Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC559; 1992CriLJ520; 1991(2)SCALE1177; 1993Supp(1)SCC639
S. Ratnavel Pandian and K. Ramaswamy, JJ.1. The appellant Suraj Mal who stands convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life has preferred this criminal appeal challenging the correctness and legality of the judgment rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 1120 of 1977. According to the prosecution the deceased Rajbir was found lying in an injured condition at about 11.45 p.m. on 28.4.77 on the Sangrur-Dhuri Road by PW-5 and PW-6 employees of the above said milk center. PW 6 stayed there and PW-3 proceeded to the city to inform the police but on the way he met two constables near the civil hospital and brought them to the scene spot. As the condition of the injured was very serious, the injured was removed to the civil hospital, Sangrur. In the opinion of the Medical Officer, the injured was in a fit condition to make his statement. The Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who had already been informed about this incident came to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC475; JT1992(1)SC47; (1992)1MLJ22(SC); 1991(2)SCALE842; (1992)1SCC54
ORDERM.H. Kania, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act) from the judgment of the Delhi High Court in R.F.A. No. 88 of 1970 preferred by the appellant herein.2. The Government required 403 bighas and 19 biswas of land in Tarapur Estate for planned development of Delhi. Notifications under Section 4 of the said Act were issued on November 13, 1959, and June 14, 1963, respectively. The acquisition was duly completed. Among the lands acquired was an area of land comprising 4 bighas and 8 biswas belonging to the appellant. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation by dividing the land into three Blocks, namely, Block A, Block B and Block C. The compensation in respect of lands in Block B was fixed by him at Rs. 2,500 per bighas and for land in Block C at Rs. 1,800 per bigha. The land of the appellant fell entirely in Block B and Block C and we are, therefore, not concerned with the valuation of land fallin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993Supp(1)SCC568; [1992]85STC157(SC)
ORDER1. The petitioner challenges the correctness of the judgment of the Kerala High Court which upheld the validity of provisional assessments made under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, as amended in 1982. The main point made by the petitioner was that, since Section 18 of the Act which provided for provisional assessments had been deleted, Sub-rules (7) to (14) of Rule 21 which had earlier been framed to give effect to the scheme of provisional assessments under Section 18 should also be treated as having become otiose and should have been deleted. Learned Counsel for the petitioner confined himself before us to a challenge to Sub-rule (9) of Rule 21.2. The above point has been decided against the petitioner by the High Court following an earlier judgment reported in Anoka Oil Mills v. Sales Tax Officer . We have perused the judgment of the High Court and heard counsel at some length, We are in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of the High Court. Moreover, this is a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC335b; JT1991(4)SC265; 1991(2)SCALE931; (1991)1SCC742; [1991]Supp1SCR564
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated 7/10th February, 1975.2. The plaintiff's Nos. 2 to 4 were Dumaldars of village Nalej of erstwhile State of Chhota Udepur (hereinafter referred to as the jagirdars). The jagirdars vide exhibit 58 dated 9.1.1954 sold all the teak trees in favour of plaintiff no.l (hereinafter referred to as the contractor) for a sum of Rs.6,001/- and received a sum of Rs. 101/- as earnest money. By another agreement exhibit 59 dated 29th July, 1954, the jagirdars sold all the Mahuda trees in favour of the contractor for a sum of Rs. 5001/ and received sum of Rs. 600/- as earnest money. On 1st August, 1954 Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Jagir Abolition Act') was applied to village Nalej. The compensation in lieu of trees was not awarded to the Jagirdars as the same had already been sold by the Jagirdars in favour of the cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992Supp(2)SCC103
1. There is a long inordinate and inexcusable delay. There is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay. We fail to understand why the State Government is not able to take a decision with despatch to file appeals if they are serious about the same. In one of the matters concerning Baldev Singh, we find that the appeal is directed against the order rejecting the application for cancellation of bail on the ground that in the main matter the accused has been acquitted. Even after noticing this in the list of dates the appeal is preferred for cancellation of bail which is indeed very surprising and waste of public time and money. A copy of this order may be forwarded to the Governor of the State of Punjab to enable him to streamline the administration so that such inordinate delays do not take place and frivolous matters are not brought to this Court. We see no reason to interfere in any of these cases. Hence dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992Supp(3)SCC48
Ranganath Misra, C.J. and; Kuldip Singh, J.1. This application under Article 32 of the Constitution had come to this Court during the long vacation. The first order was made on May 14, 1991 when the learned Vacation Judge (one of us) was satisfied that the mother must get back her daughter. During the vacation some more orders were made and it was only on July 17, 1991, on being satisfied that the orders of this Court were not being duly complied with, we required the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to personally look into the matter. Notwithstanding that direction and the sense of urgency indicated in the language of the order, the Commissioner of Police, as it transpires from the subsequent affidavits and documents, was not made aware of the direction until August 5, 1991. This Court took serious view of the direction of this Court dated July 17, 1991 not being brought to the notice of the Commissioner and the Commissioner not complying with the direction. Subsequently, notice was issu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC66; (1992)100CTR(SC)91; [1992]19ITR1(SC); [1992]193ITR1(SC); JT1991(4)SC171; 1991(2)SCALE827; (1992)1SCC76; [1991]Supp1SCR546; [1992]60TAXMAN106(SC)
OJHA J. - This appeal by special leave has been preferred against the judgment dated July 22, 1975, of the (BOM)bay High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 95 of 1965 made under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922. The assessment year under reference is 1961-62.Chandrakant Manilal Shah was the karta of a Hindu undivided family (HUF) and the family was carrying on business in cloth. Naresh Chandrakant, one of the sons of Chandrakant Manilal Shah, joined the business on a monthly salary of Rs. 100 since about April, 1959. It was asserted that, with effect from November 1, 1959, the business had been converted into a partnership between Chandrakant Manilal Shah as karta of the Hindu undivided family and Naresh Chandrakant. The deed of partnership executed in this behalf on November 12, 1959, indicated that Naresh Chandrakant had been admitted as a working partner with effect from November 1, 1959, having 35 per cent. share in the profits and losses of the firm and the remaini...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC2296; 1992(40)BLJR929; 1991CriLJ3354; JT1991(3)SC550; 1991(2)SCALE396; (1991)4SCC304; [1991]3SCR742
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. The short question arising for decision by us is the true meaning of Sub-section (2) of Section 427 of the CrPC, 1973 and its effect.2. For an offence of murder committed on 17.9.1978 the petitioner, Ranjit Singh, was convicted under Section 302 IPC by the Sessions Judge on 6.3.1979 and sentenced to life imprisonment which was confirmed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. While the petitioner was on parole after his conviction and sentence for first murder, he was tried for the second murder committed on October 25, 1980 and convicted under Section 303 IPC. This conviction was altered to one under Section 302 IPC and for the second murder also the petitioner was sentenced by this Court on 30.9.1983 to life imprisonment instead of death sentence. This Court while disposing of the petitioner's appeal, in this manner, directed as under:We feel that life imprisonment would be the proper sentence that should be imposed upon the appellant. We accordingly reduce the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC139; 1992CriLJ109; 1993Supp(1)SCC428
ORDER1. The detenu, namely, Mrs. Julia Jose Mavely, who is now lodged in the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, has filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the order of detention passed by the second respondent, the State of Kerala in exercise of powers conferred by Sections 3(1)(i) and 3(i)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') directing the petitioner/detune to be detained and kept in custody in the abovesaid prison with a view to preventing the detenu from smuggling goods and engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods. The period of detention has been fixed for one year as per the order dated 16-1-1991 with effect from 27-10-90. As the facts of the case which necessitated the detaining authority to pass this detention order are well set out in the grounds of detention, we think that it is not necessary for us to r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC481; I(1992)BC187(SC); JT1991(5)SC355; 1992(I)OLR(SC)1; 1991(2)SCALE983; (1992)1SCC145; [1991]Supp1SCR542; 1992(1)LC471(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution is against the order of the High Court of Rajasthan dated July 7, 1983. The appellant a partnership firm consists of nine partners of which Satya Narain is one of the partners. On July 25, 1973 Satya Narain submitted a tender to the respondents offering to supply 1000 quintals of Gram Dal at the rate of Rs. 185/- per bag. This was accepted by the respondents by letter dated August 28, 1973 followed by confirmation letter by the firm on August 31, 1973. It is the case of the respondents that the appellant committed breach of the contract and as a result, the respondents filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short as the 'Act') before the District Court for making reference for arbitration in terms of the contract. The Addl. District Judge after considering the evidence and the objections allowed the application and referred the dispute for arbitration. Against that order, the appeal w...
Tag this Judgment!