Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(2)Crimes263(SC); JT1994(3)SC576; 1994(2)SCALE760; (1994)4SCC453; 1994(2)LC136(SC)
1. These appeals are by the State, who has felt aggrieved at the acquittal of the two respondents by the High Court on appeals being preferred by them against their convictions, which were under Sections 366, 366A and 376 IPC insofar as respondent No. 1 is concerned and under Section 376 as regard respondent No. 2. Two other accused had also been booked for trial under Section 366 but they were acquitted.2. The short facts which need be noted for the disposal of the appeals are that according to the prosecution, PW3 Bhagyamma had been kidnapped by respondent No. 1 with the intent that she would be forced or seduced to have intercourse, whereafter she came to be raped by both the respondents. The High Court, after perusal of the materials on record, took the view that elopement of Bhagyamma may not be ruled out. After hearing Shri Raghuvir for the appellant-State, we have not felt inclined to take a view different from that of the High Court on this aspect. Shri Raghuvir's main submissi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1994(68)FLR1183]; JT1994(3)SC514; (1995)ILLJ34SC; 1994(2)SCALE756; (1994)4SCC439; [1994]3SCR800; 1995(1)SLJ236(SC); 1994(2)LC343(SC); (1994)2UPLBEC993
M.K. Mukherjee, J.1. Special leave granted. 2. In these appeals the appellant assails the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, ('Tribunal' for short) Gauhati Bench, whereby the respondent's application for alteration of his date of birth from January 1, 1934, as appearing in his service record, to March 1, 1939 has been allowed,. 3. The respondent joined the service of the appellant as a peon on October 15, 1957 At the time of his entry into the service his service book was prepared with his date of birth recorded as January 1, 1934 and educational qualification as read upto Class IX. Later on in 1962 the respondent passed the matriculation examination of the Gauhati University and on the basis of a certificate dated August 27, 1962 issued by KM. Thanga H.E, School Gauhati an entry .regarding this qualification was made in his service book. Consequent upon his success in the matriculation examination the respondent got the job of a clerk and in due course he was promoted to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(2)Crimes268(SC); JT1994(3)SC532; 1994(2)SCALE753; (1994)4SCC397; 1994(1)LC776(SC)
1. In these two appeals the six appellants have challenged the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by which the conviction as awarded on them by the Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna Division, Vijayawada was upheld. Of the six appellants, three in Crl. Appeal No. 484/82, who are Kaki Ramesh, Dadimadugula Peddy Baburao and Dadimadugula Chinna Baburao, have come to be convicted under Section 302 of the Penal Code; the remaining three, namely, Senagasetti Subba Rao; Paladugu Veerayya and Senagasetti Durga Prasad, who are the appellants in Crl. Appeal No. 485/82, have been found guilty under Section 302/149.2. The prosecution case which need be noticed for the disposal of the appeals is that the six appellants along with many others had attacked one Raja Babu on the night of 3.8.79 while the deceased and his brother PW1, nephew PW2 and mother PW3 were sleeping in their house. The attackers were armed with axes, spears and sticks. On hearing the shouts, PW1 opened the door when th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC2381; 1994(2)ARBLR61(SC); JT1994(4)SC181; 1994(2)SCALE1057; (1994)5SCC142; [1994]3SCR808
1. Leave granted.2. This appeal arises from the judgment of the division bench of Madras High Court in O.S.A. No. 281/92 dated January 5, 1993.3. The appellants contract was terminated by the respondent and in consequence thereof, by notices dated July 23, 1991 and August 21, 1991, the appellants exercising the option under Clause 17 of General Condition of Contract, called upon the Engineer in Chief of appoint sole Arbitrator, in terms of the contract, to adjudicate the dispute that had arisen between them. Since no action was taken by the respondents, the appellants filed a suit on March 4, 1992 under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for short 'the Act', requesting the court to appoint an arbitrator. Learned single Judge of the High Court by his judgment dated Sept. 23, 1992 appointed Justice M.A. Sattar Syeed, a retired Judge of the High Court as Sole Arbitrator. On appeal, a division bench of that High Court agreed with the single Judge that despite the issue of notice calli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1220
ORDER1. A common question arises in this batch of writ petitions. We may take the facts in writ petition (C) No. 9835 of 1983, filed by M/s. K. B. Handicrafts Emporium as representative of the facts in all the cases. The petitioners are firms engaged in the manufacture and sale of handicrafts items. They are registered Sales Tax Dealers in the State of Haryana. They purchased raw material within the State against declaration forms ST-15, prescribed under Rule 21 of the Haryana General Sales-tax Rules read with Section 24 of the Act. By issuing Form S.T.15, the petitioners undertook that the goods manufactured by them out of the said raw material Would be sold by them either within the state or in the course of inter-state trade and commerce or in the course of export within the meaning of Section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act. A dealer issuing the said Form need not pay the purchase tax on such raw material. After manufacturing the items of handicrafts, the petitioners say, they so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC2364; JT1994(3)SC456; 1994(2)SCALE726; (1994)5SCC100; [1994]3SCR785; [1994]94STC410(SC)
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. Rates of tax on sales effected in the course of inter-state trade or commerce are prescribed by Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The rates prescribed vary depending upon the person to whom the goods are sold as well as the nature of the goods. A reading of Sub-sections (1) and (2) yields the following position:(1) In the case of sale to government of any goods, the rate is 4% (Section 8(1)(a))(2) On sale of goods of the description referred to in Sub-section (3) to a registered dealer other than the government @ 4% [Section 8(1)(b)](3) In the case of sales not falling under Sub-section (1) of Section 8, the tax on turnover shall be calculated at twice the rate applicable to the sale or purchase such goods inside the appropriate State, if they are declared goods. [Section 8(2)(a)](4) In the case of sale of goods other than declared goods and not falling under Sub-section (1), tax shall be levied at the rate of 10% or at the rate applicable to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(2)Crimes254(SC); JT1994(3)SC449; 1994(2)SCALE715; 1994Supp(2)SCC278; 1994(1)LC793(SC)
1. The village of Mundur in Eluru Taluk of West Godavari District was faction-ridden. There were several clashes between the parties resulting in cases and counter-cases and security proceedings also were launched against both the parties. Two Constables including P.W. 19 were posted in the Village to maintain law order who came to the Village in the morning of 9.4.77. On 10.4.77 at about 6 P.M. a rioting took place in the course of which one Ramineedu (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') received fatal injuries and one Veera Venkaiah Chowdary, P.W. 6 also received serious injuries. In respect of this occurrence 16 persons including A-1, the leader were tried for offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with 302, 148, 302/149 and 326/149 I.P.C. The trial court acquitted original accused nos. 9 and 11 to 16 of all the charges and also acquitted original accused nos. 1 and 2 of conspiracy charge but convicted original accused nos, 1 to 8 and 10 for the other offences and sent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1994)5SCC135
M.M. Punchhi,; S.C. Agrawal and; B.P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 1956 of 1985.2. The dispute relates to a registered will dated 30-3-1977. The contestants are the appellant (now dead and represented by legal representatives) named Kartar Kaur, the widow of Bachan Singh testator on the one side and on the other Bhagwan Kaur, the second widow of Bachan Singh and Ranjit Singh the legatee of the will who is the brother's son of Bhagwan Kaur. On the death of Bachan Singh the appellant filed a suit for declaration and in the alternative a suit for joint possession in relation to the suit properties on the plea that she was an heir of Bachan Singh and entitled to succeed to his estate to the extent of one-half. This is insofar as Bachan Singh's properties were concerned. Declaration was also sought to a smaller extent relating to those properties in which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(2)BLJR761; 1994(2)Crimes225(SC); JT1994(3)SC644; 1994(2)SCALE735; (1994)4SCC564; [1994]3SCR774
S. Mohan, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellants were tried before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in Sessions Trial No. 30 of 1985 for offences under Sections 147 and 307 of Indian Penal Code. On trial, they were convicted and sentenced as per the judgment dated 23.1.86 as under:Rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 5007- each, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 1986 in the High Court. On 27.8.93 the appeal came up before D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. It was adjourned since the lawyers at Jabalpur were on strike on that day. Thereafter the matter was listed on 11.10.93. On that day also the lawyers were on strike. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed by the impugned judgment for want of prosecution. On 20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(2)SCALE918; 1994Supp(2)SCC363; [1994]3SCR780; 1994(2)LC100(SC)
ORDER1. In December 1971, an extent of 2519 Bighas 03 Biswas, equivalent to 1801.1875 acres of land comprised in Chak Nos. 2Z and 3Z, situated in Sriganganagar, State of Rajasthan, it is said, were required for defence purposes. Possession of the said land appears to have been taken thereafter, even without issuance of a formal notification of requisition. However, by a notification issued under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, for short 'the Act and published in the State Gazette on July 21, 1978, the self-same land has been proposed for acquisition. That has been followed by the declaration made under Section 6 thereof on August 23, 1979. While the Land Acquisition Officer (the LAO) determined the amount of compensation payable for the acquired lands, by his Award dated March 31, 1980, observed in para 20 thereof, that the ceiling proceedings were since pending either in the High Court or in this court, it was not possible to decide the amounts of compensation p...
Tag this Judgment!