Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC76; (1985)1CompLJ184(SC); 1985(4)ECC247; 1985LC110(SC); 1985(19)ELT15(SC); 1984(2)SCALE676; (1985)1SCC51; [1985]1SCR1146; 1985(17)LC341(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act 1962 against Order No. 297-B/84 dated April 25, 1984 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Tribunal, New Delhi.2. The appellant imported two consignments weighing 0.955 m. tonne and 1.071m. tonnes of stainless steel plates covered by Bill of Entry No. 725/111 dated August 2, 1979 and Bill of Entry No. 520/250 dated July 16, 1979 respectively. Under Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 the appellant was liable to pay customs duty in accordance with Heading No. 73. 15 of the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act 1975 at t7he standard rate of 22% ad valorem. But under the notification dated July 15, 1977 an importer was liable to pay import duty of 40% only on the said goods provided the conditions mentioned therein were satisfied. In order to avail of the said concessional rate of duty the importer should import the goods for the manufacture of all or any of the articles specified in that notifi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC79; 1985CriLJ504; 1984(2)Crimes909(SC); 1984(2)SCALE679; (1985)1SCC28; [1985]1SCR1136; 1985(17)LC362(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. This appeal by special leave seeks to assail the conviction of the appellant under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code as also Section 5(1)(d) and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 ('Act' for short), and a consolidated sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment. Appellant's conviction by the Special Judge has been upheld in appeal by the Rajasthan High Court.2. Appellant at the relevant time was a Head Constable attached to the Bhusawar Police Station within the District of Bharatpur. Prosecution alleged that PW. 2 Ram Swaroop had given First Information Report of two offences but appropriate investigation was not being done and charge-sheet was not being furnished to the Court. He had approached Shankar Lal, Head Constable attached to the Police Station and had, on demand, paid him some money by way of bribe to expedite submission of the charge-sheet. Shankar Lal got transferred and appellant came in his place. When contacted, appellant al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC150; 1984(2)SCALE702; (1985)1SCC61; [1985]1SCR1099; 1985(17)LC537(SC)
A. Varadarajan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court allowing Election Petition 6 of 1982 filed by respondent 1.2. The appellant, Bhag Mal, was declared elected as a Member of the Haryana Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha) from No. 3, Sadhura Scheduled Caste reserved constituency in the election held on 19.5.1982. The contest was between the appellant and 12 others including respondent 1, Parbhu Ram, who was the election petitioner. The appellant secured 20981 votes while respondent 1 secured 20971 votes and he was declared to have been elected. Respondent 1 challenged the election of the appellant on the ground that the counting was not proper and invalid and he prayed not only for recounting of the votes but also for declaration that he is the only elected candidate.3. Respondent 1 alleged in the election petition that the Returning Officer initially ordered the recount of the ballot papers of himself and the appellant in respect of al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC24; 1985(33)BLJR19; 1984(2)SCALE687; (1984)4SCC649; [1985]1SCR1089; 1985(17)LC229(SC)
S. Murtaza fazal Ali, J.1. This election appeal is directed against a judgment dated April 10, 1980 of the Patna High Court setting aside the election of the appellant mainly on the ground that he had been found guilty of indulging in corrupt practice in the election held on 10.6.77 to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from '241-Goh Assembly constituency'. The result was announced on 16.6.77 in which Ram Sharan Yadav (appellant), a candidate sponsored by the Communist Party of India, was declared elected after polling 28,783 votes as against 16, 458 votes polled by Thakur Muneshwar Nath Singh (the first respondent herein). An election petition was filed by the respondent in the High Court for setting aside the election of the appellant on the ground that he had indulged in corrupt practices as envisaged in Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The place of the respondent found favour with the High Court which set aside the ele...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1667; [1985(51)FLR131]; 1986LabIC63; (1985)ILLJ93SC; 1986Supp(1)SCC483
ORDER1. We are of the view that the ground on which the Govt. of India has refused to refer the dispute relating to the imposition of punishment of stoppage of three increments on Shri. Murugavelu to the Industrial Tribunal is not a valid ground. It would not be right for the Govt. of India to refuse to make the reference on the ground that the charges of misconduct against the worker were proved during a duly constituted departmental inquiry and penalty was imposed on the worker after following the required procedure. If such a ground were permissible it would be the easiest thing for the management to avoid a reference to adjudication and to deprive the worker of the opportunity of having the dispute referred for adjudication even if the Order holding the charges of misconduct proved was unreasonable or perverse or was actuated by mala fides or even if the penalty imposed on the worker was totally disproportionate to the offence said to have been proved. The management has simply to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC89; 1984(2)SCALE659; (1985)1SCC91; [1985]1SCR1059
Ranganath Misra, J.1. This appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('Act' for short), is directed against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court setting aside the election of the appellant to the Punjab Legislative Assembly from Constituency No. 25 known as Naushehra-Pannuan Assembly Constituency. Election was held on May 31, 1980, and the result was declared the following day. Appellant was declared elected with 26980 votes while respondent 3 Ranjit Singh lost with 26739 votes.2. The election petition was filed by two voters of the constituency (respondents 1 and 2). Respondent 1 (P.W. 5) was admittedly the counting agent of respondent 3. The election of the appellant was challenged on two allegations of corrupt practice in the main, namely, disturbing a meeting of the Akali Party at a place called Hadur-Shah in Village Gandiwind on May 20, 1980, where the appellant's supporters allegedly used fire-arms and fatally injured one and otherwise in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC756; 1978LabIC1641
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. It was not disputed before us that there is no limitation prescribed for the purpose of filing a writ petition against any executive action that might be impugned. Ordinarily the writ petitions are expected, to be filed without any laches. In this case since the petition was filed not within 90 days, which was erroneously regarded as a prescribed period of limitation the petition has been dismissed on the technical ground being barred by limitation. We may observe that the petition was filed within a period of 4 months. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the Writ Petition No. 8827 of 1978 filed by Smt. Vijai Raje Sindia and Anr. is remanded back to the High Court for disposal on merits in accordance with law.3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC118; 1985CriLJ510; 1985(1)Crimes656(SC); 1984(2)SCALE645; (1984)4SCC539; [1985]1SCR1057
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. We have heard Shri Navin Malhotra, amicus curiae, and the learned Attorney-General for the State of Tamil Nadu. In the Slate of Andhra Pradesh v. Vallabhapuram Ravi (1984) (2) SC 386 (Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 1984) in which judgment was delivered on September 14, 1984 this Court has held that adolescent offenders kept in a Borstal School by virtue of orders made by the State Government under Section 10A of the Andhra Borstal Schools Act, 1925 cannot be detained in the Borstal School or in any other place after they have attained 23 years of age and that they should be released. The provisions of the Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act, 1925 are identical with the provisions of the Andhra Borstal Schools Act, 1925. In the judgment referred to above the decision of the Madras High Court in In re. Ganapati 1983 Criminal Law Journal 509 which had taken the view that after Section 433A of the CrPC, 1973 came into force a person who was convicted of an offence punishabl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1986)2SCC553
E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, J.1. Special leave is granted.2. We have heard the learned Attorney-General and Shri A.K. Sen, learned counsel for the respondent. The High Court could not have in the circumstances of this case directed the payment of the money claimed under the insurance policies in question in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The only remedy available to the respondent in this case was a suit before a civil court. The judgment of the High Court is, therefore, set aside.3. The learned Attorney-General states that he would however recommend to the Board of the Life Insurance Corporation to pay a sum of Rs 40,000 to the respondent in full settlement of her claim. Shri A.K. Sen submits that the respondent would accept the sum of Rs 40,000, if paid, in full settlement of the claim against the Life Insurance Corporation. We hope that the amount will be paid to the respondent within six weeks.4. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC104; (1984)86BOMLR594; 1985CriLJ508; 1984(2)SCALE643; (1984)4SCC540; [1985]1SCR1053
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. Special Leave granted.2. The Food Inspector, 'E' Ward, Rajarampuri, purchased a sample of ice cream from the shop of the 4th respondent-firm, the partners of which were respondents 1 to 3. After following the procedure prescribed by statute, one part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst showed that the sample of ice cream contained 5.95% of milk fat as against the minimum of 10% prescribed by paragraph A. 11.02.08 of Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Kohlapur thought that it was impossible to attain the standard of purity prescribed by paragraph A. 11.02.08 of Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, as ice cream was but a preparation of milk and the standard of purity prescribed for buffalo milk was but a minimum of 5% milk fat. The learned Magistrate was, therefore, of the view that Rule 5 read with paragraph A. 11...
Tag this Judgment!