Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC491; 1989(1)Crimes176(SC); (1989)1GLR563; JT1988(4)SC703; 1988(2)SCALE1583; 1989Supp(1)SCC322; [1988]Supp3SCR1081
M.M. Dutt, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order of his detention dated August 3, 1988 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. The grounds on which the impugned order of detention has been made run into seven pages. The relevant portions of which are extracted below:In pursuance to Section 9(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985, Shri Piyush Kantilal Shah is hereby informed the grounds of detention as under:You are indulging into anti-social activities by hoarding illegal foreign liquor and also selling it through yourself and through your servants near Navrangpura Municipal Bus-stand and Navrang High School, Ahmedabad that the cases have been registered against you under Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and in which you have been arrested. Sr. Police Stn. C.R. Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC653; 1989CriLJ941; 1989(1)Crimes238(SC); JT1988(4)SC693; 1988(2)SCALE1565; (1989)1SCC204; [1988]Supp3SCR1102
R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. On 22 January, 1986 Kehar Singh was convicted of an offence under Section 120-B read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi, then Prime Minister of India, on 31 October, 1984 and was sentenced to death by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court of Delhi, and his subsequent appeal by special leave (Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 1987 to this Court was dismissed on 3 August, 1988. A Review Petition filed thereafter by Kehar Singh was dismissed on 7 September 1988 and later a writ petition was also dismissed by this Court.2. On 14 October, 1988 his son, Rajinder Singh, presented a petition to the President of India for the grant of pardon to Kehar Singh under Article 72 of the Constitution. In that petition reference was made to the evidence on the record of the criminal case and it was sought to be established that Kehar Singh was innocent, and that the verdi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC598; 1989CriLJ986; 1989(1)Crimes343(SC); JT1988(4)SC715; 1988(2)SCALE1578; 1989Supp(2)SCC770; [1988]Supp3SCR1093; 1989(1)LC394(SC)
B.C. Ray, J.1. Special leave granted. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that to create fear and terror, to commit murder and to aggravate tense situation some persons hatched a conspiracy to massacre the general public by placing transistor bombs at public places and also by placing them in public transports as trains, buses etc. Many explosions took place in May 1985 in Delhi and parts of Uttar Pradesh in consequence whereof many persons were killed in Delhi and some places in Uttar Pradesh. Several cases were registered in different police stations of Aligarh, Ghaziabad, Meerut and Khekra etc. In Delhi F.I.R. No. 238 of 1985 was registered i.e. State v. Kartar Singh Narang etc. wherein all the accused persons named therein were arrested except one Gurdeep Singh Sehgal who was declared as a proclaimed offender. The accused Jagjit Singh and Gurvinder Singh turned approvers and they were granted pardon under Section 308 of the CrPC, 1973. They w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC662; JT1988(4)SC681; 1988(2)SCALE1546; 1989Supp(1)SCC331; [1988]Supp3SCR1074; 1989(1)LC165(SC)
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal by special leave is against a judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala.2. Short factual background is this.3. The respondent was appointed on October 15, 1951 as an ordinary industrial labourer at Naval Base, Cochin. He was promoted as a Welder Gr. II on September 18, 1956. He was confirmed in that post. He was thus a permanent civilian industrial employee. On October 25, 1968, his Services, however, were terminated under Article 310 of the Constitution. No reason was assigned. He instituted a suit in forma-pauperise for declaration that the termination of his service was illegal and void ab initio. In the alternative, he claimed damages or compensation of Rs. 75,000/- for illegal termination. The trial court awarded him Rs. 25,000/- as damages together with interest at 6 per cent per annum for the illegal termination of his services. That decree was confirmed by the High Court of Kerala. This appeal is directed against ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC501; (1989)1CompLJ43(SC); (1988)75CTR(SC)20; [1989]175ITR523(SC); JT1988(4)SC666; 1988(2)SCALE1556; 1989Supp(2)SCC7; [1988]Supp3SCR1058
M.M. Dutt, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellants against the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court dismissing the writ petition of the petitioners whereby they challenged the order dated January 5, 1982 of the respondent No. 1, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, rejecting the application of the appellant-company under Section 80-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. By two agreements, one dated April 5, 1980 and the other dated August 14, 1980, entered into between the appellant-company and Toyo Engineering India Ltd. (for short Toyo India'), the appellant-company agreed to render technical services in respect of Iraqi Storage Terminal Project Installations in consideration of payment to it by way of fees payable under the said agreements. In the said agreement dated April 5, 1980, it is stated inter alia that Toyo India h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC665; 1989(19)ECC192; 1989(23)LC23(SC); 1989(39)ELT171(SC); JT1988(4)SC677; 1989Supp(1)SCC596; [1988]Supp3SCR1051
Lalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. This appeal arises out of a writ application allowed by the Madras High Court striking down Clause (a) of the Proviso (3) of the Notification dated the 1st March, 1964 issued by the Union of India in the Ministry of Finance, under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and granting consequential relief. The aforesaid notification granted certain exemptions from payment of excise duty, but the benefit was denied to the writ petitioner, respondent before this Court, in view of the impugned clause.2. The respondent assessee, a business concern functioning under the name of M/s. Dhanalakshmi Paper and Board Mills, decided to set up a factory for the manufacture of paper and paper boards and allied products, and obtained a lease of certain premises in June 1963 and put up a suitable structure for the factory by August 1963. The necessary machineries for running the factory, however, were received in April 1964 and application for licence therefor was filed on 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC509; JT1988(4)SC686; 1988(2)SCALE1521; 1989Supp(1)SCC407; [1988]Supp3SCR1038; 1989(1)LC183(SC)
M.M. Dutt, J.1. These appeals by special leave preferred at the instance of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore, and the State of Karnataka, are directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellants and affirming that of the learned Single Judge of the High Court whereby the rule issued on the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 D.P. Sharma was made absolute.2. The respondent No. 1, who is the owner of a public service vehicle, made an application on October 10, 1976 to the Regional Transport Authority for the grant of a special permit under Sub-section (6) of Section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the period from November 15, 1976 to November 22, 1976. The Regional Transport Authority rejected the said application on the ground that the provisions of the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', prohibit the grant of such permits. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC490; 1989(37)BLJR26; 1988CriLJ197; 1989(1)Crimes641(SC); JT1988(4)SC631; 1988(2)SCALE1515; 1989Supp(1)SCC336
R.S. Pathak, CJI.1. The Court received a letter dated 21 November, 1986, purporting to be from Nilima Priyadarshini, containing certain statements, and alleging that she was being detained against her will by her parents. The letter was registered as a writ petition, and having regard to what was alleged therein the Court directed the father of the girl to produce her before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, and directed the Additional: Chief. Judicial Magistrate to ascertain the true facts from her on the question whether she was being detained against her wishes. The Court made the order aforesaid on the assumption that the letter was authentic, but refrained from expressing any opinion on the authenticity of the letter. When the case came before the Court thereafter, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the letter which purports to have been written by the petitioner to this Court was in fact a forgery and that none of the statements made therein had an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC497; 1989(1)BLJR5; (1989)91BOMLR25; 1989CriLJ983; 1989(1)Crimes647(SC); 1989(19)ECC196; 1989(39)ELT329(SC); JT1988(4)SC632; 1988(2)SCALE1507; (1989)1SCC250; [1988]
B.C. Ray, J.1. Special leave granted. Arguments heard.2. This appeal on special leave is against the judgment dated 10th June, 1988 made by High Court of Allahabad dismissing Criminal Writ Petition No. 257 of 1988 instituted by the detenu.3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on August 25, 1987 the house of the appellant was searched by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate under Section 37 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and they seized currency notes of Re. 1 lakh and four bank drafts amounting to Rs. 30,000, bank pass book and loose sheets Nos. 1 to 44 as per item No. 2 in panchnama dated August 25, 1987. The statement of detenu was recorded and he was arrested on the same day. On August 26, 1987 the detenu made an application in the Court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court at Esplanade retracting his statement. The Magistrate made an order thereon that 'Taken on record'. An application for bail was moved on September 15, 1987 and an order ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC371; 1989(1)Crimes145(SC); JT1988(4)SC587; 1988(2)SCALE1497; (1989)1SCC385; [1988]Supp3SCR1023
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These two petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution are for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus for the release of Ram Ratan and Hawa Singh, who have been detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act of 1980.2. Ram Ratan was a Head Constable and Hawa Singh was a Constable in the Security Unit of Delhi Police. While on duty, they were together said to have committed a cognizable offence under Section 392/34 of IPC alongwith a member of the public. Immediately thereafter they were arrested and placed on suspension. The Court, however, released them on bail. While the case was under investigation, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi (Mr. Vijay Karan) thought fit to detain them under the National Security Act. Accordingly, he made the orders which are impugned herein. Subsequently, they have been summarily dismissed from service under Article 311(ii)(b) of the Constitution.3. The principal contention urged for the petitioners relates to the oft-repeat...
Tag this Judgment!