Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC313; 1989(24)ECC199; 1989(43)ELT205(SC); [1990]184ITR548(SC); (1989)4SCC1; [1989]3SCR596; 1989(2)LC576(SC)
ORDERS.N. Saikia, J.1. This plaintiffs' appeal by special leave is from the appellate Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the appeal upholding the Judgment of the trial court dismissing the plaintiffs' suit on the ground of limitation.2. A registered firm Rai Saheb Nandkishore Rai Saheb Jugalkishore (Appellants) was allotted contracts for manufacture and sale of liquor for the calendar year 1959 and for the subsequent period from 1.1.1960 to 31.3.1961 for Rs. 2,56,200.00 and Rs. 4,71,900.00, respectively, by the Government of Madhya Pradesh who also charged 7-1/2 per cent over the auction money as mahua and fuel cess. As writ petitions challenging the Government's right to charge this 7-1/2 per cent were pending in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Government announced tha7t it would continue to charge it and the question of stopping it was under consideration of the Government whose decision would be binding on the contractOrs. The firm (appellants) thus paid for the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1775; JT1989(3)SC379; 1989(2)SCALE268; (1989)4SCC30; [1989]3SCR610; 1989(2)LC600(SC)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. We grant leave in the Special Leave Petition and proceed to dispose of the appeal on the merits after hearing both sides.2. The appellant is the successor-in-interest of the mortgagor of the suit property. The suit property was mortgaged on 22-5-1886. In the normal course the suit for redemption should have been filed on or before 22-5-1946, the limitation for such a suit being 60 years under the Limitation Act, 1908. The appellant, however, filed the suit for redemption only on 28-12-1968. He sought to meet the plea of limitation by urging that the son of the original mortgagee, while selling the property on 1-11-1913, had specifically acknowledged the right of the mortgagor to redeem the property. It was claimed that this acknowledgment constituted a fresh starting point for computing the period of limitation.3. If the plea of the mortgagor were right and the Limitation Act, 1908, had continued to be operative, the suit for redemption could have been filed on or ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1990]69CompCas16(SC); JT1989(3)SC327; (1989)4SCC1a
K.N. Saikia, J.1. This plaintiffs' appeal by special leave is from the appellate Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the appeal upholding the Judgment of the trial court dismissing the plaintiffs' suit on the ground of limitation.2. A registered firm Rai Saheb Nandkishore Rai Saheb Jugalkishore (Appellants) was allotted contracts for manufacture and sale of liquor for the calendar year 1959 and for the subsequent period from 1.1.1960 to 31.3.1961 for Rs. 2,56,200.00 and Rs. 4,71,900.00, respectively, by the Government of Madhya Pradesh who also charged 7 per cent over the auction money as mahua and fuel cess. As writ petitions challenging the Government's right to charge this 7 per cent were pending in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Government announced that it would continue to charge it and the question of stopping it was under consideration of the Government whose decision would be binding on the contractOrs. The firm (appellants) thus paid for the above contrac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC751; JT1989(3)SC443; 1989Supp(2)SCC287; 1989(2)LC476(SC); 2(1989)WLN(Rev)133
1. Special leave granted2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. In the facts and circumstances of the case as appearing on the record it is difficult to accept the view that the property held under temporary lease on the relevant date was to be taken into account for determining the ceiling under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. We do not intend to lay down any precedent but in the present case, the lessee's right was totally precarious and was due to lapse by efflux of time soon after the relevant date. If such land was taken into account and the ceiling of the appellant was determined, he was bound to be prejudiced.3. Counsel for the State found it difficult to support the view of the High Court when the matter was taken for consideration.4. We allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and the authorities below and direct that the ceiling be recomputed by excluding the impugned lease-hold area from consideration for the purpo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1989(3)SC231; 1989(2)SCALE99; (1989)4SCC43; [1989]3SCR569
B.C. Ray, J.1. We have already pronounced in Court on May 5, ' 1989 the order allowing the writ petition and stating therein that the written judgment will follow later on.2. Pursuant to this, we are passing the judgment embodying reasons. This writ petition is directed against the order of detention made under Section 3(1) of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985, mainly on the grounds that the grounds are not germane and relevant and there has been non-application of mind by the detaining authority in making the said order.3. The detenu was arrested and kept in Sabarmati Central Jail on October 5, 1988 under the impugned detention order made on October 5, 1988 by the respondent No. 1, Shri S.N. Sinha, Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City and the grounds had been served on him.4. The detenu immediately thereafter made representations to the detaining authority as well as to the State Government and also to the Advisory Board against the impugned order of detention ques...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1812; 1989(3)Crimes24(SC); (1990)1GLR53; JT1989(3)SC183; 1989(2)SCALE72; (1989)3SCC590; [1989]3SCR583
B.C. Ray, J.1. The petitioner has questioned in this writ petition the legality and validity of the impugned order of detention made on October 12, 1985 by the respondent No. 1 under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act. 1985 with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Ahmedabad city. The petitioner was detained by the respondents and was served with the grounds of detention along with the documents mentioned therein on the very day of detention that is, October 12, 1985. The grounds of detention were in Gujarati.2. The petitioner in the writ petition has stated that he was previously detained under the National Security Act, 1980 S.R.No. PCB/DTN/PASA/37/85 on May 23, 1985 and was released on June 28, 1985. The petitioner had been detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act. 1985 hereinafter referred to in short, as 'PASA Act'. The said order wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1778; JT1989(3)SC305; 1989(2)SCALE1450; (1989)3SCC558; [1989]3SCR560; 1989(2)LC521(SC)
M.H. Kania, J.1. This is an Appeal by Special Leave against a judgment and order dated September 15, 1982 delivered by the Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 14807 of 1981 (reported in 1983 All LJ 27).2. The appellant before us is the tenant of the shop in question. Respondent No. 1 is a pro forma party, namely, the Prescribed Authority, and respondent No. 2 is the landlord of the building containing the shop in question, situated at Mandi Harbansganj Dhampur, We propose to refer to the appellant as the tenant and respondent No. 2 as the landlord. In 1959 the landlord filed an application under Section 3(1) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the U.P. Rent Act of 1947') for the eviction of the tenant from the said shop. The said application was made on the ground that the landlord wanted to demolish the shops in the building including the said shop and in their place wanted to construct new shops and also to cons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1989(3)SC228; 1989(2)SCALE77; (1989)4SCC55; [1989]3SCR591; 1990(1)LC11(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. This appeal is by special leave and the sole legal representative of the original plaintiff is in appeil. 2. The plaintiff sued for declaration that inclusion of the disputed property in the land records of the respondent Gaon Sabha on the basis that it had vested under the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was wrong, void and without jurisdiction and for a further declaration that she was entitled to bhumidhari rights in the property under Section 11 of the Act. Her suit was decreed in the trial court and the said decree was affirmed in appeal but at the instance of defendant No. 1, Gaon Sabha, the High Court in second appeal reversed the decrees of the courts below and dismissed the suit. 3. The suit was instituted on 16-8-1966. The decision of this Court in the case of Haiti v. Sunder Singh : [1971]2SCR163 settled the legal position that a claim under Section 11 of the Act for declaration of bhumidari right wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990Supp(1)SCC3
S. Natarajan and; S. Ratnavel Pandian, JJ.1. Though arguments were advanced at length by the learned counsel appearing for the parties on the main question whether the private Medical College founded by the respondent Trust should be given recognition by the Medical Council and affiliation by the University (there being a subsidiary issue as to whether the affiliation should be given by the Osmania University or the newly formed University of Health Services), the limited question requiring consideration at this stage is whether the students already admitted to the college should be permitted to appear at the university examinations to be held shortly. So far as this question is concerned, it is necessary to state that the first batch of 100 students admitted in the year 1984-85 and the second batch of 50 students admitted in the year 1985-86 have been admitted on the basis of the provisional permission granted by the State Government itself. The next batch of 100 students admitted in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1803; 1989CriLJ2111; (1990)1GLR142(SC); JT1989(3)SC168; 1989(2)SCALE69; (1989)3SCC568
S. Ratnavel Pandian. J.1. The above three writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, filed by three different petitioners/detenues are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment as common contentions are raised challenging the validity of the impugned orders of detention dated 16.9.1988.2. The detention orders in the above cases were passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, the first respondent herein, in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (i) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985-hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'-with a view to preventing the petitioners/detenues from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Ahmedabad city. All the grounds of detention which are similar except the reference of the cases registered against each of the petitioners spell out that the detaining authority has reached his subjective satisfaction on the materials placed before ...
Tag this Judgment!