Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC2042; JT1988(3)SC631; 1988(2)SCALE550; 1988Supp(1)SCC731; [1988]Supp2SCR599; [1988]71STC262(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is a petition for leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court of Allahabad, dated 7th February, 1985.2. It is a matter dealing with sales-tax. The dealer commenced business of foreign liquor from 1st May, 1976. From the record, it appears that a survey was made on 7th August, 1976 and the respondent was directed to get itself registered for 1977-78 as a dealer. It did not. This was so inspite of having been directed to do so in respect of 1976-77 and, as such, penalty was imposed. The Sales Tax Officer by his order dated 16th December, 1977 imposed penalty of Rs. 4,500 for non-registration under Section 15A(i)(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). Section 15A empowers the assessing authority, if satisfied, that any dealer had not done certain things as contained in the various Sub-clauses of Sub-section (1) therein stated it would be liable to penalty. The dealer is liable if he fails to obtain transit pass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1998; 1989CriLJ88; 1988(3)Crimes367(SC); JT1988(3)SC491; 1988(2)SCALE436; 1988Supp(1)SCC686; [1988]Supp2SCR611
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The State of U.P. and the informant have preferred these appeals with special leave, challenging the order of acquittal recorded by the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2340 of 1978. Anil Singh, the common respondent in the appeals was tried for the murder of Keshav Kumar ('KK') by the Court of Session (Non-Metropolitan area), Kanpur. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life. But on appeal, he was acquitted by the High Court.2. The prosecution story of the occurrence may be stated at some length.3. The respondent-accused and KK were almost of equal age. They are friends as well as class mates. They were also co-accused in some minor criminal cases. The accused was of violent temperament. He used to indulge in criminal activities. His father sent him to his maternal grandfather's house at Faizabad for being better taken care of. But he used to visit often his native place i.e. Pukhrayan, where KK was residing. The accused was in the h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC2018; 1989(1)ARBLR37(SC); 67(1989)CLT1(SC); JT1988(3)SC552; 1988(2)SCALE542; (1988)4SCC153; [1988]Supp2SCR579; 1988(2)LC652(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution from the decision and judgment of the High Court of Orissa, dated 8th April, 1987. By the said judgment the High Court had allowed the appeal in part and modified the award so far as it related to the payment of interest on the awarded amount. Another appeal challenging the validity of the award was, however, dismissed.2. In or about 1975-76 the respondent was entrusted with the work of 'Construction of balance work of earth dam of Koska Minor Irrigation Project' vide an agreement No. 207 F-2. The said work was due to be completed on 3rd August, 1977 but it was actually completed on 31st March, 1978. The estimated value of the work was Rs. 25,06,299. It is stated that the contractor, respondent herein, had executed only 18 out of 22 items of work beside one extra item and he was paid a sum of Rs. 23,63,122 for the work done. According to the petitioner, no further amount was due t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1973; 1988(36)BLJR674; 1989CriLJ82; 1988(3)Crimes288(SC); JT1988(3)SC479; 1989MPLJ166(SC); 1988(2)SCALE582; (1988)4SCC452; [1988]Supp2SCR584
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. We grant special leave and proceed to dispose of the appeal.2. The appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated April 25, 1986 quashing the final order made under Section 145 of Cr. P.C. in respect of a shop premises. The shop was in possession of one Asgarali son of Akbar Ali as mortgagee since October 17, 1969. On August 7, 1982, Asgarali was said to have leased out the shop to the petitioner and also delivered possession thereof. The entering of possession by the petitioner became a subject matter of dispute. Apprehending breach of peace, the police initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. before the Additional District Magistrate, Ujjain. In that proceedings, the petitioner was party No. 2 and respondent No. 2 was party No. 1. On August 13, 1982 the Magistrate made a preliminary order. The proceedings continued for about three years. On May 17, 1985, the Magistrate made the final order in the following terms:Hence...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC2127; 1989CriLJ116; 1989(3)Crimes541(SC); JT1988(3)SC711; 1988(2)SCALE426; (1988)4SCC551; [1988]Supp2SCR571
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These two appeals, by special leave, are directed against a judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 128-SP of 1984. The common respondents in the appeals, were prosecuted for various offences in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot. By judgment dated February 28, 1984 learned Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as follows:Keeping in view the circumstances of the case and the part played by each of them I, hereby sentence Sukhbir, Sukhpal and Surat Singh accused to undergo R.I. for four years Under Section 307/149 IPC.Each of Om Pal, Dhan Pal, Mannu and Siri Chand are ordered to undergo R.I. for three years, Under Section 307/149 IPC.Each of the seven accused are further ordered to undergo R.I. for one year Under Section 148 IPC, two years R.I. Under Section 325/149 IPC and one year R.I. Under Section 323/149 IPC.Keeping in view the circumstances of the case, all the sentences shall run concurrently.2. The accuse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1987; 1989CriLJ85; JT1988(3)SC432; (1988)94PLR522; 1988(2)SCALE406; 1988Supp(1)SCC655; [1988]Supp2SCR561; 1988(2)LC631(SC)
K.N. Singh, J1. The complainant has by means of this petition claimed relief for taking action for contempt against the accused for their failure to comply with the orders of this Court dated 14.7.1986 made in Civil Appeal No. 2277 of 1986 and to punish the accused who include the Secretary and Commissioner, Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department and Tehsildar, Land Reforms, Koppa, Chickmagalur District, Karnataka.2. During the hearing we noticed that the affidavit filed by the complainant as well as the affidavit filed in reply to the contempt petition both were not in accordance with the provisions of the Supreme Court Rules or Order 19 Rule 3 of CPC. Smt. Savithramma, the complainant, has filed affidavit in support of the contempt petition. In paragraph 2 of her affidavit she stated that the statements contained in the contempt petition were true to the best of her knowledge, belief and information. In paragraph 3 she has further stated that the affidavit had been read over, tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1976; JT1988(3)SC430; 1989LabIC12; 1988(2)SCALE418; 1988Supp(1)SCC738; [1988]Supp2SCR566; 1988(2)LC641(SC)
Murari Mohan Dutt, J.1. The only point that is involved in one of these two appeals by special leave, namely, Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1981, which is the only effective appeal, relates to the seniority between the appellant Dr. Ramesh Chandra Sinha and the respondent No. 4 Dr. P.K. Verma. The appellant has also challenged the seniority of Dr. S.L. Mandal, respondent No. 3 in Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1981, and Dr. J. Alam, respondent No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1981. But, Mr. Tapas Roy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in both these appeals, has expressly given up the challenge in respect of these two persons. We are, accordingly, concerned with the question of seniority between the appellant and Dr. P.K. Verma in Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1981 and, as the appellant does not press the case against Dr. J. Alam, the Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1981 is infructuous and liable to be dismissed.2. Both the appellant and Dr. Verma are Plastic Surgeons. By an order dated September 29...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1979; 1988(36)BLJR613; JT1988(3)SC448; (1988)IILLJ506SC; 1988(2)SCALE409; (1988)4SCC170; [1988]Supp2SCR546; 1989(1)SLJ1(SC); 1988(2)LC644(SC)
M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. 1. The special leave petition and the appeal-by two Central-Government-servants-raise an interesting point of construction of a service Rule whether a Disciplinary Authority can, under Sub-rule (vi) of Rule 11 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, (Rules for short), impose the penalty of reduction on a Government Servant, recruited directly to a particular post, to a post lower than that to which he was so recruited; and if such a reduction is permissible, whether the reduction could only be to a post from which under the relevant Recruitment Rules promotion to the one to which the Government servant was directly recruited.The petition and appeal are directed against the orders dated 8/9-4-1986 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi, and the order dated 29.10.1986 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gujarat, respectively, affirming the orders of the Disciplinary Authorities imposing on the petitioner and the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC2149; JT1988(3)SC616; 1988(2)SCALE420; 1988Supp(1)SCC722; [1988]Supp2SCR536; 1988(2)LC657(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. This appeal involves a short question and the field is more or less covered by the constitutional provisions as well as the authorities of this Court. The Executive Engineer (Construction Division No. 1) PWD B and R Branch, Patiala, invited tenders for the work called 'Construction of high level bridge over Tangri Nadi in Mile No. 19/5 of Patiala-pehewa Road'. The respondent in response to the said invitation submitted the tender for the aforesaid work, which was opened on 7th October, 1975. The Executive Engineer informed the respondent on that date, who happened to be the lowest tenderer and before the tender could be finally considered, that the drawings in triplicate be submitted to the Chief Engineer PWD B and R, Suptd. Engineer, PWD B and R and Executive Engineer Construction Division No. 1 PWD B and R Branch, Patiala. The tender, however, was recalled in February, 1976 by the Executive Engineer Construction Division No. 1. The respondent again submitte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990Supp(1)SCC54
A.P. Sen,; L.M. Sharma and; N.D. Ojha, JJ.1. In this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner by the court's order dated October 14, 1987 was permitted to implead the Union of India through the Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Home Affairs and also raise an additional ground viz. ground no. 24. The additional plea taken by the petitioner is that he had on September 18, 1987 made a representation to the State Government of Uttar Pradesh through the Secretary to the Government, Home Department, Lucknow with an additional copy to the Central Government for consideration, and that neither the State Government of Uttar Pradesh nor the Central Government have considered his representation as enjoined by Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The Central Government as well as the State Government have disdained from filing any counter-affidavit. The Central Government has also chosen not to enter appearance. The only cou...
Tag this Judgment!