Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC609
M.M. Dutt and; Ranganath Misra, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Title to the property is in serious dispute and has to be investigated and determined on the basis of evidence led by the parties. Such a decision cannot properly be taken in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution.3. When we pointed out this position, and were about to direct dismissal of the writ petition, learned counsel for the respondents prayed that the writ petition may be permitted to be withdrawn and the respondent should have the right to institute appropriate civil proceedings for establishing his title. That in our opinion is the right course to adopt. The Railway authorities should be free to take over the property and utilise the same for their purpose. The respondents would not be entitled to any interim relief.4. In case Respondent 1 succeeds to establish his title, the appellants before us have undertaken to compensate Respondent 1 amicably for the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1987(1)SC730; 1988Supp(1)SCC167
ORDERM.P. Thakkar, J.1. We have been taken through the judgment of the High Court as also the evidence of the material witnesses. On carefully examining the material we are satisfied that this is a case of benefit of doubt and the High Court was perfectly justified in acquitting the respondents. Under the circumstances, the appeals against the order of acquittal must fail. The Special Leave Petitions moved by the brother of the deceased must also accordingly fail. The appeals are dismissed. So also the special leave petitions are dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2025; JT1987(1)SC719; 1987Supp(1)SCC126
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. The view taken by the High Court cannot be taken exception to as the contract in respect of the forest coupes was executed prior to the coming into force of the Assam Settlement of Forests, Coupes and Mahals by Tender Systems Rules, 1967. We have already taken this view in State of Meghalaya v. Orneshwar Das on January 28, 1987 : (Civil Appeal No. 1731 of 1973) (reported in : AIR1987SC2024 ) in the following terms : -On a plain reading of Rule 17 it is evident that the claim must be referable to the default in the context of Rule 14 to make a security deposit or failure to deposit instalments under Rule 15 arising out of, and this is important, an agreement mentioned in Rule 16. There is no room for doubt that the agreement itself must be an agreement which is contemplated by Rule 16 and which has come into existence pursuant to the rules. The agreement envisaged by Rule 16 could not have been entered into before the Rules themselves came into force. Admittedly, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1195; 1987(35)BLJR540; [1987(54)FLR585]; JT1987(1)SC412; 1987LabIC899; 1987(1)SCALE304; (1987)2SCC81; 1987(1)LC376(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. The petitioner in the Writ application as also the appellants in the appeal were erstwhile Sergeants in the police service of the State of Bihar and are now designated as Reserve Sub-InspectOrs. Admittedly, the Police Manual of 1930 framed under the Police Act of 1861 contained the relevant rules applicable to be police force. Under that Manual, there used to be a cadre called Sergeants who were recruited directly and were eligible for promotion to the rank of Sergeant-Major. There used to be another category known as Havildars who were eligible for promotion as Jamadars. In 1978, a new Police Manual was introduced replacing the old Manual. Under Rule 639 of this Manual, the State Police Force is grouped into the following categories :SUPERIOR OFFICERS1. The Inspector General2. Additional Inspector General3. Deputy Inspector General4. Superintendents5. Assistant Superintendents6. Deputy Superintendents7. Reserve Inspectors and other Inspectors OTHERS OFFICERS8. Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC838; 1987(35)BLJR399; JT1987(1)SC394; 1987(1)SCALE295; (1987)1SCC691; [1987]2SCR210; [1987]86STC88(SC); 1987(1)LC700(SC)
V. Khalid, J.1. In these appeals, by special leave, the short question that falls for decision is as to how Explanation to Section 2(P)(i) inserted by the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets (Amendment) Act, 1982, should be read with the Explanation to Section 27 also inserted by the same Act. Before the High Court, the vires of Explanation to Section 2(P)(i) was challenged on the ground that it encroached upon Entry 42 of list I of the Seventh Schedule. The Division Bench of the High Court after considering the various authorities dealing with the concept of sale, refrained from declaring the Explanation bad but read it down and held that it should be read in harmony with the Explanation to Section 27 and directed the marketing committee concerned to make assessment of fees after giving the petitioners an opportunity as provided in the Explanation to Section 27.2. In this Judgment, we do not propose to go into the question whether sale as explained in the Explanation to Section 2(P)(i)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC849; (1987)2GLR715; JT1987(1)SC462; 1987(1)SCALE348; (1987)1SCC606; 1987(1)LC379(SC)
1. The short point involved in this appeal by special leave is whether the failure of the Registrar to communicate his disapproval of a resolution passed by a society expelling a member under Sub-section (1) of Section36 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 within the period of three months as specified therein, entails in the consequence of rendering the Registrar functus officio.2. By a resolution passed at its general meeting held on September 30, 1982, the Balasinor Nagrik Cooperative Bank Limited, the appellant herein, expelled respondent No. 1 Babubhai Shankerlal Pandya from the primary membership of the society under Sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the Act. On October 6, 1982 the society forwarded a copy of the resolution to the District Registrar as enjoined by the first proviso to Section 36(1). There was no response from the Registrar for a period of three months, in consequence whereof the society on January 24, 1983 addressed a letter to the District Registrar co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC146
B.C. Ray and; M.P. Thakkar, JJ.1. Special leave granted. Heard both the sides.2. A civil suit between the parties is pending wherein the contention of the respondent is that no will was executed whereas the contention of the appellants is that a will has been executed by the testator. A case for grant of probate is also pending in the court of learned District Judge, Rampur. The civil court is therefore seized of the question as regards the validity of the will. The matter is sub judice in the aforesaid two cases in civil courts. At this juncture the respondent cannot therefore be permitted to institute a criminal prosecution on the allegation that the will is a forged one. That question will have to be decided by the civil court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties in accordance with law. It would not be proper to permit the respondent to prosecute the appellants on this allegation when the validity of the will is being tested before a civil court. We, therefore, allow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1080; 1987(35)BLJR491; 1987CriLJ971; 1987(1)SCALE279; (1987)2SCC27; 1987(1)LC492(SC)
M.M Dutt, J.1. These two appeals by special leave - one filed by Balwant Singh, Gurdish Singh and Nirmal Singh and the other by Saudagar Singh-are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana affirming with slight modification the order of convictions and sentences passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under Section 366 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. The appellants were also convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. The High Court while affirming the said convictions and sentences directed that the sentences of imprisonment would run concurrently.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on May 10, 1976 at 11.00 a.m., while Kumari Rajwant Kaur, aged about 19/20 years and a student of B A. Part-II of Gobind National...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC722; 1988(36)BLJR197; 1987CriLJ697; 1987(1)Crimes482(SC); JT1987(1)SC387; 1987(1)SCALE282; (1987)2SCC52; [1987]2SCR216
G.L. Oza, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant after obtaining leave from this Court against an order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 28.11.1983 wherein the High Court rejected a Revision Petition filed by the appellant.2. Against the appellant a complaint was filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad under Section 120(b) read with Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. After summons were issued the appellant raised objection about the maintainability of this prosecution for want of sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The objection was rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate a Revision Petition was filed in the High Court which has been rejected by the impugned order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.3. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate held that Section 197 is attracted only when a public servant is not removable from his office save by or ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC831; JT1987(1)SC406; 1987(1)SCALE290; (1987)2SCC58; 1987(1)LC386(SC)
K.N. Singh, J.1. N. Gopal Reddy, the appellant was declared elected member of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Gadwal Assembly Constituency, having obtained 38291 votes. Bonala Krishnamurty, respondent No. 1 filed an Election Petition under Section 100 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 challenging the validity of the appellants election claiming relief for setting aside of the election of the returned candidate and also for declaring D.K. Samarasimha Reddy respondent No. 6 as duly elected. One of the grievances raised by the election petitioner was that even though the Returning Officer had issued orders on an application made by the election agent of respondent No. 6 for recount and scrutiny of ballot papers of all the candidates but later on, he illegally modified his order and directed for the recount of ballot papers only without opening the bundles of the ballot papers of counting the same. The election petitioner alleged that if a general recount and scrutiny ...
Tag this Judgment!