Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC2137; JT1988(1)SC601; 1988Supp(1)SCC717
1. Constitutional validity of a provision conferring right of pre-emption on the tenant of a land is the principal question involved in this appeal by a purchaser (appellant) of a parcel of land from its original-owners (respondents 2 and 3).2. The provision concerned is embodied in Section 15 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The said provision cannot be successfully assailed inasmuch as its constitutional validity has been sustained by this Court in Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana : [1986]1SCR399 in the following terms :The right of pre-emption vested in a tenant can also be easily sustained. There can be no denying that the movement of all land reform legislations has been towards enabling the tiller of the soil to obtain proprietary right in the soil so that he may not be disturbed from possession of the land and deprived of his livelihood by a superior proprietor. The right of pre-emption in favour of a tenant granted by the Act is only another instance of a legislation aimed at p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC850; JT1988(1)SC594; 1988(1)SCALE307; (1988)2SCC193; [1988]2SCR865; [1988]70STC97(SC); 1988(1)LC458(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This petition under Article 136 of the Constitution for leave to appeal is against the decision of the High Court of Allahabad dated 2nd of November, 1987. The question involved here is regarding the levy and realisation of octroi duty by the Nagar Mahapalika, Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh. Kasturi Lal Satantra Kumar and his partner, respondents herein, by a bid in the auction held for retail vend of country liquor for the excise ear 1987-88 ending on March 31, 1988 obtained the necessary licence under the U.P. Excise Act for a group of shops known as Faridpur Group in the district of Bareilly. The auction was held in the month of March, 1987. One of the conditions of the auction which also formed part of the licence, was that the licensee would obtain supply of country liquor for retail vend from the bonded warehouse in respect of Bareilly district situated within the limits of Nagar Mahapalika, Bareilly.2. Indubitably the said Kasturi, petitioner in the original...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1988(1)SC303; 1988Supp(1)SCC522
ORDERE.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The question involved in this case is one of limitation. The appellant was dismissed from service by the Additional Collector of Betul, State of Madhya Pradesh on 13-1-1966. He preferred a statutory appeal under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Service Classification (Control and Appeal) Rules 1956. The said appeal was dismissed on 31-8-1966. Thereafter he instituted a suit after issuing a notice as required by law to the State Government under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The suit was filed on 30th September, 1969. It is not disputed that if the period of limitation is calculated from the date of dismissal of the appeal the suit would be in time, under the relevant Article of Limitation Act. But if the period of limitation has to be calculated from the date of the original order of dismissal the suit would be out of time. In the present case the suit was dismissed by the trial court on the ground of limitation, and it has been affirmed by the fir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1989Supp(2)SCC247
M.M. Dutt and; Ranganath Misra, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. Mr Sorabjee, learned counsel for the High Court, Respondent 3, has produced the confidential character rolls of the appellant for the years 1975 up-to-date and we have perused the same carefully. We are of the view that compulsory retirement was not the appropriate punishment in the facts and circumstances of the case.3. The appeal is allowed and the order of compulsory retirement is set aside. The appellant shall be restored to service and given a suitable posting within four weeks from now. He would be entitled to the benefits of service from 21-1-1985 till he joins his posting. The High Court would take into account the promotional prospects of the appellant also. We are told that the appellant is due to superannuate on 1-3-1989. He may be kept under special observation for six months.4. Parties are directed to bear their respective costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1988(36)BLJR464; JT1988(2)SC17; 1988Supp(1)SCC791
ORDERM.P. Thakkar, J. 1. Special Leave granted. Heard both the sides.2. The appellant is present in Court in person. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the offence would fall under Section 304 Part II, I.P.C and not under Section 302 I.P.C. Admittedly, the appellant had no motive to kill the victim. The appellant came running to the scene of the offence on hearing shouts and therefore, there was no question of his having entertained any intention to commit the murder of the victim. It was not a premeditated attack. Only one blow was given. It is not unreasonable to take the view that it happened to land on the victim's head. Taking into consideration all the relevant circumstances, the appeal deserves to be allowed partly to the extent that the conviction shall stand converted from one under Section 302 I.P.C to one under Section 304, Part II I.P.C. We order accordingly. Consequently we reduce the sentence from one of imprisonment for lif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990Supp(1)SCC605
M.P. Thakkar and; K.N. Singh, JJ.1. Special leave granted. Heard both the sides. It appears that attention has been focussed principally on the question as regards the inference arising from the entry made in the revenue records as per the order of the Tehsildar dated February 11, 1957. The concerned courts have not concentrated on the question regarding the actual possession on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties in an appropriate manner. Under the circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the High Court and Board of Revenue as also the order passed by the Commissioner are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Commissioner, Jhansi Division for a fresh decision in accordance with law on the basis of evidence regarding actual possession placed before the court. In doing so the competent authority shall not be influenced one way or the other by the view which has been taken from time to time on this question in the past. The appeal is disposed of according...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1988(1)SC262; 1989Supp(2)SCC288
ORDERSabyasachi Mukherjee, J.1. This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution filed by a lawyer in public interest seeking to ban the exhibition of T.V. serial 'Tamas', on the ground that it offends or likely to offend public order and public morality and create public danger. Detailed arguments have been advanced before us. We propose to consider the detailed arguments in a judgment which will be delivered shortly. We state, however, our conclusion and pass the following order:2. We dismiss this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution because we are satisfied on the evidence of the Board of Censors as well as the views expressed by the two learned Judges of the High Court in Appeal No. 96/88 arising out of W.P. No. 201/88 entitled 'GOVIND NIHILANI v. UNION OF INDIA and Ors.', which is also before us in the Special leave petition, that the effect is not likely to affect public order or the commission of any offence. We dismiss the Special leave petition. We are als...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1988(1)SC342; 1988(Supp)SCC785
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is a petition challenging the award of the Arbitrator. The matter went to the High Court and the question arose whether the Arbitrator had jurisdiction to enter into the reference and make the award. It was contended that he was not the appointed Arbitrator. The High Court after discussing the material on record, came to the conclusion that the Arbitrator was appointed by consent of the parties though he was not the original Arbitrator. We have perused the papers upon which reliance was placed in the High Court. The High Court was right in the facts and circumstances of this case. No other point was urged before the High Court about the award being an unreasoned award. Before us, however, it was sought to be urged that the award was bad not being a speaking award. Having perused the award from pages 24 to 26 of the Paper Books of this case it appears to us that the Arbitrator has sufficiently indicated his mind on the different heads on which he was ...
Tag this Judgment!