Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC345; 1991CriLJ439; 1991(1)Crimes151(SC); JT1991(1)SC31; 1990(2)SCALE1167; (1991)1SCC752; [1990]Supp3SCR398; 1991(1)LC328(SC)
ORDERS. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. To be or not to be hanged'-is the tormenting question that comes up for consideration in this present Writ Petition.2. The petitioner, Jumman Khan who is facing the gallows on being condemned to death is seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent (State of (U.P.) through its Secretary, Home Department not to carry out the sentence of death awarded to him in case No. 367/84 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Agra as confirmed by the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad as well as the order of this Court dated 20.3.1986, dismissing the Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 558/86 and also for a direction directing the respondent to commute the sentence of death to one of imprisonment for life. The indubitable factual matrix leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition may be re-capitulated.3. On the fateful day of the occurrence i.e. 22.6.1983 at about 4.00 P.M. the petitioner went to the house of his nei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC409; JT1991(5)SC51; (1991)1SCC441; 1991(1)LC89(SC)
ORDERM. Fathima Beevi,J.1. The appeal by special leave arises from the proceedings for eviction under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent And Eviction) Act; 1973 (for short the Act). Section 13(2) of the Act enables the landlord of a building in possession of a tenant to seek eviction on an application for direction in that behalf on anyone of the grounds provided thereunder. If the Controller is satisfied that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due from the tenant in respect of the building within 15 days after expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of the tenancy with the landlord, the Controller may make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession as provided in Clause (i) of Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act. Section 13 of the Act so far as it is material reads as under:-13. Eviction of tenants. - (1) A tenant in possession of a building or a rented land shall not be evicted except in accordance with the provisions of this section.(2) A landlo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1617; 1991CriLJ1947; [1992(65)FLR484]; JT1991(5)SC55; (1991)2SCC382
K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. Counsel appearing in these two petitions both for the petitioners and the respondents submitted that many of the questions common in these two petitions and they can be heard together and disposed of. We shall, however, first take up Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 478/89 in which several questions including those that arise in the other petition are urged.WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 478 OF 19892. This writ petition is filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner at the relevant time was a Major in the Indian Army. He was charge-sheeted ans tried by the court-martial for certain offences and was found guilty and punishment of removal from service was ordered. The court-martial proceedings and the order of punishment are questioned on various grounds.3. It is mainly contended that the inquiring officer was prejudiced and biased against the petitioner and malafides are also alleged against him. The next submission is that the initiation of summary ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC2085; 1992CriLJ118a; 1991(1)Crimes196(SC); JT1991(5)SC48; 1990(2)SCALE1164; 1991Supp(1)SCC377; 1991(1)LC310(SC)
ORDERS. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment made in Criminal Appeal No. 461/78 on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The facts material for the purpose of this appeal may, however, be briefly indicated.2. The first appellant was working as a Forest Ranger in Adoni Range from 20.7.1973 whilst the second appellant was working as a Forester in the same range from 24.10.1973. PW-1 was a Forest Guard in Iswi Beat comprised in Adoni Range from November 1972. In 1975 the appellant summoned PW-1 to the Range Office and instructed him to permit grazing of goats in his beat and to collect mamools (bribe amount) from the owners thereof and pay a sum of Rs. 200/- to the first appellant and Rs. 100/- to the second appellant every month. Though PW-1 pleaded his inability to comply with the demand of the appellants, the appellants, however, insisted on collection of mamools from the owners of goats and also threatened PW-1 stating that an ad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1890; 1991CriLJ2671; JT1990(4)SC621; 1990(2)SCALE1172; 1992Supp(1)SCC404
ORDER1. The matters are heard at length. The second respondent though served with notice is not appearing before us.2. The learned Additional Solicitor General after taking us through the records contended that this is a fit case wherein this Court by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 139(A) of the Constitution may be pleased to transfer Crl. M (Main) No. 1821 of 1990 pending before the Delhi High Court and the Special Criminal Petition No. 1578 of 1990 filed by the second respondent which is pending in the Gujarat High Court to the file of this Court as, according to him, same substantial questions of general importance are involved in both the cases.3. Mr. Shanti Bhushan, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the intervener in Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 9833-34 of 1990 supplemented the submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General by re-stating that in both the cases, the same substantial questions of law which are of general importance arise, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC479; [1991]188ITR295(SC); 1991Supp(2)SCC696
1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Bombay High Court in a reference made to it Under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 in relation to the assessment year 1959-60 in respect of which the relevant previous year as the Samvat year 2014. A few facts may be stated just to clarify the real issue that has arisen in the case. Mohan Lal Daulat Ram and his son Sevanti Lai were partners under a deed dated 12-11-1953 under which the partners shared profits equally, but the goodwill was to belong solely to Mohan Lal. It is important here to mention that Mohan Lal Daulat Ram and Sevanti Lal were partners in the firm in their individual capacity. Their respective shares of income from the firm was assessed in their hands as their individual profits.2. Mohan Lal Daulat Ram died on 17-12-1955. Thereupon a fresh deed of partnership was drawn on 26-12-1955 which was to take effect from 18-12-1955. Under that deed the partners of the firm were Sevantilal and his mother Bai Chandanb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC999; 1991(31)ECC221; 1991(51)ELT161(SC); JT1990(4)SC549; 1990(2)SCALE1149; 1991Supp(1)SCC57; [1990]Supp3SCR384; [1992]84STC107(SC); 1991(1)LC282(SC)
ORDERK.N.SAIKIA, J.1. The appellants M/s. Plasmac Machine ., Bombay are manufacturers of Injection Moulding Machines of four categories and the same were classified under tariff Item No. 68. For these machines they manufacture approximately 19 parts, one of which is called 'Tie Bar Nuts' which are the subject matter of this appeal. The Tie Bar Nuts are manufactured from 2 3/4' hexagonal M.S. Bar having special threads known as 'acme threads'. The Tie Bar Nuts are stated to be components of Injection Moulding Machines (tailormade) and are used to fix the platens in correct distances in between tie bars.2. The appellants submitted their classification list for the year 1981-82 for 84 gms., and 56 gms., and 70 gms., semi-automatic and fully automatic 'plasmac' Injection Moulding Machines under tariff Item 68 alongwith enclosure of 19 parts manufactured and used in the said machines. In these 19 parts Tie Bar Nuts were shown against Srl. No. 15. However, the Assistant Collector of Central ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC385; [1991(62)FLR137]; JT1990(4)SC554; 1990(2)SCALE1152; (1991)1SCC362; [1990]Supp3SCR354; 1991(1)LC276(SC); (1991)2UPLBEC959
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, J.1. Invoking Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and Rule 161(2) of the Punjab Police Rules, the Assistant Inspector General, Government Railway Police, Patiala, passed the impugned order dated April 7, 1981 dismissing the petitioner from service with immediate effect. The reasons assigned for dispensing with the departmental enquiry contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution are set out in paragraph 3 of the impugned order, which reads as under:And whereas it has been reported that he has thrown threats that he with the help of other police employees will not allow holding of any department enquiry against him and he and his associates will not hesitate to cause physical injury to the witnesses as well as the enquiry officer. 2. The dismissal order is based on the allegation that the appellant was instigating his fellow police officials to cause indiscipline, show insubordination and exhibit disloyalty; that he was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC686; (1991)93BOMLR11; JT1990(4)SC533; 1990(2)SCALE1140; 1991Supp(2)SCC18; [1990]Supp3SCR365; 1991(1)LC287(SC)
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J.1. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated March 27/28, 1974 in First Appeal No. 117 of 1969. The respondent had on lease a piece of land admeasuring 17, 279 square yards from the Bombay Port Trust for 30 years from February, 1961 at a rent of Rs. 9,482.34 per month for the first 15 years and Rs. 11,852.92 per month for the remaining period and put up apart from other structures and buildings six oil tanks for storage of petrol and petroleum products. Each tank rests on a foundation of sand having a height of 2 ft. 6 inches. There is a four inches thick asphalt layer to retain the sand. The steel plates were spread on the asphalt layer and the tank was put on the steel plates which acts as bottom of the tanks which rests freely on the asphalt layer. There are no bolts and nuts for holding the tanks on to the foundation. The tanks remain in the postition by its own weight. Each tank is about 30 ft. in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1991)91CTR(SC)135
K. RAMASWAMY, J. :This appeal by special leave is against the judgment by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dt. 27th/28th March, 1974 in First Appeal No. 117 of 1969. The respondent had on lease a piece of land admeasuring 17,279 square yards from the Bombay Port Trust for 30 years from February, 1961 at a rent of Rs. 9,482.34 per month for the first 15 year and Rs. 11,852.92 per month for the remaining period and put up apart from other structures and buildings six oil tanks for storage of petrol and petroleum products. Each tank rests on a foundation of sand having a height of 2 ft. 6 inches. There is a four inches thick asphalt layer to retain the sand. The steel plates were spread on the asphalt layer and tank was put on the steel plates which acts as bottom of the tanks which rests freely on the asphalt layer. There are no bolts and nuts for holding the tanks on to the foundation. The tanks remain in the position by its own weight. Each tank is about 30 ft. in height and...
Tag this Judgment!