Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1201; 1985(6)ECC126; 1985(21)ELT3(SC); 1985(1)SCALE976; (1985)3SCC284; [1985]Supp1SCR731; [1987]64STC180(SC); 1985(17)LC1070(SC)
1. These two appeals involve the question as to whether 'Properzi Rods' manufactured and cleared by the appellant, the Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd., fall within Entry No. 27 (a)(ii) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1 of 1944 and, if so, under which category of the articles mentioned therein. The Government of India contends for the application of that Entry while, according to the appellant, 'Properzi Rods' fall under the residuary Entry 68. Civil Appeal No. 2729 of 1982 arises out of a judgment dated May 7, 1982 of the High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No. 934 of 1972. Civil Appeal No. 2730 of 1982 is directed against Order No. 162 of 1982 passed by the Government of India in a revision application against the order dated September 7,1982 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. Order No. 162 of 1982 of the Government of India was passed by the Additional Secretary and the Joint Secretary, Government of India, in its Ministry o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1618; (1985)87BOMLR382; 1985CriLJ1302; 1985(2)Crimes452(SC); 1985(1)SCALE960; 1985Supp(1)SCC137; [1985]Supp1SCR741
1. By this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the validly of Section 497 of the Penal Code which defines the offence of 'adultery' and prescribes punishment for it. A few fact, interesting but unfortunate, leading to this petition are these :2. The petitioner filed a petition for divorce against her husband on the ground of desertion. The trial court dismissed that petition, holding that the petitioner herself had deserted the husband and not the other way about. Thereafter, the husband filed a petition for divorce against the petitioner on two 'grounds : firstly, that she had deserted him and secondly, that she was living in adultery with a person called Dharma Ebenezer. The petitioner conceded in that petition that in view of the finding recorded in the earlier proceeding that she had deserted her husband, a decree for divorce may be passed against her on the ground of desertion. So far so good. But, the petitioner contended further that the Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1259; 1985(2)SCALE119; (1985)3SCC614; 1985(17)LC642(SC)
ORDER1. There are several applications which have been filed before us by one party or the other following upon the order made by us in these writ petitions on 12th March, 1985. Some of the applications have already been disposed of by an order made by us on 3rd May 1985 and the remaining applications are being disposed of by this order.2. We will first take up civil miscellaneous petition No. 17895 of 1985. This application relates to the limestone quarry leased out to one C.G. Gujaral under lease No. 101. It is pointed out by C.G. Gujaral in this application that the limestone quarry forming the subject matter of lease No. 101 is outside the City Board of Mussoorie and is about 18 Kms away from Mussoorie and 35 Kms away from Dehradun and it has not been considered either by the Bhargav Committee or by the Working Group appointed by the Government of India headed by Shri D.N. Bhargav. The result is that it is not possible to say whether this limestone quarry falls within category A, B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC454; 1986LabIC1417; 1985(1)SCALE1290; (1985)4SCC417; [1985]Supp1SCR657
1. These appeals by special leave are directed against a judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court quashing and setting aside certain selections made by the Haryana Public Service Commission to the Haryana Civil Service (Executive) and other allied services. The judgment in part proceeds on surmises and conjectures and has made certain uncharitable observations against the Chairman and Members of the Haryana Public Service Commission without any warrant and hence it is necessary to set out the facts giving rise to the appeals in some detail.2. Sometime in October 1980 the Haryana Public Service Commission invited applications for recruitment to 61 posts in Haryana Civil Service (Executive) and other allied Services. The procedure for recruitment was governed by the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930 as applicable in the State of Haryana. Rule 9 Clause (1) of these Rules provided that a competitive examination shall be held at any place in Haryan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC935; 1985(1)SCALE952; (1985)3SCC62; [1985]Supp1SCR704; 1986(1)LC247(SC)
1. It was just the other day that a Constitution Bench of this Court had to emphasise the urgency of infusing life into Article 44 of the Constitution which provides that 'The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code through out the territory of India.' The present case is yet another which focuses attention on the immediate and compulsive need for a uniform civil code. The totally unsatisfactory state of affairs consequent on the lack of a uniform civil code is exposed by the facts of the present case. Before mentioning the facts of the case, we might as well refer to the observations of Chandrachud, C.J., in the recent case decided by the Constitution Bench (Mohd Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum and Ors.)There is no evidence of any official activity for framing a common civil code for the country.... A common Civil Code will help the case of national integration by removing disparate loyalties to laws which have conflicting ideologies. No community is likely...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1263; 1985LabIC1500; 1985(1)SCALE1088; 1985Supp(1)SCC72; 1985(17)LC615(SC)
R.B. Misra, J.1. On account of the external aggression by Chinese forces on the Indian territory an emergency was imposed by the Government of India in 1962. In order to attract youngmen to join military service at that critical juncture the Central Government and the governments of the States issued different circulars and advertisements on radio and in the press promising certain benefits to be given to those youngmen who joined the military service. In view of the promises made through circulars the Punjab Government framed rules under Article 309 of the Constitution known as the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965, hereinafter called the Punjab Rules. These rules were adopted by the State of Haryana also. Rule 4 of the said rules, as it stood originally insofar as relevant for the purposes of the present petitions, read as follows :4. Increments, seniority and pension.-Period of military service shall count for increments, seniority and pension as under: (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1224; 1985CriLJ1479; 1985(2)Crimes465(SC); 1985(1)SCALE1120; 1985Supp(1)SCC79
A.P. Sen, J.1. These appeals by special leave are preferred by the State Government against the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dated May 25, 1973 acquitting the respondents Sukhbasi, Ram Sanehi and Ram Shanker of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and under Sections 449, 460 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for the commission of which the Civil & Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad by his judgment dated September 21, 1972 had sentenced them to death on the first count and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years under the remaining three counts. The learned Sessions Judge had also convicted the respondent Chhotelal under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 yean and the respondent Ashok Kumar under Section 120B of the Indian penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. These respondents have also been acquitted by the High Court for the commission of offences w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1102; 1985(1)SCALE1058; (1985)3SCC350; [1985]Supp1SCR718; 1986(1)LC408(SC)
1. These appeals by certificate are directed against the common judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated May 14, 1963. As the appeals raise common questions of fact and law they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The circumstances leading up to these appeals are as follows. One Lala Gurdin acquired considerable landed property in villages Patara, Mubarakpur Lata, Madanpur, Gosra and Jeora Nawabganj in Kanpur. He had no male issue. He died on December 10, 1861 leaving behind his widow Smt. Amrit Kuer and three daughters : Smt. Hazaro Kuer from his predeceased wife, and Smt. Mewa Kuer and Smt. Prago Kuer from Smt. Amrit Kuer. After the death of Gurdin his entire estate came into the hands of his widow, Smt. Amrit Kuer. Amrit Kuer also died on August 1, 1880. During her life time she made certain alienations but those alienations are not relevant in the present appeals. After her death the three daughters of Lala Gurdin succeeded to the estate It ft...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1985(1)SCALE1131; 1985Supp(1)SCC17; [1985]Supp1SCR644; 1985(2)WLN135
1. The present appeal on certificate raises two questions, namely (1) Whether the parties by mutual consent had agreed to appoint D.N. Gupta, Superintending Engineer and Town Planning Officer, Jaipur to ascertain the value of the disputed land as an appraiser or valuer and therefore the appraisement or valuation thereof by him in his Report (Exh. 5) dated February 21, 1956 at Rs. 35,826.50 p. should be treated as an admission under Section 20 of the Evidence Act, 1872, on the basis of which the plaintiff's claim for damages had to be decreed, and (2) Whether the plaintiff being deprived of property was, on general principles, entitled to payment of interest on the amount payable to him as the value of the property taken by the State Government.2. The facts bearing on the questions are briefly stated. In accordance with the terms of the registered deed of exchange executed by the parties on July 16, 1951, the appellant withdrew a suit for specific performance of an alleged contract agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1133; 1985(1)SCALE1148; 1985Supp(1)SCC189; [1985]Supp1SCR622
1. The petitioner, Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Thera, is not an intermeddler or busy body. He is a public-spirited citizen whose motives in filing this petition are to be admired even if his contentions may not merit acceptance. By this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, he challenges the validity of Explanation 1 to Section 77(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which gives a carte blanche to political parties to spend unlimited monies for the election of the candidates sponsored by them. In practice, insofar as our little knowledge of political affairs goes, sky is the limit for such expenditure : Some call it millions, some call it billions.2. The particular provision of the statute which is under consideration here, has a short, though significant history. A judgment of this Court led to its enactment. That judgment, to which one of us, Bhagwati J, was a party, was delivered on October 3, 1974 in Kanwar Lal Gupta v. Amar Nath ...
Tag this Judgment!