Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992(3)Crimes253(SC); JT1992(5)SC163; 1992(2)SCALE442; (1992)4SCC154; [1992]Supp1SCR26; 1992(2)LC757(SC)
N. Venkatachala, J.1. This is a joint Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution filed by Mr. David Patrick Ward as Petitioner-1, Mr. Steven Hillman as Petitioner-2, both being British Nationals, challenging the legality of the Detention Orders dated 31st January, 1992 made against them under Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and seeking their release forthwith by issuance of Writs of Habeas Corpus to Respondents: (1) the Union of India, (2) the State of Uttar Pradesh, (3) the State of Nagaland.2. Detention order made against each petitioner discloses that it had been made by Nagaland State Government with a view to prevent the concerned petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of India, the relations of India with foreign powers, the security of India, the security of the State of Nagaland and maintenance of public order. The ground of detention pertaining to each detention ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1527; (1994)IILLJ1045SC
1. Rabindranath Padhi, the husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellants 2 and 3, was employed with respondent No. 2 the Great Eastern Shipping Company Limited. While working as Chief Engineer of the ship 'M.B. Jagdhir' he travelled to Japan. When the ship was docked at the port of Mizushima in Japan an accident occurred in the air-conditioning room of the ship as a result of which Rabindranath Padhi got seriously injured and he ultimately succumed to the injuries on July 25, 1978. The widow and his two minor children instituted a suit for compensation, invoking the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Orissa High Court, claiming a sum of Rs. 15,14,000/-. The High Court held that the suit could not be entertained in its Admiralty Jurisdiction and as a consequence the plaint was returned to the appellants-plaintiffs for presentation before the proper Court of law.2. This appeal by way of special leave is against the judgment of the High Court. This appeal filed in the year 1982 has matur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC359; [1995(71)FLR79]; 1992LabIC2582; (1998)IIILLJ800SC; 1993Supp(3)SCC248
1. This special leave petition arises out of and is directed against the order dated 6th April 1992 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in LPA No. 43 of 1992 arising out of W. P. No. 1221 of 1992.2. The petitioner 'Association of Chemical Workers, Bombay' claims to represent and has brought this action on behalf of 472 workmen who were the erstwhile workmen appointed by various labour contractors engaged by the management-respondent No. 2 herein. In view of certain disturbed industrial relations, respondent 2 on 20th Nov. 1979 terminated the very contract with the labour contractors as a sequel to which the labour contractors, in turn, terminated the services of all these workmen on various dates soon thereafter. It is alleged that, thereafter, the same labour contractors had been reengaged by the respondent No. 2 and those contractors continued the same work with a new set of workmen.3. In the year 1985, the labour-contract system then prevailing in various departments o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1992(5)SC278; 1992(2)SCALE424; (1992)4SCC167; [1992]Supp1SCR43; 1992(2)LC720(SC); (1992)2UPLBEC1166
Lalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties, Special leave is granted.2. The appeal is directed against the order dated March 19,1992 (signed by the Hon'ble Judge on March 20,1992) passed on an application of the respondent No. 1 being C.C.A. 25 of 1990 for initiating a proceeding for contempt of court against the appellant-State and two of its officers, namely, Shri S.S. Billoria, Secretary to Government of Jammu and Kashmir and Shri N.R. Gupta, Commissioner/Secretary, Government of Jammu and Kashmir for non-compliance of the direction issued by the Court under its order March 19,1990. In view of the order which we are proposing to pass, it is not necessary to deal with all the facts leading to the present case in detail and it will be sufficient for the purposes of the appeal to set out the circumstances briefly, as mentioned hereafter.3. The respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution registered as Writ Petition No. 133 of 1990...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1908; 1992(61)ELT332(SC); JT1992(5)SC138; 1992(2)SCALE242; 1993Supp(1)SCC489; [1992]Supp1SCR16
ORDERS. Ranganathan, J.1. All these appeals raise a common point and can be disposed of conveniently by the same judgment. The respondent in all these appeals is Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee').2. The assessee is a public sector company engaged in the manufacture of heavy electrical machinery. It imported various consignments of 'pressure gauges' from abroad for its hardware unit for use in the manufacture of steam turbines. These pressure gauges were subjected to basic customs duty at the rate of 40% under item No. 90.24 of the schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which reads as under:Heading Sub-heading No. and description Standard No. of article rate of duty ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 90.24 Instruments and apparatus for measuring, checking or automatically controlling the flow, depth, pressure or other variables of liquids or gases or for automatically controlling temperature (for example,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC165; 1993CriLJ3913
ORDER1. The petitioner who is the wife of the detenu Uma Shankar has filed this; petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the detention of her husband on two grounds which were urged before us, viz., (1) delay in dealing with the representation dated 11-5-1992 and (2) extraneous considerations having weighed in passing the detention order. The impugned order of detention passed under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gundas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, and Slum Grabbers Act (XIV fo 1982), hereinafter called the Act, is question on the aforesaid two grounds. The detention order as well as the grounds of detention are dated 6th May, 1992. Before we deal with the grounds of challenge we may refer to some of the provisions of the Act which have relevance.2. The Act was enacted with a view to provide for preventive detention of certain clases of offenders incl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC957; 1994CriLJ1209
1. Heard learned Counsel.2. There are six appellants in these appeals. All of them are convicted under Section 302/149, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. They were tried for the offence for causing death of the deceased Bhabhichan Yadav by being members of an unlawful assembly. The prosecution case is that on 17-5-79, the deceased was putting tiles on the roof of his house standing on plot No. 805. At that time these appellants came there armed with Lathis and Gandasas and surrounded the house. The informant P.W. 9, the father of the deceased and P.W. 7 at that time were weeding out the grass by spade in the sugarcane field. The deceased ran away to a distance of 300 yards from the house to a place where P.W. 9 and P.W. 7 were carrying on weeding operation. It is alleged that all the six appellants chased the deceased and caught the deceased in the sugarcane field and they assaulted him with Lathis and Gandasa. The motive for commission of the injuries is said to b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC401; 1993CriLJ185; JT1993(1)SC601; 1993(1)SCALE615; 1993Supp(2)SCC515; [1993]1SCR1037
1. Leave granted.2. Both the above appeal and writ petition are directed by Smt. Kusum Chandrakant Khaushe who is the wife of the detenu, namely, Chandrakant Mahadev Khause.3. The detenu, Chandrakant Mahadev Khaushe is detained under the strength of the order of detention passed by the Secretary (Preventive Detection) to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department who is the respondent No. 1 in both the matters in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section (i) of Section 3 of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') with a view to preventing the detenu from engaging in transporting smuggled goods.4. In the wee hours of 22nd July, 1990, the custom officers posted at the Sahar International Airport, Bombay found two special equipment boxes bearing No. 20 and 21 being abnormally heavy which boxes were kept in the special compartment in the bulk cargo hold on the rear side of the aircraft which had e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(1992)ACC513; AIR1993SC327; JT1992(5)SC640; 1992(2)SCALE251; (1992)4SCC234; [1992]Supp1SCR4; 1992(2)LC667(SC)
ORDERYogeshwar Dayal, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 30.6.1976 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeal No. 684 of 1974 filed by the appellant herein against the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in writ petition No. 7581 of 1973 dated 15.3.1974. The appeal arises in the following circumstances:The appellant herein published a draft scheme relating to the route Tirupati to Kalahasti via Renigunta, Yerped which is an intra-State route as per the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 15.11.1972. The said scheme envisaged the exclusion of all the other operators on the proposed route except to the extent saved by the Note appended to the scheme. The Note appended to the draft scheme was as follows:Note: The scheme shall not affect-(1) the other State Transport Undertakings,(2) holders of stage carriage permits in respect of portions of the route, and(3) the holders of state carriage permits in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC366; JT1992(5)SC136; 1992(2)SCALE439; (1992)4SCC243; [1992]Supp1SCR1; 1992(2)LC723(SC)
ORDERLalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. In a writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the land acquisition proceeding an agreement was reached between the appellant and the Improvement Trust for excluding 12 Kanals of land from the Scheme and to pay the appellant the compensation for the remaining land at the rate of 2 rupees per square yard. The State was a party and joined the compromise through its counsel. The matter was disposed of by the judgment at pages 44 to 46. The Scheme, however, does not appear to have been formally modified and the appellant had to file an application for contempt, which was again disposed of by the order at page 48. The Improvement Trust, through its counsel gave an undertaking to release the land in presence of State counsel. Still the judgment was not implemented and the appellant had to file a second application for contempt which was dismissed at pages 54 to 62 by leaving the controversy open to be decided in an appropriate proceeding. In these circums...
Tag this Judgment!