Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1991(61)FLR128]; JT1990(2)SC431; (1990)IILLJ446SC; (1990)3SCC585; [1990]2SCR822; 1990(2)LC211(SC); (1990)2UPLBEC830
Lalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. This appeal of the State of Punjab by special leave arises out of a suit filed by the respondent, Nachhattar Singh. The plaintiff-respondent was serving the State police as a constable when an incident took place on 17-2-1971, which led to the prosecution of the plaintiff along with the Head Constable Kahan Singh and the Sub-Inspector Baldev Singh. The charge made against the plaintiff was that he physically assaulted and detained one Gurdial Singh. The accused were tried and Baldev Singh was acquitted. So far the plaintiff and Kahan Singh were concerned, they were found guilty under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and several other sections, and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months each. The conviction was maintained up to the Supreme Court stage. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, thereafter dismissed the plaintiff on 20-4-1976. This order of dismissal was challenged as illegal in the present suit which w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC754; 1990(30)LC1(SC); 1990(47)ELT491(SC); JT1990(3)SC245; (1990)3SCC447; [1990]2SCR797
ORDER1. These are two appeals under Section 35-L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). They arise out of the claim of M/s. Rohit Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') for partial exemption from excise duty in respect of the art paper and chromo paper manufactured by it.2. The assessee is having a factory at Khadki in which different varieties of paper and paper boards are manufactured. The factory does not have a bamboo pulp plant. It uses waste paper and cereal straw which are considered to be unconventional raw materials for the manufacture of paper and paper board. The pulp used by the assessee contains more than 50% by weight of pulp made from these unconventional raw materials.3. 'Paper and paper board' are goods falling under item 17(1) of the first schedule to the Act. Two notifications were issued on 1st March, 1984 under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excises Rules, 1944 in respect of the above item. The fir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990(3)Crimes395(SC); JT1990(2)SC198; 1990Supp(1)SCC529
K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. This appeal pursuant to the special leave granted by this Court, has been filed by nine accused against their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. All of them are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and rigorousimprisonment for two years respectively. Among them, the first appellant Mangilal has also been convicted under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and one year respectively. The sentences are directed to run concurrently.2. The case which rests mainly on the testimony of sole eye- witness is as follows. On 12.5.79 the two deceased Maththu, Raisigh and Miththu's wife Anubai, P.W.I were going to Village Junajhira. They got down from the bus at Balkua and were going to Junajhira on foot. When they were passing in front of the ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1990(3)SC343; (1991)1MLJ21(SC); (1990)4SCC343; [1990]2SCR782; 1990(2)LC259(SC)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. Special leave to appeal is granted and the appeals are disposed of by a common order.2. On 9.6.1936, Ramaswamy Gounder (the predecessor-in-interestof the respondents) executed a lease deed in favour of Gopal Sail (the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant). Certain passages from an English translation of the lease deed (which was in vernacular) are relevant for the purposes of the present case and they read thus:Whereas the property viz. vacant land well and Kaichalai etc. belongs to the party of the First part as his ancestral property; Whereas the said property was leased out to party of the Second part on a monthly rental of Rs.12-8-0 for 15 years and taken possession by the party of the second part from party of the First part-on 3.12.1935... and the party of the Second part for his convenience and at his own expenses and costs (was) permitted to construct in the said vacant land and install petrol selling business....(A)fter the expiry of lease period of 15...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990(1)SCALE180; 1990(1)LC653(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. While disposing of these writ petitions finally in paragraph 26 of the judgment it had been directed: 'Connected proceedings had been taken for interim arrangement regarding provision of raw material to the petitioners and certain other parties. We do not propose to deal with those aspects in this judgment but liberty is given to parties to apply for such directions as they consider appropriate and such applications, when filed, will be dealt with separately.'2. Pursuant to the liberty given, petitions filed and so far as the year 1986-87 is concerned, by an order dated January 10, 1990, distribution of the stock in hand was finalised. While doing so this Court pointed out:These proceedings are connected with four years, namely, 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89. Parties agree that in respect of the very first year, namely, 1985-86, no interlocutory order had been made by this Court and, therefore, no further directions are necessary. Reservation was made pert...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990(2)ARBLR399(SC); 1990Supp(1)SCC727
ORDERVenkatachaliah, Ojha, J.1. Appellants in these appeals by Special Leave, are the Defendants in Civil Suit No. 1220 of 1988 on the original side of the High Court of Madras and assail the order dated 19-1-1990 of the Division Bench of the High Court granting in appeal and in reversal of the order dated 2-3-1989 of the learned single Judge trying the suit an injunction restraining appellants from passing-off their medicinal product Cal-De-Ce as that of the Respondent-Plaintiff, Respondent claimed to have acquired a right in that Trade-mark by continuous user. The temporary injunction was refused by the learned Single-Judge. But in appeals, O.S.A. Nos. 111 and 112 of 1989, preferred against the refusal, the division bench granted the temporary injunction in appeal,2. The appeals have come up for orders on the prayer for stay. As the considerations relevant for decision on the prayer for stay, by and large, conclude the subject-matter of the main appeals, we proceed to dispose of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC505
Ranganath Misra,; P.B. Sawant and; K. Ramaswamy, JJ.1. This is an application which has its origin as a public interest litigation on a letter addressed to this Court on the basis of a press publication with a photograph showing a mentally ill patient being chained in the hospital in question.2. Notice was issued to the State Government of West Bengal and an affidavit in answer to the notice has been filed. We appointed a Committee to inspect this mental hospital located at Mankundu in the District of Hooghli and make a report to us about the conditions prevailing therein. The Committee inspected the hospital on December 3, 1989 in the presence of Shri Bandopadhyay, I.A.S. who is the Sub-Divisional Officer of Chander Nagar and happens to be the Administrator of the hospital. The Chief Medical Officer was also present during the inspection. The Committee has in its report gone into the various aspects like the administration, the condition of the hospital, the amenities to the patients ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC958; [1991(61)FLR669]; JT1990(3)SC503; 1991LabIC435; 1990(1)SCALE857; (1990)3SCC472; [1990]2SCR769; 1990(2)LC100(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The appeal is filed by the General Manager, Northern Railways against the decision dated 14th September, 1988 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi.3. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant-Railways against the impugned order, it is necessary to state the relevant facts in brief.Respondent-employees who are Traffic Apprentices belonged to Class-Ill Service which has four grades, and the four grades carry different pay-scales as follows:(i) Grade-I - Rs. 250-380 (ii) Grade-II - Rs. 335-25 (iii) Grade-III - Rs. 370-475 (iv) Grade-IV - Rs. 450-575The promotion to the alternate grade in the said four grades is by selection. However, the appointments to all the four grades is by promotion. Above Class-Ill posts, are Class-II and Class-I posts. Class-I posts are in Junior Scale grade, Senior Scale grade, Junior Administrative Grade and Senior Administrative Grade. The entire Class-II service is filled by promotion by selection from Class-Il...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1379; 1990CriLJ1462; 1990(2)Crimes691(SC); II(1990)DMC356SC; (1990)2GLR1000; JT1990(2)SC440; 1992Supp(3)SCC87
ORDERK. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the High Court of Gujarat acquitting the two respondents from the charge of murder. Both were tried under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. for offence of murder of one Lilaben. The learned City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad convicted them under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and on appeal the High Court set aside their conviction and sentence. Hence this appeal by the State pursuant to the leave granted by this Court.2. The prosecution case is as follows. The family of the accused consists of the father of accused No. 1, his mother, his younger brother Manubhai and the deceased was Manubhai's wife. All of them were living in a residential block in Meghaninagar locality. Accused No. 1 was a widower having two sons before he married accused No. 2. There is an age gap between accused Nos. 1 and 2. It is alleged that Manubhai, the younger brother of accused No. 1 and the husband...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1329; [1991]70CompCas119(SC); JT1990(3)SC369; (1990)98PLR307; 1990(1)SCALE784; (1990)3SCC389; [1990]2SCR709; 1990(2)LC147(SC); (1990)2UPLBEC807
ORDER1. The question of law which is concerned in this appeal is whether in the circumstances of the case, the appellant ('Bank') was required to act as agent of the respondent or as bailee in respect of goods entrusted for delivery to the respondent against payment.2. In 1945 the respondent was carrying on the business of wholesale and retail dealership in textile yarn and cloth at Agartala and in the course of that business he was appointed as a Government nominee to indent for and lift the quantities of cloth and yarn to Agartala from different mills situated in Bengal, Bombay, Ahmedabad and other places.3. For the purpose of that business, the respondent had maintained Current Account No. 391 with the Agartala Branch of the United Commercial Bank Limited which has since been styled as 'UCO Bank', the appellant in this appeal.4. The case of the respondent-plaintiff was that there was an oral agreement with the Bank on September 2, 1950 under which the latter inter alia was to receiv...
Tag this Judgment!