Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1988(3)SC284; 1988(2)SCALE305; 1989Supp(1)SCC373; 1988(2)LC317(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. This appeal is by special leave. The order of the Allahabad High Court in a writ petition arising out of proceedings under the U.P. Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act dated 17th September, 1981 is assailed.2. By the impugned order, the Allahabad High Court set aside the decision of the Member, Board of Revenue and remitted the dispute to the original forum on two aspects, namely, adverse possession of the appellants and the plea of surrender by Mst. Janki.3. The matter was heard at length and ultimately both the parties agreed that the order of remand need not be interfered with but the scope of the remand should be limited to the question of surrender and the question of adverse possession need not be reinvestigated. We accordingly dispose of the appeal by sustaining the order of the High Court directing remand but confine the scope of remand to the question of examining the acceptability of the plea and the validity of the alleged surrender.4. The appeal in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC2054; 1989(2)ARBLR441(SC); (1989)1CALLT57(SC); (1989)1CompLJ101(SC); JT1988(3)SC482; 1988(2)SCALE739; (1988)4SCC31; [1988]Supp2SCR231; 1988(2)LC627(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. Special leave granted. The appeal is disposed of by the order herein.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta, dated 25th August, 1987, dismissing the application for setting aside the award, on the ground that the said application was barred by lapse of time. The award in this case was filed in the High Court on 4th February, 1977. The respondent affirmed an affidavit on 29th November, 1977 stating that the award had been filed in the Court on 4th February, 1977 and prayed that a notice be issued and served on the appellant so that the judgment in terms of the award could be passed.3. On 10th January, 1978 the respondent's advocate-on-record took out a Master's Summons and used the aforesaid affidavit as the ground for the prayers which were made in the summons. On 1st February, 1978 M/s. Khaitan & Company, solicitors, on behalf of the appellant, filed a Vakalatnama and a requisition in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990Supp(1)SCC144
S. Natarajan and; S. Ranganathan, JJ.1. Special leave granted. Heard counsel for the appellant and the respondent-State. In these appeals notice was issued confined to the question of sentence.2. The appellant was charged under Sections 409, 467 and 477-A IPC and also under Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was acquitted of the charges under Sections 409, 467 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code but was convicted under Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs 250 and in default to undergo imprisonment for 15 days in each of the four cases in which he was awarded conviction. The learned Special Judge who awarded the conviction and sentence took into consideration the mitigating circumstances in favour of the appellant and did not therefore award him the minimum sentence prescribed under the Prevention of Corruption Act and deeme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1883; 1988(36)BLJR633; 1989CriLJ1; JT1988(3)SC191; 1988(2)SCALE117; (1988)3SCC609; [1988]Supp2SCR24
ORDER OF THE COURTSd/-(USHA MEHRA)REGISTRAR16. On the same day, the High Court passed another order under Section 194 of the Code designating Shri Mahesh Chandra, Additional Sessions Judge as the Judge to try the said case. Shri Mahesh Chandra was a Senior District and Sessions Judge at the Courts in New Delhi within the jurisdiction of which the offence was committed. The case of the appellants is that the High Court has no jurisdiction to issue the first notification directing the trial at Tihar Jail. It is argued that Section 9(6) confers power on the High Court to specify by notification a place or places at which criminal trials can be held by the Court of Session in the Union Territory of Delhi. The requirement of a notification of the High Court of the place or places where the Court of Session will function is intended to facilitate the process of public participation. Such a notification, it is submitted, has already been issued by the High Court of Delhi. The whole of the Uni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1777; (1988)72CTR(SC)75; [1988]173ITR469(SC); JT1988(3)SC285; 1988(2)SCALE318; 1988Supp(1)SCC626; [1988]Supp2SCR211; 1988(2)LC498(SC); 1988(2)WLN132
ORDER1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by a firm, Raja Properties, praying for certain directions, consequent upon the disposal of the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9946 of 1987 filed by one Surinder Nath Kapoor against the Union of India and others. Before considering the Civil Miscellaneous Petition, it is necessary to state a few facts leading to the filing of the petition.2. Surinder Nath Kapoor is one of the partners of M/s. Krishna Kapoor & Co. consisting of the following four partners:(1) Shri Shiv Dayal Kapoor (since deceased).(2) Shri Surinder Nath Kapoor.(3) Shri Ram Nath Kapoor.(4) Shri Narender Nath Kapoor.3. Partners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the sons of Shiv Dayal Kapoor, since deceased. There is another firm M/s. Indo-Kashmir Carpets & Handicrafts. It is the sister concern of M/s. Krishna Kapoor & Co. and constituted with the said Shiv Dayal Kapoor, since deceased, and his daughters-in-law. Both the firms are assessees under the Income Tax Act, 1961, her...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1870; (1989)1CALLT52(SC); JT1988(3)SC458; 1988(2)SCALE770; (1988)4SCC358; [1988]Supp2SCR204; 1988(2)LC535(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. Special leave granted. The appeal is disposed of by the judgment herein.2. On or about 7th August, 1963 Jayshree Textiles & Industries Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the Jayshree') was inducted as a tenant in respect of a godown in Calcutta on ground floor at a monthly rent of Rs. 151 per month payable according to the English calendar month w.e.f. 1.8.1963 exclusive of electric charges. Such induction was by the predecessor in title of the present appellant. The said rent of Rs. 151 p.m. was later enhanced from time to time and the last rent was Rs. 225 p.m.3. On or about 21st July, 1975, the High Court at Calcutta, in Company Petition No. 161/76 connected with company application No. 70/76 filed by the Jayshree, approved the scheme of amalgamation whereby the Jayshree merged in the respondent Company. It is alleged that on or about 4th July, 1985, the appellant for the first time came to know that the said godown was in occupation of Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1873; 1988(18)ECC172; 1988(36)ELT730(SC); JT1988(3)SC334; 1988(2)SCALE599; (1988)4SCC139; [1988]Supp1SCR761; [1989]72STC118(SC); 1988(2)LC529(SC)
1. These appeals are under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called 'the Act') directed against the decision of the Customs Excise (Gold) Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, (hereinafter called 'the CEGAT').2. The respondent M/s. Indian Oxygen Ltd., Visakhapatnam, are manufacturers of dissolved acetylene gas and compressed oxygen gas (hereinafter called 'the gases'). The respondent was supplying these gases in cylinders at their factory gate. For taking delivery of these gases, some consumers/customers used to bring their own cylinders and take the delivery, while others used to have the delivery in the cylinders supplied by the respondent. For the purpose of such supply of cylinders, certain rentals were charged by the respondent and also to ensure that these cylinders are returned properly, certain amount of deposit used to be taken from the customers. On those deposits notional interest @ 18% per annum was calculated. These two amounts with whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1782; JT1988(3)SC186; 1988(2)SCALE325; 1988Supp(1)SCC734; [1988]Supp1SCR755; 1988(2)LC404(SC)
1. This writ petition arises upon a letter received from the Yuva Adhivakta Kalyan Samiti, Sasaram, District Rohtas (Bihar). Among other things, it is alleged in the letter that the female inmates of the 'Care Home', Patna (Bihar) are compelled to live in inhuman conditions in an old dilapidated building, that they are illtreated, provided food which is both insufficient and of poor quality, and that no medical attention is afforded to them. On 18 November, 1987 this Court issued notice to the Superintendent of the Home, the District Magistrate, Patna and the State of Bihar and simultaneously ordered the learned District Judge, Patna to visit the Home and submit a report on the conditions actually prevailing there in the context of the allegations contained in the letter. The learned District Judge has submitted his report. He states that the 'Care Home' is managed by the Welfare Department of the State Government under the administrative control of the Deputy Director, Welfare, Patna,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1789; 1988(36)BLJR590; 1988CriLJ1816; JT1988(3)SC184; 1988(2)SCALE308; (1988)4SCC130; 1988(2)LC598(SC)
ORDER1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the appellate judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court reversing the appellate judgment of acquittal of the Sessions Judge and convicting the appellant under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.2. The appellant was called upon to face the following charge:That on 9.7.1980, in the area of Bijhri, you were found in possession of 4 Kgs. of 'Masur Whole' for sale kept in your shop out of which the complainant purchased from you a sample weighing 600 grams for the purposes of analysis against cash payment of Rs. 1. 68, which on analysis by the Public Analyst Punjab was found to contain living and dead insects alongwith fragments of dead insects in abundance and about one fourth of the sample contains larva inside the grains, and the sample contained 36.0 per cent insect damaged grains against the 1 maximum prescribed standard o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1785; 1988(36)BLJR765; 1988CriLJ1812; 1988(3)Crimes1(SC); JT1988(4)SC42; 1988(2)SCALE297; (1988)4SCC456; 1988(2)WLN31
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This is an appeal under Article 134(1)(a) of the Constitution from a Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court given on 20 November, 1983. Lichhamadevi the appellant was tried for an offence under Section 302 IPC for the murder of her daughter-in-law. She was acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur city. Upon appeal by the State the High Court reversed the order of acquittal and sentenced her to death.2. The prosecution story of the case may now be briefly stated : Pushpa was the daughter of Sita Ram (PW 9). She was married to Jagdish Prasad. On 29 January, 1977 she was found with flames in the kitchen. Upon hearing her pathetic cries, the neighbours rushed, but not her relatives in the house. The neighbours took her to the hospital where she died the next day. It is said that the relations between Pushpa and her mother-in-law (the appellant) had become strained on account of unsatisfied dowry demand. Overbearing mother-in-law appears to be the master of the house. S...
Tag this Judgment!