Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1912; (1987)1GLR239; 1988(1)SCALE566; (1986)3SCC301; [1986]2SCR447; 1986(2)LC346(SC)
A.P. Sen, J.1. This appeal on certificate is directed against the judgment and decree of the Gujarat High Court dated February 1, 1971 reversing those of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Surendranagar dated January 31, 1961, and decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for specific performance.2. Put very shortly, the essential facts are these. By an agreement in writing (Exh.26) dated October 19, 1949, the appellant who was the defendant entered into an agreement to purchase two plots of land admeasuring 491 and 1599 square yards situate in Village Dudheraj recorded as Girasdari agricultural land of which he was the tenant @ Rs. 2.50 per square yard from the Girasdar, Rana Mohabat Singh and paid Rs. 1,001 by way of earnest money in lieu thereof. The agreement stipulated that the vendor Rana Mohabat Singh was to apply for permission from the Collector to convert this agricultural land into village site i.e. for non-agricultural use. The sale-deed was to be executed by Rana Mohabat Singh after h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1645; 1986(1)SCALE1033; (1986)2SCC554; [1986]2SCR461; 1986(2)LC452(SC)
R.B. Misra, J.1. The only question for consideration in this appeal by special leave is whether the deposit of arrears of rent under Section 7C of the United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 will save the tenant from the penalty of being evicted for non-payment of rent. 2. The appellant is a tenant of the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 6.25 per mensem. He fell into arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 318.75 for the period from 1st October, 1959 to 31st December, 1963. The tenant did not pay the aforesaid amount in spite of the verbal demand. Consequently, the landlord served upon the tenant a notice of demand. The tenant, however, failed to comply with the said notice, hence he became a defaulter. The landlord thereafter served another notice on the tenant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The tenant, however, neither vacated the premises nor cleared the arrears of rent. The landlord was, therefore, obliged to file a suit. He, however, cla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1202; 1986(1)SCALE627; (1986)3SCC334; 1986(2)LC368(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. Mohini Sugar Mills Limited is one of the Thapar Group of Companies. In the days when the Managing Agency System prevailed, Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Private Limited were the Managing agents of Mohini Sugar Mills Limited. The Managing Director of Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Private Limited is Karam Chand Thapar. On January 1, 1984 A.B. Gujral was appointed as an Assistant in the office of Mohini Sugar Mills Limited by Karam Chand Thapar, for and on behalf . of Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Private Limited, for Mohini Sugar Mills Limited. A memorandum of agreement, was signed by A.B. Gujral and Karam Chand Thapar on behalf of Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Private Limited who were the Managing agents of Mohini Sugar Mills Limited. The agreement stipulated that the Assistant would be employed at any of the offices of the company, wherever situate, as the company or its Managing Director might specify from time to time. It was stipulated that the Assistant would b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC825; 1986(1)SCALE1099; (1986)2SCC594; [1986]2SCR409; 1986(2)LC371(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. This case has made political history, but those concerned for the Rule of Law must remain unmindful and unruffled by the ripples caused by it. The legality of the action of the Government of the State of Karnataka in awarding contracts for 'bottling' arrack to the appellants and others was questioned in the High Court of Karnataka and the order of the State Government was struck down on the ground that it was 'unlawful', 'arbitrary', 'capricious', 'in flagrant violation of the rule of law' and as 'shocking the judicial conscience'. Some of the persons, to whom the bottling contracts had been awarded by the Government, have preferred these appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution. 2. By general concurrence of opinion since days of yore, manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor has always been considered to be a dangerous and obnoxious trade requiring the strictest vigilance and supervision and even prohibition. It is now firmly established that the Gover...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC833; (1986)2CompLJ1(SC); 1986CriLJ917; 1986(2)Crimes1(SC); 1986(1)SCALE859; (1986)3SCC67; [1986]2SCR388
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. This is a petition for special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution from the judgment and order dated 8th February, 1985 of the High Court of Delhi. We grant special leave and dispose of this appeal as hereunder.2. By the judgment and the order impugned, High Court of Delhi under Section 482 of the CrPC, has quashed the complaint as also the summoning order at the instance of the petitioners and the complaint was dismissed.3. Three petitions arose out of a complaint under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the 'Act') which had been made by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Shri J.P. Sharma of which the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi took cognizance and issued summons against the accused persons. The prosecution had been lodged against Arun Kumar, Ramniklal Mehta, Harshad, M/s. Arun Kumar & Co. a partnership concern of the aforesaid pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1571; (1986)3CompLJ1(SC); 1986LabIC1312; (1986)IILLJ171SC; 1986(1)SCALE799; (1986)3SCC156; [1986]2SCR278; 1986(2)SLJ320(SC)
D.P. Madon, J.1. These Appeals by Special Leave granted by this Court raise two questions of considerable importance to Government companies and their employees including their officers. These questions are: 1) Whether a Government company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, is 'the State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution? 2) Whether an unconscionable term in a contract of employment is void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as being opposed to public policy and, when such a term is contained in a contract of employment entered into with a Government company, is also void as infringing Article 14 of the Constitution in case a Government company is 'the State' under Article 12 of the Constitution? 2. Although the record of these Appeals is voluminous, the salient facts lie within a narrow compass. The First Appellant in both these Appeals, namely, the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to in sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1362; (1986)88BOMLR251; JT1986(1)SC501; 1986(1)SCALE967; (1986)2SCC534; [1986]2SCR230; 1986(2)LC434(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. This appeal by special. leave arises from a writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court of Bombay challenging the validity of Rule B(2) of the Rules framed by the State Government on 21st December 1984 for admission to the M.B.B.S. course. The validity of this Rule has been assailed on the ground that it offends Article 14 of the Constitution. The challenge has been negatived by the High Court but the appellant contends in this appeal that the decision of the High Court is erroneous and Rule B(2) must be struck down as unconstitutional and void.2. The qualification required for admission to the MBBS course in the State of Maharashtra is the passing of 12th standard examination held by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education. The teaching in the first ten standards is carried on in schools while in the 11th and 12th standards the teaching is done at some places in schools and at others in colleges. The schools and colleges...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1455; (1987)1GLR70; 1986LabIC1454; 1986(1)SCALE1374; 1986Supp(1)SCC239; [1986]2SCR250
D.P. Madon, J.1. On January 26, 1950, when the Constitution of India came into force, under Article 1 read with the First Schedule to the Constitution, India became a Union of States consisting of nine Part A States, nine Part B States and ten Part C States. Under Article 3, Parliament has the power by law to form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State; increase the area of any State; diminish the area of any State; alter the boundaries of any State; or alter the name of any State. By reason of repeated reorganizations of States, the Union of India today consists of twenty-two States and nine Union territories and it is difficult to visualize when this process of fragmentation of India will end and the practice of sacrificing the sense of oneness in being an Indian on the alter of parochial and linguistic chauvinism will stop. These reorganizations have resulted in bene...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987(13)ECC31; 1987(31)ELT865(SC); 1986(1)SCALE533; (1986)2SCC552
R.S. Pathak, J.1. Admittedly the facts in this case correspond to those giving rise to The Union Carbide India Limited v. Union of India and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1103 of 1972) and the issues raised in this appeal are identical with those arising in that appeal. The only difference is that the complaint in the writ petition filed by the present appellant in the High Court was that the revision petition filed by it before the revising authority was disposed of summarily by an order which did not disclose any reasons on the face of it, and it was urged that the revising authority was bound to have given its reasons for the order dismissing the revision petition. The grievance found favour with the learned Single Judge, and he allowed the writ petition quashing the order of the revising authority. He directed it to rehear the revision. He did not enter into the controversy between the patties on its merits. Aggrieved by his failure to consider the case on its merits the appellant preferr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1097; 1986(8)ECC185; 1986(24)ELT169(SC); [1987]165ITR1(SC); JT1986(1)SC453; 1986(1)SCALE530; (1986)2SCC547; [1986]2SCR162; [1987]64STC444(SC); 1986(2)LC449(SC)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Allahabad raises the question whether the manufacture of aluminium cans or torch bodies is liable to excise duty under Entry 27(e) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 2. The appellant, The Union Carbide India Limited, is a public limited company and carries on the business of the manufacture and sale of flashlights (torches), dry cell batteries, chemicals and plastics. The flashlights are manufactured by one of its Divisions, the Eveready Flashlight Company, Lucknow. The appellant purchases aluminium slugs from the manufacturers of aluminium in India and produces aluminium cans or torch bodies at its factory by a process of extrusion. Before March 1, 1970 aluminium cans were subjected to basic excise duty at 20 per cent ad valorem plus special duty at 20 per cent of the basic duty on a value of Rs. 8,600 per metric tonne fixed as the tariff value by the Government of India by a Notifi...
Tag this Judgment!