Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1990(2)SC166; 1990(1)SCALE803; (1990)2SCC635; [1990]2SCR567; 1990(1)LC716(SC)
R.M. Sahai, J. 1. This tenant's appeal is directed against order passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court in proceedings arising out of Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.2. In 1976, the landlady filed an application for eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act as the accommodation in occupation of appellant was required bonafide for continuing tailoring business of her son who was doing it since 1970 in a small room of the same premises in the lane which was both unsuitable and inadequate. Her claim was accepted by the Trial Court as necessity was valid and the landlady had a right to reside in any part of the house. In appeal various objections raised on behalf of tenant, namely, feasibility of shifting business to one more room in the house or that additional accommodation was available were repelled. It was further found that landlady's husband had a flourishing tailoring business during British days but it suffered setback and he later became blind. The appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1990)2CALLT42(SC); JT1990(2)SC167; 1990(1)SCALE804; (1990)2SCC651; [1990]2SCR564; 1990(1)LC727(SC)
Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. 1. This appeal by a tenant of a certain premises in Calcutta is directed against the order of his eviction on the ground of non- payment of rent. The appellant had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 32/- per month as rent and an additional sum of Rs. 8/- per month for electricity. According to the defence of the appellant he rent had been duly deposited with the Rent Controller in accordance with the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and he was, therefore, not liable to be evicted. Deposit was made at the rate of Rs. 32/- and the remaining amount at the rate of Rs. 8/- was admittedly not deposited. The question which has been debated in the courts below in whether the aforesaid amount of Rs. 8/- was a part of rent which ought to have been deposited so as to escape the consequences of default. The trial court agreed with the tenant and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Additional District Judge, Alipore, reversed the decision and passed a decree for eviction holdin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(162)ELT5(SC)
The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedWhether goods in question is chargeable to duty as aluminum powder under Tariff item 27 (8) of First Schedule to Act of 1944. Good to be regarded as aluminum powder if 90% or more by weight of aluminum product passes through sieve of mess of an aperture of I mm . ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1990(2)SC567; (1990)98PLR278; (1990)2SCC625; [1990]2SCR526; 1990(1)LC706(SC)
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. Special leave granted. 2. All these petitions by Special leave are disposed of by one single order as identical questions of law are involved and they are directed against the similar order of the High Court dated 9th February, 1989. 3. Short controversy raised in these cases is regarding the grant of benefits under amended Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act). The President Land Acquisition Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (District Court) initially granted solatium at 15% on the compensation and interest at 6% per annum on the additional amount of compensation till the date of payment. The claimants submitted an application for modification of the award as regards solatium and interest in view of the Amending Act which came into force on 24th September, 1984. The Land Acquisition Tribunal granted benefit of the Amending Act and modified the award ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1990(3)SC230; (1990)3SCC374; [1990]2SCR539; 1990(2)LC242(SC)
S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J.1. Special leave granted.2. The unsuccessful appellants herein have preferred this appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala dated 6.8.1985 passed in E.S.A. (Execution Second Appeal) No.15 of 1979 whereby the High Court dismissed the said appeal filed by the appellants. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are necessary to be recapitulated and they are as follows:3. Othayath Gopalan Nambiar (since dead) and Othayath Lakshmi Amma (who is the first appellant herein) filed an Execution Application No.556 of 1970 in Original Suit No.817 of 1943 in the court of the Munsiff of Badagara under Section 13(B)of the Land Reforms Act, as amended by the Amending Act 35 of 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for restoration of possession of the properties mentioned in the schedule of the application, which were sold in court auction for arrears of rent in pursuance of the decree made in O.S. No.817 of 1943. It seems that during the pendency of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1990)92BOMLR319; JT1990(3)SC48; (1990)3SCC579; [1990]2SCR533; 1990(1)LC703(SC)
Lalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision of the Bombay High Court on a writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1, hereinafter referred to as the respondent. The application of the respondent for permitting construction on the land in question described as plots No. 29 and 30 in the town of Nasik was rejected by the Nasik Municipal Council, which led to the filing of the writ case.2. In 1955 the respondent purchased the land in question from one Patwardhan and in 1957 obtained permission to construct a building thereon. However, no construction was made and in March, 1962, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued for the purpose of establishing a Tonga Stand. The respondent made a fresh application for permission to make construction. He was told not to do so on the ground that the land was reserved for road widening under a Town Planning Scheme which was being implemented. He however started construction work ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1781; 1990Supp(1)SCC776
1. This matter had been sent to the Lok Adalat held in this Court on 31st March, 1990 but the parties did not come to any settlement. Therefore, the matter has been heard today.2. We have looked into the records and have considered submissions advanced before us. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court has found that the claim of the respondent that he was in service as an accountant with effect from 15-8-1968 has been established. He further found that the termination with effect from 4-7-1970 was uncalled for and not justified. With reference to the provisions of Section 26(1) of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act which were find extracted in the paper book, the Labour Court also found that the action taken was not justified and accordingly it directed 'as there is nothing on record to show that the services of the complainant were terminated for a reasonable cause, the order of discharge passed against the complainant is set aside and he is ordered to be reinstated with all his dues...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990(3)Crimes82a(SC); [1990]3SCR517
K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. Leave granted.2. This is an appeal seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The appellant who has been detained under Sections 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(iii) of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974, has challenged the detention order. The appellant is a native of Panakkad, Malapuram District in Kerala and had been to Jeddah after his Haj pilgrimage and from Jeddah he landed in Bombay on 15-9-87. Then he started by a bus to go to his native place. On 17-9-87 the Customs Officials intercepted the bus near Thiruvannoor and in the presence of panch witnesses, a search was conducted on the person of the appellant and the chappals worn by him were inspected and on their being opened up about 13 gold ingots with foreign markings were found and they were duly recovered. Further some incriminating documents were also recovered. The gold was valued at Rs. 4,64,951/- and it was found to be smuggled gold. The appellant was interrogated by the Superintendent of Customs and a statement of the appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990Supp(1)SCC736
M.M. Punchhi and; K. Ramaswamy, JJ.1. Section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 gives right to a landlord to recover possession of non-residential rented premises for bona fide use of his unmarried daughter. The provision is in the following terms:“12. (1)(f) ...that the accommodation let for non-residential purposes is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of continuing starting his business or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned.”2. The respondent herein, Dr A.R. Seghal, is engaged in the practice of Homeopathy medicine. So is his wife and an unmarried daughter by the name of Rajini Seghal. As it has emerged from the pleadings of the parties and the orders of the first court a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1357; 1990CriLJ1500; 1990(3)Crimes43(SC); II(1990)DMC293; JT1990(3)SC100; (1990)3SCC45; 1990(1)LC650(SC)
ORDERK. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. This appeal on special leave being granted by this Court is directed against the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court acquitting the accused, the respondents herein.2. The accused were tried for offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 120B and 506 I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, Karnal convicted all the three and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life under the first two charges and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment under the third charge. The High Court reversed the same.3. The prosecution case is that the deceased Smt. Kanchan was the wife of one Arun Kumar, second respondent. The first respondent is his father and the third respondent is his mother. Arun Kumar's sister Prem Lata was also tried alongwith them but she was acquitted by the trial court. It is alleged that the deceased did not bring with her the necessary dowry and on that account the accused were ill-treating her and bore grudge against her. On 28.6.1983 at ...
Tag this Judgment!