Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC45; 1983CriLJ1730; 1984(1)Crimes146(SC); 1983(2)SCALE539; (1984)1SCC31
1. The only point raised by counsel for the appellant in this appeal relates to the question of sentence. The appellant, on conviction under Section 303 I.P.C. has been sentenced to death. Counsel has contended that in view of this Court's decision in Mithu etc. etc. v. State of Punjab etc. AIR (SC) 473 Section 303 I.P.C. has been held to be unconstitutional and the appellant's case in so far as the sentence is concerned will have to be regarded as any other case falling under Section 302 I.P.C. Secondly, counsel has urged that the instant case does not fall within the category of rarest of the rare cases so as to attract extreme penalty of death. Thirdly, counsel has brought to our notice that Brahmi, a co-accused along with the appellant, both of whom were involved in the incident in which 32 injuries came to be inflicted to the deceased Ashok Kumar alias Shoki, has been awarded life imprisonment and as regards the circumstances concerning the assault on Ashok Kumar, the case of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC299; 1983LabIC1643; 1983(2)SCALE649; 1984Supp(1)SCC657
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. The appellant, Teja Singh was appointed as a Radiographer in the composite State of Punjab in November, 1959. In 1964, he was posted to the General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh. THE PUNJAB REORGANISATION ACT was enacted in 1966 and the composite State of Punjab was split into the States of Punjab & Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh and some areas were transformed to the Union Territory (now State) of Himachal Pradesh. Section 4 of the Act provided for the formation of the Union Territory of Chandigarh and specified the areas which were to form such Union Territory. Section 6 specified the territories which were to comprise the future State of Punjab. Section 82(i) provided that every person, who immediately before the appointed day (November I, 1966), was serving in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Punjab should, on and from that date, provisionally continue to serve in connection with the affairs of the State of Punja...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC1301; 1983(2)SCALE885; (1984)1SCC88
1. One Sumerkhan had five sons and two daughters. They were Imam Khan, Sodey Khan, Rah mat Khan, Hanif Khan, Gafoor Khan and Hazran and Mima respectively. Out of these five sons, Hanif Khan and Gafoor Khan were declared as evacuees. Sumerkhan had died leaving two houses bearing Nos. 11/5/168 and 11/5/180 situated in Jodhpur in the State of Rajasthan. On Hanif Khan and Gafoor Khan being declared evacuees, their undivided 2/5th share in the aforementioned two houses was declared evacuee property. Abu Khan, appellant No. 1 is the son of Sodey Khan. He was also suspected to have migrated to Pakistan and therefore, he was declared an evacuee. Series of proceedings successively taken by Abu Khan culminated in order dated April 16, 1959 by the Custodian-General of Evacuee Property remanding the matter for a fresh enquiry. In the fresh enquiry Abu Khan was held not to be an evacuee. After the decision was recorded in favour of Abu Khan that he was not an evacuee, he approached the competent au...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1983(2)SCALE920; 1984Supp(1)SCC242
ORDER1. With the consent of learned Counsel on either side we proceed to dispose of this matter finally.2. This appeal is directed against an order dated May 23, 1983 by which interim stay granted in this case as well as in connected eases was vacated. To all intents and purposes this is thus an appeal against the refusal of interim relief by the High Court.3. Mr. S.S. Ray, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that in identical matters interim stay has been granted on condition of the appellant furnishing bank guarantee for the amount involved in the dispute. Mr. K.G. Bhagat, Additional Solicitor General for the respondent pointed out that in another matter involving the same point this Court has vacated interim stay on condition that if the appellant succeeds in the case Union of India will refund the amount with interest at 18 per cent p.a. Having heard them and keeping in view the emphasis on precedent that this Court should follow its earlier orders, we fail to see how this ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC5; 1984CriLJ1; 1983(2)Crimes834(SC); (1983)4SCC701; [1984]1SCR176
D.A. Desai. J.1. Appellant Shri VishwaMitter, a dealer in beedies and cigarettes as also the constituted attorney of M/s. Mangalore Ganesh Beedies Works, Mysore filed a complaint in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, 1st Class, Pathankot on December 6, 1977 complaining of commission of offences by the four respondents impleaded as accused Under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 ('Act' for short) and Section 420 IPC. It was alleged in the complaint that the principals of the complainant M/s. Mangalore Ganesh Beedies Works, Mysore are the registered owners of four trade marks in respect of beedies manufactured by them. The name under which beedies manufactured by the principals of the complainant are sold in the market is 'Mangalore Ganesh Beedies' having a registered trade mark in the wrapper being pink colour wrapper containing the motif of Lord Ganesha and the numeral '501'. One additional registered trade mark used by the manufacturers of the beedie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC286; 1983LabIC1694; (1984)ILLJ52SC; 1983(2)SCALE528; (1983)4SCC611; [1984]1SCR158; 1984(1)SLJ245(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. 1. Shri Phulel Singh had a savings account with the Naraingarh branch of the Ambala Central Cooperative Bank Limited. A cheque for Rs. 4200 purporting to have been signed by Shri Phulel Singh, drawn on the Ambala Central Co-operative Bank was presented through the Punjab & Sind Bank Limited, Dhulkot and the proceeds were duly remitted to the latter bank. The account of Shri Phulel Singh was debited with that amount. Later when Shri Phulel Singh presented his pass book, appropriate entries were made. Shri Phulel Singh objected to the entry relating to the debit of Rs. 4200. He alleged that he had never issued the cheque for Rs. 4200 said to have been issued by him. A complaint was also lodged with the police. The present appellant, who was clerk-cum-cashier of the Naraingarh Branch of the bank, and who was apparently suspected in connection with the presentation of the bogus cheque, was interrogated by the police and his statement was also recorded. A First Inform...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC14; 1983(2)SCALE1037; 1984Supp(1)SCC591
ORDER1. The judgment under appeal shows that the High Court while allowing the writ petition of the respondent followed its earlier decision in Civil Writ No. 996 of 1969 Dial Chand Gian and Co. v. The State of Punjab and allowed the writ petition of the present respondent to the same extent to which the earlier petition was allowed in part. The State of Punjab preferred Civil Appeal No. 1979 of 1970 against the decision of the High Court in the afore-mentioned judgment, which was allowed by this Court as per the judgment dated April 22, 1983 and the writ petition was dismissed with costs throughout. The same consequence must ensure in this appeal.2. In fact, as the judgment which the High Court followed in allowing the writ petition of the present respondent is set aside by this Court, and this point is raised in this appeal. Registry ought to have placed both appeals together for hearing. The point raised herein is wholly covered by the decision of this Court dated April 22, 1983 and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC1239; 1984MhLJ47(SC); 1983(2)SCALE1027; (1984)1SCC125; [1984]1SCR139
D.A. Desai, J. 1. Appellant Shri Mansaram son of Shri Chanduram Sharma was serving in the telephone office at Nagpur and was thus holding an office of profit under the Union of India. He took on lease premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 75 per month, more particularly described in the application made to the House Allotment Officer, Nagpur by first respondent Shri S.P. Pathak, from the then owner of the premises one Shri Basantrai Sharma. He continued to be in possession even after his retirement from service in 1967. Shri Basantrai Sharma died and there is a dispute between respondents 3 and 4 and Shri Prabhakar about succession to the estate of the deceased Shri Basantrai Sharma. Respondents 3 and 4 claimed to be the legatees under a will of deceased Shri Basantrai Sharma. Respondent No. 1 Shri S.P. Pathak made an application to House Allotment Officer, Nagpur registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 51/A-71(2)/76-77 against the present appellant Mansaram alleging that the appellant had oc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC1296; 1983(2)SCALE1008; (1983)4SCC508; [1984]1SCR165; 1984(16)LC126(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. Each of these writ petitions is by a consumer of electric energy which has entered into a contract with the Haryana State Electricity Board ('Board' for short), and challenge in these petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution is to the enhancement of security unilaterally made by the Board both in respect of meter as also for the payment of the energy dues. Clause 22 of the standard contract stipulates :22. Security desposite:(a) Before commencing or resuming supply to a consumer the Board may require the consumer to lodge with the Board as security for the payment by the consumer of his monthly bills and for the value of the meters and/or other apparatus belonging to the Board and installed at the consumer's premises a deposit, which may not be transferable, calculated as follows : - Rs. 10.00 per KW of connected load or part thereof in the case of domestic ; Rs. 20 per KW of connected load or part thereof in case of commercial and Rs.30 per KW of connected ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC59; 1984(32)BLJR207; [1984(48)FLR341]; 1983(2)SCALE918; (1983)4SCC516; [1984]1SCR153; 1983(2)SLJ520(SC); 1984(16)LC135(SC)
R.S. PATHAK, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Delhi dismissing the appellant's second appeal.2. The appellant was appointed in 1968 to the post of Research Officer of the Institute of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies, New Delhi, as a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and was later designated as Assistant Director. Subsequently, he was given additional charge of the Library of the Institute. In March, 1974 the appellant submitted a bill of Rs. 350 to the Institute claiming reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by him in the delivery of a child to his wife during the previous month. The Institute, however, framed a charge on November 5, 1974 against the petitioner, alleging that he was attempting to draw the sum by tendering a false bill. A member of the Executive Council of the Institute was appointed to enquire into the charge and the appellant participated in the enquiry proceedings. During...
Tag this Judgment!