Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992(3)Crimes546(SC); 1992(2)SCALE614; 1993Supp(1)SCC758
S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. Leave granted and Rule Nisi.2. The above appeal is preferred by the detenu's son Rajesh R. Khushlani challenging the judgment and order dated 20.4.1992 passed by the High Court of Bombay dismissing the Criminal Writ Petition No. 1412 of 1991 filed by him questioning the legality of the detention order, passed against his father, namely, Ramesh Khushlani by the first respondent, namely, the Joint Secretary to the Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred on as the 'Act') with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation of foreign exchange and directed him to be detained and kept in custody in the central prison, Bombay.3. A few facts relevant to decide this appeal may be stated.The Enforcement Directorate, Bombay received certain information that M/s. Tushar Enterprises, M/s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC147; JT1992(5)SC648; 1992(2)SCALE762; 1993Supp(2)SCC316; [1992]Supp1SCR802
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Leave granted.2. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing Writ Appeal 1062 of 1991 preferred by the Appellant. The main issue in this appeal is the interpretation to be placed upon Sub-rule (4) of Rule 12 of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.3. Survey No. 650/1 Palukar Village in Kurnool District is of an extent of 40 acres. It contains a minor mineral, lime stone slab. One Venkatesan was granted a lease for the said extent earlier. The term of his lease was expiring on 20.8.87. He applied for renewal of the lease 90 days before the expiry of his lease as contemplated by Sub-rule 2 of Rule 13 of the said rules. On 17.7.87 however he withdrew his application. On 18.7.87 his son, the fourth respondent, applied for grant of lease in respect of 18 acres in the said survey number. No orders were passed thereon by the appropriate authorities. On 10.8.87 the appellant, a Labour Cooperative...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC229; 1992CriLJ3858; 1992(3)Crimes549(SC); JT1992(5)SC676; 1992(2)SCALE720; 1993Supp(2)SCC254
ORDERK. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. These three appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and they are being disposed of together here. Original accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10 to 14 and 16 are the appellants before us.2. On 12.9.74 at about 9/10 A.M. a rioting of grave nature took place in Village Bath in Amritsar District, during the course of which four persons were killed and several persons received injuries. In connection with this occurrence 17 accused persons were tried under Sections 148, 302, 307, 324, 325 and 323 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. The learned trial Judge acquitted accused Nos. 3, 7, 8, 9, 15 and 17 and convicted the remaining 11 accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. They were also convicted under Sections 148, 307/149, 323/149, 324/149 and 325/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to various ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993(1)ALT(Cri)7; 1992(3)Crimes540(SC); JT1992(5)SC596; 1992(2)SCALE724; 1993Supp(2)SCC755; 1992(2)LC738(SC)
Kuldip Singh, J.1. Lakkappa, Ningappa and four others were tried for the murder of Shiddappa and Nagappa. The trial court convicted them under Sections 447, 326 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment under 302 I.P.C., 2 years under 326 I.P.C. and 3 months under 447 I.P.C. On appeal, filed by all the accused, the High Court gave benefit of doubt to accused No.6 and acquitted him, the conviction and sentence of accused No.2 Ningappa under Section 302 I.P.C. was upheld and so far as accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 were concerned they were acquitted of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. but were convicted under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentence of accused Nos. 1 to 5 for offences under Sections 447 and 326 read with 149 I.P.C. was upheld. This Court granted special leave only to accused Nos. 1 and 2. The special leave petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1992(5)SC655; 1992(2)SCALE755; 1993Supp(1)SCC681; [1992]Supp1SCR785
B.P. Jeevan Reddy J.1. Leave granted. 2. This batch of civil appeals is directed against the judgment and orders of Rajasthan High Court in certain batches of special appeals. The point that arose in all the writ petitions (from which the Special Appeals arose) filed in the Rajasthan High Court was common viz., whether the short-lifting of liquor on the part of the writ petitioners/licenses during the year 1967-68 was on account of the default on their part or on account of the inability of the State to supply the requisite quantities of liquor. The writ petitions were disposed of in batches by learned Single Judges on different occasions against whose orders special appeals were filed by the aggrieved parties i.e., by the State in some cases and by the licencees in others. 3. The retail sale of country liquor in the State of Rajasthan is regulated by the provisions of Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950. Like every other excise Act, the Rajasthan Act also says that no person shall sell or othe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC465
ORDER 1. M/s Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. and its Chairman-cum-Managing Director seek special leave to appeal to this Court from the Order dated July 3-7-1992 made by the High Court of Patna in M.J.C. No. 555 of 1992. 2. We have heard Shri Mukul Mudgal, learned counsel for the petitioners. The respondents, though served, have remained unrepresented. Special leave granted. 3. The learned Single Judge of the High Court by his Order dated January 10-1-1992 quashed the order of termination of the services of the first respondent by the appellants and directed his reinstatement and payment of back salary. Appellants preferred an appeal to the Division Bench and also sought a stay, pending appeal, of the operation of the learned Single Judge's order. The Division Bench did not take up the appeal for admission nor considered the prayer for interlocutory stay. In the meanwhile, on the allegation that the learned Single Judge's order had not been obeyed, the first respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC151; 1992CriLJ4043; 1992(2)SCALE726; 1993Supp(2)SCC654
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. On the basis of a private complaint made by one Gurmukh Singh, P.W. 11, Jasbir Kaur (A-1) the appellant before us, one Surjit Kaur, her mother (A-2) and her brother Amarjit Singh, who died during the committal proceedings, were charge-sheeted for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C. for causing the death of Amar Kaur, the deceased in the case, by administering poison. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions as against A-1 and A-2. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted both of them. The complainant P.W. 11 filed an appeal against the acquittal. A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court admitted appeal only against Jasbir Kaur, A-1 and did not issue any notice to A-2 thereby confirming her acquittal. The High Court convicted Jasbir Kaur A-1, the appellant before us under Section 302 I.P.C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC787; JT1992(5)SC525; (1993)IILLJ856SC; 1992(2)SCALE605; 1993Supp(4)SCC693; [1992]Supp1SCR764; (1993)1UPLBEC333
ORDERA.S. Anand, J.1. Junior Telecom Officers Forum (for short 'Forum') through Shri Satpal Batra claiming to be the President of the Forum has filed Special Leave Petition Nos. 9063-64 of 1992 against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi refusing Intervention Application of the petitioner in O.A. No. 2407 of 1988 vide an order dated 22.4.1992; Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 417 of 1992 seeking transfer of various petitions pending in different benches of the Tribunal to this Court under Article 139-A(1) of the Constitution of India and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 460 of 1992. Mr. Ashok Desai, the learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners in all the cases requested for the writ petition to be taken up for consideration, since, the issues involved in the writ-petition and the special leave petitions are the same. We shall, accordingly, first take up the writ petition for consideration. The relief prayed for in the writ petition is as foll...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 74(1992)CLT647(SC); 1993Supp(4)SCC97
P.B. Sawant and; N.P. Singh, JJ.1. In these proceedings, the first order was passed by this Court on September 3, 1991‡. At that time, there was a proposal initiated by the Government to increase the number of members of the Tribunal to four with the new Chairman appointed earlier. It was then hoped that with the increase in the number, it was possible for the State Government to comply with the impugned order of the High Court by allowing one bench to operate at Bhubaneswar and the other at Cuttack, leaving it open to the Chairman to require the members of the Cuttack Bench to go back to Bhubaneswar as and when there was no work pending at uttack.2. On August 20, 1992, another order was passed by this Court by which the learned Attorney General appearing for the State Government, was asked to ascertain from the State Government whether it would be possible for the State Government to have two benches: one at Bhubaneswar and the other at Cuttack with filing facilities at both th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC497
Kuldip Singh and; N.M. Kasliwal, JJ.1. The appellant-landlord filed a suit for possession of the land in dispute. The respondent-tenant was occupying the land along with her husband Nagendra Kumar Dey. Earlier Nagendra Kumar Dey was the tenant of the land during the period from 1946 to 1949. He made some construction on the said land.2. The trial Court decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the tenant was entitled to the benefit of Section 5 of the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955 and on that ground set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the appellant-landlord. The landlord went in second appeal before the High Court. The High Court reached the finding that Nagendra Kumar Dey made construction on the suit land during the period when he was tenant and he was occupying the land and the constructed portion on the said land, at the time of the filing of the suit. On these findings the High Court ca...
Tag this Judgment!