Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC758; JT1989(1)SC67; 1989(1)SCALE36; (1989)1SCC444; [1989]1SCR67; 1989(1)LC316(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukhakji, J.1. This appeal by special leave is from the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated 30th of January, 1986. The order in question was passed by the High Court in second appeal. In order to appreciate the controversy in this appeal, it is necessary to refer to certain facts. In 1947 three rooms and a courtyard in Premises Nos. 2216-2222, Gali Inder Chamber Teliwara, Delhi as an Evacuee Property was given on tenancy to the appellant by the Custodian of the Evacuee property. In 1956, the entire property was jointly purchased by the father of the respondent and Smt. Sham Kaur from the Custodian of the Evacuee property. Smt. Sham Kaur had paid 50 per cent of the consideration money, i.e., Rs. 25.700/- towards the sale amount. It was a joint purchase, Smt. Sham Kaur died in 1975 and her legal heirs became the co-landlords of the disputed premises. In June 1975 the father of the respondents had filed an Eviction Petition against the appellant on the ground th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC677; 68(1989)CLT104(SC); JT1989(1)SC46; 1989(1)SCALE32; 1989Supp(1)SCC258; [1989]1SCR57; 1989(1)LC489(SC)
Murari Mohan Dutt, J.1 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12847 of 1985 has its origin in a letter written by Shri Kishen Pattnayak and Shri Kapil Narayan Tiwari. two social and political workers, addressed to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India. In this letter, they have brought to the notice of this Court the miserable condition of the inhabitants of the district of Kalahandi in the State of Orissa on account of extreme poverty. It is alleged that the people of Kalahandi, in order to save themselves from starvation deaths, are compelled to subject themselves to distress sale of labour on a large scale resulting in exploitation of landless labours by the well to-do landlords. It is alleged that in view of distress sale of labour and paddy, the small peasants are deprived of the legitimate price of paddy and they somehow eke out their daily existence. Further, their case is that being victims of 'chill penury', the people of Kalahandi are sometimes forced to sell their children. It has been ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1989Supp(2)SCC209
B.C. Ray; G.L. Oza ; K. Jagannatha Shetty Shetty, JJ.1. We have gone through the papers and have heard learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners at length. This petition has been filed on behalf of the father and mother of Satwant Singh, as stated by the learned counsel. The learned counsel mainly contended that the commitment of Satwant Singh and other accused persons deserves to be quashed as there is some further investigation and the argument is based on the basis of Section 173(8) CrPC. There was another petition filed by Satwant Singh which has been disposed of by another bench of this Court today which was SLP (Cri.) No. 16 of 1989. There was yet another petition by the learned counsel himself as petitioner in person which has already been disposed of by another bench of this Court.2. In our opinion there is no reason to entertain this petition. It is therefore dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC714; 1989CriLJ903; JT1989(1)SC21; 1988(2)SCALE42; (1989)1SCC494; [1989]1SCR20; 1989(1)LC340(SC)
ORDERWhereas the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi is of the opinion that a judicial inquiry is necessary into matters of public importance mentioned below; Now therefore, the Administrator is pleased to constitute a Committee, in consultation with the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court consisting of Mr. Justice N. N. Goswami and Mr. Justice D. P. Wadhwa Hon'ble Judges of the High Court to inquire into and record their findings on the following:(i) The incident of the 15th January, 1988 in St. Stephen's College, University of Delhi regarding apprehension of a lawyer by the police.(ii) The incident and reported lathi-charge on the 21st January, 1988 outside the office of the DCP/North, Delhi.(iii) Circumstances leading to presence of a mob in Tis Hazari premises on 17th February, 1988 and the resultant violence.(iv) Any other incidental development connected with the above.The Committee is requested to ascertain the facts leading to the aforesaid incidents with a view to iden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990Supp(1)SCC58
A.M. Ahmadi and; S. Natarajan, JJ.1. The State of Gujarat has filed this appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution praying for conviction being awarded to the respondent under Section 302 IPC instead of the conviction under Section 304 Part I awarded to him by the High Court. Having regard to the fact that the respondent had gone out of the factory premises after an exchange of words with the deceased Ismailbhai and returned about half an hour later with a knife in his hands and then inflicted a fatal injury on the abdomen of Ismailbhai which has been certified by the doctor R.S. Naik, PW 6 to be an injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the learned Sessions Judge was justified in awarding conviction to the respondent under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. The High Court, however, has taken the view that the respondent should have acted under grave and sudden provocation and hence the offence committed by the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1989Supp(2)SCC145
ORDER 1. The appellant — Rajendra Prasad has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence of murder of Smt Kamala Srivastava. He challenges, in this appeal by leave, the validity of the conviction. 2. It was alleged that Smt Kamala Srivastava was done to death by strangulation in the night of October 24/25, 1972. It was a murder coupled with robbery. Her ornaments were ultimately traced from possession of the appellant and some other accused. In the trial court all the accused were acquitted except Ram Kumar who was convicted under Section 302 with a sentence of life imprisonment. There were two appeals before the High Court against the judgment of the trial court one preferred by Ram Kumar and the other by the State challenging the acquittal of Rajendra Prasad and others. The High Court dismissed the appeal of Ram Kumar while allowing the State appeal only as against Rajendra Prasad. The acquittal of the other accused was, h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990Supp(1)SCC213
A.M. Ahmadi and; S. Natarajan, JJ..1. Delay condoned.2. Special leave is granted.3. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, we feel that a similar order, as the one passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 4668 of 1988 dated December 15, 1988, should be passed in this appeal also. In this case, the admitted position is that the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs 8500 (Rupees eight thousand five hundred only) towards the arrears of rent and there was a shortfall of only Rs 200 and this amount of shortfall was also subsequently deposited when it was brought to the notice of the appellant. Even so, the High Court has deemed it fit to dismiss the revision petition preferred by the appellant on the ground that the revision petition is not maintainable under Section 29(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. Learned counsel for the appellant states that having regard to the terms of Section 29(4) of the Act, the High Court ought to have given opportunity to the appellant to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1990)1SCC344
K. Jagannatha Shetty Shetty and; K.N. Saikia, JJ.1. In this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution the validity of Section 125 CrPC has been challenged on the Ground that the section unreasonably limits the maintenance to Rs 500 for individual. Section 125 provides a speedy remedy against starvation of the civil liabilities of parties. The order made thereunder is tentative and it is subject to the final determination of the rights in civil court. We, therefore, see no reason to issue rule nisi. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC674; 1989(20)ECC15; 1989(40)ELT226(SC); JT1989(1)SC7; 1989(2)SCALE356; (1989)2SCC356; [1989]1SCR13; 1989(1)LC306(SC)
M.N. Venkatachaliah, J.1. By this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, Messrs. Rup Diamonds, a Registered Export House, assail the validity of the decisions dated 9-4-1986 and 5-8-1986 of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports declining to re-validate and endorse six Imprest Licences for import of Open General Licence items upon the fulfilment by the petitioners of their export obligations under the Imprest-Licences. Petitioners seek issue of appropriate writs to the Authorities to re-validate the six Imprest Licences, with appropriate endorsement for the import of Open General items under the Import Export Policy of 1982-83 (A-M 1983).2. This writ petition came up for preliminary hearing along with Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 2579 of 1987 and 2580 of 1987 preferred by the Union of India seeking leave to appeal from two Judgments of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in two other cases.3. Petitioners are a recognised Export-House f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC690; (1989)1CompLJ225(SC); 1989(20)ECC21; 1989(25)LC159(SC); 1989(39)ELT503(SC); JT1989(1)SC10; 1989(1)SCALE4; 1989Supp(1)SCC422; [1989]1SCR1; 1989(1)LC310(SC)
M.N. Venkatachaliah, J.1. By these two special leave petitions under article 136 of the Constitution, the Union of India and the Chief and the Joint Chief Controllers of Imports and Exports seek special leave to' appeal from two appellate Judgments of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay - both dated 17-2-1987 in appeals Nos. 179 of 1987 and 148 of 1987 - affirming in appeal, orders of learned single Judges dated 5-9-1985 in W.P. 1125 of 1985 and dated 19-9-1985 in W.P. 1813 of 1985; respectively, by which the writ petitions filed by M/s. Suksha Internationals and M/s. Nutan Gems, respondents in these appeals, were allowed and appellants directed to revalidate the imprest licences of the respondents and endorse them for import of OGL items, under paragraph 185(4) of the Import-Export Policy of 1982-83 (AM 1983).2. Special leave, in both the petitions, is granted and the appeals taken up for final hearing, heard and disposed of by this common judgment. We have he...
Tag this Judgment!