Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990Supp(1)SCC52
1. There is a reported judgment of this Court that the Chamber Judge is entitled to deal with and finally dispose of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In that view of the matter the note circulated has no basis. Since the application for condonation of delay has already been dismissed about a year back, the civil appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC2136; 1989CriLJ122; JT1988(1)SC602; 1988Supp(1)SCC557
ORDERMurari Mohan Dutt, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench, affirming the conviction and sentence under Section 302. I.P.C. as against the appellant.2. According to the prosecution, there was a dispute in regard to the right to draw water from the well 'Maliwala' situated in Village Dhani Beroj. The complainant and the appellant along with his three sons and several others had undisputed right to draw water in turn from the same well. There were in all 16 sharers to draw water. On October 2, 1982 there was a bitter quarrel between the complainant and accused as to the right to draw water. The complainant was asserting that it was his turn whereas the appellant and his sons were asserting that it was their turn. It was alleged further by the prosecution that the accused came there in the early part of the day and switched off the motor telling the complainant that they would be operating the tubewell in that nig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1989Supp(2)SCC406
M.N. Venkatachaliah,; Ranganath Misra and; S. Natarajan, JJ.1. The petitioner confines his challenge to the merit of the order and withdraws his challenge to the vires of Rule 9 of Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules. The petitioner wanted permission for publication of a commentary on the Karnataka Rent Control Act. We find that rule exempts publication through a publisher of purely literary, artistic or scientific character from its purview. Perhaps the book in question would not be covered as such by the clause referred to above, but we are of the view that the High Court may reconsider its view taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is a judicial officer and the publication is a commentary on a statute connected with law proper. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1988(36)BLJR382; JT1988(1)SC600; 1988Supp(1)SCC531
ORDERMurari Mohon Dutt, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court whereby the High Court affirmed the order of the Sessions Judge convicting the appellants under Section 302/149 I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to rigorous imprisonment for life.2. Initially, there were 11 accused including the appellants. The prosecution case in brief was that the appellants and other accused attacked the deceased Sontireddy Venkata Reddy, a lecturer in a college at warangal inflicting injuries on him to which he succumbed. All the accused including the appellants were prosecuted and tried by the learned Sessions Judge, warangal on a charge of murdering the deceased sontireddy Venkata Reddy. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings against the appellants and others before the learned Sessions Judge, accused No. 6 died and, consequently, the proceedings against him abated. Learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused 7 to 11 but convicted th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC812; JT1988(1)SC329; 1988(1)KLT386(SC); 1988(1)SCALE243; (1988)1SCC722; [1988]2SCR871; 1988(1)LC507(SC)
S. Natarajan, J.1. These appeals by special leave and the special leave petition have been clubbed together and listed for consideration of a common question of law involved in them, viz. whether against an order of a District Court in revision under Section 20 of the) Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent) Control Act 2 of 1965 (for short the Kerala Act), a further revision would lie to the High Court under Section 115 of the CPC.2. Though the question is not res-integra in view of the decision of this Court in Aundal Ammal v. Sadasivan Pillai : [1987]1SCR485 , the appeals have been listed for consideration by a Bench of three Judges of the very same question in order to see whether there is any conflict between the views taken in Aundal Ammal's case (Supra) and a later decision of this Court in Shyamaraju Hegde v. U. Venkatesha Bhat and Ors. :1987 (3) J.T. 663 and whether the view taken in the earlier case requires reconsideration.3. Even at the threshold of the judgment it has to be mentio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1989Supp(2)SCC415
Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. In the facts and circumstances of the case, while we uphold the conviction of the appellant, we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellant for the special reason that the case has been pending for a long time and the offence was committed in the year 1958. The sentence of fine is, however maintained. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990Supp(1)SCC137
G.L. Oza and; B.C. Ray, JJ.1. Special leave granted. Heard learned counsel on both sides.2. In the special facts and circumstances of this case it is directed that so far as appellant/accused 1 Sardar Bhupinder Singh is concerned, he has been in jail for about two months and he is an old man of 65 years, in our opinion the sentence already undergone and additionally a fine of Rs 5000 would meet the ends of justice. So far as appellant/accused 2 Sardar Manmohan Singh is concerned, his sentence is reduced to that of six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs 5000. This case may not be treated as a precedent.3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1988(1)SC410; 1989Supp(2)SCC429
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. A suit instituted by respondent nos. 1 and 2 claiming pre-emption in respect of a transaction of sale of land under a registered sale deed executed on June 12, 1979 was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation though the trial court negatived the other contentions raised by the appellant-defendant. The lower appellate court reversed the decision rendered by the trial court and came to the conclusion that the suit was within limitation. Accordingly, the suit of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was decreed. The appellant approached the High Court by way of second appeal. The High Court dismissed the appeal in limine. Thereupon the original defendant No. 2in whose favour the sale deed was executed by the original owner has approached this Court by way of present appeal by special leave.2. In so far as the point of limitation is concerned, the relevant provision is embodied in Article 97 of the Indian Limitation Act which reads thus:97. To...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1989Supp(2)SCC286
M.P. Thakkar and; K.N. Singh, JJ.1. We are told that insofar as a large part of the land in dispute, namely, land comprised in Survey No. 266 admeasuring 12 acres 24 gunthas is concerned, it was originally Patilki-Vatan tenure. This Vatan has been abolished by the relevant Vatan Abolition Act in 1962. The land has, therefore, vested unto the State in 1962. It will be re-granted to whosoever is entitled to such re-grant in accordance with the relevant Abolition Act. It is stated before us that re-grant has been made in favour of the appellants but the respondents have carried an appeal and the appeal is pending before the competent authority. Till the question of re-grant is determined, it will not be possible to dispose of this appeal effectively. It may be stated that so far as Respondents 3-10 are concerned, they claim to have a one third share in this land by virtue of sale deed dated 10-11-1964. On that date the land was vested unto the State and the vendor was not the owner. Whate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1989Supp(2)SCC439
1. In this case there is an application for condonation of delay. The delay is for a very long time. There is no proper explanation as such. We would have gone into this question in a little greater detail if there was any merit in this appeal. In view of the decision of this Court in the CIT v. APSRTC1 this question is no longer open. In view of the ratio of the decision of this Court the question has become concluded and is now academic. The respondent, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, is entitled to exemption from tax. In that view of the matter the delay is condoned but the appeal is dismissed. ...
Tag this Judgment!