Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC2255; 1990CriLJ2668; 1991Supp(1)SCC214
1. The three appellants in the present appeal were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur for offences under Sections 302/149, 307/149 and 147 of the Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment for ten years and rigorous imprisonment for two years respectively. The conviction and the sentences awarded by the Sessions Judge was upheld by the High Court's order dated 6th April, 1978. The appellants challenged the correctness of the conviction by means of this appeal.2. Appellant No. 2, Prem Chand Lohar, died during the pendency of the appeal in this Court. Thus the present appeal is confined to Yadav Lohar, appellant No. 1, and Khiroda Loharin, appellant No. 3.After hearing learned Counsel for the parties at length, we are of the opinion tht this appeal must succeed. The Sessions Judge as well as the High Court both have recorded findings that appellants 1 and 3 were not armed with any weapons. There is further no finding...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1054; 1991Supp(2)SCC711
1. The petitioner was in occupation of a premises which was the subject matter of eviction proceedings. The eviction order was stayed by this Court, but not withstanding the stay order, the respondents have demolished the premises. So contempt proceedings have been initiated against them. They have filed a counter stating that in view of the earthquake, the building became unsafe; that they were ordered to demolish the same by the local authority and so they were compelled to demolish the building. In other words, the demolition is sought to be justified by the letter dated 13-9-1988 issued by the Darbhanga Regional Development Authority. 2. We have perused the aforesaid letter. It is stated therein that as a result of the earthquake occurred on 21-8-88, the premises occupied by the petitioner has been damaged and after technical survey it has been found that it may cause loss to the lives and property of the general public. That notice was under Section 14 of the Bihar Regional Develo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC226; 1991LabIC233; 1991Supp(2)SCC281
ORDER1. By order dated 22nd December, 1989 the High Court of Allahabad directed that the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits to consider the question as to who was the legally selected or elected President of the Sansthapak Mandal at the relevant time. The dispute is between Dr. Arun Kumar Upadhyay and Mr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay. Each of them claims that he is the legally selected or elected President. 2. The Assistant Registrar considered the matter and decided in favour of Mr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay. The decision of the Assistant Registrar has now been challenged in the High Court by Dr. Arun Kumar Upadhyay and it is pending there. 3. The two petitioners before us claim . that they were appointed as Lecturers by Dr. Arun Kumar Upadhyay in the College maintained by the Mandal. They say that because of the finding of the Assistant Registrar in favour of Mr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay, the petitioners are denied their salary for the period during which they have actually worked as Lectur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC369; 1991(31)ECC207; 1991LC19(SC); 1992(58)ELT561(SC); 1992Supp(1)SCC293; [1990]Supp2SCR1
Fathima Beevi, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appeal is directed against the order dated 15-4-1988 of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The appellant is the manufacturer of Hacksaw blades and Bandsaw Blades falling under Tariff Item No. 51-A(iv) of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellant filed a classification list as per Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules 1944 on 26-3-1985 in respect of their products furnishing the tariff rate of 15% ad valorem by mistake instead of furnishing the effective rates of duty as per Notification No. 85/85 CE dated 17-3-1985. The aggregate value of the clearance in the preceding year i.e. 1984-85 did not exceed Rs. 75 lakhs. In the case of first clearance up to an aggregate value not exceeding Rs. 7.5 lakhs, the effective rates of duty is nil and in the case of next clearance of Rs. 7.5 lakhs, the duty is 3.75% ad valorem. The Assistant Collector of Central Exci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC66; 1990CriLJ2684; JT1991(5)SC38; 1990(2)SCALE688; 1990Supp(1)SCC760
ORDERS. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. This appeal is directed against the validity of the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 523/76 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The present 6 appellants along with one Mangat Singh took their trial under 4 charges, namely, under Sections 148, 302 read with 149, 323 and 323 read with 149 IPC on the allegations that on 20.6.1974 at about 7.30 P.M. at village Dakoh they all formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of that assembly caused the death of the deceased Gurdial Singh and also caused injuries to Pritam Singh (PW-7) and Surat Singh. The Trial Court for the reasons assigned in its judgment convicted these appellants under all those charges and sentenced each of them to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment, imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and six months rigorous imprisonment respectively. However, the trial court acquitted the accused Mangat Singh who, according to the prosecution, atta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC8; 1990CriLJ2600; 1991(1)Crimes165(SC); JT1990(4)SC165; 1988(1)SCALE436; (1990)4SCC731; [1990]Supp1SCR662
FATHIMA BEEVI( 1. ) The respondents Purati and Tara Chand along with Ved, Balwan, Dhapan, Jagdish and Lal Chand were tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, for the murder of one Partap Singh and causing injuries to others. The learned Judge by judgment dated 18-5-1972 convicted these respondents for offences under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and Sections 323, 325 read with S. 149, Indian Penal Code They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 500.00 each under S. 302, Indian Penal Code, R.I. for one year under Seetion 148, Indian Penal Code, R.I. for one year under Section325 and R.I. for six months under Section 323, 1. P.C. The other accused were convicted for the minor offences and released on probation under Section 360/361, Cr.P.C. The respondents appealed against the conviction and sentence. The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 30-11-1982 disposed of the appeal thus:- Admittedly there was no prior enmity between t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC435; JT1990(4)SC114; 1990(2)SCALE671; 1991Supp(1)SCC167; [1990]Supp2SCR14; 1991(1)LC60(SC)
ORDERK.N. Saikia, J.1. Special leave granted.2. This appeal is from the Judgment and Order dated August 24, 1988 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the appellant's writ petition for quashing the order of the Financial Commissioner Punjab dated 9.2.1988 declaring the second respondent to be eligible for allotment of the lands in dispute under Rule 34C of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules') framed under the Displaced Person Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. The land in dispute (hereinafter referred to as 'the land') bearing Khasra Nos. 17/8/1, 8/2, and 8/4 admeasuring 7 Kanals 4 Marias in the Revenue Estate of Shanzada Nangal, Gurdaspur, was owned by one Vinod Kumar. The second respondent claimed to have been in its cultivating possession in the years 1953-54, 1956-57. In 1957-58 and 1958-59 he was recorded as a sub-lessee under one Budha Singh lessee on an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC818; JT1991(5)SC236; 1990(2)SCALE634; 1992Supp(1)SCC91; [1990]Supp2SCR27
ORDERS. Ranganathan, J.1. THE 'DRAMATIS PERSONAE'2. All these matters are in the nature of off shoots of a basic controversy raised in W.P. No. 14116/84 which was 'disposed of' by the orders of this Court dated 30.4.87 and 6.10.87. The parties are now seeking certain clarifications and directions in relation to the orders passed by this Court in the above writ petition. There have been several subsequent developments having an impact on the issue originally brought to this Court in the Writ Petition (W.P.) and, at present, the matter has become very complicated and involves the interests of a large number of parties. To give a cogent narration of the necessary facts, it is best to start with an enumeration of the various parties with whom we are concerned in the matters which are being disposed of by this judgment.3. The writ petition as well as the connected matters arise out of applications for grant of rights for the mining of chrome ore or Chromite in the State of Orissa. Chrome or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC2292; JT1990(4)SC241; 1990(2)SCALE709; (1991)1SCC184; [1990]Supp2SCR8
R.M. Sahai, J.1. Whether possession of a lessee who acquires interest of one of the colessors, before expiration of period of lease, is litigious or lawful?2. Litigious and lawful possession are concepts of varying legal shades deriving their colour from the setting in which they emerge. Epithet used itself indicates the field in which they operate. The one pertains to dispute in which possession may be conterminous with physical or de facto control, only, whereas the domain of other is control with some legal basis. The former may be uncertain in character and may even be without any basis or interest but the latter is founded on some rule, sanction or excuse. Dictionarily 'litigious' means 'disputed' Concise Oxford Dictionary or 'disputable' Concise Oxford Dictionary' or 'marked by intention to quarrel' Webster Third New International Dictionary, 'inviting controversy' Webster Third New International Dictionary, 'relating to or marked by litigation' Webster Third New International Di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC264; 1991(39)BLJR808; 1990(2)SCALE738; 1990Supp(1)SCC633; [1990]Supp2SCR97; 1990(2)LC720(SC)
ORDERR.M. Sahai, J.1. In this appeal by grant of special leave, directed against judgment of the Allahabad High Court in second appeal arising out of a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment, the question is if the High Court committed any error of law in allowing the second appeal on the ground that the two courts below had erroneously held that finding recorded in an appeal, filed by one of the defendants who was sued as tenant in an earlier suit, could not operate as res judicata between plaintiff and respondents who were defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in that suit.2. Unfortunately for appellant-equity may or may not be in his favour as his father too acted shrewdly while purchasing house of daughter-in-law's father but law is certainly not in his favour. How dispute arose between parties, who are closely related, is quite interesting. Shiv Charan Das and Har Charan Das (respondents Nos. 1 and 3 in this appeal) are first cousins. Ravindra Kumar (respondent No. 2) is son of Shiv Charan. His...
Tag this Judgment!