Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC702; 1986(34)BLJR226; 1986CriLJ801; 1986(1)Crimes448(SC); 1986(1)SCALE132; (1986)2SCC93; [1986]1SCR199; 1986(1)LC747(SC)
B.C. Ray, J.1. This appeal on special leave is directed against the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 4.8.1972 in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1971 whereby the appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentences passed by the Court of Sessions, east Thanjavur Division at Nagapattinam against the accused Nos. 1, 2, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19 and 20 were confirmed.2. The prosecution case is as follows:All the accused appellants are residents of various villages within Keevalur Police Station. The first accused is the leader of the Left Communist Party and also of the Harijan Kisans of five neighboring villages. Accused Nos. 17 and 18 are the leaders of the Left Communist Party at Keezha Venmani village. There were serious differences between the Mirasdars and the Harijan labourers regarding the fixation of wages for harvest. These troubles started in 1967 and the Kisans have been agitating for higher wages by taking processions and convening meetings. There was a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC717; 1986(1)SCALE119; (1986)2SCC121; [1986]1SCR177; 1986(1)LC614(SC)
R.B. Misra, J.1. The present appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Simla dated 11th October, 1984 declaring the election of the appellant as void under Section 100(1)(b) of the Representation of People Act 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. Pursuant to a Notification dated 17th of April, 1982 under Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act calling upon all the assembly constituencies in the State to elect members of the Legislative Assembly in accordance with the Act and the rules framed therein, a number of persons filed their nomination papers from 46 Nagrota Constituency. After scrutiny there remained only 4 contestants in the field. The appellant Shri Ram Chand Bhatia was sponsored by Bhartiya Janata Party, Shri Hardyal the respondent was the official nominee of Congress (I) Party, Shri Kanshi Ram was a Janata Party candidate and Shri Vidhi Chand was the official nominee of the Communis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1152; (1986)51CTR(SC)104; 1986LC28(SC); [1986]158ITR313(SC); 1986(1)SCALE137; (1986)2SCC1; [1986]1SCR164; 1986(2)LC169(SC)
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. This appeal raises the question of granting registration to the appellant-firm (the assessee) under Section 26-A of the Income Tax Act, 1922 for the Assessment Year 1961-62. The taxing authorities, the Tribunal and the High Court have refused registration sought by the appellant-firm and hence this appeal.2. Prior to the Assessment Year 1961-62 the appellant-firm was a partnership concern consisting of two partners, Shri Pal Singh and Shri Sadhu Singh, each having 50% share in the profits and losses of the firm and it was being granted registration. It appears that the two partners met with an accident on 19.10.1958 in which Shri Pal Singh suffered a serious head injury and lost his memory for quite some time while Shri Sadhu Singh suffered an injury to the spinal cord which rendered him invalid for quite a long time and the case put forward was that as the business was on extensive scale and the two partners were physically handicapped (they recovered during the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1986)1SCC733; 1986(1)LC595(SC)
E.S. VENKATARAMIAH. J.— 1. In view of the judgment delivered by us today in Civil Appeals Nos. 2808-18, 4166-70, 4183 of 1985 and 263-343 of 1986 — Om Parkash Agarwal v. Giri Raj Kishori1 there is no need to pass any separate order in this writ petition. It is disposed of accordingly. No costs. 1 (1986) 1 SCC 722...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1707; [1987]164ITR376(SC); 1986(1)SCALE110; (1986)1SCC722; [1986]1SCR149; 1986(1)LC394(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The appellants in the above appeals are dealers in agricultural produce carrying on business in certain notified market areas set up under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 in the State of Haryana. They have questioned in these appeals the constitutional validity of the Haryana Rural Development Fund Act, 1983 (Haryana Act No. 12 of 1983) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The Act received the assent of the Governor of Haryana on the 28th September, 1983 and was published in the State Gazette under the Notification dated September 30, 1983. The Act came into force on its publication. Section 3 of the Act provides that with effect from such date as the State Government may by notification appoint in that behalf, there shall be levied on the dealer for the purposes of the Act, a cess, on ad valorem basis at the rate of one per centum of the sale proceeds of agricultural produce bought or Sold or brought for processing in the notified marke...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC597; 1986(34)BLJR415; [1986(52)FLR332]; (1986)ILLJ311SC; 1989(1)SCALE107; (1986)1SCC671; 1986(1)LC331(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. Dr. Keshav Ram Pal, a Ph. D. and a D. Litt. in Sanskrit, who has been teaching degree and post-graduate classes for the last 26 years, who has worked as Reader and Head of the Department of Sanskrit from August 1971 onwards and who has further acted as Principal of the Lajpat Rai Post-Graduate College, Sahibabad for two years in 1972-73 and again from July 3, 1984, applied to the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission for the post of Principal, in response to an advertisement inviting applications for eight such posts. He was one of the 60 candidates, who was interviewed by the Commission but he was not selected. He has filed the present application under Article 32 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ questioning the selection made by the Commission on two grounds. The first ground was that the Commission was biased as he belonged to an inferior caste, namely, the Gadarjya (Shephered) caste whereas the gentleman, who constituted the interviewing Boa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC789; 1986(1)SCALE100; (1986)1SCC685; 1986(1)LC380(SC)
ORDERO. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The right to excavate sand from Zone No. 1 of river Yamuna was auctioned by the Collector, Allahabad on November 13, 1981. The period for which the mining lease was to be granted was one year and in the alternative for three years. Bidders were required to offer bids for grant of lease for both the periods in the alternative, The 4th and 5th respondents offered a bid of Rs. 1,10,000/- per year and were the highest bidders. The State Government did not accept the bid. There was consequent litigation. The matter came to the Supreme Court and the court gave a direction that the respondents might approach the Central Government in revision. The respondents went before the Central Government in revision. Meanwhile, as the litigation appeared to be prolonged, by way of an interim arrangement, the State Government directed an auction to be held for a period of one year only. This auction was held on March 8, 1982. Once again the 5th respondent was the highest bid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC706; 1986(1)SCALE102; (1986)1SCC687; 1986(1)LC362(SC)
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. The appellant-landlady filed a petition against the respondent-tenant under Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 Act No. III of 1949 (for short the Act) as applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh seeking his eviction on the ground that she required for her own occupation the first floor of House No. 112, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh which had been let out by her deceased husband to the respondent for residential purposes at a monthly rent of Rs. 550/- under a rent note dated 14.8.1975. The accommodation consists of two bed rooms, one living room, dining room and a kitchen in addition to dressing, bath and lounge.2. It appears that the said premises were let out by the appellant's husband to the respondent as he, after retiring as a Vice-Chancellor of the Punjab University in 1974, had shifted to and taken up rented premises in Defence Colony at Delhi when he was appointed the Chairman of the DAY Managing Committee at Delhi. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC593a; 1986(34)BLJR231; 1986CriLJ551; 1986(1)Crimes599(SC); 1986(1)SCALE95; (1986)1SCC693
V. Khalid, J.1. Palanisamy and Raju, second and third accused respectively in Sessions Case No. 36 of 1981 in the Court of Sessions of Periyar Division at Erode are the appellants before us. They were tried along with Subramaniam, who was the first accused, for offences punishable under Sections 436 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge convicted all the three accused for the above offences and sentenced them to death for the offence of murder and to rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence under Section 436. All the three accused preferred appeals before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, as Cr. appeals Nos. 89, 90, 91 of 1982. The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the first accused and set aside the conviction and sentence against him while the appeals filed by the second and third accused were dismissed. This appeal, by ,' special leave, is directed against the common Judgment passed by the High Court confirming the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC737; [1986(52)FLR219]; 1986LabIC686; (1986)ILLJ290SC; 1986(1)SCALE88; (1986)1SCC675; [1986]1SCR136; 1986(1)LC346(SC)
V. Khalid, J.1. This appeal by Special Leave is directed against the Judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on 7.12.1981, setting aside, in appeal, the Judgment of a learned Single Judge. The Union of India and its Officers are the appellants. The facts in brief, necessary to understand the dispute involved in the case are as follows: The respondent joined the post of Stores Officer in the Department of the Zoological Survey of India on July 30, 1975. He was placed on probation for two years. Before the expiry of the period of probation of two years he received a Memo dated July 25, 1977, from the Senior Administrative Officer, Zoological Survey of India, informing him that the Government had decided to extend his period of probation as Stores Officer by one year more from July 30, 1977. On July 27, 1978, the Dy. Secretary of the Government of India communicated to him an Order of the President of India by which he was informed that the President had terminate...
Tag this Judgment!