Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC279
G.L. Oza and; V. Balakrishnan Eradi, JJ.1. We are in complete agreement with the Delhi High Court regarding the interpretation of Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code. The suit could be instituted in Delhi only if any part of the cause of action arose within the original jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court which condition is not satisfied in the present case. The High Court was, therefore, perfectly justified in returning the plaint for presentation to the proper court. The special leave petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC265
E.S. Venkataramiah and; M.M. Dutt, JJ.1. Special leave granted. The appeals are heard.2. The interim order passed by the Allahabad High Court (Allahabad Bench) against which these appeals are filed, is set aside. We are informed that two writ petitions, namely WP Nos. 2137 of 1986 and 2722 of 1986 have been filed before the Lucknow Bench in respect of the same subject-matter and they are still pending. We are of the view that the said cases which are pending before the Lucknow Bench and the writ petition out of which these appeals arise should be heard by the same Bench of the Allahabad High Court. We, therefore, suggest that the cases pending before the Lucknow Bench and the writ petition out of which these appeals arise may be heard at Allahabad by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, to be constituted by the learned Chief Justice. Having regard to the nature of these proceedings and the urgency we feel that these cases should be disposed of finally by the Division Bench wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC689; 1987(35)BLJR259; 1987CriLJ533; JT1987(1)SC281; 1987(1)SCALE172; (1987)2SCC647; 1987(1)LC479(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. This appeal is by special leave and the affirming judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court upholding the convictions and sentences of the appellant under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code is sought to be set aside.2. The appellant was a clerk in the Personnel Branch of the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway at Firozpur. One Gurcharan Ram, a fitter in the railway establishment had become liable to penal rent in respect of the official residence occupied by him The prosecution alleged that the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 100/- from Gurcharan Ram to obtain an order of waiver of the penal rent Gurcharan Ram pleaded that he was not in a position to pay the amount demanded and it was ultimately settled that the sum of Rs. 100/- would be paid in five instalments of Rs. 20/- each. With reference to the payment of the first instalment a trap was arranged and soon after the bribe of Rs. 20/- had been ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987(32)ELT457(SC); JT1987(1)SC528; 1987Supp(1)SCC328
ORDER1. 'After hearing both sides, we are not satisfied that this is a fit case for granting special leave. The direction given by the High Court for release of the 'stale' an unexportable goods which form the subject matter of the special leave petition, on payment of the duty lawfully leviable thereon, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. We accordingly dismiss this special leave petition. The interim orders passed by this Court directing auction of the goods by the customs department will stand vacated and the High Court's direction for release of the goods to the respondents will be carried out by the petitioners in accordance with the terms of the order of the High Court. The counsel for the respondent made a request that the duty payable on the goods may be permitted to be remitted in instalments. We consider this request to be reasonable and we direct that the duty may be paid in three equal instalments and that against the payment of each instalment a proportionate quantit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2024; 1987Supp(1)SCC134
ORDER1. The question which arises for consideration is whether damages arising out of a breach of contract entered into before the Assam Settlement of Forests Coupes and Mahals by Tender Systems Rules, 1967 came info force can be recovered as arrears of land revenue. There can be no doubt about the fact that if a contract is entered into after the aforesaid rules and a claim arises under Rule 17, the provision embodied under Rule 18 as regards the mode of realisation of the amount due under the Rules would be attracted and any amount due under the Rules would be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. It was canvassed before the High Court that even in the case of agreements which came into existence prior to the enforcement of these rules, recourse can be made to the mode of realisation specified in Rule 19 and recovery can be made as arrears of land revenue. The High Court rejected the contention and in our opinion rightly so. A plain reading of Rule 18 makes it evident that any amou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC690; 1987CriLJ535; 1987(1)Crimes386(SC); JT1987(1)SC305; 1987(1)SCALE161; (1987)2SCC34; 1987(1)LC490(SC)
Murari Mohan Dutt, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court affirming the order of the learned Sessions Judge Jind, whereby the appellant, Rakesh Kumar, and three other persons were convicted under Section 302 read with section 34 IPC on the charge of murdering one Ved Prakash.2. The deceased Ved Prakash was the younger brother of P.W. 3, Bhagat Singh, a Registered Medical Practioner. Ved Prakash used to work in the clinic of his elder brother, P.W. 3. In the evening of August 26, 1981 both P.W. 3 and the deceased were present in the clinic. The appellant and the other two accused, who were under the influence of liquor came to the clinic. They were all drunk. They told the deceased that he should serve them with liquor, and that if he did not do so, it would be difficult for him to live at Jind. On hearing this, the deceased gave a slap on the face of the accused Dharam Vir and, thereafter, all the three accused went away saying that the dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC856; 1987(35)BLJR374; 1987CriLJ773; JT1987(1)SC282; 1987(1)SCALE173; (1987)2SCC104; 1987(1)LC477(SC)
M.M. DUTT, J.1. In this appeal by special leave the appellant has challenged the judgment of the Patna High Court affirming the order of the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, whereby the learned Judicial Commissioner altered the order of conviction of the appellant as passed by the learned Munsif Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi, to one under Section 409 read with section 511 IPC, but maintained the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-. The High Court has, however, reduced the order of sentence to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of of Rs. 50/-.2. The appellant was the Senior Godown Keeper of the Food Corporation of India. The prosecution case, in short, was that on 2nd March 1963 at 8.00 p.m. in the night on a confidential information, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, raided the Central Godown of the Food Corporation of India along with the Town Inspector and found that a truck bearing registration No. BRN-4281 standing in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC762; 1987CriLJ718; 1987(1)Crimes393(SC); JT1987(1)SC315; 1987(1)SCALE188; (1987)2SCC9; [1987]2SCR78
V. Khalid, J.1. Shorn of details regarding allegations of malafides unsupported by acceptable evidence, the only question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the order of detention is liable to be quashed on the ground that the mandatory requirements, contained in Section 8(1) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') have not been complied with.2. The facts: The petitioner is one Hem Lall Bhandari residing in Bombay, practising 'law' there. The first respondent is the State of Sikkim through its Home Secretary, the second respondent, the Delhi Administration, Police Department and the third respondent, the Union of India through the Home Secretary. The petitioner states that he had a humble beginning and that he by dint of hard labour qualified himself in law and secured significant success academically. It is alleged that the Chief Minister of Sikkim wanted him to join politics and that he incurred the wrath of the Chief Minis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC857; JT1987(1)SC299; 1987(1)SCALE164; (1987)1SCC573; 1987(1)LC330(SC)
S. Natarajan, J.1. This appeal by special leave is by a tenant to challenge an order of eviction passed against him under Section 10(2)(vi) and Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter the Act) by the Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad and confirmed by the Appellate Authority and also by the High Court in revision proceedings.2. The appellant took the suit premises viz. a 'malgi' (shop) on lease on 21.3.72 from one Jameelunnisa Begum on a monthly rent of Rs. 200 for a period of three years. On 6.11.1974 the respondent purchased the suit premises from the said Jameelunnisa Begum and had the tenancy attorned in her favour. In 1975 the respondent filed a petition for eviction of the appellant on three grounds. The Rent Controller ordered eviction On two grounds viz. bona fide requirement of the premises by the respondent for business purposes and secondly claim of permanent tenancy rights without bona fides by the ten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1315; 1987Supp(1)SCC750
ORDER1. Notwithstanding the persuasive arguments advanced before us by Smt. J. Wad, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, we are unable to find any error in the reasoning or conclusion of the High Court which has taken the view that the respondent-tenant is entitled to the benefit of Section 32-M of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 as amended by Gujarat Act 36 of 1965. This appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed, but, in the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their respective costs....
Tag this Judgment!