Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(1)SCC449; [1990]Supp3SCR701; 1991(1)LC351(SC)
ORDERThe arguments in this appeal were heard along with Civil Appeal No. 4532 (NCE) of 1990. Identical Point is involved in both the appeals. For our reasons in the judgment delivered in Civil Appeal No. 4532 (NCE) of 1990 today, we dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1991(5)SC109; 1990(2)SCALE1277; 1991Supp(1)SCC382
S. Ratnavel Pandian J.1. The three appellants in this appeal are challenging the correctness of the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 61/74 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows.2. On 25th June 1972 the brother of Shyam Sunder (first appellant), by name, Suresh was murdered. The deceased in this case Raj Narain was implicated in the case and ho surrendered before the court on 28th June 1972. One month previous to this occurrence, the deceased had been granted bail and released from jail. Since then he left his original house on account of fear and was residing in Kanhaipurwa along with one Shambhu Dayal, but occasionally visited his old house. Vinod Kumar (the second appellant) is the son of the first appellant and both of them were residing at Mohalla Unchathak which adjoins the village where Raj Narain along with his family members initially used t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC663; JT1990(4)SC804; 1990(2)SCALE1306; 1991Supp(2)SCC41; [1990]Supp3SCR656; 1991(1)LC498(SC)
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal by special leave relates to agricultural lands bearing Khasra Nos.711/531 and 390 situate in village Jat Bhagola in Rajasthan. Lands measuring 3 bighas and 15 biswas bearing Khasra No. 711/531 were mortgaged by way of usufructuary mortgage with Sheo Ram, the father of the respondent, under mortgage deed dated November 19, 1952 executed by Kallu Ram. Lands measuring 1 bigha and 10 biswas bearing Khasra No. 390 were mortgaged by way of usufructuary mortgage with the said Sheo Ram under mortgage deed dated April 26, 1955, by Kallu Ram and the appellant. The appellant and Kallu Ram were Biswedars in respect of those lands. The case of the appellant is that on the death of Kallu Ram his property devolved on the appellant. On February 12, 1959, the Rajasthan State Legislature enacted the Rajasthan Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', which came into force on November 1, 1959. In exercise of the power conferred...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC917; 1991CriLJ330; 1991(2)Crimes4(SC); I(1991)DMC212SC; (1991)1GLR321; JT1991(1)SC1; 1990(2)SCALE1342; 1992Supp(1)SCC567; [1990]Supp3SCR668
ORDERS. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 500 of 1985 on the file of High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. Criminal Appeal No. 459/1987 is preferred by the convicted appellant, S.D. Soni challenging his conviction Under Section 304 Part I, IPC and the sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment and Criminal Appeal No. 460/1987 is preferred by the State of Gujarat on the ground that the evidence makes out a case for an offence punishable Under Section 302 IPC and that the judgment of the High Court convicting S.D. Soni (respondent in the state appeal) Under Section 304 Part-II IPC is erroneous.2. The facts, materials for the purpose of these appeals, may however be briefly indicated:3. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 459 of 1987 hereinafter referred to by his name 'Soni' married Varsha, the deceased herein on 4.12.82. After the marriage, she came to Ahmedabad and stayed with her husband who was in joint family of Roo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC460; 1991CriLJ494; JT1991(1)SC54; 1991LabIC1368; 1990(2)SCALE1312; (1991)2SCC288; [1990]Supp3SCR691; 1991(2)SLJ106(SC); 1991(1)LC341(SC)
ORDERM.H. Kania, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave from the decision of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana summarily dismissing Letter Patents Appeal No. 210 of 1990 filed by the appellants herein.2. The respondent was an officer commissioned in the Indian Army. In 1983 the respondent held the rank of Lt. Colonel and was commanding the support Company for IInd Sikh Light Infantry.On June 12/13, 1983, the loss of one Stengun belonging to 'C'-Company and held in the charge of Sepoy Sital Singh, was reported to the Commanding Officer of 261KHLI. An investigation was ordered by the Commanding Officer. It was reported at about 12.00 P.M., on June 14, 1983, that Sepoy Sital Singh had expired and Sepoy Sir Singh had sustained several injuries in the course of an investigation by the respondent and some others. A suspicion arose that these injuries were caused on account of torture inflicted on these sepoys. An F.I.R. was filed with the Police Station, Charinda, Di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1991(I)OLR167; [1990]Supp3SCR709
K.N. Saikia, J.2. The suit property as described in schedule B to the plaint is comprised in Town Survey (shortly, T.S.) No. 666/2 in Erode Municipality. There are in all six house-doors in the suit property bearing Door Nos. 268,269,270, 271, 271-A and 272.3. The parties for tracing their title admit the following genealogy: GENEALOGY Ellayyar | ________________________________________________________________________________ | | | | Ellayyar alias Kalyanasundaram Pattabirama lyer Annayyar (dead) Ayer(dead) (dead) | _________________________________________________________________ | | | | | R.P. Seetharama Iyer R.P. Ramabadran R.P. Ellurama | (dead) (dead) Iyer(dead) | R.S. Kothandaraman R. Lokabiraman Iyer (dead) _|_____________________________________________________________________________________ | | | | | (adopted son) R.A. Ellayar R.A. Sankara R.A. Meenakshi Vakil Ramasamy (dead) narayana Iyer Sundaram Iyer Iyer(dead) (dead) (dead) ________________________________________________...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1991(51)ELT200(SC); JT1991(1)SC14; 1990(2)SCALE1293; 1992Supp(1)SCC38; [1990]Supp3SCR614; 1991(1)LC375(SC)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. The appellant is the same in these sixty eight appeals, which raise a common point. All the appeals are, therefore, disposed of by a common order.2. The common issue raised in this batch of appeals is a simple one: viz. whether the goods in question fall under one or the other of the two headings in the first Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (herein-after referred to as the 'customs tariff') referred to later.3. The appellant assessee, as its name indicates, is a manufacturer of dry batteries. For this manufacture, it imports electrolytic manganese dioxide from abroad having a manganese dioxide content of 91%. Its claim is that customs duty is payable on this item under heading 25.01/ 32(3) of the customs tariff. The Revenue, on the other hand, says that the item imported falls under heading 28.01/58 of the customs tariff. It may be mentioned that the rate of duty under both the headings is the same. The only difference is that if the item is classified und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1991)93BOMLR34; [1991]72CompCas336(SC); 1991(53)ELT481(SC); JT1991(1)SC549; 1990(2)SCALE1352; 1992Supp(1)SCC496; [1990]Supp3SCR583
P.B. Sawant, J.1. These appeals are directed against the orders dated June 27 and June 30, 1939 passed the Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 489 of 1989 and Criminal Application No. 1347 of 1989 resectively. An order of detention was passed on 13th December, 1985 against the first respondent's husband, Subhash Chander Gadia under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'COFEPOSA'). He could not, however, be served with the said order as he was absconding. Hence a declaration was made that he was a person who fell within the category mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SAFEMA'). Thereafter, a notice dated March 31, 1987 was issued to him under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the SAFEMA to show cause as to why the properties mentioned in the schedule to the said notice should not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1991ACJ848; AIR1991SC1003; JT1990(4)SC794; 1991LabIC494; 1990(2)SCALE1286; (1991)1SCC731; [1990]Supp3SCR622; 1991(1)LC385(SC); (1991)1UPLBEC52
ORDERP.B. Sawant, J.1. Civil Appeals Nos. 1859-61 of 1990 are preferred by the workmen of the Rajasthan State Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') against the decision dated March 8, 1989 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan and Civil Appeal No. 1862 of 1990 is preferred by another workman against the decision dated March 15, 1989 of the same Division Bench whereas Civil Appeal No. 1863 of 1990 is preferred by the Corporation against the decision dated March 15, 1989 of another Division Bench of the High Court. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are common, we are deciding them all together.2. The facts of Civil Appeals Nos. 1859-62 are same. The workers in question were appointed as drivers to drive the roadways buses of Corporation in the region of Ajmer, Jaipur and Bharatpur. They had put in a long service discharging their duties to the satisfaction of the Corporation. Sometime in 1987, their routine medical examination show...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC700; (1991)93BOMLR419; JT1991(1)SC19; 1991(1)MhLj605; 1990(2)SCALE1366; 1991Supp(1)SCC321; [1990]Supp3SCR577; 1991(1)LC492(SC)
ORDERT.K. Thommen, J.1. Special leave granted.2. The defendants in Suit No. 400 of 1972, which is a suit for partition, appeal from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 894 of 1985 whereby the learned Judges, setting aside the judgment of the Single Judge, held that the valuation of the shares of the plaintiffs in the two suit properties had to be made for the purpose of Section 3 of the Partition Act, 1893 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') not as on the date when the defendants sought leave of the Court to buy the respective shares of the plaintiffs, but as on the date of the preliminary decree declaring the shares of the parties in the properties in question.3. The suit for partition was filed by the present respondents on 17.5.1972. They averred that the nature of the suit properties was such that their division could not reasonably or conveniently be made and that their sale and distribution of the proceeds would be more beneficial for all ...
Tag this Judgment!