Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC645; JT1990(1)SC128; 1990(1)SCALE151; (1990)1SCC583; [1990]1SCR203; 1990(1)LC444(SC); (1990)1UPLBEC301
ORDERRanganath Misra, J.1. We have heard counsel for the parties at considerable length but piece meal spread over a number of days. Special Leave granted Five cooperative societies with membership of Government servants mostly of the lower strata filed six separate writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court challenging the Notification under Section 4(1) and Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894) on several grounds. The principal contentions before the High Court were two-fold: (1) the cooperative societies consisting of the low paid Government servants having acquired the land for the purpose of providing residential accommodation to their members, the Ghaziabad Development Authority constituted by the State of Uttar Pradesh for the same purpose should not have been permitted to acquire the said land to their prejudice; and (2) there was no justification for depriving the petitioners of their right to representation under Section 5A of the Acquisition Act in the fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC83b; 1990(1)Crimes461(SC); JT1990(1)SC102; 1990(1)SCALE95; 1990Supp(1)SCC20
S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. In this appeal, all the ten appellants who stood convicted under Sections 148, 450, 326, 307, 324 and 323 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment in addition to the imposition of fine amount with the usual default clause with a direction that all the substantive sentences should run concurrently and that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- be paid as compensation to the victim Jaspal Singh (PW-3) out of the fine amount, if realised, preferred an appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, which for the reasons assigned in its judgment set aside the conviction of all the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. but confirmed the convictions of all the appellants in respect of the remaining offences. Coming to the question of sentence, the High Court reduced the sentences Of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellants under each count but enhanced the fine amount to Rs. 2,ooo/- in respect of each ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC630; (1990)92BOMLR145; JT1990(1)SC106; 1990(1)SCALE86; (1990)1SCC520; 1990(1)LC379(SC)
ORDERRanganath Misra, J.1. Respondents filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Bombay High Court challenging permission to the builders to escalate the rates in respect of construction permitted on exempted land under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter 'Act' for short). The respondents made an application (Civil application No. 5748/89) for amendment of the averments in that writ petition but by order dated 12th of December, 1988, the High Court rejected the civil application and refused leave to amend. By a subsequent order dated 16th of December, 1988, in the writ petition, the High Court held:The Writ Petition as filed does not survive. It has become infructuous by changed government policy and the resolutions and letters already referred to in our order under the Civil Application. Hence, the same is dismissed.We propose to give some directions regarding future monitoring of the scheme. These directions are rest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC648; [1990(60)FLR347]; JT1990(1)SC115; 1990LabIC577; 1990(1)SCALE96; (1990)1SCC589; [1990]1SCR181; 1990(1)LC387(SC)
ORDERM. Fathima Beevi, J.1. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment dated 7.9.1981 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi in Civil Revision No. 341 of 1981. The short question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner is a 'public officer' as defined in Section 2(17) of the CPC.2. Section 80 of the Code requires a notice to be issued as prescribed before instituting a suit against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such pubic officer in his official capacity. The respondent herein instituted a suit against the appellant-the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner-without a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. The objection in this behalf was repelled by the trial court and the High Court holding that the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner is not a public officer. According to the appellant the Commissioner is a public officer within the meaning of the term occurring in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990(47)ELT188(SC); JT1990(1)SC143; (1990)2SCC1; [1990]1SCR209
K.N. Saikia, J.1. Special leave granted.2. After the Appellant landed at Trivandrum Airport from Abu Dhabi, he was intercepted by the customs officials detecting that he smuggled 13 gold sheets weighing 1280 gms. valued at Rs.4,26,240 concealed inside the plywood panels of his blue suitcase which was seized along with his two passports, old and new. He was arrested on 31-1-1988 and was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Ernakulam who remanded him to judicial custody till 12-2-1988. On 12-2-1988 he was granted bail on condition, inter alia, that he would report before the Superintendent (Intelligence) Air Customs, Trivandrum on every Wednesday until further orders, and that he would not change his residence without prior permission of Court to '25-2-1988.' The impugned detention order dated 25-6-1988 was passed by the Home Secretary, Government of Kerala. It stated that the Government of Kerala was satisfied with respect to the appellant that with a view t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC977; 1990(27)ECC1; 1990(46)ELT3(SC); JT1990(1)SC99; 1990(1)SCALE79; (1990)1SCC470; [1990]1SCR157; 1990(1)LC363(SC)
M.H. Kania, J.1. These appeals arise from a judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (South Regional Bench) at Madras. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows: The appellant is a manufacturer of motor vehicle parts falling under Item 34-A of the Central Excise Tariff and components for IC Engines falling under Item 68 of the said Tariff. The period with which we are concerned in these appeals is the period from October 1, 1975 to July 21, 1984. The marketing pattern of the appellant was that they sold goods in the wholesale to O.E. . 1983 (14) ELT 1896. The appellant applied for a refund on the ground that the excise duty had been collected from the appellant on the footing that the distributors were related persons and that, in view of the finding that the distributors were not related persons, the excess amount should be refunded to it. This contention was rejected by the Assistant Collector and on the ground that except in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1990)92BOMLR228; JT1990(3)SC68; 1990(1)SCALE279; (1990)2SCC42; [1990]1SCR172
J.S. Verma, J.1. Special Leave granted.2. The short question involved is the maintainability of the suit which gives rise to this appeal. The appellants contend that the Suit is not maintainable even on the plaint averments. The Trial Court held the suit to be maintainable and the High Court has dismissed the appellants' revision affirming that view. Hence this appeal by special leave.3. The appellants are the legal representatives of Motilal who purchased the disputed property, namely, 'Goyal Talkies' at Kamptee in the year 1946. The said Motilal entered into a partnership on 31.12.1953-with respondent Ratanlal representing the joint family firm 'M/s, Ratanlal Damdoolal and Bros.' for the purpose of running the cinema business in 'Goyal Talkies'. Some disputes having arisen between the parties, the said Motilal together with his wife and children filed Civil Suit No. 19A of 1955 on 4.8.1955 in the Court of Civil Judge, Class I, Nagpur, against respondent Ratanlal as defendant No. 1, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC600; JT1990(1)SC94; 1990(1)SCALE85; (1990)2SCC187; 1990(1)LC447(SC)
ORDERKuldip Singh, J.1. Special leave granted.2. We pronounce our conclusions in the appeals and a reasoned judgment shall be delivered later on. We allow the appeals and set aside the judgment of the High Court dated September 13, 1989 delivered in Civil Writ Petition No. 10623 of 1989. We also set aside the consequential judgments of the High Court dated September 18, 1989 in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 10855 of 1989 and 9745 of 1989. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 10623 of 1989 and 10855 of 1989 filed by those petitioners in the High Court are dismissed. Civil Writ Petition 9745 of 1989 is disposed of in terms of this order. We direct as under:a) Admissions, in the three State medical colleges and two State dental colleges for the session commenced in the year 1989, to the seats reserved in favour of sportsmen/sportswomen be made in accordance with the Government of Punjab, Deptt. of Health & Family Welfare notification dated April 21, 1989 (Annexure 'A' in C.A. 4408/1989) read with Governme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC723; JT1990(1)SC95; [1990]1SCR164; 1990(1)LC561(SC)
ORDERM. Fathima Beevi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28-9-1981 of the High Court of Allahabad in Second Appeal No. 1874 of 1970.2. The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit alleging inter alia that before enforcement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as 'Zamindari Abolition Act', defendants Nos. 3 to 25 were the tenants-in-chief of the plots in suit and his father Munni Lal was their sub-tenant; that Munni Lal died in 1951 leaving behind four sons including the plaintiff-respondent; that remaining three brothers of the plaintiff had separated and consequently the plaintiff became sole-tenant; that Munni Lal was recorded occupant in Khasra 1356 Fasli and in cultivatory possession in Khasra 1359 Fasli and consequentially he acquired adhivasi rights and then sirdari rights, the rights of defendants 3 to 25 extinguished under Section 240-A of the Zamindari Abolition Act; that in 1968, however, defendants Nos. 1 and 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC897; JT1990(1)SC118; [1990]1SCR186
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The short question which arises for our consideration in this appeal by special leave is whether a tenant of a premises constructed in 1967 is entitled to the protection of Section 39 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. 13 of 1972 as amended by Act No. 17 of 1985), hereinafter called 'the Act', in an eviction suit instituted before the commencement of the Act. The Act came into force w.e.f. 15th July, 1972 by virtue of the notification issued by the State Government in exercise of power conferred by Sub-section 4 of Section 1 of the Act, vide Notification No. 3409/XXIX-59-72 dated 27th June, 1972 published in the U.P. Government Gazette, Extra, dated 1st July, 1972. The Act was enacted for inter alia regulation of letting and eviction of tenants from certain classes of buildings situate in urban areas specified in Sub-section (3) of Section 1. Section 2 indicates the buildings to which the Act shall not apply....
Tag this Judgment!