Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1984(2)SCALE370; 1984Supp(1)SCC504
ORDER1. Mr. E.C. Agarwala, learned Counsel for the State of Jammu & Kashmir has placed on record a copy of the teleprinter message from the concerned authority dated August 30, 1984 informing him that Mr. Bhim Singh the detenu, whose detention has been challenged in this Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been released on August 24, 1984. This teleprinter message is followed by a letter confirming the same. Mr. E.C. Agarwal, learned Counsel has authenticated the letter as well as the teleprinter message, and placed them on record.2. Mrs. Jayamala, learned Counsel for the petitioner and a member of the working committee of J. and K. Panthars Party has filed this writ petition for writ of Habeas Corpus questioning the validity of the detention of Bhim Singh, who is a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly of Jammu & Kashmir State. When the letter and teleprinter message were shown to Mrs. Jayamala, she said that Mr. Bhim Singh has not been released because she had...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1896; 1984(2)SCALE382; (1984)4SCC375; 1985(17)LC116(SC)
ORDER1. Special Leave granted.2. This is a matter in which the conduct of the respondents calls for severe condemnation for the reason that on a question of paltry deficit in payment of court fees instead of inviting decision on issues involved in the dispute by adjudication on merits, the matter has been brought to this court which from our point of view is a criminal waste of this Court's valuable time and for which the respondents are solely responsible. The appellant filed a suit. He was directed to pay deficit court fees to the tune of Rs. 1904/-. The appellant asked for time to pay the deficit court fees. The respondents contested this request. The learned Judge by his order dated October 23, 1981 rejected this very reasonable request and also rejected the prayer for extension of time for depositing the deficit court fees. The appellant carried the matter by way of Civil Revision Petition No. 224 of 1982 to the High Court of Delhi. The learned Judge found it difficult to interfer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1985CriLJ358; 1984(18)ELT241(SC); (1987)ILLJ114SC; 1984(2)SCALE368; 1984Supp(1)SCC518
ORDER1. Special leave granted limited to the question whether the High Court without issuing notice and affording an opportunity to the appellant to be heard had jurisdiction to enhance the sentence by imposing a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in addition to the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed by the trial court.2. The appellant, Surjit Singh and Harjinder Singh were convicted for committing murder of Bachan Singh under Section 302 IPC and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge Ludhiana. They preferred Criminal Appeal No. 283/1983 to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.3. While dismissing the appeal of the appellants a division Bench of the High Court observed 'that Surjit Singh and Harjinder Singh who had been proved to have committed the murder of Bachan Singh in quite a ruthless manner as is apparent from the number of injuries found on the person of the deceased'. The High Court further observed that it is a f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1707; 1984(2)SCALE274; (1984)4SCC612; [1985]1SCR686; 1985(17)LC251(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an application under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Notice was issued and the respondents have filed counters and have made submissions on the application. The petitioner is the lessee of the premises No. 7/1 A-D Lindsay street, Calcutta which is situated in an important commercial locality of Calcutta. The ground floor and mezzanine floor of premises No. 7/1-D, Lindsay Street, Calcutta were requisitioned by Government of West Bengal by order of requisition No. 21/58 Reqn. dated 25th February, 1958 which was substituted by requisition order No. 123/60 Reqn. dated 10th November, 1960 issued under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947, hereinafter called the said Act for establishing main Sales showroom of respondent No. 4 herein which is the West Bengal Handicraft and development Corporation Limited (a West Bengal Government undertaking).2. The area under requisition is 2521 sq. ft on ground floor and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC382; 1984(2)SCALE685; (1985)1SCC231; [1985]1SCR682; 1985(17)LC115(SC)
ORDERPathak, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order dated April 21, 1977 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana determining the interest payable on the compensation awarded to the appellants for the acquisition of their land by the State Government.2. A notification Under Section 4 of the land Acquisition Act was made on August 31, 1961 in respect of land belonging to the appellants and in the proceedings which followed the land Acquisition Officer determined a sum of Rs. 27,992.84 as compensation payable therefor. Possession of the land was taken thereafter. On reference made at the instance of the appellants, the learned District Judge held by his judgment dated November 30, 1963 that the appellants were entitled to a further sum of Rs. 11,307.10 as compensation. Dissatisfied with that determination, the appellants proceeded in appeal to the High Court, and on March 8, 1977 the High Court held that the appellants were entitled to a further amount of Rs. 17,9...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1842; (1985)1CompLJ318(SC); [1984(49)FLR313]; (1984)IILLJ464SC; 1984(2)SCALE303; (1984)4SCC356; [1985]1SCR664; 1985(1)SLJ38(SC); 1985(17)LC106(SC)
Sen, J.1. These appeals by special leave and the connected special leave petitions from the judgment and order of the Madras High Court dated June 19, 1981 raise a question of substantial importance. The question is whether the words 'fifteen days' wages'occurring in Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in the case of monthly-rated employees, can only mean half a month's wages, i.e., wages which they would have earned in a consecutive period of 15 days or in 13 working days and therefore, in calculating the amount of gratuity payable to such employees, the rate of wages earned by them has to be multiplied by 'thirteen' there being 26 working days in a month and not by 'fifteen'. A subsidiary question arises as to whether the words 'twenty months' wages' occurring in Sub-section (3) thereof would only mean wages for 520 working days taking the actual working days in 20 months or must mean 600 days taking that a month co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1683; [1984(48)FLR219]; (1984)IILLJ391SC; 1984(2)SCALE265; (1984)4SCC392; [1985]1SCR641; 1985(17)LC200(SC)
Desai, J.1. It is most unfortunate that all those unhealthy and injudicious practices resorted to for unduly delaying the culmination of civil proceedings have stealthily crept in, for reasons not unknown, in the adjudication of industrial dispute for the resolution of which an informal forum and simple procedure were devised with the avowed object of keeping them free from the dilatory practices of civil courts. Times without number this Court, to quote only two D.P. Maheswari v. Delhi Administration and Ors. : (1983)IILLJ425SC and S.K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra and Anr. : (1983)IILLJ429SC disapproved the practice of raising frivolous preliminary objections at the instance of the employer to delay and defeat by exhausting the workmen the outcome of the dispute yet we have to deal with the same situation in this appeal by special leave.2. The Government of Maharastra by its order dated October 22, 1975 referred a dispute between Hindustan Lever Ltd. ('employer' for short) and the workmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1728; 1984(2)SCALE261; (1984)4SCC382; [1985]1SCR651; 1985(17)LC212(SC)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. The short question involved in this appeal is whether upon redemption of a usufructuary mortgage a tenant-mortgagee could be directed to deliver actual or physical possession of the mortgaged property to the lessor mortgagor By reason of the grant of a limited special leave the appeal has been confined to that question.2. Facts relevant to the question may be stated : One Behara Audinarayana Patro, the original owner of suit property executed two usufructuary mortgage deeds dated 30.8.1939 and 25.8.1942 in favour of the first defendant Sambangi Thavitinaidu, who was then a sitting tenant of that property. In 1951 the mortgagor filed a suit for redemption of the mortgages and obtained a preliminary decree on 31.12.1952. Subsequently, the mortgagor died and the respondents were brought on record as his legal representatives. On 21.10.1963 the respondents filed an application for passing a final decree by way of ascertainment of the amount due and for delivery of possess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1; 1984(2)SCALE536; (1985)1SCC163; [1985]1SCR659; 1984(2)SLJ544(SC); 1985(17)LC206(SC)
ORDERDesai, J.1. One Shri Sital Prasad Saxena filed Civil No. 46A of 1969 against (1) Union of India (2) Comptroller and Auditor General of India and (3) Accountant General Madhya Pradesh for a declaration about the status of his post and arrears of salary in respect of the post in which he was entitled to continue. The suit came up for hearing before the 5th Civil Judge Class II, Gwalior who by his judgment and decree dated July 7, 1969 dismissed the suit. Plaintiff Sital Prasad Saxena preferred civil appeal No. 36A of 1970 against that judgment and decree of the trial court in the District Court at Gwalior. The appeal came up for hearing before the learned First Additional District Judge who agreed with the findings recorded by the trial court and accordingly by his judgment and order dated August 4, 1970 dismissed the appeal. Plaintiff Sital Prasad Saxena preferred second appeal No. 10 of 1971 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh-Jabalpur Bench.2. During the pendency of the appeal in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1984(32)BLJR418; 1984(2)SCALE383; (1984)4SCC498; [1985]1SCR638; 1984(16)LC1147(SC)
Fazal Ali. J.1. After hearing counsel for the parties we are clearly of the view that the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained for two reasons. Firstly, the High Court had earlier remanded the case to the trial court and called for a finding from the trial court on the question of partial eviction. The trial court while recording its finding was of the view that the question of partial eviction should be considered in the light of the requirement of the landlord as deposed to by him. In doing so, the High Court failed to take into account the proviso to Section 12(1)(c) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act of 1977, which in terms enjoins that what is necessary to be considered is the 'reasonable' requirement of the landlord and whether it would be 'Substantially' satisfied by evicting the tenant/row a part only of the premises. The Court has therefore, in the first instance, to determine the extent of the premises which the landlord 'reasonably' requires...
Tag this Judgment!