Ram was a probationer Bus Conductor whose services were terminated on 7th September, 1967 by the respondent, the Delhi Transport Corporation. On the failure of conciliation proceedings, the Conciliation Officer, Delhi submitted his report to the Delhi Administration under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, whereupon the Delhi Administration referred the following dispute to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Delhi for adjudication : 'Whether the termination of service, of Shri Sadhu Ram, conductor is illegal and unjustified, and if so what directions are necessary in this respect'. The Union on behalf of the workman and the management appeared before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court. On behalf of the management, a contention was raised that the workman had not raised any demand with the management and that there was therefore, no industrial dispute. The reference was accordingly claimed to be incompetent. The ...
Tag this Judgment!