Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC316; 1986CriLJ313; 1985(2)Crimes860(SC); 1985(2)SCALE664; 1985Supp(1)SCC471; 1985(17)LC1047(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. The four appellants were put on trial for offences punishable Under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution alleged that they alongwith one Piara Singh, since murdered, had collected themselves fully armed near a culvert on the Ludhiana-Ahmedgarh road at about I.P.M. on April 16, 1971. The complainant's group was returning from Ludhiana in a jeep driven by PW.10 after purchasing a tyre and a tube for Bachan Singh's truck. Bachan Singh was sitting on the back side of the jeep and in front of him was sitting one Malkiat Singh, PW.9. Gurbachan Singh, PW. 11 was sitting next to him. As the jeep approached the culvert on the way, Amrik Singh started firing from his gun. Then followed indiscriminate firing by the other appellants as a result of which Bachan Singh received fatal injuries. Gurbachan Singh also received a gunshot injury on his right arm and fortunately for the driver he was hit on his turban and was, therefore, not injured. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC244; 1985(2)SCALE795; (1985)4SCC221; [1986]1SCR74; [1985]Supp2SCR859; 1985(17)LC978(SC)
1. The constitutional validity of Section 1(3) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 has been challenged in these writ petitions. This question which is common to all the writ petitions is the only question which arises for consideration and these writ petitions are accordingly being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The question has been urged as a pure question of law. In that view of the matter it does not become necessary to refer the facts of any of the writ petitions.3. Section 1(3) as originally enacted in the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the Act) was in the following terms:Nothing in this Act shall apply to(i) any residential building the construction of which is completed on or after the commencement of this Act for a period of ten years from the date of its completion; (ii) any non-residential building construction of which is completed after the 31st March, 1962(iii) an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC307; 1985CriLJ1901; 1985(2)Crimes729(SC); 1985(2)SCALE786; (1985)4SCC234; [1985]Supp2SCR854
ORDER1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court reversing the acquittal of the appellant. The appellant was tried for offences punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of Act. No. 2 of 1947, on the allegation of having received Rs. 50 as bribe.2. The appellant was a police constable and at the relevant time, on 29.11.73, he was posted at S.T. Bus Stand at Bhaber. PW 1, the informant was plying a taxi and was in the habit of parking the taxi by the side of the bus stand where such parking was prohibited. It is the prosecution case that PW 1 used by pay Rs. 5 per month to the appellant as a consideration for not prosecuting him for such illegal parking. It is the further case of the prosecution that a few days before 29.11.73, the appellant told the informant that he should pay him (appellant) a sum of Rs. 60 representing the payment for a whole year @ Rs. 5 per month, as he was in nee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC240; 1985(2)SCALE1391; (1985)4SCC322; 1986(1)LC64(SC)
1. The petitioner was a sitting Judge of the Patna High Court when he became the Chairman of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad. He attained the age of 62 on 1.2.80 and ceased to be a Judge of the High Court but continued to be the Chairman of the said Tribunal until 30.11.81, when on grounds of health, he resigned. Under the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, as amended in 1976, the petitioner was found entitled to gratuity of Rs. 18,666.67 and after adjusting certain loans to be recovered, he was actually paid a sum of Rs. 7,302.02 as retirement gratuity, calculated on the basis of Section 17A(3)(I) of the said Act. On 14.12.78, the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs laid down the terms and conditions of service of the Chairman and the members of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Annexure B to the counter affidavit filed in this Court indicates those terms so far as the Chairman is concerned. The prescription therein w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC315; 1986CriLJ312; 1985(2)Crimes728(SC); 1985(2)SCALE486; (1985)4SCC232; 1985(17)LC1045(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. This application under Article 32 of the Constitution is directed against the order of detention of the petitioner Under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The order is dated September 16, 1984, and was made at a time when the petitioner had already been in Mainpuri Jail as an under trial prisoner in connection with certain pending criminal s. The grounds of detention were served on the petitioner along with the order of detention. Petitioner asked for certain papers with a view to making an effective representation but when the request was rejected, the petitioner made a representation. The Board did not accept the petitioner's plea. The petitioner's detention was confirmed by the State Government. Thereupon the writ petition has been filed.2. A return has been made to the rule nisi and the detaining authority has justified his order. It may be pointed out that the petitioner had '. been detained under the same provision by an earlier order dated De...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC555; [1986(52)FLR62]; 1986LabIC1; (1986)ILLJ36SC; 1985(2)SCALE488; (1985)4SCC252; [1985]Supp2SCR791; 1986(1)SLJ1(SC)
ORDERWhereas a large number of employees of the Cabinet Secretariat (R & AW) located at Delhi have for some time past been indulging in various acts of misconduct, indiscipline, intimidation and insubordination, such as abstaining from work, wilful neglect of the duties assigned to them and disobedience of lawful instructions and orders of the official superiors; and whereas the said employees are also regularly holding meetings and demonstrations unauthorisedly and in violation of specific orders, within the office premises and its precincts; and whereas the said employees have resorted to coercion, intimidation and incitement of other fellow employees which has a serious demoralizing effect on the members of the organization, and whereas such conduct of the said employees is unbecoming of a Government servant and is in gross violation of the Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964; and whereas Shri Satyavir Singh, Field Assistant, is one of the said employees actively participati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1985]156ITR489(SC); 1986Supp(1)SCC484
1. There is no substance in this appeal which has been preferred by the assessee against the decision of the High Court rendered on January 16 1973, in Income-tax Reference No. 44 of 1971, whereby the High Court took the view that the Tribunal was not justified in law in directing the Income-tax Officer first to allow the development rebate under the rules and subsequently withdraw it under Section 35(11) of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 (hereafter referred to as ' the Act ').2. The short facts giving rise to this appeal are that for the assessment year 1958-59 in respect whereof the accounting year ended on March 31 1958, the assessment was first completed by the ITO on July 16, 1960, and while making such assessment, development rebate at the prescribed rate was allowed in favour of the assessee in respect of seven buses which had been purchased by the assessee before December 31, 1957, and had been used by the assessee in its business during the accounting period. It appears that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1754; (1985)3CompLJ239(SC); 1985(2)SCALE789; (1985)4SCC173; [1985]Supp2SCR780; [1985]60STC301(SC); 1986(1)LC77(SC)
1. The first petitioner, M/s. Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'), is a public limited company having its registered office and factory at Hyderabad. The second petitioner, Shri Bhupendra Singh Sahney, is a Director and shareholder of that Company. The company has branches at Amritsar, Bangalore, Bombay, Calcutta, Coimbatore and Delhi. The registered office of the Company at Hyderabad is registered as a dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act as well as under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of stampings and laminations made out of steel sheets which are utilised as raw material for making electric motors, transformers and similar goods. The branches of the company are mainly engaged in effecting sales and looking after the sales promotion and liaison work. The Company manufactures (a) standard goods according to the company's own designs and specifications, (b) non-standard goods acco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC132; [1985(51)FLR494]; 1985LabIC1733; (1986)ILLJ127SC; 1985(2)SCALE607; (1985)4SCC201; [1985]Supp2SCR842; 1985(2)SLJ457(SC); 1986(1)LC324(SC)
1. The appellant was a Tikka Mazdoor with the first respondent, the Reserve Bank of India. A Tikka mazdoor is a person who helps the Examiners of Coins/notes. He was so selected on daily wages of Rs. 3 as per appointment letter dated 30.4.1974. As per the appointment order he used to report to the bank regularly at 9.30 A.M. to ascertain whether he could get work on every-day. On days when no work was given to him he had to wait till noon to be told by the authorities concerned that no work was available on such days. Thus he was given work only for four days in 1974, One Hundred and Fifty Four days in 1975 and One Hundred and Five days in 1976. At the time he was selected for employment, he was not a matriculate. He passed the matriculate examination in 1975. At the time he was selected he was not told that his name would be struck off the list of Tikka Mazdoors if he passed the matriculate examination. On 23.7.1976, he received a letter from the bank asking him to state within a week...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1986Supp(1)SCC672
P.N. Bhagwati and; R.S. Pathak, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. It was not disputed before us that there is a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate in the post of District Judge. But the main argument which prevailed in the High Court in rejecting the writ petition of the appellant was that she was not within the first 14 candidates selected by the High Court and recommended to the State Government for appointment. However it cannot be disputed that if the appellant was a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste, she would have been entitled to be considered for appointment to fill up the vacancy reserved for Scheduled Caste because she was admittedly first amongst Scheduled Caste candidates and merely because she was not in the first 14 candidates selected for appointment would be no ground for rejecting her claim to be considered for appointment.3. We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and remand the writ petition to the High Court for determination of th...
Tag this Judgment!