Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC275; 1994(1)ARBLR5(SC); 1993Supp(2)SCC345
ORDER1. After service of notice, the respondents appeared through Mr. N.K. Agarwal, Advocate. However, when the matter was listed on 19-8-1991 Mr. N.K. Agarwal stated that as desired by the respondents, he should be relieved from representing them. The prayer was allowed and fresh notice was issued to the respondents indicating that the matter would be finally disposed of at the notice stage.2. The office report indicates that fresh notice was duly served on the respondents stating that the matter would be finally disposed of at the present stage, but they have chosen not to appear.3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. Special leave is granted.4. The appeals arise out of proceedings for eviction of the respondents from the premises in question on the ground that they had ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of more than four months without reasonable cause. The trial Court allowed the applications by orders which were affirmed on appeal by the first a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993(4)SCALE655; (1994)2SCC199
ORDER1. The Advocate General of Karnataka State submits that of the payment seats in Karnataka 20% meant for Karnataka students, 15% for management and 15% for non Karnataka quota have already been filled up. While recording the statement we observe that if by chance of the seat remains unfilled or falls vacant in Karnataka quota, those seat/seats shall be allotted to non-Karnataka students according to the merit from the waiting list.2. So far as Manipal Academy is concerned, it shall make admissions as per the Government decision subject to the orders, if any, passed in the S.L.P. filed by it and coming upon on Friday, 19th November, 1993.3. The Intervention Application filed by Shri M.K. Shashidharan, Advocate is dismissed. S.L.P. 18061-62/93 4. List these S.L.Ps on Friday, the 19th November 1993 before a Bench of which Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy is a Member ....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(2)SCC603
M.N. Venkatachaliah, C.J. and; S. Mohan, J.1. We have heard Shri S.C. Manchanda, learned senior counsel for the Revenue.2. This special leave petition filed on November 16, 1993 is delayed by 264 days. For quite some time in the past, this Court has been making observations as to the grave prejudice caused to public interest by appeals brought on behalf of the Government being lost on the point of limitation. Such observations have been made for over a few years in the past. But there seems to be no conspicuous improvement as is apparent in the present petition which is filed in November 1993. The explanation for the delay, had better be set out in petitioner's own words:“(g) The Advocate-on-Record got the special leave petition drafted from the drafting Advocate and sent the same for approval to the Board on June 24, 1993 along with the case file.(h) The Board returned the case file to the Advocate-on-Record on July 9, 1993 who re-sent the same to the Board on September 20, 1993...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC975; 1993(4)SCALE702; (1994)2SCC64; [1993]Supp3SCR1016; 1994(1)LC160(SC)
ORDERS. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. The appellant who is an Advocate in Bangalore practising since 1942 was proceeded against for professional misconduct on the basis of a complaint dated 7th November, 1986 lodged by the respondent, Mr. Edward Ani with the Karnataka State Bar Council (Bangalore) under Section 35 of the Advocates Act alleging that the appellant with whom a Will dated 1.7.1968 executed by his mother-in-law, Mrs. Mary Raymond was entrusted for safe custody against receipt dated 5th July, 1968 bearing serial no. 576 in his register of Wills (marked as Ex.Pl) refused to return that Will in spite of two letters dated 4.1.1982 and 15.4.1986 demanding the appellant to hand over the Will kept in his custody and that the appellant thereby has committed professional misconduct.2. The synoptically resumption of the case which had given rise to this appeal may be briefly stated:One, Mr. N.E. Raymond and his wife, Mrs. Mary Raymond were the clients of the appellant. Mrs. many Raymond dur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1433; I(1994)BC472(SC); 1993(4)SCALE679; (1994)2SCC553; [1993]Supp3SCR1008; 1994(1)LC207(SC)
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. This writ petition under Article 32 out of which the contempt application arises came to the preferred by members belonging to Sikh community who were living in Delhi at the relevant time.2. A tragic event - beyond belief - in the history of India took place on 31 October, 1984 when Smt. Indira Gandhi, the Prime Minister was assassinated. It was alleged that the assassins belonged to the Sikh community. This inflamed feelings. As a remit, riots broke out all over the country. The members of this community were the target of attack throughout India. Particularly, in Delhi, several gruesome incidents took place resulting in large scale arson, looting, systematic violence, attacks on Gurudwaras. The duration of violence different in various areas. Many Sikhs were killed, houses were burnt. It was an unprecedented carnage which rendered many Sikhs homeless; many families lost their kith and kin and bread-winner. The details of these incidents are set out in the affidavi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1062; 1993(4)SCALE699; (1994)1SCC643
ORDERR.M.Sahai, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is if the land in dispute is, 'minor inam' as defined in Sub-section (9) of Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1963 (Act 30 of 1963) (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 30 of 1963') or it is, 'new-mam estate' under Act 26 of 1963.2. Proceedings commenced on an application filed under Section (5) of Act 30 of 1963 by the Devasthanam land-holder-respondent for declaration that the land in dispute of Title Deed No. 837 situated in Village Annapettai was minor inam as defined in Act 30 of 1963. The claim was contested both by the tenants-appellants and the State Government. The application was allowed by the Settlement Officer. It was found that even though the original grant had not been made available by the respondents nor extracts from Inam Fair Register were filed, yet there was material available on the record for arriving at a decision about the nature of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1984(1)Crimes297(SC); 1993(4)SCALE673; (1994)1SCC563; [1993]Supp3SCR996
A.S. Anand, J.1. These two appeals arise out of an occurrence which took place on October 31. 1976, resulting in the deaths of Satveer and Lal Chand and injuries to Trilok Kumar and Bal Chand and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Satnam Singh, Mohar Singh, Pritam Singh, Atrik Singh, Jagdish, Harbans, Amrik Singh and Chetan were arrived as accused persons in respect of that occurrence. Pritam Singh, Harbans, Atrik Singh and Jagdish were committed to stand their trial by an order of the Judicial Magistrate dated 25.1.77, while Mohar Singh and Satnam Singh were committed to stand their trial by a separate order. However, both the cases were consolidated vide order dated 19.8.77. Since, Amrik Singh and Chetan were absconding, they were not tried alongwith the other six accused persons. Subsequently Amrik Singh was also apprehended and was committed to stand his trial before the learned Session Judge, Jhalawar, in Sessions Case No. 63/91 Chetan accused is still absconding.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(1)ALT(Cri)263; 1994(1)Crimes294(SC); 1993(4)SCALE696; (1994)1SCC726; [1993]Supp3SCR989
ORDER1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offences under Sections 302/364/201 I.P.C.2. The appellant alongwith Kulwant Singh, Sinder Singh and Piara Singh were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala for the aforesaid offences. By judgment dated 23rd July, 1988 the appellant was convicted and sentenced to serve life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 under Section 302 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to 1 year rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 364 IPC, he was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default to suffer 1 year rigorous imprisonment. For the offence under Section 201 IPC, he was awarded 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 and in default 3 months rigorous imprisonment. The substantive sentences were to run concurrently while the three co-accused ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993(4)SCALE683; (1994)2SCC558; [1993]Supp3SCR971
K. Ramaswamy, J.1. Special leave granted.2. These appeals arise from the order of the division bench dated January 18, 1990 of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 11215-11223 11215-11223 of 1985 and batch. The respondents own different extents of agricultural lands situated at Jambaga and other villages in Bijapur district of Karnataka State which were in erstwhile part of Bombay province. They leased out their lands to Sugarcane Products and Industries Ltd., a registered company, by a registered lease dated April 1, 1942 for a period of 30 years which stood expired on March 31, 1973, but remained in possession as tenant. The Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961, Act 10 of 1962 (for short 'the Act') was amended by Amendment Act 1 of 1974, (for short 'the Amendment Act'). The latter came into effect from March 1, 1974. Section 79-B of the Act prohibits holding of agricultural land by certain persons. Sub-section (1)(b) declares that with effect from the date of the commencement of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993(4)SCALE666; (1994)2SCC594; [1993]Supp3SCR964
K. Ramaswamy, J.1. Special leave granted.2. The appellant company manufactures Aluminium metal and its semis. The principal raw material is Bauxite. The appellant has its Bauxite mines at Amarkantak, District Sahdol in Madhya Pradesh. It consign the one at Pandra Road for carriage to Renukoot siding through the railway route via Khatni - Murwara-Singrauli covering South Eastern Railway from Pandra Road to Khatni - Murwara of a distance of 217 km.; Central Railway Khatni - Murwara to Singrauli 407 km. and Eastern Railway via Singrauli to Renukoot 90 km.; in total 714 km. Later, Khatni Murwara to Balli, a new Railway line was laid connecting Singrauli. The Bauxite ore was being carried from Pandra Road via Khatni - Murwara - Balli -Singrauli to Renukoot railway siding. The distance though was reduced to 568 km., the freight charges for physical distance of 714 km. at the rate of Rs. 13.75 per quintal per km. was continued to be charged and later was increased to Rs. 16.57 per quintal per...
Tag this Judgment!