Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC63; 1987CriLJ321; 1986(3)Crimes654(SC); JT1986(1)SC849; 1986(2)SCALE837; (1986)4SCC762
1 This is a petition for a writ of hebeas corpus challenging the validity of the Order of detention passed by the Distt. Magistrate, Agra on 31st August 1986, directing that the petitioner be detained in the District Jail Agra under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. The Order of dentin was served on the petitioner on 31st August, 1980, alongwith the grounds of detention. The grounds of detention set out only one ground in the following terms:From the first information report which was been lodged by the informant/complainant Sri Anil Kumar Shukla S/o Bhola Nath Shukla, R/o Village Tikaura, Police Station Kishanpur District, Fathepur, it appears that on 24.6.1986 at about 9.30A.M. you alongwith your other companions, including Pappu Jain, Aklaish alias Raja Telang and others jointly committed the murder of the complainant's brother namely Atma Ram Shukla by firing at him in broad day light, near the clinic of Dr. Laxmi Naryana Gupta with the object of gett...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1140; 1986(3)Crimes573(SC); 1986(2)SCALE703; 1986Supp(1)SCC510; [1987]1SCR91
ORDERE.S. Venkataramiah and Sabyasachi Mukharji, J1. The Special leave was granted by this Court in this case in the presence of the learned Counsel for the respondents and after hearing his submissions. Today we are asked to revoke the leave already granted by us. We have considered the points urged before us in support of the application for revocation. We do not find any ground to revoke the special leave already granted by us. Shri Jethmalani learned Counsel for the respondents reiterates his request which he had made on the date on which the Special leave was granted, namely that this case should be referred to a Constitution Bench. Having regard to the various aspects of this case and the points which arise for consideration which we have recorded in the form of a note which forms part of this order, we agree with Shri Jethmalani that this case should be referred to a larger bench. We accordingly direct that this case should be listed for hearing before a bench of 7 Judges of thi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC27; JT1986(1)SC749; 1986(2)SCALE708; (1986)4SCC704; [1987]1SCR86; [1987]64STC1(SC); 1987(1)LC54(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, CJ. 1. This appeal by certificate raises a short question as to the constitutional validity of Section 29-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. This section, which was introduced in the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 by Section 17 of the U.P. Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1969, has been held to be constitutionally valid by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court on 13th July 1970. The appellants question the correctness of this view taken by the High Court.2. The appellants carry on business as dealers in coal and they are registered as such under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. Prior to 1st October 1965, there was no sales tax levied on sale of coal and for the first time on 1st October 1965, coal became a taxable commodity under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The appellants, proceeding on the footing that sales tax was payable by them on sale of coal from and after 1st October 1965, collected amounts by way of sales tax from the purchasers and submitted their returns for the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC61; 1987(11)ECC250; 1986LC545(SC); 1986(26)ELT881(SC); JT1986(1)SC791; 1986(2)SCALE737; (1987)1SCC25; [1987]1SCR82; 1987(1)LC19(SC)
ORDERM.P. Thakkar, J. 1. The question raised in this Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India as regards the determination of the market value of the goods manufactured by the petitioner company for the purposes of computation of the excise duty leviable on the same. The petitioners (manufacturers) are manufacturing electrical goods under a contract with another company known as the Bajaj Electricals Ltd. (here-after referred to as buyers). The agreement between the parties provides for the buyers having the right to reject the goods if the goods are not in accordance with the buyers' specifications or do not come up to the stipulated standard of quality. After the manufactured goods are tested, approved and accepted, by the buyers the manufacturers apply the label of the brand name of the buyers (in this case 'Bajaj') on the manufactured goods. The petitioners contend that the market value of the goods manufactured by the petitioners should be assessed at the price ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC55
1. This group of appeals by certificate under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution arises from a judgment rendered by the High Court of Madras in Writ Appeal No. 486 of 1971 and allied matters on October 4, 1971. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions Nos. 114, 115, 266 and 267 of 1970 by which the writ petitions were allowed and writ of mandamus was issued to the Assistant Iron and Steel Controller, the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and the Deputy Assistant Iron and Steel Controller to dispose of the applications made by the writ petitioners for an import licence on the basis of the import policy as it obtained in 1968-69. The Division Bench of the High Court confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid group of matters and dismissed the Writ Appeal No. 120 of 1971 arising from the aforesaid common judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeals giv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC287; 1987LabIC420; (1986)IILLJ516bSC; 1986(2)SCALE696; (1986)4SCC624; 1988(2)SLJ101(SC); 1987(1)LC293(SC)
S. Natarajan, J.1 This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in W.A. No. 493 of 1983 affirming the dismissal of W.P. No. 119 of 1983 filed by the appellant. In the said writ petition the appellant challenged an order dated 15.12.82 of the Government of Karnataka rejecting the statutory appeal preferred by him regarding the fixation of his seniority in the cadre of 'Labour Inspectors' with effect from 21.12.1967 on which date his services as a 'Local-candidate came to be regularised under the Karnataka Civil Services (Recruitment of Local Candidates to Class III posts) Rules, 1966 ('Regularisation Rules' for short). The appellant's grievance is that his seniority should have been reckoned from the date of his temporary appointment viz. 17.10.1960 and that too in a post equivalent to that of Assistant Inspector of Labour in the Madras State Service. The appellant, who appears to have been appearing in person in all his earlier cases, appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC17
B.C. Ray and; M.P. Thakkar, JJ.1. The present special leave petition is directed against the judgment rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in R.S.A. No. 775 of 1981. The dispute concerns title to 28-3/9 square yards on which the shops of the petitioner were constructed. The High Court while upholding the claim of the petitioner to the title to this land has made an observation to the effect that the land apart from the aforesaid 28-3/9 square yards underneath the shops belongs to the respondent. Says the High Court:“That the remaining area of Khasra No. 45 (new) vests in the Municipal Committee, Ahmedgarh and the defendant has no claim thereto as an obiter, since there was no issue in regard to this point.”2. This observation is in the nature of an obiter. Since there was no issue in regard to the title to the land other than 28-3/9 square yards, the apprehension entertained by the petitioner that it may cause prejudice to the petitioner is ill-founded. The ques...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1986(1)SC743; (1987)ILLJ115SC; 1986(2)SCALE690; (1986)4SCC617; [1987]1SCR72; 1987(1)SLJ128(SC); 1987(1)LC273(SC)
B.C. RAY, J. 1. These two appeals by special leave one by the Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and the other by Gurdial Singh and others who were defendant-Respondents 3,4,6 and 7 in Civil Suit No. 293T/16-1-181/17-7-80 passed in RSA No. 254/38 whereby the judgments and the decrees of the courts below were affirmed decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's suit declaring that the plaintiff-respondent be deemed to have been promoted from the date when his juniors as mentioned in the suit were promoted to the posts of Line Superintendents. 2. The case of the plaintiff in short is that the plaintiff-respondent Ravinder Kumar Sharma joined the service under Respondent 1, Punjab State Electricity Board as a Lineman on December 25, 1969 and he worked as apprentice Lineman from December 29, 1969 to December 28, 1970 on a fixed salary of Rs 140 per month. Thereafter he was allowed regular scale of pay of Rs 110-330 since the date of his joining as a Lineman. The terms and conditions of the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC13
R.S. Pathak and; V. Khalid, JJ.1. On August 6, 1986, this Court made an order in a pending special leave petition restraining the respondents for a period of 24 hours from taking further proceedings for the demolition of the property belonging to the petitioner. This was followed the next day by another order restraining the respondents from demolition of the construction belonging to the petitioner until further orders and from dispossessing him. The petitioner was permitted to make an application to the authorities for the return of the goods seized from his possession and the authorities were directed to consider the application on its merits.2. On August 12, 1986, this application for initiating proceedings against the respondents for contempt of court was filed, alleging that the respondents had violated the orders of this Court. It was urged that although copies of the stay orders were shown to the officials of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, including the respondents, who we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC68; 1986(2)SCALE679; (1986)4SCC510; [1987]1SCR68; 1987(1)LC20(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. Respondents 5 to 7-Aji Ram, Tota Ram and Hari Chand are sons of one Kesaria. The suit land belonged jointly to Respondents 5 to 7. They sold it to Respondents 1 to 4- Nathi Mal Kejriwal, Radhey Shayam Kejriwal, Smt. Daropdi Devi and Nagar Mal Kejriwal, who were strangers to their family for a consideration of Rs. 33,000 under a sale deed registered on 25.10.1971. The petitioners, who claimed themselves to be the sons and nephews of the vendors, instituted a suit in Civil Suit No. 466 of 1972 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Ist Class, Palwal for possession of the suit land on payment of Rs. 33,000 claiming that they were entitled to the right of pre-emption in respect of the suit land either under Clause 'First' or 'Secondly' of Section 15(1)(a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as in force in the State of Haryana or under Clause 'First' or 'Secondly' of Section 15(l)(b) of the Act. The learned Sub-Judge upheld the plea of ...
Tag this Judgment!