Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC365; 1993Supp(2)SCC493
1. The question before the High Court was as to whether the expression 'Government' under Section 88(1)(a) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Act) means the State Government alone or it refers to both the State Government and the Central Government. Section 88(1) of the Act is as under:88(1)-Save as otherwise provided in Sub-section (2), nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Act shall apply - (a) to lands belonging to, or held on lease from, the Government; (aa) to lands held or leased by a local authority; (b) to any area which the State Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify as being reserved for non-agricultural or industrial development.... 2. The High Court rejected the contention of the appellant-petitioner that the Government under Section 88(1)(a) of the Act means only the State Government on the following reasoning:If, therefore, two different expressions are used, namely, 'the Government' and 'the Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC300; 1993(41)BLJR116; 1993CriLJ55; 1992(2)Crimes1165(SC); JT1992(4)SC309; 1992(2)SCALE101; (1992)3SCC547; 1992(2)LC573(SC)
ORDERK. Jayachandra Reddy, J. 1. The sole accused in the case is the appellant. He has been convicted under Sections 302 and 328 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C. and no separate sentence was awarded under Section 328 I.P.C. The appeal preferred by him was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal pursuant to the special leave granted by this Court. It is alleged that he committed the murder of Chandra Mani Lal Chowdhary (the deceased) by administering poison. The prosecution case is as follows:2. The deceased was the husband of Smt. Kamla Kumari Devi, P.W. 7, the informant in this case. There was a litigation between the accused and the deceased. Therefore they were on inimical terms. However, the accused tried to establish friendship with the deceased putting an appearance of having changed in his. attitude and used to visit the deceased now and then. On 7.2.79 at about 7.P.M. the accused visited the house of the deceased and r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC299; 1992LabIC2491; 1993Supp(2)SCC627
ORDER1. The application for addition of Respondents Nos. 5 to 13 is allowed.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. In our view the writ petition is fit to be dismissed without issuing Rule Nisi.3. The question raised in the case relates to the inter se seniority between the petitioners, respondent No. 4 and the added respondents 5 to 13. The respondent No. 4 had earlier challenged the interpretation placed on the order dated 4-8-1977 against him by filing an application under Article 226, which was registered as writ petition No. 6164 of 1978 in the Andhra Pradesh High Court and claimed further relief on that basis. The writ petition was allowed in his favour by a learned single Judge and the judgment was confirmed by a Division Bench. The Union of India brought the matter to this Court, but without any success. While dismissing to special leave petition, a bench of this Court observed that they did not find any merit in the petition. After the judgment became final,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC846; 1992(2)Crimes1163(SC); JT1992(4)SC290; 1992(2)SCALE103; (1992)3SCC634; 1992(2)LC586(SC)
ORDERK. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Section 379 Cr.P.C. and Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970. The five appellants before us arc the original accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8 and 10. They alongwith others were tried by the Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. The prosecution relied on the evidence of the three eye-witnesses but the learned Sessions Judge acquitted all of them holding that there are certain discrepancies in the version of the eye-witnesses and therefore they are unreliable. The State preferred an appeal and the High Court in the impugned judgment convicted the five appellants under Sections 147 and 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo one year's R.I. and life imprisonment for the respective offences. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The prosecution case is as follows.The d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1196; 1993Supp(3)SCC366
1. Municipal Committee, Anand framed a draft scheme under the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 (The Act) and the Bombay Planning Rules, 1955 (The Rules). The draft scheme was sanctioned by the Government on September 19, 1966. Thereafter a Town Planning Officer was appointed under the Act to hear the objections filed by the plot holders and persons affected by the proposals in the draft scheme. The objections were invited by the Town Planning Officer from individual plot holders and affected persons. The Town Planning Officer finalised the scheme under the Act by giving an award dated February 11, 1969. Appeal from the award of the Town Planning Officer under the Act lies to the Board of Appeals constituted under the Act. The plot holders challenged the decision of the Town Planning Officer, inter alia, on the ground that the Rules of Natural Justice were not complied with and an opportunity as envisaged under the Act was not afforded to them. The Appellate Authority accepted the content...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC464; 1994CriLJ138
1. There are three appellants before us. They are original accused numbers 1, 2 and 3. They along with 25 others were tried for offences punishable under Section 302 read with 149, Section 323 read with 149, Section 324 read with Section 149, Section 449 read with Section 149 and under Sections 147 and 148, I.P.C. The case rested mainly on the evidence of 4 eye-witnesses 'and the oral dying declaration spoken to by P.W. 18, P.W. 20 and 3 others. The trial Court rejected the evidence of the three eye-witnesses and also others who spoke about the dying-declaration. The trial Court relied on the evidence of one of the eye-witnesses - P.W. 29 only. The conviction of the appellants rests entirely on the oral dying declaration said to have been made to P.W. 18, P.W. 20 and P.W. 29. The trial Judge convicted four accused, viz., the three present appellants and Bindrawan. Against their conviction an appeal was filed in the High Court. The High Court acquitted Bindrawan and rejected the appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC647
1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Special leave granted.2. The appeal is against the judgment and order dated 14th January 1992 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No. 541 of 1992 dismissing appellant's writ petition in limine. We are afraid the dismissal of the writ petition was not justified in view of the antecedent litigation between the parties culminating in an earlier judgment dated 2nd December 1991 of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 5728 of 1991 which had declared appellant's eligibility for consideration for selection to the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) (Class-I) Service from the feeder-cadres of Tehsildars and Naib Tehsildars. By the same judgment, the High Court had held - correctly or erroneously is not the question here - that in considering the case of the appellant for such selection, the relevant standards and criteria were those that obtained at the time the vacancies arose and not the amended standards that ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992(2)LC609(SC); (1992)2UPLBEC1295
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J. 1. All the above writ petitions have been filed by the doctors who after passing the M.B.B.S. examination, appeared for the Post-Graduate Medical Entrance Examination (PGMEE) held by the Lucknow University in the year 1992, but remained unsuccessful as they secured less than 50% marks which were necessary for the students of general category and 40% marks for SC/ST according to the rules for admission applicable for Post-Graduate course. On 14.7.1992 we passed a detailed order and so far as the admission rules fixing 50% of the marks to be obtained at the entrance examination as minimum qualifying marks for admission to the Post-Graduate medical courses are concerned the same were held to be legal and it was further held that no exception can be taken to the same. It was, however, contended on behalf of the petitioners that as a result of the application of the aforesaid rule a large number of seats have remained vacant and in view of the observations made in Dr....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC2078; JT1992(4)SC317; 1992(2)SCALE107; (1992)3SCC624; [1992]3SCR683; [1992]87STC186(SC)
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Common questions arise in this group of civil appeals, for which reason they were heard together and are being disposed of under a common judgment. The judgments under appeal were rendered on references made under Section 61(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The High Court has answered the questions referred against the appellants-dealers and in favour of the revenue. Hence, these appeals by them. Since the facts in all the appeals are identical, it is sufficient if we refer to the facts in Civil Appeal No. 803 (N.T. ) of 1977 (Cadbury Fry (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax and another).2. In Civil Appeal No. 803/ 77, the following two questions were referred for the opinion of the High Court under Section 61(2) of the Act:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that for the purpose of reducing set-off under Clause (iii) of the Proviso to Explanation to Rule 41 of the Bombay S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1858; JT1992(4)SC292; 1992(2)SCALE90; (1992)3SCC666; [1992]3SCR658; 1992(2)LC331(SC); (1992)2UPLBEC1198
ORDERKuldip Singh, J.1. The Karnataka State Legislature, with the object of eliminating the practice of collecting capitation fee for admitting students into educational institutions, enacted the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 (the Act). The Act which replaces the Karnataka Ordinance No. 14 of 1983 came into force with effect from July 11, 1983. Purporting to regulate the tuition fee to be charged by the Private Medical Colleges in the State, the Karnataka Government issued a notification dated June 5, 1989 under Section 5(1) of the Act thereby fixing the tuition fee, other fees and deposits to be charged from the students by the Private Medical Colleges in the State. Under the notification the candidates admitted against 'Government seats' are to pay Rs. 2,000/- per year as tuition fee. The Karnataka students (other than those admitted against 'Government seats') are to be charged tuition fee not exceeding Rs. 25,000/- per annum. The third...
Tag this Judgment!