Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1994)2SCC29
Order 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 89 of 1990 dated December 21, 1992. The facts in a nutshell are that the appellant-plaintiff basing on title laid the suit for possession and mesne profits against the respondent. The respondent was inducted into possession of M.I.G. flat allotted to her by the Lucknow Improvement Trust later renamed as Lucknow Development Authority. The rent was Rs 30 per month. It was covenanted that the respondent should pay every month a sum of Rs 24.50 to the L.I.T./L.D.A. and the balance to the appellant. On March 15, 1971, the appellant got issued a notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act determining the tenancy for default committed in payment of the rent. Thereon, the respondent replied that the appellant was only his benamidar and he is the real owner of the property. The appellant paid the instalments and got the sale deed executed in 1977 by L.I.T. or L.D.A. Suit ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(2)SCC544
J.S. Verma,; B.P. Jeevan Reddy and; S.P. Bharucha, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. Heard on merits.3. During the hearing of the second appeal in the High Court, the appellant made an application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC placing reliance on a receipt dated March 28, 1977 alleged to have been executed by the opposite party. After inquiry conducted by the trial court on the direction of the High Court, a finding was recorded that the said receipt was not a genuine document. The High Court affirmed that finding and rejected the receipt as forged and fabricated. It also directed prosecution of the appellant for the same. It is obvious that on that conclusion reached by the High Court, after rejecting the application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, the second appeal had to be heard and decided on merits. However, that was not done and after rejecting the application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC because it was based on a receipt found to be forged, the High Court proceeded to dismiss the appeal itself withou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC152; 1993(3)ALT41(SC); 51(1993)DLT611(SC); 1994LC195(SC); 1995(77)ELT785(SC); JT1993(5)SC448; 1993(2)KLT938(SC); 1994(I)OLR(SC)33; 1993(3)SCALE880; (1994)2SCC14;
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J. 1. Leave granted.2. The conflict of judicial opinion among the High Courts in interpretation of Explanation VIII to Section 11 of the CPC, as introduced by the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1976, is to be resolved in this appeal. Kutty Amma executed Udambadi (settlement deed) on May 19, 1961 giving life-estate to her husband Krishnan Nair, for short 'K', and vested remainder in favour of the respondent. She died in the year 1971. 'K' alienated the property in 1972 by a registered sale deed in favour of Narayanan Nair and Chennan. The respondent filed O.S. No. 131 of 1972 in the District Munsif Court to restrain 'K' from alienating the properties and committing acts of waste. Pending the suit, the appellant purchased the suit property on April 7, 1975 under Ex. B-1 from Narayanan Nair and Chennan. The trial court, by its judgment and decree, Ex. A-2 dated November 18, 1975 decreed the suit holding that 'K' had no right to alienate the lands and permanent injunction was issu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC583; 1994CriLJ611; 1993(3)Crimes531(SC); 1993(3)SCALE876; 1994Supp(1)SCC543
ORDERK. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. All these appeals and the connected SLPs arise out of a common judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. They can he disposed of hy a common judgment here.2 The complainant Sampat Shripat Lambate, the Secretary of the Digvijay Mills Employees Co-operative Credit Society Limited filed a private complaint in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Mazagaon, Bombay alleging that the eight accused shown in that complaint misappropriated amounts belonging to the Society and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 147(b) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and Section 409 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged in the complaint that the members of the complainant Society are the employees of the Digvijay Mill Ltd Accused No. 1was the Chairman and Accused Nos. 2 to 7 were the Directors of the Mills and Accused No. 8 was the Secretary of the Board of DirectOrs. The Society used to advance lo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1994)IILLJ344SC; (1994)2SCC38
ORDERP.B. Sawant, J.1. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also went through the judgments of the courts below and the record. We do not find that any error has been committed by the High Court in upholding the award of the Labour Court reinstating the workman. However, we find that the dismissal of the workman was on July 30, 1979 and till date more than 14 years have elapsed. It is now accepted that no party should suffer on account of the delay in the decision by the court. Taking all facts into consideration, we are of the view that it would meet the ends of justice in the present case, if instead of full back wages, the workman concerned is given 60 per cent of the back wages till he is reinstated.2. We, therefore, modify the award of the Labour Court as follows. The appellant will reinstate the workman concerned on or before October 15, 1993. They will also pay him 60 per cent of all his back wages till the date of his reinstatement inclusive of the increments and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC840; 1993CriLJ946; 1994Supp(2)SCC539
ORDERK. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Appellate Jurisdiction) Act against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh reversing the order of acquittal of the respondent and convicted him under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The appellant was prosecuted for committing the murder of his wife Radhabai aged about 16 years on 24-7-1981 in his house at Village Pemath within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Raisen. According to the prosecution, because of some earlier trouble and misunderstanding between the wife and husband, the appellant was not happy with her. On the day of occurrence, at about 5.00 p.m. , the appellant is alleged to have sent his mother away asking her to go to the market and thereafter poured kerosene oil on the deceased, set fire and ran away. The mother-in-law who came back found the deceased in burns and sent for the appellant who then came and tried to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC916; JT1993(5)SC369; 1993(3)SCALE858; 1994Supp(1)SCC296; [1993]Supp2SCR502; 1994(1)LC183(SC)
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, successor to the ESSO Standard Eastern Corporation against a common judgment of the Gujarat High Court in three writ petitions. Writ petition No. 1650 of 1969 was filed by the Gram Panchayat, Okha. The other two writ petitions Nos. 191-and 192 of 1970 were filed by the appellant. The dispute pertains to levy of octroi duty by the Gram Panchayat. The writ petitions were filed against the orders passed by the Development Commissioner who was approached by the appellant by way of two Revision Applications. The writ petition filed by the Gram Panchayat has been allowed. In writ petition (Special Civil Applications) Nos. 191 and 192 of 1970, the High Court negatived the challenge to the validity of Rule 32 of the Gujarat Gram and Nagar Panchayats Taxes and Fees Rules, 1964 (Rules). At the same time, the Gram Panchayat was directed to entertain the appellant's claim for refund of octroi duty...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(6)SC553; 1993(4)SCALE1; (1994)1SCC747; [1993]Supp2SCR514
ORDER1. The appellant/tenant had the demised premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/- from Ram Lal, the landlord. Ram Lal initiated action for ejectment of the appellant in the Court of the Small Causes (District Munsif), Saharanpur under the U.P. (Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1947. Pending proceedings this Act was repealed and U.P. (Urban Building Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for short 'the Act' came into force w.e.f. July 15, 1972. Section 39 permitted the appellant to deposit the arrears, interest accrued thereon and full costs of the suit within one month from the date of the commencement of the Act. As on date a sum of Rs. 2, 048/- was due. Due to error in calculation a sum of Rs. 1, 944/- was deposited within one month, leaving a deficit of Rs. 104/-. The Trial Court decreed ejectment, but on revision, the Dist. Judge held that the appellant had substantially complied with Section 39. A sum of Rs. 104/- was not deposited due to bonafide mistak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1544; 1994CriLJ2184
K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. In both these appeals the appellant is Moti Lal. He was tried along with 14 others for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 149, 148, 147, 325 read with 149 and 323 read with 149, I.P.C. The trial Court acquitted 12 persons and convicted the appellant and two others namely, Badri Prasad and Daryao Bai under Sections 302 read with 149, 148, 325 read with 149 and 323 read with 149, I.P.C. The three convicted accused preferred an appeal to the High Court. The High Court acquitted the other two but convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part I, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment. Later an application was filed before the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. with the prayer that the conviction cannot be given under Section 304 Part I, I.P.C. since the injury said to have been caused by the appellant was not serious and necessarily not fatal. The High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C. accept...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(1994)BC8(SC); JT1993(5)SC410; 1993(3)SCALE869; (1994)2SCC70; [1993]Supp2SCR487
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. The Union of India represented by the Union Territory of Pondicherry is the appellant in these appeals which are directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of Madras High Court in a batch of writ petitions filed by the Respondents, arrack licencees of Pondicherry and Mahe. Civil Appeals 1543-1630 of 1984 pertain to Pondicherry territory while Civil Appeals 693 to 695 and 695A pertain to Mahe territory. In the Union territories of Pondicherry, Mahe and Karaikal, arrack licences are granted by way of auction. For the excise year 1981-82 (commencing from July 1, 1981 to June 30, 1982) auctions were conducted in June, 1981. The writ petitioners were the highest bidders in respect of respective shops. They made the necessary deposits and obtained permits to commence their business with effect from July 1, 1981. The arrack licencees from Pondicherry territory also deposited the three months' rental at the inception of the excise year as required by the rules. T...
Tag this Judgment!