Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1988Supp(1)SCC172
A.P. Sen and; V. Balakrishnan Eradi, JJ.1. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case we condone the delay, set aside the abatement of the appeal and direct that the names of the legal representatives of the deceased-Respondent 2 Khairati Lal be brought on record, subject to payment of Rs 1000 as costs to learned counsel for the respondents within two weeks from today. We condone the delay lest the public interest should suffer, and more particularly because the court has in a very recent decision in Chief Commissioner (now Lt. Governor), Delhi Admn. v. S. Dhanna Singh1 reversed the judgment of the High Court and upheld the validity of the impugned notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.2. We are deeply distressed that there should have been such inordinate delay which occurred due to the laches and gross negligence on the part of the concerned officers of the Delhi Administration. This is a matter which, in our opinion, should eng...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1987(1)SC628; 1988Supp(1)SCC168
ORDERA.P. Sen, J.1. Special leave was granted to the appellant Sukhdev Singh and the petition for grant of special leave by the other co-accused Harnek Singh and Deepa @ Ranjit Singh against their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for having committed the murder of Dr.Harbans Singh in furtherance of their common intention has been dismissed.2. In this appeal, the only question involved is whether the conviction of the appellant Sukhdev Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Dr. Harbans Singh could be sustained. His conviction rests upon the direct testimony of the two eye-witnesses PW 2 Gian Singh and PW 3 Darshan Singh. Their evidence shows that on February 24, 1976 at about 6.30 p.m. , the two co-accused Harnek Singh and Deepa entered the dispensary situate in a busy locality of village Sahnewal and shot Dr. Harbans Singh with their pistols at close range. The appellant stood guard outside...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC42
B.C. Ray,; M.P. Thakkar and; S. Natarajan, JJ.1. The questions raised in this election appeal are of some importance. We also see the force of the submissions urged on behalf of the appellant. All the same, having regard to the fact that fresh elections have already taken place and the appeal has become redundant in that sense, we will be undertaking a futile exercise if we examine the validity or otherwise of the view taken by the High Court in dismissing the election petition. Under the circumstances without expressing any view, one way or the other, on the validity or otherwise of the decision of the High Court, we direct that this appeal shall stand disposed of with no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1987(1)SC726; 1987Supp(1)SCC577
ORDERM.P. Thakkar, J.1. Special leave granted. Heard both the sides.2. The High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC has set aside the judgment rendered by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge in a second appeal on the following reasoning :-We have gone through the judgment under appeal more than once with the learned Counsel and we find that a large number of relevant pieces of evidence have not been considered by the lower appellate court, which renders the findings of fact vulnerable under Section 100 of the CPC. In fact, several of the observations by the appellate court are contradictory to each other. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the matter requires a reconsideration by the lower appellate court and the cases, therefore, should be remitted for that purpose.In our opinion the findings recorded by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge could not have been set aside and the matter could not have been remanded virtually for writing a f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC2126; JT1987(1)SC627; (1988)2SCC292
ORDER1. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that interference by the High Court with the findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution was wholly unwarranted and in excess of its jurisdiction. The High Court was obviously in error in its view that the Commissioner's report could not be acted upon or be treated as legal evidence. The Commissioner's report tends to show that the demised premises are no longer in occupation of the respondent but in occupation of strangers which fact does se an inference of subletting as held by the lower appellate Court.2. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and restore the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court decreeing the plaintiffs suit for eviction. We however direct that the decree for eviction shall not be executed for a period of four months from today provided the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1987(1)SC700; 1987Supp(1)SCC47
ORDERM.P. Thakkar, J.1. Special leave granted. Heard both the sides.2. The High Court has not taken into consideration the question as to whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in the context of Section 37 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. We do not propose to express any opinion on this question. It will be for the High Court to examine the question and to form its own opinion. In case the High Court was of the view that Section 37 is no bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the High Court should have protected the appellant who had withdrawn the suit solely in order to approach the High Court. The appellant had already approached the High Court by way of a writ petition, and if the High Court was of the opinion that it was a matter where the appellant should approach the civil court, the High Court should have passed an order directing the trial court to revive the suit by revoking the earlier order disposing of the suit as with drawn in exerc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC535
1. The order of termination of the service of the appellant was passed before the respondent Bank was nationalised. The High Court was therefore right in holding that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was not maintainable against an order made when the Bank was a public limited company. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC598
ORDER The appellant, Veluswami, stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for having committed the murder of one Samarasamm on June 13, 1975 at 10.00 p.m. by stabbing him with a knife at Perianaikenpalayam on Mettupalayam Road, in Coimbatore District. The conviction is based on the testimony of PW 1 Ramaswami. The appellant is also convicted under Section 307 of the Code for having attempted to commit the murder of PW 1 Ramaswami. The testimony of PW 1 Ramaswami, who was thus also a victim of the assault, has been accepted as true and reliable insofar as it related to the appellant by both the learned Sessions Judge and as well as by the High Court. The matter rests purely on appreciation of the evidence and we find no flaw in the reasoning or the approach of the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bond of the appellant shall stand cancelled and the appellant shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining part of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC710; [1987]65STC430(SC)
ORDERR.S. Pathak, C.J.1. Civil Appeal No. 4534 of 1986. 2. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 9, 1984, of the Patna High Court in C. W.J. C. No. 137 of 1980. The judgment of the High Court is reported at [1984] 55 STC 380. 3. Jai Narain, Senior Advocate (D. Goburdhun and Keshavanand Pandey, Advocates, with him), for the appellants. 4. Dr. Debi Pal and B. P. Rajgarhia, Senior Advocates (R. K. Murarha, Padam Khaitan and Ajay Jain, Advocates, with them), for the respondent. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC527
A.P. Sen and; v. Balakrishnan Eradi, JJ.1. In this appeal, the High Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it in declining to interfere with the order of First Additional District Judge, Ballia without disclosing any reason. The learned Additional District Judge disallowed the prayer for eviction made by the appellant in her application under Section 20(2)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act 13 of 1972) in spite of his having come to the conclusion that the deposit of arrears of rent, which had fallen due from January 27, 1972 up to August 26, 1972, made by the respondent-defendant, was not a valid deposit under Section 13(2) of the Act. The learned Additional District Judge has failed to appreciate that the respondent having failed to comply with the requirements of Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by not making a deposit of arrears of rent together with interest and costs, the appellant's a...
Tag this Judgment!