Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC401; 1994SCC(L&S)838; 1994(27)ATC443
L.M. Sharma and; N. Venkatachala, JJ.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The delay is condoned2. In the original application which was filed before Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, the Tribunal while admitting the matter and issuing notice passed an interim order directing the authorities to interview the respondents. When the case was placed for final disposal the Tribunal without going into the questions raised by the parties and deciding any of the points relevant for the decision in the case granted the relief made in the application by the respondents. In our view, the Tribunal was in serious error by not taking up the disputed issues and in allowing the application without deciding the relevant questions on merits. Accordingly we grant leave, allow the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment. The case is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh decision by dealing with the questions raised by the parties. There will be no order as to costs3. During the pendenc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC408; 1992LabIC2397; (1994)ILLJ214SC; 1992(2)SCALE671; 1993Supp(2)SCC639; [1992]Supp1SCR876
ORDERP.B. Sawant, J.1. Leave granted.2. Respondents 3 to 9 are trained Ayurvedic Compounders. They joined the State service between 1962 and 1969 as such Compounders. The next promotional post is that of Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari (Vaidya). Under the Himachal Pradesh Health & Family Planning Department Subordinate Class III Services (Recruitment, Promotion and Certain Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'State Rules') which have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, the essential qualification for promotion to the post of Vaidya is either [i] Vaidya Visharad which is a diploma course, with seven years' experience or [ii] Ayurveda Ratna which is a degree course, with five years' experience. The Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) for selecting candidates for the post of Vaidya met on 2nd December, 1977. Respondents 3 to 9 [hereinafter referred to as 'respondents'] were not selected on the ground that they did not have the required diploma/d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC946; 1993CriLJ164; 1992(3)Crimes617(SC); 1992(2)SCALE747; 1993Supp(2)SCC587
ORDERK. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. The two appellants herein were tried for the offence of causing the murder of Mangla, the deceased in the case under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The trial court acquitted them. The State preferred an appeal against the said order of acquittal. The High Court accepting the evidence of the two eye-witnesses P.Ws 1 and 2 allowed the State appeal and convicted each of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. The prosecution case is as follows.The first appellant Ramdas is the son of second appellant Nathu. On 29.9.75 the deceased Mangla went to the forest near village Rajapur for collecting fire wood at about mid day. The deceased had gone to the forest with Shyam Kumar, P.W. I and Nand Kishore P.W.2. A little later in the afternoon P.Ws 1 and 2 came running to Makra, P.W. 3, the brother of the deceased and informed him that the deceased had been killed with an axe by two sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC332; 1993CriLJ167; 1992(3)Crimes623(SC); JT1992(6)SC91; 1992(2)SCALE740; 1993Supp(2)SCC351
ORDERG.N. Ray, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of conviction of the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and consequential sentence of life imprisonment passed on October 22, 1980 in Criminal Appeal No.790 of 1975 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, setting aside the Judgment of acquittal dated April 18, 1975 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No.27 of 1975. The appellant, Chamardas, was tried for murdering one Mst. Kapothin on the night of November 6, 1974 in the house of Jaisingh (P.W. 1) in the village Dumar, Tehsil Katghora, District Bilaspur. The prosecution case in short is that the deceased, Mst. Kapothin, was an old and infirm lady and on the day of occurrence she had been living in the house of her son, Jaisingh, along with other members of the family. On November 6, 1974 at about 10.00 P.M. a thief entered the house of Hari Sharma (P.W. 4) in the said village but he was chased by Hari Sharma (P.W. 4) and Mahesh (P.W. 5...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC350; 1992(3)Crimes620(SC); JT1992(Suppl1)SC535; 1992(2)SCALE769; 1993Supp(2)SCC42
ORDERK. Jayachandra Reddy, J. 1.This is an appeal under Section 379 Cr.P.C. read with Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act filed by 12 appellants. They are original accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6 to 14. They alongwith six others were tried for offences punishable under Sections 147, 307/149, 302/149 and 325/149 I.P.C. Among them accused Nos. 7, 12 and 18 were tried under Section 148 I.P.C. also and A-1 Sita Ram was also tried under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The trial court acquitted all of them. The State preferred an appeal and the Division Bench of the High Court convicted the appellants before us under Sections 302/149 and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. They were also convicted under Sections 307/149 and sentenced to seven years R.I., under Sections 325/149 and sentenced to five years R.I. and under Sections 379/149 and sentenced to three years R.I. A-1 was also convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1689; 1992(2)SCALE667; 1993Supp(2)SCC135; 1992(2)LC780(SC)
ORDER1. Kamu alias Kamala Ammal (Kamu) on her behalf and on behalf of her two minor daughters instituted a suit for partition and possession of 5/8th share in the suit properties. The properties were left by T. M. Meenakshisundaram (Sundaram) who died on June 28, 1967. Kamu claimed to be his second wife and the two minor daughters having been born out of the wed-lock. Muthulakshmi and Muthayya were defendants I and 2 in the suk, Muthulakshmi is the first wife of Sundaram and Muthayya his son from the said wife. Suit was decreed by the trial Court. On appeal by Muthayya the High Court by its judgment dated March 18, 1980: (reported in : (1981)1MLJ107 reversed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the suit filed by Kamu and her daughters. This appeal by Kamu and her daughters is against the judgment of the High Court. 2. According to Kamu she married Sundaram at a place called Srirangam in accordance with Hindu rites on May 30, 1948. First daughter out of the wed-lock was born on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992(2)SCALE665; 1993Supp(2)SCC86; [1992]Supp1SCR856
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The short question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal directed against judgment and order of the Kerala High Court, is if voluntary transfers by a declarant, prohibited under Section 84 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for brief the Act) are to be ignored and land covered by it is to be taken to belong to declarant or have to be taken into account only after determination of the ceiling areas on material date for purposes of addition only that area from the voluntary transfers which was found in excess of the ceiling area notified under Section 83 of the Act.2. Relevant facts necessary for determination of the legal issue as found by the High Court were that on 1st June, 1970 the material date for determining ceiling areas in the State of Kerala the declarants family was possessed of 20.46 acres. Out of this 8 acres was exempted land since ceiling limit was 12 acres the declarant was found to have 00.46 cents as surplus. Against this determination the d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993(2)BLJR1171; [1993]76CompCas525(SC); 1992(2)SCALE692; 1993Supp(1)SCC693; [1992]Supp1SCR862
N.P. Singh, J.1. Special leave granted.2. This appeal is against an order passed by the High Court dismissing the Writ Application filed behalf of the appellant for quashing the proceedings initiated by the respondents for sale of 22 acres of land which had been mortgaged in favour of the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') in connection with a loan amounting to Rs.34,000/-advanced to the appellant in, the year 1972 for purchase of a tractor. The tractor so purchased had been hypothecated with the Bank.3. On various dates the appellant paid Rs. 11,500/- towards the instalments and the interest in respect of the aforesaid loan. In July 1977, the Bank approached the concerned Tehsildar for recovery of Rs.44,872.60 the outstanding amount till that date in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Section 10-B of the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973. The Tehsildar initiated recovery proceedings and pursuant to an order passed by him on 16.12.1977, the aforesaid ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC151
S. Ranganathan, J.1. C.As. Nos. 1406-07 of 1976The High Court answered the question referred to it under the Income-tax Act, 1961 in favour of the assessee, following its earlier decision in the case of C.I.T. v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. : [1976]104ITR510(Guj) . The decision in the said case has been affirmed by this Court in C.I.T. v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. : [1987]167ITR639(SC) . In the circumstances, the High Court's decision has to be upheld and these two appeals have to be dismissed. We direct accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs.Civil Appeal No. 784(NT) of 19772. Two questions were referred to the High Court under the Income-tax Act, 1961. So far as the first question is concerned the answer of the High Court which was in favour of the assessee has to be upheld in view of the decision of this Court in C.I.T. v. Elecon Engineering Co. : [1987]167ITR639(SC) .3. So far as the second question is, concerned, the grievance of the Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC76; 1992CriLJ3940; 1992(3)Crimes625(SC); 1992(2)SCALE742; 1993Supp(2)SCC632
ORDERG.N. Ray, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated February 23, 1981 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.133-DB of 1980. The said Criminal Appeal arose out of the Judgment and order dated December 24, 1979 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, in Sessions Trial No. 82 of 1979. Seven accused persons including the four appellants in this appeal were convicted on a charge under Sections 148, 302/149, 325/149, 324/149 and 323/149 I.P.C. Accused No. 1, Jangir Singh, accused No.2, Makhan Singh, accused No.3, Baj Singh, accused No,6, Jit Singh, are the appellants in the instant appeal. The remaining accused, namely, accused No.4, Kashmira Singh, accused No.5, Bahal Singh, accused No.7, Jaswant Singh, have been acquitted by the High Court in the said Criminal Appeal No. 133-DB of 1980. The prosecution case in short is that on February 20, 1978, P.W. 10, Kashmira Singh, P.W. 11, Dalbir Singh and P.W. 12, Gurbax Sin...
Tag this Judgment!