Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1987(2)SC361; (2005)1SCC347
ORDERA.P. Sen, J.1. Special leave granted. Learned Counsel for the parties heard on the application made under Section 320 of the CrPC, 1973 for leave to compound the offence. The appellant has been convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Although the offence under Section 326 of the Code is non-compoundable, learned Counsel for the parties submit that through the intervention of well-wishers the parties who are from the same locality have reconciled their differences to preserve amity and good relations. They pray for leave to compound the offence. The appellant stabbed D. Narsinga Rao, respondent No. 2 herein after an altercation near the pan shop owned by him. this was an unfortunate incident and the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that his client has a feeling of remorse. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 also joins in the prayer for permission to compound the offence.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1792; 1987CriLJ1908; JT1987(2)SC518; 1987(1)SCALE1049; (1987)3SCC231; 1987(1)LC692(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. This is an application under Article 32 of the Constitution and the petitioners are the Bharat Electronics Employees Union and the Secretary of that Union. Bharat Electronics Limited is a public sector undertaking. The company has its factory at Ghaziabad and manufactures electronic components and equipment including integrated circuits, TV picture tubes and sophisticated Radars used by the country's defence establishments. The respondent No. 1 has entered into technical collaboration with a French firm, TCSF. Respondent No. 2 is the competent authority appointed under the Radiation Protection Rules, 1971 framed under the Atomic Energy Act by the Central Government. This writ application is confined to employees working in the transmitter assembly room of the factory. The petitioners have alleged that in course of their employment those of the employees who are made to work in the transmitter assembly room are exposed to the baneful effects of x-ray radiation. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1664; (1987)64CTR(SC)142; [1987]166ITR783(SC); JT1987(2)SC584; 1987(1)SCALE949; (1987)3SCC441; [1987]3SCR101
1. C.A. No. 850 of 1973 This appeal is by certificate and is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad. Assessee and five of his brothers constituted a Hindu Joint Family. The relevant assessment year is 1953-54 corresponding to the accounting period ending on 30th June, 1952. The Joint Family which owned inter alia a sugar factory at Bijnore. In 1930 there was partition in the family and the members of the erstwhile Joint Family constituted themselves into a partnership firm which took over the sugar factory and operated the same. In the year 1944, Sheo Prasad, one of the brothers who was a partner of the firm instituted a suit in the Lahore High Court for dissolution of the firm. Partition of the country followed and after the parties shifted over to India a fresh suit was instituted at Bijnore for purposes of partition. The properties were put in charge of a receiver appointed by the Court. So far as the sugar factory is concerned, the arrangement was that at five...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1646; 1987CriLJ1877; 1987(2)Crimes433(SC); JT1987(2)SC290; 1987(1)SCALE953; (1987)3SCC340; [1987]3SCR84; 1987(2)LC219(SC)
1. These four appeals have been filed against judgments of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana rejecting the claims of the appellants who have been convicted by the General Court-Martial for offences under the Army Act and are undergoing their sentences of varying terms of imprisonment for the grant of benefit to them of the provision for set off contained in Section 428 of the CrPC. The High Court has granted certificates of fitness under Article 134A of the Constitution and it is on the strength of those certificates that these appeals have been preferred to this Court.2. The common question of law that arises in these appeals concerns the applicability of Section 428 of the CrPC to persons sentenced to undergo imprisonment by General Court-Martial under the Army Act. The position under the Army Act will equally govern persons sentenced to undergo imprisonment by Court-Martial under the Navy Act and the Air Force Act.3. In the judgments under appeal, the High Court has followed an e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1326; JT1987(2)SC520; 1987(1)SCALE1245; (1987)3SCC326; [1987]3SCR109; 1987(2)LC279(SC)
Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. After hearing Counsel appearing on both sides we do not find any merit in this appeal and the Special Leave Petitions.2. The sole question raised before us in the appeal concerns the interpretation of Section 7D of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963-Act 1 of 1964-as amended by Act 35 of 1969. That section reads-7D. Certain persons occupying private forests or unsurveyed lands to be deemed tenants-Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 52 or any other provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or any other law, or in any contract, custom or usage, or in any judgments decree or order of court, any person in occupation at the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, of the land or another situate in Malabar, to which the provisions of the Madras Preservation or Private Forests Act, 1949 (XXVII of 1949), were applicable on the 11th day of April, 1955 or which was unsurveyed on that date, shall be deemed to be a tenan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987(12)ECR1057(SC); 1987(32)ELT251(SC); JT1987(2)SC514; 1987(1)SCALE1061; (1987)3SCC140; [1987]3SCR93; [1987]66STC1(SC)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1134 (NT) of 1987.From the Judgment and Order dated 2.3. 1984 of the Allahabad High Court in Sales Tax Revision No. 146 of 1983. Prithvi Raj, Ashok K. Srivastava for the Appellant. S.T. Desai, K.B. Rohtagi, S.K. Dhingra, Baldev Atreya and Shashank Shekhar for the Respondent.The following Judgments of the Court were delivered RANGANATH MISRA, J. Special leave granted. Delay of six days is condoned. The short question for consideration in this appeal at the instance of the Revenue is whether the High Court was justified in holding that in the absence of a notification withdrawing the earlier notification dated 25.11. 1958 made in exercise of power vested under section 4 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, Sales Tax would not be exigible in terms of the notification dated 1.12. 1973 issued under section 3A of that Act.The notification of 1958 exempted 'cotton fabrics of all varieties' from sales tax. It is not disputed that under it sale of patt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1656; JT1987(2)SC571; 1987(1)SCALE964; (1987)4SCC319; 1987(1)LC694(SC)
A.P. Sen, J.1. The only question involved in this appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dated February 3, 1986 is whether the appellants were liable to be evicted from the demised premises under Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972. By the judgment a learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the VIIIth. Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad dated January 24, 1986 decreeing the suit brought by respondent No. 1 for eviction of the appellants under Section 20(2) of the Act.2. First as to the facts. The demised premises which comprises of a godown at Hapur Road, Ghaziabad was an asset belonging to a partnership firm called Messrs Saggu Engineering Works. The firm consisted of three partners, namely, Sardar Meharban Singh, Smt. Prakash Kaur and Sardar Dalip Singh. By a deed of dissolution dated April 1,1971 executed by the partners, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1572; 1987(35)BLJR833; 1987CriLJ1869; JT1987(2)SC281; 1987(1)SCALE1175; (1987)3SCC227
A.P. Sen, J.These two appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated December 7, 1976. First of these is filed by Smt. Basanti against the judgment of the High Court upholding the judgment and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Solan convicting her under Sections 302 and 201 both read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for having committed the murder of her husband Prabhu Ram in furtherance of the common intention of both i.e. herself and the co-accused Assoo @ Aso Ram, her paramour. The second of these is preferred by the State Government against the judgment of the High Court acquitting the co-accused Assoo @ Aso Ram of both these charges. This is a case of strange infatuation. According to the prosecution case the deceased Prabhu Ram, aged about 40 years, was married to the appellant Smt. Basanti. a woman aged 47 years. It is alleged that the co-accused Assoo @ Aso Ram, aged about 70 years, who ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1378; (1987)62CTR(SC)17; 1987(32)ELT255(SC); [1987]166ITR163(SC); JT1987(2)SC287; 1987(1)SCALE1007; (1987)3SCC96; [1987]3SCR42; 1987(2)LC260(SC)
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue by special leave and is directed against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated August 20, 1973 in a writ petition. The High Court quashed the notice for reassessment issued under Section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the assessment year 1965-66. Inspite of service of notice, the assessee respondent has not appeared.2. The High Court has quashed the notice by accepting the assessee's contention that the action of the Income-tax Officer was barred by limitation prescribed by the Act. There is no dispute that the notice in this case under Section 147(b) of the Act was issued by registered post on March 31, 1970, and was received by the assessee on April 3, 1970. To the facts of the case, Section 147(b) of the Act applies. The two relevant provisions are in Sections 148 and 149 of the Act which provide:148(1)-Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under Section 147, the Income-ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1574; 1987(35)BLJR739; [1987]62CompCas101(SC); (1987)2CompLJ123(SC); JT1987(2)SC345; 1987(1)SCALE1041; (1987)3SCC94; 1987(1)LC706(SC)
ORDERO. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1 In this application for transfer under Art. 139A of the Constitution the petitioner seeks a transfer of Suit No. 2995 of 1986. Suit No. 3218 of 1986 and Suit No. 2220 of 1986 pending in the High Court of Bombay to the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad. The three suits are actions filed by secured creditors of the petitioner company to enforce their securities and two recover the amounts due to them. The company has its registered office in the State of Gujarat and employs nearly 2,200 workers in its factories. The company is engaged in the production of sheet-glass. It appears that the company is in financial straits. Several petitioners to wind-up the Company appear to have been filed in the Gujarat High Court. Meanwhile the Government of Gujarat has declared the petitioner company as a Relief Undertaking under the Bombay Relief Undertaking (Special Provisions) Act, 1958. It appears that the company is now working under the supervision of a Managing Committe...
Tag this Judgment!