Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1989Supp(2)SCC107
Order 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the High Court in an appeal preferred by the State to challenge the conviction of the appellants under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of under Section 302 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Poona. The Additional Sessions Judge convicted Appellant 1 under Section 304 Part II IPC and the second appellant under Section 304 Part II read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for seven years and fine of Rs 1000 and RI for two years and fine of Rs 500 respectively. The High Court set aside the convictions of the two accused for the lesser offence and convicted them under Section 302 IPC and Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC respectively and sentenced both of them to suffer imprisonment for life. Against the judgment of the High Court the appellants have preferred this appeal. 2. The facts of the case are not disputed and the only controversy in the appeal is regarding the nature of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1989Supp(2)SCC181
S. Ranganathan and; Sabyasachi Mukharji, JJ.1. In this case the offence is alleged to have been committed in November 1971. The respondents were the two accused. They were arrested in November 1971. The offence alleged were under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC for brutal murder and mutilation of the dead body. It is not necessary to deal with facts and motives. Both were found guilty and convicted by the learned District & Sessions Judge. Sentences of death were passed on both of the respondents. Both appealed to the High Court. The High Court on 20-1-1976 set aside the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and the convictions of both the accused were set aside and they were directed to be released. On the application of the State on 23-11-1977, this Court granted special leave and issued non-bailable warrants against both the respondents. On 14-3-1977, Respondent 1 was granted bail. Respondent 1 did appear at one stage and he sought for and obtained legal aid of the Supr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC2071; (1989)79CTR(SC)119; [1990]181ITR530(SC); JT1989(2)SC145; (1989)IILLJ143SC; 1989(1)SCALE879; 1989Supp(1)SCC416; [1989]2SCR370; 1989(3)SLJ114(SC); 1989(2)LC691
Ranganath Misra, J.1. Petitioner, a Lt. Colonel in the Indian Army, has filed this application for taking contempt proceeding against the respondents on the allegation that the directions contained in the judgment of this Court, dated 20th April, 1988, in Civil Appeal No. 1702 of 1987 have not been complied with. This Court in the Civil Appeal found that the petitioner was entitled to a reconsideration of his claim for promotion on the basis of his medical categorisation continuing as S-I and directed:The appeal is allowed in part and to the extent that the appellant's medical category shall be taken as being continued to be S-I from 1977 and on that basis his promotional entitlement shall be finalised by the respondents within three months hence.2. After this Court's decision, by a letter dated 17th of June, 1988, the respondents informed the petitioner to the following effect : -In this connection, I have been directed to inform you that your case has been reexamined in the light of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1371; 1989(2)ARBLR356(SC); (1989)2CompLJ1(SC); JT1989(2)SC47; 1989(1)SCALE770; (1989)2SCC645; [1989]2SCR320; [1989]73STC370(SC)
M.N. Venkataramiah, J 1. In this batch of Writ Petitions and Civil Appeals two questions arise for consideration. The first question relates to the constitutional validity of the Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment). Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 46th Amendment') by which the Legislatures of the States were empowered to levy sales tax on certain transactions described in Sub-clauses (a) to (f) of Clause (29-A) of Article 366 of the Constitution and the second question is whether the power of the State Legislature to levy tax on the transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of works contracts referred to in Sub-clause (b) of Clause (29-A) of Article 366 of the Constitution is subject to the restrictions and conditions contained in Article 286 of the Constitution.2. An account of the history of the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions and of judicial decisions having a bearing on the said provisions has to be set out at this stage to appreciate the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1316; 1989(22)ECC279; 1989(40)ELT287(SC); JT1989(2)SC8; 1989(1)SCALE764; (1989)3SCC343; [1989]2SCR291
Sabysaachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 35L of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') from the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CEGAT). The respondent M/s. Jayant Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, manufactures hydrogenated rice bran oil which was sold to industrial consumers. The said hydrogenated rice bran oil is used as raw material in the manufacture of soap. The respondents, M/s. Jayant Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. filed a classification list dated 20th May, 1981 in respect of the said goods classifying the same under Tariff Item 12 for approval and claimed exception under notification No, 9'60 dated 20th February, 1960. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad III Division by an order dated 16th June, 1981 held that the hydrogenated rice bran oil was classifiable under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff (hereinafter referred to as 'GET'), because hydrogen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1498; JT1989(3)SC99; 1989(1)SCALE933; (1989)2SCC701; [1989]2SCR380; 1989(2)LC262(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. (Minority view): - I have read the judgment proposal to be delivered by L. M. Sharma, J. with which the learned Chief Justice has agreed. With great respect, I am unable to agree with them on the view that there was no arbitration agreement subsisting covering the dispute in question between the parties. It is, therefore, necessary to refer to certain facts, as I view these.2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, dated 4th June, 1987. The Jammu & Kashmir Forest Corporation is the appellant. The undisputed facts leading to this appeal are that one Abdul Karim Wani, the respondent No. 1, filed an application for referring certain matters alleged to be in dispute to an independent arbitrator; and that for the last 15 years the respondent had been working as a contractor for the appellant Corporation, namely, Jammu & Kashmir Forest Corpn. and was carrying on various activities in different fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1531; JT1989(3)SC170; 1989(1)SCALE852; 1989Supp(1)SCC628; [1989]2SCR283; 1989(2)LC218(SC)
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal by certificates under Article 133(1) of the Constitution is from a decision of the Patna High Court which revered the decree in the suit filed by the appellants for declaration of title and confirmation of possession.2. In the court of the Subordinate Judge, the First Court at Dhanbad, the plaintiff/appellants instituted a suit in respect of Schedule B of the plaint for a declaration of their homestead right thereto and for confirmation of possession or in the alternative recovery of possession. The suit property consists of 30 bighas, 18, kattar and 11 chhataks being part of plot Nos. 59 and 70 in village Dhansar. The plaintiffs' claim was based on a registered indenture of lease dated December 9, 1949 by which it is said that the possession in the zamindari right of Kali Prasad was settled to Ruplal Aggarwal, further of plaintiff No. 1 and grand-father of plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3. The plaintiffs' claim that they have become the owners of the lease...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1321; JT1989(Suppl1)SC86; 1989(1)SCALE793; (1989)3SCC314; [1989]2SCR271; 1989(2)LC252(SC)
B.C. Ray, J.1. Special leave granted. Heard arguments of both the parties.2. This appeal on special leave is against the judgment and decree passed by the Gauhati High Court on July 15, 1987 in Second Appeal No. 22 of 1981 reversing the judgment and decree dated July 24, 1981 made by the additional District Judge, West Tripura District, Agartala setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff, Sadar, Tripura in Title Suit No. 33 of 1973 dismissing the Suit without costs.3. The plaintiff-appellant was enrolled as a Constable No. 66922189 under 92 Bn, BSF in Tripura and he was serving as such since 1966. He is alleged to have been confirmed in the said post while so posted to B.O.P. at Ajgar Rahamanpur being a member of the 6th platoon under B. Company Commander Radhanagar. In 1971, he was granted leave from 25-10-71 to 30-10-1971 on account of the death of his father. As the Sradh ceremony could not be performed within the aforesaid time and he was suffering from serious ill...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1398; (1989)91BOMLR162; (1989)2CompLJ38(SC); [1989(58)FLR906]; JT1989(2)SC31; (1989)ILLJ563SC; 1989(1)SCALE965; (1989)3SCC89; [1989]2SCR266; 1989(2)LC249(SC)
T.K. Thommen, J.1. This civil appeal by special leave is directed against judgment dated 17-12-1987 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1048 of 1982 (reported in : (1988)IILLJ484Bom ) instituted by the appellant, which is a Co-operative Credit Society. The 1st respondent is a Federation representing the employees of the appellant amongst others.2. Setting aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal, the High Court held that the appellant was liable to pay its employees bonus at the rate of 20 per cent of its total annual earning for the years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78.3. The principal contention urged at the Bar against the impugned judgment is that the High Court went wrong in directing the appellant to pay bonus without regard to various amounts invested by it as permitted under the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (the 'Co-operative Societies Act') and other amounts carried forward to its Reserve Fund. The appellant's counsel con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1433; [1989(59)FLR474]; (1989)2GLR1310; JT1989(3)SC20; (1989)IILLJ470SC; 1989(1)SCALE907; (1989)2SCC602; [1989]2SCR357; 1989(3)SLJ68(SC); 1989(2)LC222(SC)
N.K. Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Gujarat dated 28.2.1986 allowing the respondent's writ petition and quashing order of discharge from service and directing his reinstatement in service.2. The respondent joined service as technical assistant with the Gujarat State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). He was promoted to the post of Deputy Engineer. While he was posted at Surat as Deputy Engineer he was transferred to Ukai subdivision under the order of the Superintending Engineer dated 29th March, 1974. Pursuant to the order of transfer he was relieved from his duties at Surat on 30th March, 1974 to enable him to join at Ukai. He made representation to the Additional Chief Engineer for cancelling his transfer order on the ground that his mother aged 70 years was ailing and it would cause great inconvenience to him if he was required to join at Ukai. His representation was rejected and he was directed to join...
Tag this Judgment!