Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(1)SCC155
Order 1. The appellant was admitted to the MBBS course commencing from October 19, 1992 in the Latur Medical College, State of Maharashtra. She was admitted against one of the seats filled by the management under its discretionary quota. The appellant joined the course in October 1992. The Marathwada University, Respondent 1, by its letters dated December 4, 1992 and January 15, 1993 cancelled the admission granted to the appellant. According to the University, the appellant was admitted in violation of Ordinance 211(a) of the University Ordinances and, as such, she was not entitled to continue her studies. The appellant challenged the said orders before the Bombay High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of the High Court. 2. Ordinance 211(a) of the University Ordinances is as under : “A candidate for admission against the open seats to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1546; 1994CriLJ1422; 1993(3)Crimes459(SC); JT1993(5)SC381; 1993(3)SCALE820; (1994)1SCC736
K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. These two appeals are filed under Section 379 Cr. P.G. read with Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act. There are 11 appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 236/82 and they figured as original Accused Nos. 1,2,3,5,7,8,9,14,16,18 and 19 and original Accused Nos. 10,12 and 20 are the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 237/82. They alongwith nine others were tried for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149 and also under Sections 323, 324 and 326 read with 149 I.P.C. The trial court convicted A-11 Venkappa Bhagavanthappa under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and acquitted the rest. A-11 preferred an appeal against his conviction and the State of Karnataka also filed an appeal against the acquittal of the 19 other accused. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by A-11 and he has not preferred any appeal in this Court. In respect of acquittal of other accused, the High Court,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC79; 1993(3)Crimes546(SC); JT1993(5)SC334; 1993(3)SCALE824; 1994Supp(1)SCC185
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. There are eight appellants. They alongwith eight others were tried for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 324/149 and 323/149 I.P.C. The trial court acquitted all of them. The State preferred an appeal and the High Court while confirming the acquittal of the other accused, convicted the appellants. Appellant Nos. 1 to 4 are convicted under Sections 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and each of them is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The remaining four appellants are convicted under Sections 326/ 149 I.P.C. and each of them is sentenced to undergo two years' R.I. Ghanshyam, Appellant No. 4 and Shyam Lal, Appellant No. 5 are further convicted under Section 147 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo six months' R.I. and the remaining six appellants are convicted under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC2647; JT1993(5)SC404; (1994)ILLJ673SC; 1993(3)SCALE829; 1994Supp(1)SCC155; [1993]Supp2SCR376; 1994(1)SLJ141(SC); (1994)1UPLBEC89
ORDERN.P. Singh, J.1.Leave granted.2. This appeal is on behalf of the Commissioner, Home Department, and the Director General of Police of Tamil Nadu, for setting aside an order dated November 3, 1992 passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') directing the alteration of the date of birth of the respondent in the service records.3. In the year 1958, the respondent entered in the police service as Sub-Inspector of Police. In due course, he was promoted to the posts of Inspector of Police Deputy Superintendent of Police and Additional Superintendent of Police. According to the date of birth recorded in his service register, he was to superannuate on 8.8.1992. On 6.8.1991, the said respondent filed an application before the Tribunal for an order to alter his date of birth recorded as 9.8.1934 to 9.8.1936. That application was rejected giving an option to the respondent to approach the Government under the appropriate service rules. A repre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1994)116CTR(SC)462; [1993]204ITR600(SC); JT1993(6)SC511; 1993(3)SCALE803; (1994)1SCC60
S.P. Bharucha, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court at Bombay on a reference under the provisions of Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The question arose in respect of the Assessment Year 1962-63, for which the relevant valuation date was 31st March, 1962, and it read thus:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that under Section 4(1)(a)(iii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 it is the value of the assets which have been actually transferred by the assessee that should be included in the net wealth of the assessee, the transferor, although the form of assets transferred has undergone a change since the date of the transfer and the value thereof, on the valuation date, is different2. The assessee, an individual, created two trusts, on 18th February, 1957 and 11th November, 1957, for the benefit of his two minor daughters. Thereby the respective amounts of Rs. 25,101/- and Rs. 21,201/- wer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993CriLJ3915; 1993(3)Crimes541(SC); JT1993(5)SC328; 1993(3)SCALE814; 1994Supp(1)SCC178
K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. This appeal by the State of Karnataka is filed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court questioning the acquittal of the six respondents-accused (original Accused Nos. 1 to 6). They along with eight others were tried for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, 337/149 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The trial court while acquitting the others convicted the respondents under Sections 148, 302/149, 326/149, 324/149 and 337/149 and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and various other terms of imprisonment for the other minor offences. A-3 alone was also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo three years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of which to suffer R.I. for three months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The six convicted accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 174/78 and the State of Karnataka filed an appeal questioning the acquittal of the other accused and also fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993(3)Crimes513(SC); JT1993(5)SC343; 1993(3)SCALE812; 1994Supp(1)SCC183
K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. On 9th September, 1979 at about 4 P.M., an occurrence took place at Bus Stand, Vijay Nagar, Amritsar during the course of which one Jarnail Singh was attacked by some assailants. He was shot at by a fire-arm by some of the assailants and others are alleged to have inflicted injuries with some cutting weapons. Karnail Singh, P.W. 2, the brother of the deceased Jarnail Singh gave a report before the Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Post Verka at about 5 P.M. on the same day. In that version it was mentioned that Santokh Singh, accused armed with a rifle, Hardip Singh (appellant herein) and Balkar Singh, accused armed with gandasis and Jagdish Singh, another accused were coming in a bus of Janta Transport Company from Batala and the bus stopped at the bus-stop. The deceased, his brother Karnail Singh, P.W. 2 and their nephew Chhinda, P.W. 3 were standing there waiting for the bus. When the deceased was trying to board the bus, Jagdish Singh accused raised a lalka...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(2)SCC558
M.M. Punchhi and; Yogeshwar Dayal, JJ.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 151 of 1981 dated June 25, 1985.2. The appellant herein Trimbak Vikram Marathe obtained on May 30, 1960 a small piece of land on lease measuring 2 acres and 11 gunthas in Survey No. 2/1 in Village Gohogaon, District Akola, Maharashtra. The grant of lease was from Prayagbai, wife of Namdeo, acting for herself and on behalf of her son Prahalad Namdeo. This lease was renewed by her on March 8, 1965 for a further period of seven years. The appellant remained in possession throughout. On February 14, 1971, the joint owners, i.e. Prahalad Namdeo and Prayagbai went into litigation by means of a suit for partition and in which was impleaded the appellant since he was in cultivating possession of suit-land. The question arose whether the appellant had any tenancy rights. The civil court sent the matter to the Revenue court for determin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(5)SC419; 1993(3)SCALE806; 1993Supp(4)SCC737; [1993]Supp2SCR369
ORDER1. We are of the view that this appeal should be heard by a larger Bench. By this order we are indicating, briefly, the reasons for this view.2. It is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Madras High Court on a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, relating to the Assessment Years 1960-61 and 1961-62.The question that the High Court was called upon to consider read thus:Whether the Appellate Tribunal has justification to direct the Income-tax Officer to quantify the losses for the assessment years 1952-53 to 1954-55 and allow the set off against the share income from the partnership firm for 1960-61 and 1961-62?3. Very briefly, the relevant facts are that the assessee filed its returns for the Assessment Years 1950-51 to 1955-56 on 23rd April, 1956, and claimed that it had suffered losses. The Income-tax Officer issued to the assessee a notice under Section 23(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, fixing the matters for hearing, but, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(3)SCC202
M.M. Punchhi and; Yogeshwar Dayal, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for eviction under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The court, which is the civil court established under the Code of Civil Procedure, came to pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 13 directing that on the tenant's failure to deposit or pay the amount referable to sub-section (4) of the provision, by a particular date, the court shall order the defence of the tenant to be struck off and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit. The tenant-respondent claimed that he had deposited or paid the amount so calculated but since he could not positively prove the fact by production of evidence, the court struck off his defence. He took the matter in appeal to the District Judge, for that was the court to which appeals ordinarily lay from original decrees and orders passed by the civil court, who reversed the order and remitted the case back for redecision. At th...
Tag this Judgment!