Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1147
ORDER1. Leave granted. Counsel heard.2. We feel that, although the conduct of the appellants has certainly been far from satisfactory and it does appear that they have tried to delay the matters, one final opportunity could be given to them for filing the written statement on certain conditions. In the event of the appellants depositing in Court a sum of Rs. two lakhs within a period of four weeks from today the impugned Order will be set aside and they will be permitted to file their written statement within one week thereafter. In the event of their not depositing the amount within such time the appeal shall stand dismissed with costs without any further Orders. In the event of deposit being made respondent No. 1 will be at liberty to withdraw the same subject to further Orders of this Court. The deposit will be made without prejudice to the rights of the appellants. The appeal is disposed of. In the event of deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/- being made within aforesaid time there will be no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1224; 1990CriLJ1326; 1990Supp(1)SCC777
ORDER1. Leave granted. Counsel heard.2. We find that Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1986 has been decided without the learned Counsel of the appellant (accused) who was appointed by the Court not being present. We do not wish to enter into the question as to why the counsel was not present. That is a matter which can be considered by appropriate authorities, if they think fit. In the circumstances, however, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and direct that the Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1986 shall be heard afresh by the High Court. The appellant states that he will engage his own counsel at his own cost.3. The appeal is allowed as aforesaid with no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC864; (1990)4SCC740
1. Special leave is granted.The facts necessary to decide this Civil Appeal are that an incentive scheme to patronize cottage industry of carpet weaving was formulated by the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Applications on behalf of the persons who wanted to take advantage of the scheme were invited up to 16th August, 1980. The respondent was one of the applicants. An agreement between the parties was arrived at on 24th September, 1980. One of the Clauses of the agreement, namely, Clause (12) was with regard to reference of any dispute, arising out of the agreement, being made to the arbitration of the Managing Director of Jammu and Kashmir Handicrafts Corporation. An application was made by the respondent under Section 20 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act for appointment of an Arbitrator on the ground that a dispute under the agreement has arisen between the parties. By an Order dated 25th July, 1986 a retired District Judge was appointed as an Arbitrator. He entered into reference...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1990(1)SC49; 1990(1)SCALE42; (1990)2SCC278; 1990(1)LC559(SC)
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated 11th April, 1980 of the Kerala High Court dismissing the appellants' revision petition denying them the fixity of tenure over the land under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1962 [The Act].2. The background of the case can be shortly stated:An extent of 22 cents of land with a building in Survey No. 7/81 of Angadippuram Village, is in possession of the appellants. It was originally leased to Sankunni Kurup by Gopalan Nair. Gopalan Nair's right in the property was purchased by one Venkiteswara lyyer. Vissalakshi Amma was the second wife of Venkiteswara lyyer. He executed a will giving life interest in the property to Visalakshi Amma. In respect of the property Sankunni Kurup executed a lease deed in favour of Visalakshi Amma. The lease deed has been marked as Ext. A1 in the present proceedings.3. Sankunni Kurup claiming to be a tenant filed an application under the Act for assignment of the right, title and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1156; 1990(38)BLJR1294
ORDER1. Issue Rule Nisi. Both counsel have been heard and the Writ Petition is disposed of finally. 2. This is a writ petition for the custody of a child who is with the husband of the petitioner at present. It is unnecessary to recount the earlier history in the present case because we do not propose to finally decide at this stage whether the guardianship of the child should be with the father or the mother. There are mutual allegations which have to be gone into and decided by a court of law in appropriate proceedings. 3. We are, however, satisfied having regard to the circumstances of the case and the past history that the custody of the child should be immediately given to the mother as the child is less than 5 years old. The mother will, therefore, have the custody of the child. It will, however, be open to the father, that is, respondent No. 1 to apply for the custody of the child in appropriate guardianship proceedings. The respondent No. 1, however, will be entitled to visit t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990CriLJ796; 1990(1)Crimes397(SC); 1990(48)ELT171(SC); JT1990(1)SC38; (1990)1SCC568; [1990]1SCR98
K.N. Saikia, J.1. Mr. Kubic Dariusz, a Polish national, holding a Polish passport arriving Calcutta by air from Singapore via Bangkok was arrested on 29.4.1989 under Section 104 of the Customs Act, by the officers of the Customs Department attached to Calcutta Airport, on the ground that he was carrying in his possession foreign gold weighing about 70 tolas. On 30.4.1989, he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat who remanded him to jail custody till 15th May, 1989. He was interrogated by Intelligence officer when he made, corrected and signed his statements in English. His application for bail was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. While still in custody, he was served with the impugned detention order dated 16.5.1989 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA Act along with the grounds of detention. On 24.5.1989 he was granted bail by the Calcutta Hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC658; (1990)92BOMLR205; 1990CriLJ889; 1990(1)Crimes724(SC); JT1990(1)SC61; 1990(1)SCALE33; (1990)1SCC550; [1990]1SCR115
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, J.1. This appeal by special leave is brought by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Bombay (Maharashtra) reversing the conviction of the respondent Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, a Sub-Inspector of Police, under Section 376, I.P.C. for having committed rape on Shamimbanu, a girl aged about 19 or 20 years on 22nd August, 1981. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had brought home the charge under Section 376, I.P.C. and sentenced the respondent to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. He was, however, acquitted of the charge under Section 342, I.P.C. The respondent challenged his conviction in appeal to the High Court. The High Court set aside the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and acquitted the respondent. The State feeling...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC727; 69(1990)CLT732; JT1990(1)SC155; 1990(1)SCALE124; (1990)2SCC162; [1990]1SCR88; 1990(1)LC390(SC)
1. Special leave granted. Agruments heard.2. These two appeals on special leave arise out of the common judgment of the High Court of Orissa made in O.J.C. Nos. 1007 and 1008 of 1983 decided on July 4, 1986 whereby the High Court set aside and quashed the impugned orders made by the Special Officer, Land Reforms, Central Division, Cuttack in O.L.R. Revision No. 131 of 1982 as well as O.L.R. No. 142 of 1982.3. The matrix of the case in O.J.C. No. 1007 of 1983 is that on July 30, 1977, the respondent No. 2, Paramanand Sethi filed case No. 85 of 1977 under Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, against S/Shri B. Mohapatra, Prafulla Kumar Pati and Gadadhar Pati (Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4) for restoration of lands sold to respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 on the ground that respondent No. 2 was a member of the Scheduled Caste (Dhoba Community) and the sales in question were hit by the provisions contained in Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960. The respondent No. 2 filed a caste c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1828; JT1990(1)SC51; 1990(1)SCALE43; (1990)1SCC513; [1990]1SCR78
ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. Special Leave is granted.2. This appeal is from a decision of the Madras High Court which denied the appellants claim for setting aside a judicial sale.3. The facts giving rise to the appeal, as found by the Courts, may be summarised as follows.4. Arumugham-respondent-1 obtained money decree on the basis of a promissory note from the Subordinate Judge, Salem, in O.S. No. 388/1968. Sethuramalingam the judgment debtor appealed to the High Court but could not get the decree stayed. He could not furnish security for the decretal amount which was a condition for stay. The decree was put into execution notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal. In February 1973, his two items of properties; (i) three houses and (ii) 10.93 acres of land were brought to court sale. They were purchased by Kuppa Goundar, respondent No. 2 for Rs. 7550 and Rs. 15,050 respectively. In October 1975, the High Court allowed the appeal on merits. The promissory note which was the basis ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC616; 1990(26)ECC114; 1990LC1(SC); 1990(45)ELT525(SC); (1990)2GLR738; JT1990(1)SC34; 1990(1)SCALE30; (1990)1SCC532; [1990]1SCR60; [1992]84STC414(SC); 1990(1)LC511(
ORDERS. Ranganathan, J.1. Item 26AA(iv) of the Central Excise Tariff reads as follows:Pipes and tubes (including blanks therefor) all sorts, whether rolled, forged, spun, cast, drawn, annealed, welded or extruded2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pipe fittings such as elbows, bends and reducers. They purchase steel pipes on payment of excise duty prom indigenous producers from the open market and they also get steel tubes by way of import. The appellants cut the pipes and tubes into different sizes, give them shape and turn them into pipe fittings in their factories by heating in a furnace (at a temperature between 66 degrees C and 900 degrees C) hammering and pressing. The short question in this appeal is whether the pipe fittings so produced by the petitioners also fall under Item 26AA(iv) or whether they should be classified under tariff item 68, which is the residuary entry.3. The case of the appellants is that the products manufactured by them are also nothing but...
Tag this Judgment!