Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(3)SCC374
S. Mohan and; M.K. Mukherjee, JJ.1. In this case, the suit premises is a non-residential one. The original landlord, Ram Chandra, who has since died, claimed that he was carrying on textile business in the rental premises and that the suit premises which is occupied by the appellants was bona fide required for the said business. The trial court accepted the case of the landlord and directed eviction. On appeal, the same was reversed. In the second appeal, the judgment of the appellate court was set aside and the original decree for eviction was restored. Hence, this civil appeal.2. The following points are urged by the learned counsel for the appellants :(1) Bona fide need is a question of fact. The first appellate court is the final court in relation to such questions of fact. The same cannot be interfered with by the High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of this submission, Mattulal v. Radhe Lal1 is cited.(2) In any event, as on today, the original l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1994)96BOMLR187; 1997CriLJ1713; JT1994(2)SC187; 1994(1)SCALE836; (1994)4SCC85; [1994]2SCR296; 1994(1)LC656(SC)
S. Mohan, J. 1. The short facts leading to this civil appeal are as under:2. The suit property was originally owned by Trimbak Hari Awate. He executed a simple mortgage on 28.4.1947 to an extent of 11,000 square feet which represent the entire property for a sum of Rs. 20,000 in favour of Dinkar S. Vaidya. On or about 7.7.1948, Awate executed a lease-deed in favour of Shankar Godaji Gore. The purpose mentioned in the lease-deed was residence and shops. Under the lease-deed, the lessee was authorised to sub-lesase. The period of lease was 25 years. The annual rent was Rs. 1,500 payable monthly at the rate of Rs. 125. There was no prohibition from the assignment in the said lease.3. On 17.2.1949, Shankar Godaji Gore, the lessee executed a registered sub-lease in respect of entire land in favour of two persons Sulochanabai Thakur and Krishnabai Sarde, original defendants No. 2 & 3. The sub-lease was for a period of 99 years and 9 months. The monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 50. Defendants 2 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(3)SC455; 1993(1)KarLJ439; (1994)IILLJ1125SC; (1994)2UPLBEC1290
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. This appeal has arisen from a reference made by the Karnataka Government under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The reference was in the following terms:I. Are the Management of Steel Authority of India, Kudremukh Building, M.G. Road B'lore - 1, justified in refusing work to 80 workmen listed in ANNEXURE with effect from 19-01-1979 employed through their Contractor Sri Jayarama Reddy, No.884, 11th Main 'A', 3rd Cross, Indiranagar, Bangalore -38?'II. 'If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?'3. The Labour Court gave its award in favour of the workmen. The management challenged the award by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Letters Patent Bench of the High Court, however, reversed the findings of the learned single Judge, allowed the appeal and set aside the award of the Labour Court. This appeal by the workmen is ag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(2)ALT28(SC); JT1994(2)SC180; 1994(1)SCALE845; 1994Supp(2)SCC369; 1994(2)LC22(SC)
1. The two appeals and the special leave petition have been heard together as they stem from a common judgment delivered by the Punjab & Haryana High Court disposing of three civil revision petitions. Facts leading to the filing of the appeals and the special leave petition are as under.2. One Lal Chand Bansal (now dead and represented by his legal representatives), hereinafter referred to as the 'landlord', filed two separate and successive petitions, before the Rent Controller seeking eviction of his tenants Amar Nath and Sugan Chand, hereinafter referred to as the 'appellants', and Smt, Maya Devi, hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent' from the premises in their respective possession primarily on the ground that they were unsafe and unfit for human habitation. In course of the proceedings initiated thereupon against the appellants they moved an application seeking permission to effect repairs to their tenanted premises. On consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(1)BLJR688; 1994(1)Crimes777(SC); JT1994(2)SC627; 1994(1)SCALE821; 1994Supp(2)SCC372; [1994]2SCR265; 1994(1)LC610(SC)
Faizan Uddin, J.1. The judgment delivered in this appeal will also govern the disposal of Crimnal Appeal No. 368/92 which is an appeal preferred through Jail Superintendent by the same convicts against the same judgment which is under challenge in Criminal Appeal No. 367/92.2. The appellants No. 2 and 3, namely, Mulo Marik and Bansi Marik are sons of appellant No. 1, Arjun Marik. The three appellants were charged and tried for murders of Sitaram, his wife Smt. Kamakhya Devi and their grand-daughter Sugwa Kumari in their house situated at Chaitanya Nath, notsPath, Deoghar within the jurisdiction of Police Station Deoghar (State of Bihar), in the intervening night of 19th and 20 July, 1985. It was alleged that the appellants after committing murders of three persons named above committed the robbery of the ornaments, cash and other belongings of the deceased which during the course of investigation were seized from their possession from their house on 20th July, 1985. The appellants were...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC2114; JT1994(2)SC192; 1994(1)SCALE832; (1994)4SCC89; [1994]2SCR287; 1994(1)LC544(SC); 1995(1)Bom.C.R.561
ORDERS. Mohan, J.The short facts leading to this Civil Appeal are as under:1. The original owner of suit property situate at Ramamaruti Road, Then (Maharashtra) was. one Omji Mulji. He leased out three small flats having two rooms and a kitchen in favour of the appellant company in 1963. The rent was fixed at Rs. 300 plus Rs. 20 municipal taxes and Rs. 15 water charges.2. In 1968, Omji Mulji sold away the property to one Gavand. There-after, the appellant tendered the rent including the taxes to the said Gavand from 1968. In the same year of 1968, the municipal taxes were increased. The appellant paid a lump-sum of Rs. 338.58 as rent. Due to further increase in the taxes, the appellant tendered Rs. 358.29 including taxes to the owner.3. In the year 1975, the respondents came to purchase the suit property. Since then, the appellant had been paying regularly rent and taxes at the rate of Rs. 358.29 p.m.4. The Advocate for the respondents issued a notice dated 27.7.1977 to the appellant t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1994]208ITR649(SC); JT1994(3)SC116; 1994(1)SCALE840; 1994Supp(2)SCC296; [1994]2SCR247
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.Civil Appeal Nos. 493-98 of 19841. A common question arises in this hatch of appeals. It pertains to the interpretation of Section, 40(a)(v) as well as Section 40A(5) of the Income Tax Act. Upto March 31, 1972, Section 40(a)(v) was in force arid from April 1, 1972, Section 40A(5) came into force in its place. Both the provisions were substantially similar. Indeed, Section 40(a)(v) was preceded by Section 40(c)(iii) which was, of course, applicable only to companies and not to other assessees.2. Section 40(c)(iii) introduced by Finance Act, 1973 with effect from April 1, 1963, as substituted by Finance Act, 1964, read as follows:40 Amounts not deductible: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head 'profits and gains of business or profession-(c) in the case of any company(iii) any expenditure incurred after the 29th day of February, 1964 which results di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994CriLJ3067; 1994(1)Crimes729(SC); (1995)1GLR322; JT1994(2)SC135; (1994)107PLR671; 1994(1)SCALE785; (1994)2SCC685; [1994]2SCR239; 1994(2)LC48(SC)
N.P. Singh, J.1. The appellant, who had been acquitted, by the Trial Court, for an offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code, has been convicted by the High Court for the said offence and sentenced to imprisonment for life, on an appeal filed on behalf of the State.2. The prosecution case is that on 7.5.1977 at about 5.30 p.m. Sanat Kumar (PW6) the informant, had gone to the Ambar Talkies, along with his brother, Sharad Kumar (deceased) for the evening show. Both the brothers took their cycles to the cycle stand of the appellant. PW6 was asked to pay 40 paise as the charge for keeping the cycles in the stand. Sharad Kumar (deceased), the brother of PW6, said that in other theatres only 15 paise per cycle was being charged as such why they were being asked to pay 20 paise per cycle. In order to avoid a quarrel, PW 6 said his brother, Sharad Kumar, that they shall not keep the cycles at the said stand. They took out their cycles from the stand and placed them in charge of a hotel keepe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1771; 1994CriLJ2265; 1994(1)Crimes725(SC); JT1994(2)SC689; 1994(1)SCALE855; (1994)4SCC569; [1994]2SCR257; 1994(1)LC671(SC)
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, J.1. Special leave granted.2. The respondent was the Additional Superintendent of Police, Prohibition and Enforcement, Salem, at all material times The appellant herein was in-charge of and arrack shop belonging to his uncle at Sevathapuram. On account of illicit distillation in that area, the sales at the said arrack shop fell sharply. Consequently he complained to te authorities to check illicit distillation. His complaints fell on deaf ears. The illicit distillation activities were ever on the increase because of the connivance of the respondent. The appellant, therefore, complained to the higher authorities about the respondent's involvement and deliberate connivance at the activities of illicit distillers. The respondent on learning about the complaints and allegation of corruption was annoyed and bore a grudge against the appellant. The respondent, therefore, summoned the appellant to his office on March 20, 1985 at about 8.30 P.M. and beat him up severely and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1872; 1995(1)BLJR6; 1994CriLJ3702; 1994(1)Crimes753(SC); 1994(70)ELT481(SC); JT1994(2)SC108; 1994(I)OLR(SC)327; 1994(1)SCALE793; (1994)3SCC299; [1994]2SCR208
ORDERK. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. In almost all the above cases the State of Punjab is the petitioner. The common question that arises for consideration is whether any arrest and search of a person or search of a place without conforming to the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act' for short), become illegal and consequently vitiate the conviction. The trial court in these cases acquitted the accused on the ground that the arrest, search and seizure were in violation of some of the relevant and mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. The High Court declined to grant leave to appeal against the said order of acquittal. Questioning the same the State of Punjab has filed these special leave petitions and appeals. In a few cases, the convicted accused also have questioned their convictions on the ground that arrest and trial were illegal. Since a common question arises in all these matters, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The pri...
Tag this Judgment!