Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC700; JT1987(1)SC17; 1986(2)SCALE1230; 1986Supp(1)SCC677; 1987(1)WLN30
P.N. Bhagwati, CJ. 1. These writ petitions have become infructuous since the students for the enforcement of whose fundamental right under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution these writ petitions have been filed have already completed their studies in the college and there is no longer any question of their being required compulsorily to pay the subscription for membership of the Rajasthan Uuniversity Students Council. We do not therefore propose to go into the interesting question whether the freedom of association under Article 19(1)(c) also includes within it freedom not to join an association or union. That question may have to be considered at some future point of time. We would therefore make no order on these writ petitions....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC668; (1987)89BOMLR119; JT1987(1)SC40; 1986(2)SCALE1229; 1986Supp(1)SCC683; [1987]1SCR867; 1987(1)LC86(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, CJ.1. The only question which arises in these appeals is whether Sub-section l(b) of Section 88B is unconstitutional and void as offending Article 26 of the Constitution. The constitutional validity of Sub-section l(b) of Section 88B is assailed on the ground that by reason of condition (i) in the proviso to this Sub-section, Sections 32 to 32 R of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tenancy Act') are made applicable to lands which are the properties of a Trust for an institution for public religious worship, if such Trust is not registered or deemed to be registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and the applicability of Sections 32 to 32R of the Tenancy Act to such lands contravenes the right of the institution to own and acquire moveable and immovable property under Article 26 of the Constitution. The High Court negatived this challenge urged on behalf of the petitioners. We are also of the view that this challe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC579; JT1987(1)SC70; 1986(2)SCALE1174; (1987)1SCC378; [1987]1SCR798
P.N. Bhagwati, CJ. 1. These petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution raise a short question of great constitutional importance relating to the power of the Governor under Article 213 of the Constitution to re-promulgate ordinances from time to time without getting them replaced by Acts of the Legislature. The question is, can the Governor go on re-romulgating ordinances for an indefinite period of time and thus take over to himself the power of the Legislature to legislate though that power is conferred on him under Article 213 only for the purpose of enabling him to take immediate action at a time when the legislative assembly of the State is not in session or when in a case where there is a legislative council in the State, both Houses of Legislature are not in session. The facts giving rise to these writ petitions are disturbing and we may briefly state them as follows: These writ petitions have been filed by four petitioners challenging the validity of the practice of the Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC877; 1987CriLJ793; JT1986(1)SC832; 1986(2)SCALE1099; (1987)1SCC288; [1987]1SCR702
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 1982 From the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.81 of the Patna High Court in Crl. Revision No. 874/81. Dr. L.M. Singhvi, S.K. Sinha, S.K. Verma, A.M. Singhvi, S. Singh, C. Mukhopadhya and R. Tyagi for the Appellants. Dr. Y.S. Chitale, F.S. Nanman, S.N. Kacker, Rajinder Singh, D. Goburdhan, D. Chandrachud, L.R. Singh, Gopal Singh, M.P. Jha, R.K. Jain, Ranjit Kumar and B.P. Singh for the Respondents. The following Judgments were delivered: BHAGWATI, CJ. This case has had a chequered history and it is necessary to state the facts in some detail in order to appreciate the questions which arise for determination before us. The principal actor in the drama in this case is Dr. Jagannath Misra, one time Chief Minister of the State of Bihar. The main controversy around-which all questions revolve is whether the prosecution launched against Dr. Jagannath Misra at a time when he was not in power has been rightly allowed to be withdrawn by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC701; 1987(11)ECC270; 1987(27)ELT553(SC); JT1987(1)SC41; 1986(2)SCALE1239; 1986Supp(1)SCC751; [1987]1SCR846
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3195 of 1979 etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 20th June, 1979 of the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal No. 302 of 1978. F.S. Nariman, M. Chandrasekharan, K.R. Nambiar, C.V. Subba Rao, Ms. A. Subhashini, A.K. Ganguli, Mrs. R. Rangas- wamy, Hemant Sharma, K. Swamy and Ms. S. Relan for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI CJ. 1. The above cases are involving a company known as Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. (popularly known as MRF Ltd.) MRE has four factories; Kottayam (Kerala), Madras (Tamil Nadu), Arkonam (Tamil Nadu) and Goa (Union Territory) engaged in the manufacture of automotive tyres, tubes and other rubber factory products. Each of these factories are under juris- diction of different Assistant Collectors. The four proceed- ings arising for our consideration are as under: (i) Civil Appeal No. 3195 of 1979 is an appeal by certifi- cate filed by the Union of India through the Assistant Collector o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(1987)ACC157; AIR1987SC1086; (1987)1CompLJ99(SC); JT1987(1)SC1; 1986(2)SCALE1188; (1987)1SCC395; 1986Supp(1)SCC562; [1987]1SCR819
P.N. Bhagwati, CJ.1. This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has come before us on a reference made by a Bench of three Judges. The reference was made because certain questions of seminal importance and high constitutional significance were raised in the course of arguments when the writ petition was originally heard. The facts giving rise to the writ petition and the subsequent events have been set out in some detail in the Judgment given by the Bench of three Judges on 17th February 1986, and it is therefore not necessary to reiterate the same. Suffice it to state that the Bench of three Judges permitted Shriram Foods and Fertiliser Industries (hereinafter referred to as Shriram) to restart its power plant as also plants for manufacture of caustic chlorine including its by-products and recovery plants like soap, glycerine and technical hard oil, subject to the conditions set out in the Judgment. That would have ordinarily put an end to the main controversy raised in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1987)ILLJ221SC; 1986(2)SCALE1168; (1987)1SCC362; [1987]1SCR879; 1987(1)LC279(SC)
P.N. BHAGWATI, C.J.1. These writ petitions challenge the constitutional validity of clause (5) of Article 371-D of the Constitution. Though originally when the writ petitions were filed, the constitutional validity of clause (3) of Article 371-D was also assailed, this challenge was not pressed on behalf of the petitioners and the arguments were confined only to the challenge against the constitutional validity of clause (5) of that article. But in order to understand the true scope and ambit of the controversy raised before us in regard to the constitutional validity of clause (5), it is necessary for us to refer also to the provision enacted in clause (3) of Article 371-D. Clauses (3) and (5) of Article 371-D reads as follows:“(3) The President may, by order, provide for the constitution of an Administrative Tribunal for the State of Andhra Pradesh to exercise such jurisdiction, powers and authority [including any jurisdiction, power and authority which immediately before the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC656; JT1987(1)SC58; 1986(2)SCALE1234; (1987)3SCC50; [1987]1SCR870; 1987(1)UJ516(SC)
Leave granted.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.This Appeal is against an Order dated 27th July, 2000.Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The Appellant had imported into India, from Singapore, a consignment of bearings. The said consignment landed at the Port of Calcutta on 13th July, 1989. The Appellant submitted a Bill of Entry for home consumption for clearance of the said goods. The said goods were assessed by the Customs and valued at Rs. 1,24,691/-. However, on 1st August, 1989 before the goods could be cleared by the Appellant the Customs Authorities passed a seizure order under Section 110 of the Customs Act. The Appellant then filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Calcutta. To this Writ Petition the 1st Respondent was not a party.On 27th September, 1989 an interim order was passed, whereunder the Appellant was permitted to clear the goods on payment of duty as assessed on the basis of the CIF value as appearing in the invoice. However, the Appellant had to fur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC660; 1987CriLJ530; 1987(1)Crimes207(SC); JT1987(1)SC36; 1986(2)SCALE1206; 1986Supp(1)SCC646
V. Khalid, J.1. The petitioners in these cases are accused in a murder case registered as FIR No. 162 dated 5th September, 1983, The matter is now pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ludhiana, for committal proceedings.2. Transfer Petition No. 16 of 1986 and Special Leave Petition 491 of 1986 are by D Section 4 Bhatti, Commandant, 7th Battalion, Punjab Armed Police, Jalandhar Cantonment, Punjab, the first accused in the case. Transfer Petition No. 91 of 1986 is by six other accused, two of whom are Sub Inspectors and two Head Constables. These persons along with 9 others are accused of murder on 13-8-1983, of Dalip Singh and three others.3. The petitioners have directly come to this Court with these transfer petitions without approaching either the Sessions Judge or the High Court. The reason why they have done so is given in the transfer petition filed by D. Section 4 Bhatti. It has been stated in the petition that a volatile situation exists in Punjab and that he is th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1986)88BOMLR704; JT1987(1)SC63; 1986(2)SCALE1231; 1986Supp(1)SCC686; [1987]1SCR892; 1987(1)LC265(SC)
G.L. OZA, J.1. These two appeals were heard by us and by our order dated March 10, 1986 we maintained the judgment of the High Court and dismissed both the appeals, by this order we modified the order for compensation which was passed by the High Court. Our reasons for the same are: The necessary facts for the disposal of these appeals are that the appellant in one of the appeals before this Court who was the third petitioner before the High Court is a private limited company incorporated for the purposes of carrying among others the business of exporting frozen meat of buffaloes, sheep and goats. The Al Kabeer Exports Pvt. Ltd. alongwith other two took initiative in the business and obtained an import licence, a project being 100% export-oriented. The licence they obtained stipulated the entire production of the plant to be exported for 10 years and the construction and the operation of the project were to be according to the standards of hygiene prevailing in the European Economic Co...
Tag this Judgment!