Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)11SCC415
ORDER 1. The tenant who has obtained special leave by an order of this Court dated 19-12-1991 preferred the special leave petition under the following circumstances. She became the tenant of premises bearing No. B-8, Greater Kailash, Part I, New Delhi. The rent was initially Rs 3500 which came to be increased to Rs 5000 and later on to Rs 10,000. The landlady preferred a petition for eviction before the Additional Rent Controller under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for recovery of the premises. 2. Before the Additional Rent Controller, the plea of the tenant was since the rent was Rs 10,000 in view of Section 3(c) of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988 which barred jurisdiction of the Rent Controller in relation to premises where the rent was Rs 10,000 he would have no jurisdiction. This contention prevailed. Consequently by an order dated 15-12-1988, he held that he had no jurisdiction to try the eviction petition. According...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC500
ORDER 1. The appellant is convicted under Section 409 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs 2000, in default of payment to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The trial court after considering all the evidence, oral and documentary, convicted him. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed. As the occurrence is said to have taken place in the year 1971 and the amount misappropriated is Rs 3604.85 p, we do not, therefore, think it a fit case to send the appellant back to jail at this stage and the appellant had also been in jail for more than two months. 2. In the result, the conviction of the appellant is confirmed and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and the sentence in default of payment is also confirmed. 3. Subject to the above modification, the appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC504
K. Jayachandra Reddy and; G.N. Ray, JJ.1. We have gone through the judgment of Division Bench of the High Court and the connected records. The learned Judges having examined the scope and effect of Section 518 and the relevant authorities held that the scheme of the Act and the provisions contained in various sections clearly indicate that the court which has the power to order winding up of a company enjoys the power of transfer of a suit in case of compulsory winding up of a company and also enjoys the same for voluntary winding up. We see no ground to interfere in the interim order. The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Stay is vacated....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC20; JT1992(5)SC479; 1992(2)SCALE566; 1993Supp(4)SCC386; [1992]Supp1SCR651
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. Both these election petitions filed under Section 14 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenge the election of Dr. Shanker Dayal Sharma, as the ninth President of India, On scrutiny of nomination papers made on June 25, 1992 by the Returning Officer, the nomination papers of only four persons, namely, Dr. Shanker Dayal Sharma, Prof. G.G. Swell, Shri Ram Jethmalani and Kaka Joginder Singh alias Dharati Paked, were found valid and accordingly accepted. Polling was held on July 13, 1992 and result of the election was declared on July 16, 1992 at which Dr. Shanker Dayal Sharma was declared elected; and he was sworn in as the ninth President of India on July 25, 1992. Mithilesh Kumar Sinha, petitioner in Election Petition No. 1 of 1992, had filed his nomination paper at the election, but the same was rejected by the Returning Officer on the date of scrutiny due to non-compliance of the manda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1318; 1993Supp(4)SCC743
ORDER1. The petitioner, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the Courts below, seeks special leave to appeal to this Court from the judgment and decree dated 1st April, 1992 of the High Court of Karnataka in Regular First Appeal No. 37 of 1980 on its file, affirming the judgment and decree of dismissal dated 31st October, 1979 entered by the learned II Additional Civil Judge at Bangalore in O.S. No. 436/1973 of the petitioner's suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 7th May, 1970.2. In his suit, the petitioner-plaintiff alleged that respondents 1 and 2 who are husband and wife, on their own behalf and on behalf of respondents 3 to 5, their children, agreed to sell, and the petitioner to purchase, the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 1,10,000/- and that respondents having failed to perform their obligations under the said agreement the petitioner is entitled to a decree for specific performance.3. The execution of the suit agreement, Exhibit P-3, was not disputed. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC43; (1992)107CTR(SC)209; [1992]198ITR297(SC); JT1992(5)SC543; 1992(2)SCALE591; (1992)4SCC363; [1992]Supp1SCR732; [1992]Supp1SCR732a
ORDERA.S. Anand, J.1. The following question was formulated by the H High Court of Calcutta while granting the certificate of fitness to file these appeals against the judgment of the Division Bench of that court dated 17th November, 1976:Where an item unconnected with the escapement of income has been concluded finally against the assessee how for in reassessment on an escaped item of income it is open to the assessee to seek a review of the concluded item for the purpose of computation of the escaped income?The circumstances leading to the formulation of the aforesaid question and the grant of certificate of fitness to file the appeals are as follows.2. Respondent in both the appeals is the assessee. For the assessment year 1960-61, the assessee filed the return of income on 17th of November, 1960, showing a loss of Rs. 36,418. For the assessment year 1961-62, the return of income was filed on 4th October 1961, declaring a loss of Rs. 24,314. The Income Tax Officer after discussion w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC72; 1992CriLJ3863; 1992(3)Crimes790(SC); 1992(2)SCALE777; 1993Supp(1)SCC588
ORDERK. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. There are four appellants (original accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 7). All of them were convicted under Sections 302 and 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. They were further convicted under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to one year's R.I. on each count. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appeal preferred by them was dismissed by the High Court. Hence this appeal. The prosecution case is as follows.Milkha Singh is one of the deceased in the case. His paternal aunt was the wife of Phuman Singh. When the deceased Milkha Singh was young he lost his father about 15 years prior to the present occurrence. On compassionate grounds Phuman Singh used to help Milkha Singh in managing the properties. This went on smoothly for some time. It is alleged that Phuman Singh, his sons and their close relations became greedy and dishonestly ousted the deceased, Milkha Singh, his mother and his grand-mother from th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC244; JT1992(6)SC109; 1992(2)KLT886(SC); 1992(2)SCALE687; 1995Supp(4)SCC402; [1992]Supp1SCR699
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court dismissing the Second Appeal preferred by him.2. The suit property was mortgaged by one Raman Pillai in favour of Madhav Pillai. Plaintiff purchased the equity or redemption from the daughter of Raman Pillai. First defendant in the suit is the assignee of the mortgagee's right whereas defendants 2 to 5 are his children. The plaintiff filed the suit for redemption of the mortgage. The defendant pleaded inter alia that by virtue of Section 4-A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964, he should be deemed to be a tenant, entitled to fixity of tenure. Trial Court upheld his plea on the finding that he has been holding the land comprised in the mortgage for a continuous period of not less than 50 years immediately preceding the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 as contemplated by Section 4-A. On that basis, it dismissed the sui...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1625; JT1992(5)SC538; 1992(2)SCALE660; 1993Supp(2)SCC113; 1992(2)LC499(SC)
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. An order of a learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court dismissing the Civil Revision Petition filed by the appellant is called in question in this Civil Appeal. The matter arises under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964. It pertains to determination of ceiling of agricultural lands held by the appellant's family and surrender of surplus lands.2. Appellant's father P.K. Ramankutty Vaidyar filed a return of his agricultural holding before the Taluk Land Board. After making an inquiry, the Board found that Ramankutty held a total extent of 47.91 acres of land. Out of it, 6.40 acres was exempted under Section 81 of the Act. After allowing an extent of 15 acres to be retained by Ramankutty's family, surplus land liable to be surrendered was worked out at 26.51 acres. This order was passed on 25.11.75.3. Ramankutty died leaving behind him his widow, three sons and two daughters including the petitioner herein. One of the major sons. P.K. Ravindran filed a revisio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC2201; JT1992(5)SC519; (1993)ILLJ243SC; 1992(2)SCALE590; 1993Supp(1)SCC552; 1993(2)SLJ5(SC); 1992(2)LC537(SC)
ORDERLalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. Special leave is granted.2. The service of the respondent, who was engaged as Clerk-cum-Typist on daily wage by the appellant - Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, was terminated on 18.1.1978. He challenged the termination by a writ petition before the High Court. On hearing the parties, the writ application was allowed by the judgment dated 31.7.1989 setting aside the termination of service of the respondent and declaring him to be entitled to monetary relief for the period during which he had actually worked under the appellant-Corporation. This judgment became final. The respondent, on 8.5.1991 filed another application in the disposed of writ petition praying for further relief. He claimed monetary compensation also for the period during which he had not actually worked for the Corporation as a result of the termination of his service. By the impugned order dated 3.12.1991 the High Court has allowed this additional releif and the same has been...
Tag this Judgment!