Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1155; (1987)1CALLT13(SC); 1987CriLJ1052; JT1987(1)SC555; 1987(1)SCALE435; (1987)2SCC55; [1987]2SCR305
ORDER1. Special leave granted. Arguments heard.2. The short question involved in this appeal is whether the High Court was justified in allowing the appeal preferred by the accused persons against their conviction under Section 148 and Section 302 reads with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 without having the records of the Court of Sessions before it and without perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution.3. Normally, this Court, as a matter of practice, is reluctant to interfere with an order of acquittal recorded by the High Court at the instance of a private complainant, but the circumstances of the case are such that there is no other alternative for us but to interfere. We wish to mention that earlier the Court had in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2025/84 dated 15.10.1984 allowed the petitioner-complainant to withdraw the petition to move the High Court for review. The petitioner on 5.12.1984 filed an application for review but the High Court dismissed the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1354; 1987(35)BLJR499; 1987CriLJ1075; JT1987(1)SC512; 1987(2)KarLJ3; 1987(1)SCALE353; (1987)2SCC74; [1987]2SCR295
G.L. Oza, J.1. These appeals have been preferred by the State of Karnataka against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka setting aside conviction of the respondents and remanding the cases before the Sessions Court for retrial.2. The respondents were committed for trial to the Sessions Judge, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore City in number of Sessions cases including Sessions Case No. 35 of 1980 in respect of an offence under Section 302 for which after trial the respondent Kuppuswamy was sentenced to death and also for offence under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year. Against the conviction and sentences appeal were preferred before Hon'ble the High Court. Kuppuswamy's matter also came before the High Court apart from his appeal also by reference.3. The facts which gave rise to these appeals were that about 2 A.M. on 9th April 1980 it was alleged that Kuppuswamy the present respondent stabbed Narayanaswamy who expired at 11 P.M., a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC713; [1987(54)FLR445]; JT1987(1)SC420; 1987LabIC637; (1987)ILLJ514SC; 1987(1)SCALE344; 1987Supp(1)SCC711; 1987(1)LC426(SC)
ORDER1. On April 3, 1984, the management of the Hissar Textile Mills, Hissar gave notice of its intention to close down the mill to the Government of Haryana under Section 25 FFA of the Industrial Disputes Act The mill was closed down with effect from June 3, 1984. Over 3000 workmen were affected as a result of the closure of the mill. The workmen filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which was dismissed in limine. The present petition for special leave to appeal has been filed under Art. 136 of the Constitution. We issued notice not only to the management of the mills but also to the Central Government and State Government in order to spare no effort to re-start the mill. Our efforts at persuasion having failed, we heard the special leave petition on merits. Two points were raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The first was that a direction should be issued to the Central Government to take appropriate action under Section 18 AA(b) of the Industri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC714; JT1987(1)SC422; 1987(1)SCALE358; 1987Supp(1)SCC728; 1987(1)LC371(SC)
C.J. Ranganath Misra, J.1. Both these appeals by special leave arc against a common order of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court upholding the judgment of a learned single Judge in two writ petitions.2. The short facts which led to filing of the two writ petitions in the High Court are these :The State Government of Karnataka framed a scheme under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, covering 89 intra-State routes commonly known as Kolar Pocket Scheme. It was modified from time to time but the scheme as last modified in January 1980 was in force when the dispute now under consideration arose. On 1.9.1975 an inter-State agreement between the States of Karnataka and Andhra' Pradesh had been entered into in respect of the Bangalore (in Karnataka)-Punganoor (in Andhra Pradesh) route which contemplated the running of one bus in the minimum and two at the most on the route. Around December 1980 Respondent No. 2 applied for grant of a temporary permit under Section 62 (1)(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC2113; 1989LabIC34; 1987Supp(1)SCC316
ORDER1. The question before us concerns the respective seniority of the appellant S.C. Thippaswamy and the 3rd respondent S. Shyamsunder. On an earlier occasion the matter had gone up to the Karnataka High Court at the instance of the present 3rd respondent and the following direction was given :In the result we allow these petitions, quash the rankings assigned to the petitioners, with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to refix their seniority taking into consideration the date April 5, 1955 for Shyam Sunder and April 10,1953 for Rama Gowda as the date of their commencement of continuous length of service in the equated grade after giving opportunities to the officials who are likely to be affected by such refixation.2. In that case, while discussing the merits of the claim of the petitioner therein (present 3rd respondent) and one Rama Gowda for reckoning their seniority from dates prior to April 5, 1955 and April 10, 1953 respectively, the High Court expressly observed that before ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC711; JT1987(1)SC473; 1987(1)SCALE346; 1987Supp(1)SCC648; 1987(1)LC374(SC)
C.J. Ranganath Misra, J.1. These are appeals by special leave and are directed against a common judgment in two writ petitions disposed of on 6.4.1983 by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. The appellant filed both the writ petitions before the High Court challenging in each of them the variation of the conditions of the permit held by each of respondents 2 and 3 on the inter-State route - Bangalore to Madanapalli. The appellant, Transport Corporation plies its vehicles on a number of inter-State routes located within the State of Karnataka under the Kolar Pocket Scheme framed under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The route between Bangalore and Madanapalli located within the States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh respectively was an existing inter-State route by the time the modified scheme came into operation. There is no dispute that the major portion of the inter-State route lying within the State of Karnataka is covered by routes under the scheme. With effect fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1987)61CTR(SC)335; [1987]165ITR231(SC); 1987Supp(1)SCC320
ORDER1. The only question in these appeals is whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the income from interest which had accrued to the respondent on the compensation payable to him in view of the acquisition of land belonging to him for the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57 should be spread over the respective years to the extent to which it could be deemed to have accrued in those years. We have considered the matter carefully and we think that having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the fact that the mercantile system of account was the basis on which the interest income accrued, the High Court was right in answering the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.2. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1987]165ITR166(SC); 1987Supp(1)SCC704
ORDER Having regard to the view taken by this Court in Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT and Kartikeys v. Sarabhai v. CIT1 these appeals must be dismissed. Accordingly we dismiss these appeals. There is no order as to costs. 1 (1985) 4 SCC 519 : 1986 SCC (Tax) 50 : (1985) 156 ITR 509...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1651; (1987)89BOMLR629; JT1987(1)SC495; 1987(Supp)SCC181
ORDER1. After hearing learned Counsel for the appellants at considerable length, we are of the opinion that the reasoning of the learned single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity and does not call for interference. The decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in Association of Commerce House Block Owners Ltd. v. Vishandas Samaldas : (1981)83BOMLR339 is clearly distinguishable on facts and it is not necessary for us to go into its correctness. The High Court in that case was concerned with the question whether in view of Section 4 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 a suit for specific performance was maintainable. It was held that the requirements of Section 4 of the Act are mandatory and in the absence of a registered agreement, the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief sought. There was no occasion for the High Court to consider whether the promoters could not be held criminally lia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2023; 1988CriLJ198; JT1987(1)SC687; 1987Supp(1)SCC144; [1987]Supp1SCR144
ORDERA.P. Sen, J.1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment and sentence passed by the Rajasthan High Court dated May 8, 1978 setting aside the judgment and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu dated January 17, 1975 and convicting the co-accused Banwari Lal under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for having committed the murder of Rattan Singh, and the appellants for having committed alleged offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for having attempted to commit the murders of Shiv Prasad and Maan Singh. The learned Sessions Judge had convicted them for offences punishable under Section 325 read with Section 149 holding that the ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 307 were not made out. The High Court also enhanced the sentence passed on the appellants from rigorous imprisonment for two years to rigorous imprisonment for four years. The Appellant Amar Singh has since died and his a...
Tag this Judgment!