Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1482; JT1992(3)SC151; 1992(1)SCALE1054; 1992Supp(2)SCC1; 1992(1)LC730(SC)
ORDERLalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. Special leave is granted. 2. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract (Ext.1) entered into by the vendor of the appellants and the respondent. The suit has been dismissed by the courts below on the finding that under the deed of sale (Ext 2) obtained by the appellants the right of specific performance of the aforesaid contract of sale was not conveyed. In the impugned judgment of the High Court the learned judge has observed that the recitals in the appellants' sale deed (Ext.2) do not indicate that the right of the appellants' vendor of re-conveyance of the property by the defendant was transferred. A certified copy of the sale deed (Ext.2), which is in Hindi, has been produced before us and we have examined the document in its entirety and do not find ourselves in agreement with the view of the courts below. The operative portion of the sale deed clearly records that all rights and privileges in and concerning the suit prop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1442; 1994CriLJ2120
K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. We have heard counsel for the parties.2. Leave granted.3. The appellant was tried for an offence under Section 18(c) read with Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940. The trial Court acquitted him. The State preferred an appeal and the High Court set aside the order of acquittal and convicted the appellant for the said offence and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, which is the minimum sentence, and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default of which to suffer imprisonment for a period of three months.Questioning the same the special leave petition is filed in this Court. The prosecution case is as follows:The appellant is the proprietor of Santosh Medical Stores having a licence to deal in medicines. On an information, the Drug Inspector visited the store. He did not notice any unauthorised drugs. Thereafter he along with the accused went to the residence of the accused and made a search and there he found Insulin a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1696; JT1992(4)SC65; 1992(2)KLT284(SC); 1992(1)SCALE1055; (1992)3SCC277; [1992]3SCR70; 1992(2)LC112(SC)
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. Special leave granted.2. This appeal filed by the landlord arises out of a petition filed under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the eviction of the respondent from the building situate in the city of Cochin.3. The building in question was let out to the respondent by the father of the appellant on May 1, 1972 and he has been carrying on hotel business on the same. The said building stands on a portion of 13 cents of land owned by the appellant, The appellant was employed with Bharat God Mines Ltd. and was due to retire on September 30, 1981. Prior to his retirement, the appellant filed the eviction petition before the Rent Controller, Ernakulam on January 15, 1981 wherein the appellant pleaded that after his retirement from service, he wanted to settle down in Cochin and except the building in question, he has no other house to reside and that the said building was r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC577
P.B. Sawant and; B.P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. This matter was adjourned on the last occasion for settlement. The learned counsel for the respondents states that he has not received any instructions in the matter from his clients.3. We find that the High Court had allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent-advocate for the recovery of his professional fees from the petitioner. No writ petition can lie for recovery of an amount under a contract. The High Court was clearly wrong in entertaining and allowing the petition. There is no separate law for the advocates. In the circumstances, we set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 26-7-1991 and dismiss the writ petition. The result is that the letters patent appeal pending before the Division Bench of the High Court would also come to an end. The appeal is allowed accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1683; 1992CriLJ2779; 1993Supp(1)SCC520
ORDERYogeshwar Dayal, J.1. Special leave granted.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Counsel for the State.3. The appeal itself is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 19th September, 1991 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant and maintained conviction Under Section 325, I.P.C. but reduced the sentence to the sentence already undergone by him. The trial court had convicted the appellant Under Section 325, I.P.C. and sentenced him to one year rigorous imprisonment.4. The prosecution case was that on 5th April, 1985 at about 11 O' clock in the night the appellant himself went and informed Dilip Singh, the brother of the deceased Lakhan Singh, that since Lakhan Singh was abusing him he had assaulted him by spade. The accused also asked the brother Dilip Singh to go and bring his brother. Dilip Singh started to see his brother, but on the way he found Bhola Singh ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1447; I(1992)DMC581SC; (1993)1GLR583; JT1992(3)SC195; 1992(1)SCALE1107; (1992)3SCC573; 1992(1)LC741(SC)
Kuldip Singh and K. Ramaswamy, JJ.1. Special leave granted. 2. Pradipkumar Karunashanker Joshi was married to Kumudlata. A son named Vishal was born on July 20, 1979 and a daughter Rachna alias Rikta on August 12, 1981. Unfortunately, Kumudlata died on January 12, 1991 and the cause of death mentioned in the postmortem report was 'cardio-respiratory arrest due to some chemical poisoning....' The husband Pradipkumar is facing criminal charge under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code. On February 17, 1991 the police recorded statements of the children. 3. Pradipkumar and family were residing at Rajkot. After the death of Kumudlata, Vishal and Rikta left their father's house and went to Jamnagar to live with the family of their mother's brothers/sisters. Since then both the children are living with.their maternal uncle Kirtikumar Mahesharikar Joshi. 4. Kirtikumar, brother of Kumudlata-deceased, filed an application before the District Judge, Jamnagar under the Guardians and Wards Act (Act) on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC28; 1994CriLJ8
Madan Mohan Punchhi, J.1. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and order dated 20-2-1981 of the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1974.2. For the view we are taking, it would not be necessary to detail out the entire case. It would be enough to mention that the sole appellant herein, named Ramesh Maruti Patil, along with eight others stood trial under Section 302/323 read with Section 149, I.P.C. etc. for causing the death of one Moti Ram and causing injuries to three others on the complainant side. On the side of the appellant four accused were stated to have suffered injuries during the occurrence which took place on March 3, 1974 in front of the house of the deceased Moti Ram. In the First Information Report lodged by Savalaram, P.W. 9 the father of the deceased, it was Bhanudas Gajanan Patil co-accused who was ascribed the sole fatal injury on the deceased. The First Information Report was otherwise silent about the remaining five injuries on the dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC233; JT1992(4)SC538; 1992(1)SCALE1068; (1992)3SCC455; [1992]3SCR1; 1992(2)LC441(SC)
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J.1. All the above Special Leave Petitions by builders in the city of Pune are directed against the judgment of the Divisional Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 18.10.1991 dismissing the writ petitions filed by the petitioners. The Learned Judges in their order dated 18.10.1991 stated that the controversy raised in the petition before them stood concluded by an earlier decision of the Division Bench dated 15.4.1987. Thus, no reasons have been recorded in the impugned order and in order to decide the controversy before us learned Counsel referred to the decision of the High Court dated 15.4.1987.2. The factual matrix of the above cases may be slightly different, but the legal controversies are common to all the cases and as such we are disposing of all the matters by one common order. It was pointed out during the course of arguments that many more cases are pending in the various courts at different stages and the fate of those cases also hinges on the decision o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC574
N.M. Kasliwal and; K. Ramaswamy, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. The facts of the case are that the said premises were leased out by Sourendra Nath Mukherjee and Rabindra Nath Mukherjee in favour of a partnership firm, namely, M/s Thakurdin Ramjosh as back as on 7-9-1949. A partition took place between Sourendra Nath Mukherjee and Rabindra Nath Mukherjee by virtue of a written deed of partition dated 16-7-1962. The property in question was allotted to the share of Sourendra Nath Mukherjee. Sourendra Nath Mukherjee then filed a Suit No. 636 of 1968 on 19-9-1968 in the City Civil Court, Calcutta against the partnership firm, namely, M/s Thakurdin Ramjosh for recovery of possession of the premises.3. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff on 13-4-1973. M/s Thakurdin Ramjosh through Kedar Lal Jaiswal filed an appeal in the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, Sourendra Nath Mukherjee executed a lease for 99 years in favour of the appellants on 10-3-1979 on receipt of prem...
Tag this Judgment!