Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC2091; 1993(1)ALT(Cri)70; 1992CriLJ3451; 1992(3)Crimes341(SC); JT1992(5)SC307; 1992(2)SCALE712; 1992Supp(2)SCC438; 1992(2)LC707(SC)
ORDERK. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. The sole accused in the case is the appellant herein. He was. tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 380 and 460 I.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore. He was sentenced to death under Section 302 1.P.C. He was also sentenced under Section 307 I.P.C. to undergo 10 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of which to undergo 3 years R.I. , under Section 380 I.P.C. to 5 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of which to undergo 2 years R.I. and under Section 460 I.P.C. to l0 yearsR.I. and to pay afineofRs. 2,000/- in deafault of payment of which to undergo 3 years R.I. The sentences other than death were ordered to run concurrently. The learned Sessions Judge made a reference for confirmation of death sentence and the accused also preferred an appeal against the convictions and sentences and they were disposed of by a common judgment by the High Court. The death sentence was reduced ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC892; 1993CriLJ600; 1992(3)Crimes199(SC); JT1992(5)SC213; 1992(2)SCALE338; (1992)4SCC305; [1992]Supp1SCR226
S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. We gave our conclusions in our earlier Order dated 27th August 1991 reserving the reasons to be given later. Accordingly, we render our reasons in the present judgment.2. We feel that a prefatory note, though not the detailed facts of the case, is necessary for disposal of these appeals and writ petition. The facts culled out from various documents placed before this Court are as follows:3. The Ministry of Defence, Government of India approved in August 1980 a proposal forwarded by Army Headquarters (HQ) recommending, inter-alia, the introduction of 155 mm calibre medium gun both towed and self-propelled to meet its defence operational requirements. The choice for obtaining the said gun system/guns was short listed in December, 1982 to (1) M/s. Sofma of France (2) M/s. A.B. Before of Sweden (briefly called 'Before') (3) M/s. International Military Services of U.K. and (4) M/s. Voest Alpine of Austria. In November 1985, there was a further short listing of Sofm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC2203; 1992CriLJ3783; 1993Supp(1)SCC635
1. Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment. Appellants are convicted under Section 2(c)(i) read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Khushi Ram, appellant in Crl. A. No. 133/80 is sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Bansi Dhar one of the appellant in Crl. A. No. 186/80 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Prabhu Dayal Patwari another appellant in Crl. A. No. 186/80 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.2. Khushi Ram is an author of the article which is published in a weekly newspaper 'Guru Bhumi' making scandalising remarks about the Courts at Gurgaon. Banshi Dhar was the Proprietor and Editor of the Paper and Prabhu Dayal Patwari is the owner of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC2192; 1992(2)ARBLR412(SC); 1992(II)OLR(SC)387; 1992(2)SCALE427; (1992)4SCC217; [1992]Supp1SCR297; 1992(2)LC750(SC)
ORDERS. Ranganathan, J.1. The appellant company entered into a contract with the Public Works Department of the Jammu & Kashmir Government for the construction of a bridge on the River Chenab at Baradari. Certain disputes arose between them which were referred to arbitration in pursuance of a clause therefor contained in the contract. The two joint arbitrators made an award on 24th October 1972. There were eight items of claim by the contractor which were put up for their consideration. They allowed fully the entire claim of the appellant on items Nos. 1 and 2 and totally rejected the claims under items Nos. 3 and 7. The rest of the claims were allowed in part.2. There were further proceedings before the Jammu & Kashmir High Court under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. The learned Single Judge made the award in respect of items Nos. 1, 4, 6 a rule of Court but set aside the award in respect of items Nos. 2 and 5. The rejection of the claim under items Nos. 3 and 7 was not cha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC382; 1993(1)ALT4(SC); [1992(65)FLR798]; JT1992(5)SC276; 1993LabIC98; 1992(2)SCALE440; (1992)4SCC432; [1992]Supp1SCR49; 1992(3)SLJ71(SC); 1992(2)LC714(SC); (1992)2U
ORDERLalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. The question which falls for decision in these petitions is whether the Central Administrative Tribunal is vested with the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the claim of the respondents as against the petitioners Union of India and its officers in the Railway Department and consequently the High Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. According to their case the respondents were engaged in the office of Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Central Railway, Gwalior as casual typists on daily wages and their services were wrongly terminated. The respondents challenged the order by writ petitions before the Madhya Pradesh High Court which have been allowed by the impugned judgment. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Special leave is granted.2. In pursuance of Article 323A of Constitution of India, the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was passed and the Central Administrative Tribunal, established under Section 4(1) thereof was availabl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1407; JT1992(5)SC92; 1992(1)SCALE484; (1992)4SCC605; [1992]Supp1SCR53
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. Both these writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment since they involve for decision substantially the same points. In Writ Petition No. 149 of 1992, the petitioner M. Krishna Swami is a member of the Tenth Lok Sabha from Tamil Nadu while in Writ Petition No. 140 of 1992, the petitioner Raj Kanwar is an advocate of District Karnal in Haryana. Both these petitions are stated to have been filed in public interest and relate to the proceedings for the removal from office of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami of the Supreme Court of India initiated by the notice of motion given to the Speaker by 108 members of the Ninth Lok Sabha. It is unnecessary to state further facts herein and it would suffice to say that both these petitions are a sequel to the decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India and Ors. : AIR1992SC320 - and were filed prior to Writ Petition No. 514 of 1992-Mrs. S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC2219; JT1992(5)SC1; 1992(2)SCALE257; (1992)4SCC506; [1992]Supp1SCR108
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. The person entitled to seek judicial review and the stage at which it is available against the findings of the Inquiry Committee constituted under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in accordance with the law declared in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountably v. Union of India and Ors. : AIR1992SC320 -is the question for decision in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, the remedy of judicial review is available to the concerned Judge against the finding, if any, by the Inquiry Committee that the learned Judge is 'guilty' of misbehavior only prior to submission of the report of the Committee to the Speaker in accordance with Section 4(2) of the Act or latest till it is laid before the Parliament as required by Section 4(3) of the Act, but not thereafter. Accordingly, the petitioner claims that a copy of the report should be furnished to the concerned Judge before it is submitted to the Speaker, to preser...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1993]200ITR563(SC); 1993Supp(3)SCC530
ORDER1. These appeals by special leave are against the common order dated March 8, 1976, rejecting three applications Nos. 68, 69 and 70 of 1975 made by the appellant under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for an order directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer the question of law arising out of the Tribunal's order for the decision of the High Court. The question of law is as under :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that notice served on April 10, 1962, under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, after the coming into force of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the proceedings commenced in pursuance of the said notices and the orders passed therein were invalid and bad in law ?2. The High Court rejected these applications taking the view that the matter was concluded by a decision of this court as indicated in the Tribunal's order rejecting the appellant's applications made und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC2651; 1993CriLJ3674; 1995Supp(4)SCC453
1. There are four appellants before us. They were tried for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. for causing the death of Mada, the deceased, in the case. PWs. 2 and 3 are the main eye-witnesses.2. The prosecution case is that on 17-5-1976 at about 6.30 a.m. when Karansingh, PW2 and Mada, deceased, were smoking 'chilam' at Birmawala Bera, A-1 and his sons A-2, A-3 and A-4 armed with lathies and kulhari came there and addressed Mada, the deceased saying that they will kill him today and so saying they started beating the deceased. It is alleged that A-2 was armed with a kulhari and A-1, A-3 with lathies and A-4 with the handle of kulhari. A-1 gave a blow with lathi on the head of the deceased. A-3 inflicted injury with lathi on the head of the deceased. PW 2 took A-3 in his grip so that he may not be in a position to give any further blow. A-1 took the deceased in his grip. A-4 gave a blow on the head of the deceased with the kulhari as a result of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993Supp(3)SCC742
M.N. Venkatachaliah,; P.B. Sawant and; N.P. Singh, JJ.1. This appeal is by Uttar Pradesh Electronics Corporation Limited (Corporation) and others. It is directed against the order dated January 28, 1992 and the subsequent order dated March 13, 1992 in Restrictive Trade Practices Enquiry No. 12 of 1992 before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission by which an interlocutory order was granted ex parte on January 28, 1992 and which, in view, of the divergent opinion between the two members on the application for its vacation, is continuing to operate. The injunction restricts the appellant “... from indulging in the restrictive trade practice by entering into any negotiation without making a general offer of shares to the public at large including the applicant ...”.2. The Corporation holds 40% of the shareholding in the company “Uptron Colour Picture Tubes Limited” (Company). Two other Japanese entrepreneurs hold 11% and 5% shares respectively. P...
Tag this Judgment!