Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(2)SCC37
K. Jayachandra Reddy and; N.P. Singh, JJ.1. In respect of a murder that took place on September 11, 1978 one Shampoo alias Surendra Pratap Singh was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. He was convicted by the Sessions Court. The prosecution also relied on a dying declaration recorded by Dr I.B. Gupta and also by the Executive Magistrate. The convicted accused preferred an appeal to the High Court. The High Court acquitted him. However, in the course of the judgment the High Court commented on the conduct of Dr I.B. Gupta and observed that subsequently at the instance of the Investigating Officer the dying declaration of the deceased was interpolated as the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate and the same was not in conformity with regard to the participation of one Subhash. Thereafter the following observation is made by the High Court :“The entire conduct of Dr I.B. Gupta in the circumstances of the case is highly undeservi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(1)SCC614
M.M. Punchhi and; S.P. Bharucha, JJ.1. After hearing learned counsel, we allow application Nos. IA 1 and 2 for substitution, condoning the delay and setting aside the abatement. Let the legal representatives be served notice of the appeal. Mr Dogra on behalf of Parekh & Co. accepts notice on their behalf and has filed a Vakalatnama which is taken on record.IA No. 32. Application for amendment is dismissed as not pressed.3. We have gone through the lengthy and well-reasoned order of the High Court passed under Article 227 of the Constitution. The only point urged against it is that the High Court should not have entered into the arena of facts so as to disturb the orders of the appellate court, which had denied eviction of the appellant. The appellant's claim was that he was a sub-tenant inducted into the premises in dispute in the year 1958 and had become entitled to the protection of a notification of the year 1959 in his favour. The appellate court reversing the order of the tria...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(2)SCC140
M.M. Punchhi and; S.P. Bharucha, JJ.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court passed in Civil Revision No. 1965 of 1984.2. Eighty marlas, which is half an acre, of vacant land was rented out by Mohinder Kaur-respondent to the Malwa Bus Service Private Ltd., a transport company, the appellant herein. On July 27, 1979 an eviction petition was moved by the landlord-respondent against the tenant-appellant and one Amar Singh, who is not a party herein, but was a party in the courts below, on the allegations that a portion of the rented land had been sublet by the tenant in favour of Amar Singh, described as the sub-tenant. The other ground of eviction was bona fide requirement for personal use and occupation. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority held both grounds to be unsubstantiated which led the landlord to move the High Court in revision. The High Court allowed the eviction petition on the ground of sub-letting and this ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(1)SCC613
K. Ramaswamy and; R.M. Sahai, JJ.1. The petitioners in this batch of cases raised the question that Sections 28 and 32 of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 have no application to the lands under acquisition. This is a pure question of fact and we do not investigate this question of fact in writ petitions under Article 32. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC503
1. The sole appellant Tarjinder Singh (original accused No. 1) along with his wife Sawaranjit Kaur (A-2) were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 27/54/59 of Arms Act by the Designated Court. A-2 was acquitted and the appellant before us is convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and is also convicted under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 27 of Arms Act read with Section 6(1) of T.A.D.A. Act to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. The appellant preferred an appeal under Section 19 of the T.A.D.A. Act. Since this is a regular appeal, we have gone through the record carefully and have perused the evidence of material witnesses.2. The prosecution case is as follows:The appellant Tarjinder Singh is the husband of Sawaranji...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1535; 1993(2)BLJR858; (1993)2GLR1784; JT1993(2)SC652; (1993)IILLJ1225SC; (1994)1MLJ34(SC); 1993(2)SCALE429; (1993)2SCC562; [1993]2SCR1006; (1993)2UPLBEC1229
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. This is a statutory appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act of 1961.2. The brief facts are as under:The respondent engaged the appellant as a counsel in suit No. 510 of 1964, this was in April, 1976. The suit was ultimately compromised on 14.6.77. It was ordered that out of the total amount lying with the court receiver, a sum of Rs. 64,000 shall be paid over to the plaintiff; the balance was to be paid to the respondent and possession of suit property was to be handed over to the respondent by the court receiver.3. During the pendency of the suit the court receiver inducted one Usman Ghani Haji Mohamed as a tenant. He filed CS No. 7 of 1978 praying for an interim injunction restraining the court receiver from handing over possession to the respondent. That suit was continued.4. After the compromise decree was passed on 14.6.77 the appellant who was the counsel for the respondent was requested to withdraw the amount lying with the court receiver and hand over t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1488; JT1993(2)SC695; 1993LabIC1115; (1993)IILLJ302SC; (1993)IILLJ303SC; 1993(2)SCALE464; (1993)3SCC196; [1993]2SCR1033; (1993)2UPLBEC1421
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. The respondent, H.C. Khurana, was employed as Executive Engineer in the Delhi Development Authority (D.D.A.). A preliminary memo was served on the respondent on 6.11.1985, alleging some irregularities by him in the construction works, and they were being investigated. A chargesheet was framed on 11.7.1990 against the respondent on the basis of irregularities in the constructions made in a housing colony. On 13.7.1990, the chargesheet was despatched for being served on the respondent. However, the respondent proceeded on two months' medical leave and, therefore, on 17.7.1990 another Executive Engineer R.K. Sood, working in the same Wing as the respondent, received it and gave the intimation that the respondent was on leave, adding that the same would be handed over to the respondent on his return from leave. On 28.11.1990, the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) met, and in view of the earlier decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1523; 1993(65)ELT474(SC); [1993]201ITR851(SC); JT1993(4)SC222; 1993(2)SCALE643; 1993Supp(3)SCC29; [1993]3SCR12
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. The appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Delhi High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the second respondent M/s. Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. The writ petition was directed against the judgment and order of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, dated September 19,1973 in an appeal preferred under paragraph (9) of the Tax Credit Certificate (Exports) Scheme, 1965.2. The second respondent is the manufacturer-exporter of ferro-manganese and chrome-concentrates. During the year 1964-65 (from February 28, 1965 to June 5, 1065) the second respondent entered into a number of agreements with the foreign buyers for the sale of the aforesaid two commodities. The export was routed through the M.M.T.C.-the appellant herein, to bring it within the system of private barter introduced by the Government of India with a view to encourage exports. It would be appropriate to notice the essential features of the barter system in vogue during the rel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC2552; JT1993(2)SC636; (1993)2MLJ133(SC); 1993(2)SCALE433; 1993Supp(4)SCC420
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we grant special leave to appeal against order dated April 17, 1990 passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in T.A. No. 1509 of 1989 and O.A. No. 239 of 1989 and proceed to dispose of the appeals.2. These appeals relate to appointment on the post of Statistical Inspector in the Department of Statistics of the Government of Tamil Nadu. The said appointment is governed by the statutory rules contained in Section 13 of Tamil Nadu General Sub-ordinate Service Special Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). As a result of reorganisation of the Department of Statistics vide G. O. Ms. No. 3364 dated November 15, 1968 the non-Gazetted staff in the said Department were categorised as technical staff and ministerial non-technical staff. Among the technical staff were included Assistant Statistical Investigators, Statistical Inspectors and Research Assistants. The min...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993(41)BLJR779; 1993(2)Crimes894(SC); JT1993(2)SC646; 1993(2)SCALE500; 1993Supp(3)SCC372; [1993]3SCR1
A.S. Anand, J.1. This appeal under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Patna dated 27th March 1985 in Government Appeal No. 28 of 1979, convicting and sentencing the appellants, Shatrugan Singh (A1), Kapildeo Singh (A2), Rampriya Yadav (A4), Brij Bihari Singh (A5), Ram Ekbal Singh (A6) and Suresh Singh (A7), (Awadesh Singh (A3) died after the judgment of the High Court) for offences under Sections 302, 302/149, 148, 324 and 326 IPC, by reversing an order of acquittal recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge VI, Patna dated 28th April 1979.2. While A1 and A2 are brothers, A3 is the son of A2, A4 is a ploughman of A1, A5 is the son-in-law of A2, A6 is the brother - in-law of A3 and A7 is the son of A6.3. The prosecution case in brief is that the deceased Shyamdeo Singh was on inimical terms with A1 and A2 and litigation was going on between the two parties. On the ni...
Tag this Judgment!