Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995CriLJ457; JT1994(3)SC440; 1994(2)SCALE632; (1994)5SCC188; [1994]3SCR592
A.S. Anand, J.1. These two appeals under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act 1970, are directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court allowing the appeal of the respondent State and setting aside the acquittal of the appellants in both these appeals. Since, the appeals arise out of the common judgment, these are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Kalu, Neelu, Meharaj Singh and Babu were challaned by the police for an occurrence which took place on 3.11.1977 at 11 or 11.15 a.m. at village Dhanju in which one Laxman Singh was murdered. The trial court acquitted all the accused, against which order the State went up in appeal to the High Court. Neelu died during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court and, therefore, appeal against him abated. The High Court maintained the acquittal of Babu who is the sister's son of Kalu and Neelu, the two brothers, while convicting Kalu and Meharaj Singh for various offences. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1994)4SCC724
S.C. Agrawal and; A.S. Anand, JJ.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Designated Court, Delhi, whereby the appellant who was charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short TADA) has been convicted of the said offence and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs 1000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another two months. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained in view of the decision of this Court in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab1. In the said case R.M. Sahai, J. has construed Section 5 of TADA and has expressed his view in the following terms : (SCC pp. 766-67, para 460)“(2) Even though no opinion has been expressed by Brother Pandian, J., on Section 5 I am of the opinion that the provisions of this section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1994(68)FLR1257]; JT1994(3)SC453; 1994(2)SCALE630; 1994Supp(2)SCC316; 1994(1)LC570(SC); (1994)2UPLBEC1291
ORDER1. The petitioners in these writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution are employed on daily-wage basis in the Irrigation and Public Health Wings of the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department. They are class III and class IV employees who are being paid their daily wages as per the minimum wages prescribed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time. A number of them have been thus employed for more than ten years. They have sought regularisation of their services as well as for payment of the same salary, allowances and other benefits as are being given to the regular employees on the principle of equal pay for equal work'. The wages that are being paid to the petitioners who fall in the unskilled category are @ Rs. 22./- per day. Shri Ashwini Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has invited our attention to the notifications of the Government of Himachal Pradesh dated May 15, 1990, August 23, 1991 and June 20, 1992, whereby the rates for C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(2)Crimes126(SC); JT1994(3)SC289; 1994(2)SCALE599; 1994Supp(2)SCC366
1. Om Prakash and Sunder Dass, original accused nos. 1 and 3 respectively are the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 324/82. Madan Lai, P.W.I8, an injured witness has filed Criminal Appeal No. 381/83 challenging the acquittal of Vir Bhan and Suresh, original accused nos. 2 and 4 respectively. All these four accused were tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 325, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The trial court convicted all of them and sentenced them accordingly. The convicted accused preferred an appeal to the High Court and a revision also was filed by the complainant Baldev Raj, P.W. 17 for enhancement of the sentence of imprisonment for life to one of death. The High Court acquitted Vir Bhan and Suresh of all the charges and upheld the convictions and sentences of Om Prakash, A-1 and Sunder Dass, A-3. The revision for enhancement of sentence was dismissed.2. The prosecution case is as follows:3. The accused, the material witnesses and the deceased Hardial Singh ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC2342; JT1994(3)SC372; (1994)IILLJ1220SC; 1994(2)SCALE609; (1994)5SCC282; [1994]3SCR563
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, J. 1. A short but interesting question arises in these appeals by special leave bearing on the true scope and meaning of Rule 4(4) of the Sikkim Government Establishment Rules, 1974, (hereinafter called 'the Rules'), which were in force before Sikkim became a part of the territory of India. The relevant part of the said Rule with which we are concerned reads as follows :4(4) : APPOINTMENT : (A) Appointment to service under the Government shall be by one or both the methods indicated below:(a) Direct recruitment; (b) Promotion from one grade to another.(B) Direct recruitment shall include appointment on contract, and appointment on deputation :Provided these two types of appointment shall be made having due regard to the exact nature of specific duties and responsibilities and the qualifications required for the post, and further provided that (i) Non-Sikkimese nationals may be appointed only when suitably qualified and experienced Sikkimese nationals are not available...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(3)SC291; 1994(2)SCALE601; 1994Supp(2)SCC318; 1994(1)LC773(SC)
1. These two appeals, one by the State and the other by Shri M.L. Chadha, father of the deceased, are filed against the judgment of the High Court acquitting the respondents-accused. The trial court convicted them under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. The appeal preferred by them was allowed by the High Court and they were acquitted.2. The prosecution case is as follows:3. Shri R.K. Chopra, A-2 is the father and Mrs. Santosh Chopra, A-3 is the mother of A-1 Anil Chopra. The deceased Mrs. Kiran Chopra was married to A-1 in the year 1981 who was employed as Administrative-cum-Personnel Officer with Cement Corporation of India, Rajban. After marriage A-1 and the deceased lived in their flat at Rajban. In July 1981, A-2 retired from service. Thereafter he and his wife A-3 also joined A-1 and the deceased at Rajban and continued to live there. In December 1981 the deceased gave birth to a son. Thus the family living at Rajban at the time o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(1)ARBLR494(SC); (1995)1CALLT44(SC); JT1994(3)SC303; (1994)107PLR369; 1994(2)SCALE604; (1994)4SCC665; [1994]3SCR551
K. Ramaswamy, J.1. Special Leave granted.2. The respondent had entered into a contract on January 7, 1983 to construct 13 units of Type-V Quarters at the estimated cost of Rs. 27,34,000/-. He was to complete the construction and hand over possession on August 13, 1984. Despite extention of the time on 7 occasions, finally upto June 30, 1988, the construction was not completed resulting in termination of the contract. As upto 34th bill the appellant paid to the respondent a sum of Rs.24,34,100.91 ps. towards the executed work. The contractor laid proceedings under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for short the Act for reference to arbitrate the disputes. The joint arbitrators appointed thereon entered upon reference on April 10, 1989 and nominated Mr. A. Biswas, the second respondent as an umpire. Since the joint arbitrators could not make and publish the award within the time, the umpire was called upon to enter upon the reference. Accordingly on April 25, 1990 the umpire had en...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(2)SCC744
ORDER 1. The petitioner has been served. He is not present. The list has been revised. We have gone through the judgment of the High Court. We do not find any error in it. The High Court in our opinion rightly held that Section 171-I of the IPC applied to non-maintenance of account by a member of Parliament who contested the election and not to irregular maintenance of account. The petition is thus devoid of any substance. Further there is delay of 31 days, but the petitioner has not filed any application for condonation of delay. 2. A letter has been sent by the petitioner in which he has challenged the sentence awarded to him in suo motu contempt proceedings drawn against him by the High Court for a letter written by him to the Additional District and Sessions Judge. 3. Since the petition is directed against the order passed by the High Court initiated by the petitioner for taking action under Section 171(1) of the IPC against the respondent the letter challenging t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(3)SC334; 1994(2)SCALE627; (1994)4SCC463; [1994]3SCR545; [1994]95STC5(SC)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Leave granted in the S.L.P.2. Entry 52 in List-II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, says Sri Narasimha Muithy, should riot be confined to an impost, formerly known as 'octroi'. He submits that since it is a legislative entry, it must be liberally construed and full effect must be given to the words used therein. He says that when Entry 52 speaks of a tax on the entry of goods into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein, the words 'sale therein' must be given their due and natural meaning and should not be restricted to a sale for the purpose of consumption or use of the goods sold within the limits of the concerned local area. The submission is urged with reference to the scope and ambit of the Karnataka Tax of Entry of Goods into local areas for consumption, use or sale therein Act, 1979.3. The High Court of Karnataka has held following the decisions of this Court in Burtnah Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Co.India Ltd. v. The Belgaum Bor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(3)SCC107
Kuldip Singh and; B.L. Hansaria, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. The appellants before us are the landlords. They filed an eviction application under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (the Act) on the ground that the same was required for bona fide personal use of one of the landlords in the sense that his son was to start business in the said shop. The respondent-tenant (since dead and represented through his legal representatives) opposed the application on various grounds. The Rent Controller allowed the application and ordered the ejectment of the tenant. The Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant. The High Court, however, reversed the finding of the two courts on the short ground that there was no pleading to the effect that the son of the landlord did not own any non-residential premises of his own in terms of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that in the facts and...
Tag this Judgment!