Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC960; 1994CriLJ1211
1. Special leave granted.2. Prabhat Kumar Bose, the appellant has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 1992 (arising out of S.L.P. No. 2211/89) challenging the order dated 12-7-89 of the High Court of Calcutta made in Crl. Revision Case No. 1570/88 whereby the High Court has set aside the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate discharging the appellant No. 1 under Section 245(1) of the CrPC.3. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 1992 (arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2212/89) namely, Shibdas Dutta is challenging the above mentioned same order of the High Court reversing the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate discharging the second appellant.4. As both the appeals arise out of a common order we make the following common judgment:The first respondent filed a private complaint against both these appellants on the allegations that in November, 1980, the appellants in pursuance of a conspiracy induced the respondent/ complainant to pay Rs. 50,000/- for purchasing the shares of the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1353; 1992CriLJ1927; 1992(1)Crimes996(SC); 1992(38)ECC260; JT1992(3)SC610; 1992(1)SCALE525; (1992)2SCC295; [1992]1SCR1075
ORDERS. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant/petitioner K.P.M. Basheer by the above appeal is challenging the correctness and legality of the order dated 27th September 1991 made by the High Court of Karnataka dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant challenging the legality and validity of the order of detention dated 7.1.1991 passed by the State of Karnataka. The first respondent in the appeal, namely, the State of Karnataka in exercise of the powers conferred by the Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') passed the impugned detention order on 7th January 1991 with a view to preventing him from engaging in keeping and transporting smuggled goods falling within the mischief of Section 3(1)(iii) of the Act. The appellant was directed to be detained and kept in the custody of the central prison, Banglore.3. The brief facts of the case which led to the passing o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1992(2)SC63; 1992(2)SCALE311; (1992)2SCC341; 1992(1)LC575(SC)
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, K. Jayachandra Reddy and G.N. Ray, JJ.1. During the course of the hearing of this petition Mr. Kapil Sibal urged the following contentions for our consideration:(1) Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, mandates that the Speaker of the House of the People shall either admit or refuse to admit a motion for presenting an address to the President of India for the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court of India only 'after' considering such materials, if any, as may be available to him and failure to comply with the said sine-qua-non, viz., consideration of available material before admitting the motion, vitiates his decision for non-application of mind. In the present case since the then Speaker, respondent No. 3, is not shown to have applied his mind to the available material before admitting the motion, his decision to admit the motion and constitute the Committee comprising respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 is unsustainable in law. (2) Sub-section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1531; 1993Supp(1)SCC648
ORDER1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, the State of Karnataka and others, has sought to challenge the correctness of the decision of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Lakshmana Gowda v. State of Karnataka (1981) 1 Kant LJ 1, which has been followed by that High Court in the impugned judgments. As we are of the view that the judgment in Lakshmana Gowda's case deserves to be upheld, it is not necessary for us to set out the facts except the barest minimum necessary.2. The Karnataka-Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (for short the 'said Act') came into effect from Feb. 1, 1963. It is common ground that under the said Act the lands given to the village officers were resumed and then re-granted to them. The re-grants were made at different periods. Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the said Act placed a restriction on transfer of land re-granted. It runs as follows :(3) The occupancy or the ryotwari patta of the land, as the case may be, re-granted under Sub-section (1) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1120; JT1992(2)SC425; 1992LabIC1000; (1992)IILLJ615SC; 1992(1)SCALE570; (1992)2SCC410; [1992]1SCR1072; 1992(1)LC516(SC)
ORDERM.H. Kania, CJ.1. This appeal arises out of an order of a Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras, dismissing an application filed by the appellant herein. The prayer in the application was to consider and appoint the appellant to the Indian Administrative Service (hereinafter referred to as 'IAS') for the year 1990. It appears that for the year 1990 the appellant was one of the five candidates called for interview for selection to the I.A.S. from among the Non-State Civil Service Officers in the State of Tamil Nadu. It seems to be common ground that under the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1956, read with similar Regulations, namely, Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion), Regulations, 1955 persons not belonging to the State Civil Service, who are of outstanding merit and ability and who have completed not less than eight years of service, can be considered for appointment to the I.A.S. by selection. In the case of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1014; JT1992(2)SC65; 1992(1)SCALE490; 1993Supp(2)SCC433; [1992]1SCR1003
ORDER1. For the reasons stated by us in our separate but concurring judgments dated 26.2.1992, we dismiss the appeal arising from SLP(C) No. 10542 of 1985. The Transferred Case No. 27 of 1987 is returned to the Andhra Pradesh High Court to be heard and disposed of on the merits together with the 3rd defendant's appeal O.S.A.S.R. No. 39789 of 1988.2. We make no order as to costs.1 The other Courts are: (a) The Court of the Recorder of Rangoon; (b) The Court of the Resident at Aden; (c) The District Court of Karachi.2 A History of English Law. W.S. Holdsworth, Vol. 1, pp.558-59.3 The Gaetano an Maria, (1882) 7 PD at p. 143.4 The Gas Float Whitton, N:2 (1896) P. at pp. 47, 48. 5. The section reads:6. As to Claims for Damage to Cargo imported. - The High Court of Admiralty shall have jurisdiction over any Claim by the Owner or Consignee or Assignee of any Bill of Lading of any Goods carried into any Port in England or Wales in any Ship, for Damage done to the Goods or any Part thereof by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1272; 1992(38)ECC175; 1992LC161(SC); 1993(63)ELT401(SC); JT1992(2)SC59; 1992(1)SCALE527; 1992Supp(2)SCC145; [1992]1SCR997; 1992(1)LC583(SC)
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J.1. Special leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 18.6.1991. The short controversy raised in the present case is whether the cloves imported by the appellant fall within Item 169 in List 8 of Appendix 6 or fall within Paragraph 167 of Chapter XIII of the Import and Export Policy April 1990-March 1993.3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant obtained by transfer an Import Licence No. 3412179 dated 29th November, 1990 for Rs. 16,10,700 for the import of admissible Items as per Para 220(2)(3)(4) & (6) of the Import Policy 1990-93 Vol. I. After acquisition of the aforesaid additional licence, the appellant placed an order for the supply of about 200 bags of Madagascar cloves No. 1 quality to a firm of Singapore. The appellant opened a letter of credit dated 6.5.1991 in favour of the foreign supplier. On receipt of the letter of credit the foreign supplier shipped the above mentioned goods in favour of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1380; [1992]74CompCas1(SC); (1992)2CompLJ9(SC); 1992(1)SCALE485
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1.Leave granted.2. The appeal is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 777 of 1986 disposing of the appeal preferred by the appellant with certain directions.3. Khandesh Spinning and Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd. went into liquidation at the instance of a creditor. The order of winding up was passed on September 19, 1984 in Company Petition No. 59 of 1984. The official liquidator was appointed as the liquidator for the company.4. The company was the tenant of a flat situated at Church-gate, Bombay. It is a fairly big flat having an area of 3500 sq. ft. The company had its registered office in the said flat until it was shifted to Jalgaon sometime prior to July, 1979.5. The appellant is the sister of one of the directors of the company. Her husband was the Manager of the company. According to her, she entered into an agreement with the company on July 15, 1979 whereunder a sub tenancy was created in her favour in res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1380b; JT1992(4)SC245; (1992)2SCC322; [1992]1SCR985b
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.In S.L.P. No. 12199 of 1986 1. Leave granted.2. The appeal is directed against the Judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 777 of 1986 disposing of. the appeal preferred by the appellant with certain directions.3. Khandesh Spinning and Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd. went into liquidation at the instance of a creditor. The order of winding up was passed on September 19, 1984 in company petition No. 59 of 1984. The official liquidator was appointed as the liquidator for the company,4. The company was the tenant of a flat situated at Church-gate, Bombay. It is a fairly big flat having an area of 3500 sq. ft. The company had its registered office in the said flat until it was shifted to Jalgaon sometime prior to July, 1979. 5. The appellant is the sister of one of the directors of the company. Her husband was the Manager of the company. According to her, she entered into an agreement with the company on July 15, 1979 whereunder a sub-tenancy was cr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC470; 1994CriLJ142; 1994Supp(3)SCC146
1. The sole appellant in this case is convicted by the trial Court under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court. In this appeal arising out of special leave granted by this Court it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the case entirely rests on the circumstantial evidence and that the chain of that circumstantial evidence is not complete and at any rate one main circumstance namely the retracted extra-judicial confession relied upon by both the Courts below does not stand scrutiny and the evidence of P.W. 10 who speaks about the extra-judicial confession is highly untrustworthy.2. Deceased Ram Milan was a resident of village Satgharas, hamlet of Warraiwa within the limits of Tulsipur Police Station Distt. Gonda. P.W. 4 is the widow of the deceased. The accused also belonged to the same place and it is alleged that he was inimical towards the deceased. On the intervening night of 26th and 27th...
Tag this Judgment!