Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990Supp(1)SCC142
A.P. Sen and; L.M. Sharma, JJ.1. Special leave granted. Arguments heard.2. Appellants 1-9 have been convicted under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for having harvested crops at the instance of respondent 1 Gangadhar Das, the landlord. The only contention advanced on behalf of the appellants is one of sentence. It is urged by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are poor and illiterate tribals and have been subjected to endless harassment by a spate of prosecutions launched by respondent 1 due to dispute over cultivation and harvesting of crops on lands cultivated by them. In the circumstances, we are inclined to take a compassionate view and remit the substantive sentence of imprisonment. We accordingly while maintaining the conviction of appellants 1-9 direct that appellant 8 Sonu Muduli @ Tilu shall be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his entering into a personal bond for maintaining g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC563; JT1988(1)SC50; 1988(1)SCALE1; 1988Supp(1)SCC232; [1988]2SCR501; [1988]68STC324(SC)
M.N. Venkatachaliah, J.1. In these petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, petitioners seek special leave to appeal from the Judgement and order dated, 10.9.1986 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition 2919 of 1985 and Misc. Petition No. 413 of 1985 respectively.The appeals raise a short and interesting question whether stacks of 'eucalyptus-wood' sold by the forest-department after separating the 'Ballies' and 'poles' constitute and answer the description of 'Timber' under entry 32 A of Part II of Schedule II to the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act 1958 (The 'Act'). The High Court, rejecting the appellant's contention that what was sold, being leftovers after the extraction of 'poles' and 'Ballies' of Eucalyptus (Nilgiri) Trees, was merely 'fire-wood' within the meaning of and attracting entry No.12 of Part V of Schedule II of the Act, held that the goods were 'Timber' under the said entry 32 A. It was, accordingly, held that appellants were liable to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC488; JT1987(4)SC686; 1988LabIC954; 1987(2)SCALE1371; 1988Supp(1)SCC213; [1988]2SCR492
Murari Mohon Dutt, J.1. The only question that arises for consideration in these appeals by special leave is whether Rule 3-A of M.P. Government Service (Temporary & Quasi-Permanent Service) Rules, 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules', is applicable to the members of the Subordinate Judicial Service of the Madhya Pradesh Government.2. In Civil Appeals Nos. 59 & 60 of 1982; both the appellants were appointed Civil judges on temporary and officiating basis for a period of six months for training and thereafter for a period of two years on probation. It is not necessary to state in detail the facts, arid suffice it to say that both the appellants were not ultimately confirmed by the High Court after the expiry of the period of probation or the extended period of probation. The High Court recommended the termination of services of the appellants to the State Government and pursuant to such recommendation, the State Government terminated the services of the appellants under Rule 12 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC772; [1988]173ITR42(SC); 1987(2)SCALE1435; (1988)1SCC401; [1988]2SCR474; [1988]69STC290(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. These appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 14th June, 1979 of the High Court of Gauhati in Assam setting aside the order and notice of demand under the Assam Taxation (on Goods Carried by Road or Inland Waterways) Act, hereinafter called the Act, but declining to order any refund of the taxes paid. In 1954 Assam Taxation (on Goods Carried by Road or Inland Waterways) Act was first enacted. This Court struck down the Act as ultra vires the Constitution of India. See Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam : [1961]1SCR809 . On 6th of April, 1961 a new Act passed received the assent of the President. The High Court again struck down the Act declaring it ultra vires the Constitution on 1-8-63. On 13-12-63 Khyerbari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam : [1964]5SCR975 in a challenge to the Act under Article 32 of the Constitution, this Court held the Act to be intra vires. On 19th December 1966, judgment was passed in Civil Rule No. 190/1965. On 1st April 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1988Supp(1)SCC425; 1988CRLR765; 1988SC(Cri)855
A.P. Sen and; L.M. Sharma, JJ.1. The only contention advanced in this writ petition is that there was failure on the part of the State Government to confirm the impugned order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Meerut under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980, within a period of fifteen days as enjoined by proviso to Section 3(4) of the Act. The contention must in our opinion prevail2. It appears from the counter-affidavit that the impugned order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate on September 11, 1987 and it was confirmed by the State Government on October 21, 1987 that is beyond the period of fifteen days as provided by the proviso to Section 3(4) of the Act. In view of this, the impugned order of detention has already elapsed and the continued detention of the detenu, Narendra alias Babu, son of Shri Ram Nath Tyagi is illegal. We, accordingly allow the writ petition and direct the release of the detenu forthwith....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1988Supp(1)SCC505
G.L. Oza,; M.M. Dutt and; Ranganath Misra, JJ.1. The petitioners are casual labourers in the Railways. It is not disputed that their regularisation depends upon satisfying the terms of the scheme which has been framed by the Railways under the orders of this Court. We are told that a draft seniority list has already been circulated and objections have been called for and the last date for filing objections is over. The petitioners appear not to have raised any objection against the draft seniority list. Learned counsel for the Railway Administration agrees that two weeks' further time will be available to them for raising their objections for the draft seniority list. The officer concerned in regard to the petitioners is the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Divisional Railway Manager's Office, Allahabad. Objections should be tendered there and if the petitioners so want, they shall be afforded personal hearing through some representative acceptable to them. On the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC492; [1988]63CompCas383(SC); (1988)1CompLJ124(SC); JT1987(4)SC698; 1987(2)SCALE1423; 1988Supp(1)SCC248; [1988]2SCR456
Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. This appeal by special leave, is by the Registrar of Firms, societies and chits of the State of Uttar Pradesh and directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Allahabad in writ petition No. 630 of 1982.2. The said writ petition was filed by the respondent which is a partnership firm called as 'M/s. Secured Investment Company' ('The Company'). The company mainly carries on business at Lucknow. It has branch offices at Kanpur and Bareilly. The nature of business of the company is termed as 'a scheme for investment'. The question raised in this appeal is whether that scheme for investment falls within the category of 'prize chit' as defined under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 (for short 'The Act'). The Registrar of Firms, Societies and Chits was of the opinion that the scheme of the company falls within the prohibited category of prize chits as defined under the Act. So he seized all the documents of the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC440; [1988]172ITR713(SC); JT1987(4)SC672; 1987(2)SCALE1322; 1988Supp(1)SCC401; [1988]2SCR431
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. Shri Baburao alias P.B. Samant, the petitioner herein, who has argued this case in person with great clarity and precision has raised the following contentions in this petition.(1) The Proclamation of Emergency issued on 3.12.1971 by the President of India was either ultra vires the Constitution or had ceased to be in operation on 4.2.1972.(2) The Proclamation of Emergency dated 25.6.1975 issued by the President of India on 26.6.1975 was either ultra vires the Constitution or had ceased to be in operation on 26.8.1975; (3) The House of the People (Extension of Duration) Act, 1976 (No. 30 of 1976) is ultra vires the Constitution; and (4) The Finance Act, 1976 (66 of 1976) is ultra vires the Constitution.2. Although the petitioner had also challenged Section 13 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 and Clause (c) of Section 3 of the Constitution (24th Amendment) Act, 1971 in the petition he did not press these two contentions at the hearing of the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC514; JT1987(4)SC727; 1987(2)SCALE1461; (1988)1SCC364; 1988(1)LC372(SC)
1. These appeals by special leave arise from the orders of the High Court of Delhi dismissing the Second Appeal on the ground that there was no substantial question of low. The only plea on behalf of the appellants was that they were claiming sub-tenancy from Shri Bhure in respect of the different portions of the premises in question. The question whether Civil Court had jurisdiction or not in the facts of this case was a substantial question of law. Therefore, it was submitted that the High Court committed an error of law in not allowing the appeal before it. We are unable to accept this contention. It is clear and established that the respondent is the owner of the premises in question by succession. There is no dispute as to his title. The contention of the respondent was that the appellants were in unauthorised occupation. The two Courts on facts have upheld that contention. The High Court refused to interfere with that finding of fact. If these facts i.e. to say the respondent is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC396; 1987(2)SCALE1391; (1988)1SCC383
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in Second Appeal No. 25 of 1986 where-under the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court have been reversed and the suit for eviction filed by the appellant (landlord) dismissed.2. The appellant sought the eviction of the respondent on four grounds but the two grounds which found favour with the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are that the respondent had sublet the premises to his brother without the consent of the appellant and, secondly, the appellant bona fide required the leased portion of the house for use and occupation of the members of his family. These concurrent findings, though pertaining to facts have been interfered with and reversed by the High Court and, if we may say so even at the outset by a process of reasoning which is at once in-apposite and unconvincing.3. Now for some of the facts. The appellant is the owner of the. premises No. 30, Sambhu Nath Pan...
Tag this Judgment!