Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990Supp(1)SCC141
A.P. Sen and; B.C. Ray, JJ.1. Special leave granted. Arguments heard.2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are distressed to find that there was complete non-application of mind on the part of the learned Judges. While it is true that they were entitled to come to a particular conclusion upon the facts of a given case, they could not possibly have quashed the impugned order of detention merely on the ground that detention orders in similar cases had earlier been revoked. Each case has to be decided on its own facts. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court are set aside and it is directed to dispose of the writ petition as expeditiously as possible; and in any event, not later than four weeks from today....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1987(3)SC440; 1987(2)SCALE485; (1987)4SCC604; 1987(2)LC477(SC)
1. The fifteen appellants are owners of Khandasari Units in the State of Haryana. There are seventy-two Khandasari Units in Haryana, out of which fifty-four are located within areas reserved for sugar mills under the Sugarcane Control Order The units of the appellants are among these fifty-four. All the appellants' units were previously licensed under the Haryana Khandasari Sugar Manufacturers' Licensing Order. When they applied for renewal of their licenses, their applications were rejected by the Cane Commissioner on the ground there was 'acute shortage of cane in the assigned area of the sugar mills'. Sub-clause 3(c) of Clause 3 of the Haryana Khandasari Manufacturers' Licensing Order was quoted in support of the orders. These orders were questioned by the appellants before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana under Article 226 of the Constitution. A learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitions and directed the renewal of the licences of the appellants. On an appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2166; JT1987(3)SC515; 1987(2)SCALE423; (1987)4SCC215; [1987]3SCR1146; 1987(2)LC759(SC)
1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court on 13th January, 1986 ordering eviction under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter called the Act. This is an appeal by the tenant. A room in the front portion of the building had been leased out to the tenant for non-residential purposes. The landlord resides in the other portion. The landlord needed G additional accommodation for residential purposes due to marriages in the family. Was the portion let out as such separate and distinct unit for the purpose of Section 10(3)(c) of the Act? It was not and as such the landlord was entitled to seek eviction of the tenant under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. It has been so held clearly by this Court in Shri Balaganesan Metals v. M.N. Shanmugham Chetty and Ors. : [1987]2SCR1173 wherein the section has been analysed and explained. Ms. Shyamala Pappu, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the decisi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987(3)Crimes399(SC); JT1987(3)SC435; 1987(2)SCALE451; (1987)4SCC557; [1987]3SCR1128
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants who are the accused persons in a complaint filed by the State Government before the Principal Sessions Court, Bangalore. It is alleged that this complaint is filed by the State Govt. under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. This complaint was filed by the State Govt. on the basis of a sanction granted by the State Govt. under Section 199, Clause (2) of the CrPC, as one of the persons defamed is the Director General of Police, State of Karnataka.2. The Trial Court after the filing of the complaint took cognizance of the matter and issued process against the petitioners who were the accused persons before the court below. Against this issue of process, these petitioners filed a criminal revision before the High Court of' Karnataka seeking the relief of quashing of the order directing issue of process and also the quashing of proceedings pending in the court below. The revision which was filed in the High Court was filed under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2167; 1987(14)ECC134; 1987(31)ELT609(SC); JT1987(3)SC448; 1987(3)KarLJ99; 1987(2)SCALE488; (1987)4SCC276; [1987]3SCR1116
1. This appeal by special leave involves an interpretation of the proviso to Section 71 of the Gold Control Act. 1968.2. One Kesharimal Porwal, who had two flourishing businesses-a bidi factory at Kamptee and a gold and silver shop at Mandsaur-died on October 7, 1952 leaving behind him surviving a widow Ratanbai, a daughter Shantabai and a son Nem Kumar. Both Shantabai and Nem Kumar had each a son at the time of death of Kesharimal. After the death of Kesharimal, Nem Kumar had four more sons.3. The said Kesharimal also left a will dated February 10, 1952 whereby he bequeathed certain gold and silver to his grandsons. It was provided in the will that each grandson would receive 500 tolas of gold at the time of marriage and the remaining gold would be equally divided among them. It may be stated here that at no stage the genuineness and validity of the will was questioned, nor have they been challenged before us.4. On July, 9, 1968 the officers of the Central Excise, Nagpur, searched the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2225; 1988(36)BLJR251; 1988CriLJ193; 1987(3)Crimes392(SC); JT1987(3)SC418; 1987(2)SCALE402; (1987)4SCC296; [1987]3SCR1107
1. The petitioners who are life convicts in this writ petition have assailed a D.O. Letter No. 4665/1983-GI/G4/R. 10-84 dated 24.4.1985 issued by the respondent No. 3, Inspector General of Prisons, Haryana, Chandigarh intimating to the Superintendent of Jail that convicts who are on bail and whose sentences are suspended, are excluded from the remissions systems in view of the provisions of Section 637 of the Punjab Jail Manual on the ground that the aforesaid letter purports to deprive the petitioners from the benefit of remissions of 19 months and 12 days granted to them during the period they were on bail, while counting the total period of sentence including remissions undergone by them in order to consider their cases of pre-mature release from imprisonment.2. The petitioner No. 1, Jai Prakash was convicted by the District and Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, on December 4, 1975 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he was awarded life imprisonment. Against this judgment and orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2267; 64(1987)CLT477(SC); JT1987(3)SC459; 1987LabIC1914; 1987(2)SCALE417; (1987)4SCC646; [1987]3SCR1097; 1987(3)SLJ200(SC); 1987(2)LC657(SC)
1. This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the list of candidates prepared by Orissa Public Service Commission, Cuttack for appointment as Probationary Munsifs in the State Judicial Service.2. The selection of candidates for subordinate judicial service is governed by the Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1964 (the 'Rules'). The Rules were framed under the proviso to Article 309 read with Article 234 of the Constitution of India. The State Public Service Commission (The 'Commission') is the selecting authority. The candidates are required to be selected by written test followed by viva-voce test. The written examination carries the maximum marks of 950 and the viva-voce test 200.3. In accordance with the Rules, the Commission issued advertisement No. 12 of 1982-83 inviting applications from eligible candidates for posts of Probationary Munsifs. The petitioner was one of the candidates who applied in response thereof. In the written examination c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2173; (1987)1CALLT64(SC); JT1987(3)SC446; 1987(2)SCALE407; (1987)4SCC270; [1987]3SCR1087; 1987(2)LC641(SC)
1. This is a petition for special leave to appeal against an order and judgment of the High Court of Calcutta dated 24th September, 1986. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has held that the present petitioner was not a sub-tenant and as such he was bound by the decree passed against the tenant for eviction. The petitioner challenges that finding and contends that he was a sub-tenant with knowledge and consent of the landlord and as such it does not bind him because in the suit he was not a party. There should have been a separate suit according to him. He should have been made a party to the suit. The High Court has held against this contention. We are of the view that the High Court was right. Our attention was drawn by Mr. Kacker to the agreement of 1st of September, 1966, contending that this was an arrangement of subletting and in that document one of the attesting witness was landlord himself. Therefore, this is done with the knowledge and consent of the landlord a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2135; (1987)2GLR1286; 1987(2)SCALE428; (1987)4SCC482; [1987]3SCR1091; 1988(2)SLJ86(SC); 1987(2)LC756(SC)
ORDER1. This appeal by Special leave is against the appellate order of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court. Respondent No. 1 was appointed to the Indian Police Service on 4.7.1969 and has been discharged by the impugned order dated 9.4.1974. After he was appointed by the Union of India he was allotted to the State cadre of Gujarat and the order of discharge has been made on the basis of steps taken by the State of Gujarat. The order of discharge was assailed by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Single Judge annulled the order. To the Writ petition both the Union of India and the State of Gujarat were party-respondents. Against the Single Judge's decision, two appeals were preferred to the Division Bench. The Division Bench for reasons mostly different from what had been recorded by the learned Single Judge, came to the same conclusion. Before this Court, there is only one appeal by the State of Gujarat and the Union of India has been joined as a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2028; JT1987(3)SC409; 1987(2)SCALE393; (1987)4SCC193; [1987]3SCR1075
1. This appeal has been filed after grant of special leave in this Court by the tenant-appellant challenging a decree for eviction.2. It appears that the respondent-landlord filed an application for eviction before the Rent Controller, Delhi on various grounds. The Rent Controller who heard the petition of the respondent rejected the petition on other grounds but only granted an order for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) i.e. the premises were bona fide required by the respondent-landlord for their own residence. It is not disputed that these premises are residential and the courts below, the trial court and the appellate court both came to the conclusion that the respondent-landlord has established his bona fide requirement and on these findings the order of eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has been maintained.3. Before the Tribunal a contention was advanced that the appellant-tenant had come to know that the Del...
Tag this Judgment!