Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC967; 1991CriLJ602
ORDERS. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. The State of Rajasthan on being dissatisfied with the order of acquittal recorded by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1973 has preferred this appeal.2. The respondent and her husband Mal Singh (since acquitted) took their trial for offences Under Section 302 I.P.C. in the alternative Under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and also under Sections 201 and 394 I.P.C. The case of the prosecution is that on 23-10-71, the deceased Sarju who was about 7 years at the time of the occurrence was missing and not traceable in spite of incisive search made by the parents, relatives and villagers. Therefore, one Moti Lal (PW-8) reported this incident to the concerned police station on 24-10-71 at about 3-45 p.m. 3. During the course of the investigation on the statement of PW-1 that the deceased girl was found in the house of the respondent in the afternoon of 23-10-71, the police arrested respondent and her husband. In pursuance of the admissible por...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990(2)SCALE778; 1991Supp(2)SCC531; [1990]Supp2SCR277; 1991(1)LC28(SC)
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J.1. All these civil appeals by special leave are directed against the Judgments of the Rajasthan High Court dated May 11, 1984, May 21, 1984 and the reasons whereof pronounced on 2.7.1984. Controversy raised in all these cases is whether the respondents are entitled to pay-scale No. 2 or pay-scale No. 3.2. The Government of India vide its Resolution dated 20th May, 1966 constituted a General Wage Board for electricity undertakings for evolving wage structure, specialisation of nomenclature and job description. The recommendations of the said Wage Board were accepted by the Government of India in July, 1970. The Prantiya Vidyut Mandal Mazdoor Federation (in short the Federation) recognised trade union of the employees of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board presented their demands before the Labour Department of the Government of Rajasthan for implementation of the recommendations of the Wage Board. While the said industrial dispute between the management of the Bo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC221; JT1991(5)SC408; (1991)1MLJ36(SC); 1990(2)SCALE803; (1991)1SCC48; [1990]Supp2SCR266; 1991(1)LC22(SC)
ORDERM.H. Kania, J.1. Special Leave granted. Counsel heard.2. These two appeals are filed by Special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Madras in Revision Petitions Nos. 517 and 518 of 1989. These appeals raise an interesting question as to whether it is obligatory on the Court, before granting leave to institute a suit as required Under Section 92 of the CPC, 1908, to give an opportunity to the respondents to show cause against the grant of such leave, and whether leave granted without such opportunity having been given is void.3. The appellants instituted suit No. O.S. 55 of 1987 in the court of the learned subordinate Judge of Sivaganga in Tamil Nadu against the respondents as a representative suit inter alia praying for framing a scheme for a public charitable trust. It is common ground that the reliefs prayed for in the suit were such that leave Under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code was required for instituting the suit. On the same day on which the suit was fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC326; 1991CriLJ471; JT1990(4)SC174; 1990(2)SCALE833; (1990)4SCC737; [1990]Supp2SCR246; 1990(2)LC717(SC)
ORDERM.H. Kania, J. 1. Seth Mannalal Surana Memorial Trust is the owner of a building situate at 7/1D, Lindsay Street, Calcutta, one of the busiest streets in Calcutta where the New Market is situated. The petitioner is the lessee of the said building from the said Trust. On February 25, 1958, a portion of the ground-floor premises in the said building admeasuring 4198 Sq. ft. (referred to hereinafter as 'the said premises') was requisitioned by the Government of West Bengal under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as 'the West Bengal Act'). The purpose for which the said premises were requisitioned was establishing the main showroom of West Bengal Handicraft Development Corporation Limited, a West Bengal Government Undertaking. The said show room is called 'Manjusha' and has become a landmark in Calcutta. In H.D. Vora v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. : [1984]2SCR693 this Court held that the provisions for requisi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1990(4)SC321; 1990(2)SCALE740; 1991Supp(2)SCC579; [1990]Supp2SCR235
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Madras High Court and it arises out of a suit for partition and possession of certain properties.2. The facts leading to the institution of the suit are as follows: On 3 March 1942, one Karuppanna Pilial (hereinafter referred to as 'testator') executed his last Will and testament Ext. B-1. Thereunder he disposed of all his properties described in five schedules, A, B, C, D and E. He directed that the properties under A, B and C schedules shall be respectively taken and be in the possession of the defendant, the first plaintiff and the second plaintiff. In respect of E schedule properties, he has made a bequest creating an endowment that after his life time, it should be managed for the purpose and in the manner mentioned therein. The dispute in the suit was as to the validity of the endowment. One Palaniammal and Chellammal are the sisters of the plaintiffs and the defendant. The testator created a life e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC816; 1991CriLJ660; 1991Supp(2)SCC616
ORDERS. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. This a appeal is directed against the judgment of the Gauhati High Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 16/73 convicting the appellant under Section 494, I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with a direction that out of the fine amount, if collected, a sum of Rs. 1000/- should be paid to the complainant. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The appellant while his first marriage, solemnised on 7-7-62 with the respondent - complainant (PW-1) is validly subsisting, has contracted a second marriage, with Namita Ghosh on 24-2-1969. The respondent filed a' criminal complaint before the Munsif-Magistrate 1st class, Sadar, Agartala and the Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 494, I.P.C. and sentenced him for 11/2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and in addition to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The rest of the accused who were arr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1990(4)SC184; (1991)99PLR458; 1990(2)SCALE785; 1991Supp(2)SCC753; [1990]Supp2SCR227; 1991(1)LC172(SC)
ORDERB.C. Ray, J. 1. These appeals on special leave are directed against the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 694 to 697 of 1982 dismissing the appeals with costs. The salient facts out of which these appeals have arisen, are as follows:2. The appellant Trust prepared a development scheme Under Section 24 read with Section 28 of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in relation to an area of about 60 acres of land at Palani Road. The lands of the respondents fell within the said area. On April 9, 1976 a notice Under Section 36 of the Act was published in daily Tribune inviting objections till 5th May, 1976. This notice was published in the three consecutive weeks of the said newspaper dated 9th April, 15th April and 23rd April, 1976. The very notice of the said scheme was also published Under Section 36 of the said Act in the Punjab Government Gazette on three...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC2053; JT1991(1)SC186; 1990(2)SCALE711; (1991)1SCC343; [1990]Supp2SCR251; 1991(1)LC40(SC)
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. These appeals by special leave are by the tenant and the sub-tenant against a decree for eviction passed on the grounds of sub-letting and the reasonable and bona fide requirement of the respondent-landlord specified in Clauses (f) & (h) of the proviso to Sub-section 1 of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The Trial Court had rejected the landlord's application for an order of eviction on these grounds, but the High Court in a revision Under Section 50 of the Act has set aside the Trial Court's order and passed the decree for eviction on these grounds. Hence these appeals.2. The material facts are undisputed at this stage. The premises comprises of two shops and a house adjoining the shops and belonged earlier to one T.A. Jotindranath Mudaliar. The premises were let out by the original lessor to M/s. Bhoolchand Chandiram (Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4701 of 1985) on 4.10.1943 on terms contained in the letter dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1991]187ITR325(SC)
ORDER1. After hearing learned Counsel for the appellant, we find that the precise question raised in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Ahmed Ibrahim Sahigra Dhoraji v. CWT : [1981]129ITR314(SC) ) wherein the impugned judgment of the Allahabad High Court was also approved. In this view, the appeals fail and are, accordingly, dismissed ; but there will be no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC486; (1991)93BOMLR747; 1991Supp(2)SCC590
ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The matter arises under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 with regard to entitlement of the appellant-tenant to purchase lands under his occupation. The lands are located at Pimparale village. Admittedly the respondent landlord leased the lands by two leases to the appellant. The first land was leased under a registered lease deed dated 25 March 1958 for a period of 10 years. The other lands were leased in 1959 and 1960. Under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 ('The Fragmentation Act') the scheme for consolidating was taken up in the village in the year 1951 and it was completed in 1958.2. Ordinarily, the lease of a land allotted under the Consolidation scheme would be contrary to the provisions of Section 31 of the Fragmentation Act and would be bad in law. Notwithstanding the execution of the leases, the landlord moved the Assistant Commissioner, Jalgaon to declare the leases as void being ...
Tag this Judgment!