Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC67a
M.M. Punchhi and; Jayachandra Reddy, JJ.1. This case relates to a custodial rape. The Court of Session acquitted the two appellants herein of the crime but the High Court recorded convictions under more than one head, besides ‘rape’ and sentenced substantively Nain Singh appellant to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and Ram Kumar appellant to two years' rigorous imprisonment which has given rise to these appeals.2. Learned counsel for the respective appellants have been at pains to urge that the judgment of the trial Judge is far more convincing than that of the High Court. It is inevitable that each court would justify its order by assigning appropriate reasons. We cannot cast any preference of one over the other. We have thus resorted to the reading of the statement of the prosecutrix. She was married to Khem Raj, PW 4 and had been residing at Chandigarh wherefrom the couple had been fetched to Rajgarh in Himachal Pradesh by Chuhar Singh, PW 1, brother of Khem Raj. On t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC714; 1995(3)ALT33(SC); 1995(1)ARBLR321(SC); I(1995)BC636(SC); JT1995(1)SC557; 1995(1)SCALE145; (1995)2SCC145; [1995]1SCR168; 1995(1)LC421(SC)
1. Application for substitution is allowed.2. This appeal, by special leave, arises from the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No. 660/85, dated May 7, 1985.3. M/s. Ishar Das Chaman Lal - partnership firm consists of Ishar Das, the father, Chaman Lal and Om Prakash, his sons. By a deed of partnership dated 13.12.1965, the aforesaid partnership firm was constituted but the firm was not registered under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act. Chaman Lal, the eldest son died on 6.3.1978, by obvious reasons of which the partnership stood dissolved. By the death of one of the members, it is no longer possible to adhere to the original contract. The appellants - the widow and alleged son of the deceased Chaman Lal - called upon the respondents to render the accounts of the firm. Since they did not do so, invoking Clause (16) of the partnership deed, the appellants had called upon the respondents to refer the dispute to M/s. Tara Cha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC719; 1995(1)SCALE149; (1995)2SCC159; [1995]1SCR163
1. Admittedly, the Execution petition was filed by Rajeshwari Amma, Sukumara Pillai and Neelamma Pillai, the legal representatives of the deceased Kolappa Pillai. After the Execution Petition was ordered by the Court of District Munsif at Kuzhithurai in E.P. No. 274/81 in O.S. No. 14/61 dated August 12, 1981, the respondents carried it in revision to the High Court. Therein only the deceased Kolappa Pillai, Rajeswari Amma and Sukumara Pillai were impleaded as respondents omitting Neelamma Pillai. In other words, the order of the Executing Court directing delivery of possession which was executed and possession taken in favour of the three persons was challenged against only two persons. The order in favour of 3rd person, namely, Neelamma Pillai became final. The Execution Petition being of the same property which is undivided between the decree-holders, the question emerges whether the High Court was right in allowing C.R.P. No. 2747/82 by order dated July 1, 1985 as against the unimpe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1995(70)FLR1041]; JT1995(1)SC471; 1995(1)SCALE116; (1995)1SCC614; [1995]1SCR148; 1995(1)LC444(SC); (1996)2UPLBEC1055
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. This appeal involves the question regarding inter se seniority of the appellant-Dr. Bal Krishna Agarwal and respondents Nos. 4 and 5, Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi, and Dr. P.K. Sharma as Professors in Physics in the Allahabad University (hereinafter referred to as 'the University'). The Executive Council of the University by resolution dated July 16, 1978, declared respondents Nos. 4 and 5 as senior to the appellant. Writ Petition No. 15566 of 1988 filed by the appellant against the said resolution of the Executive Council was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court by judgment dated January 6, 1994 on the ground that alternative remedy of reference to the Chancellor under Section 68 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was available to the appellant.4. Section 31 of the Act provides for appointment of teachers. In Sub-section (10) of Section 31 it is prescr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)139CTR(SC)497
ORDERBY THE COURT :The appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Calcutta High Court declining to direct the Tribunal to refer to it, under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, the following question :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 55,000 included in the assessees total income as unexplained cash credits cannot be taken into account to determine whether the payment made by the assessee of a larger dividend than that declared would not be unreasonable ?'The Tribunal took the view that no question of law was involved.2. The Revenue had contended before the Tribunal that the addition of Rs. 55,000 in arriving at the total income of the assessee could not be excluded from its total income for the purpose of determining whether a larger dividend could be declared. In other words, the Revenue sought to invoke the provisions of s. 104, as it then read, of the IT Act, 1961. The Tribunal stated that the said...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC705; II(1995)BC191(SC); JT1995(1)SC445; (1995)110PLR176; 1995(1)SCALE131; (1995)1SCC745; [1995]1SCR126
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. S.L.P. (C) 11609 of 1994. Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents, Jagjit Singh and Jaswant Singh. The fact leading to the filing of the writ petition are not in dispute and may be stated. Indeed, they speak for themselves.3. An auction was held by the Chandigarh Administration on September 29, 1975 wherein the respondents were the highest bidders in respect of a plot admeasuring 338 sq. yrds. in Sector 31A, Chandigarh for a sum of Rs. 34,500. The right sold in auction was the lease-hold for ninety nine years. An allotment letter was issued on November 27, 1975. The respondents deposited 25% of the money immediately. The balance consideration was payable in three equal instalments, the first of which fell due on September 27, 1976. The respondents defaulted in paying the same whereupon the Estate Officer issued a not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(2)SC516; 1995(1)SCALE141; (1995)2SCC9; [1995]1SCR165
ORDER1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated January 22, 1985 made in RSA 3126/84. The facts not in dispute are that Anil Kumar and the vendor of the appellant Neeru are brother and sister. Neeru sold the property in dispute to the appellant by a registered sale deed. Anil Kumar laid the suit for pre-emption under Section 15(1)(b) clause secondly of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, (for short, 'the Act'). The trial court decreed the suit and it is confirmed by the appellate court. The second appeal was dismissed in limine. By then, this court in Atom Prakash v. State of Haryana : [1986]1SCR399 , declared Clauses (i) to (iii) of Clause (1) of Section 15(1)(b) of the Act as amended in 1960 as ultra vires of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. Consequently, the claim of the respondent on the basis of clause secondly of Section 15(1)(a) having been declared to be ultra vires, this court granted leave.2. In Atam Prukaah's cas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997ACJ1438; (1997)9SCC103
ORDER1. On 23.2.1973, a truck collided with a scooter and three persons were killed. Three claim petitions were filed in respect of their deaths. They were filed against the respondent No. 1, who was the driver of the truck, the respondent No. 2, who was the registered owner of the truck and the appellant, who was the legal owner of the vehicle as per hire-purchase agreement'. The claim petitions stated that at the time of the accident the respondent No. 1 was driving the truck owned by the respondent No. 2 and the appellant and they had be come liable, jointly and severally, to pay the damages claimed.2. The case of the appellant was that it was conducting a chit fund scheme that the respondent No. 2 was a member of the scheme and had taken a loan from the scheme and, as security for that loan, had executed a hire-purchase agreement in favour of the appellant. The hire-purchase agreement had been made so that if the respondent No. 2 failed to pay the amount in future the appellant wou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1995(70)FLR982]; (1995)IILLJ711bSC; 1995(1)SCALE176; (1995)2SCC83; [1995]1SCR119
ORDER1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The order of the learned Single Judge dated January 14, 1993 made in Writ Petition No. 8504 of 1987 with regard to the fourth option mentioned therein is clear which we have already extracted while allowing the appeal at page 20 of the paper book. Sri. P.P. Rao, learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant contends that while following the directions of the learned Single Judge, the Jal Nigam had constituted a Selection Committee and called the persons for interview which is not warranted under the order. He states that Rule 16 of U.P. Jal Nigam Service of Engineers (Public Health Branch) Regulations, 1977 provides that in the case of recruitment by selection on the basis of interview alone, the candidates eligible for recruitment under these regulations are to appear before the Selection Committee of the Nigam and on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the Nigam shall draw up a list of candidates sele...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1995(71)FLR10]; JT1995(1)SC451; 1995(1)SCALE198; 1995Supp(1)SCC361; [1995]1SCR122; 1995(1)LC543(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated January 6, 1994, made in CWP No. 15442/93. The appellant while working as a Lineman, admittedly, had acquired the qualification of A.M.I.E. which is equivalent to B.E. Degree in March, 1992. On this basis, he filed a writ petition for out of turn promotion as Junior Engineer as envisaged by the Board in its policy dated April 22, 1980. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that on March 12, 1981, the benefit of granting out of turn promotion to the candidates who have acquired Degree qualification was withdrawn. Instead the Board had decided to grant two advance increments on that basis he was granted two advance increments. Accordingly, he is not entitled to the benefit.3. In special leave petitions, allegation was made that certain persons who have secured graduation in the years 1989 to 1991, were promoted as Junior Engineers. Notice was issued to the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!