Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(7)SC573; 1995(6)SCALE27; 1995Supp(4)SCC684; [1995]Supp4SCR410
NANAVATI J. This appeal, under certificate granted under Article 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution, by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, is against its decision in LPA No. No.366 of 1969. Nahar Singh, original plaintiff and father of the respondents, on 18.5.1964, filed a suit in the court of sub- judge, Dhuri for possession of the suit land, on the basis of ownership of the land and also on the ground that the order of eviction passed against him by the Collector under Section 43 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') on 12.5.62 was void and ineffective. His case was that he has purchased the suit land from Sharif Hussain on 24.2.1955. At that time Mohan Lal, original defendant and appellant in this appeal, was in occupation of that land as a tenant. Mohan Lal continued to hold the land as his tenant after the sale. Some time in June 1955, he approached the Village Panchayat as Mohan Lal had not given him his share in the produce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(8)SC323; (1996)IIILLJ365SC; 1995(6)SCALE4; (1995)6SCC515; [1995]Supp4SCR398; 1996(1)LC105(SC)
...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC385; 1996(1)ARBLR1(SC); II(1995)BC614(SC); JT1995(7)SC454; 1995(6)SCALE54; (1995)6SCC509; [1995]Supp4SCR390
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J. 1. Leave granted.2. By the impugned judgment the High Court allowed the appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneshwar making an award dated 26.3.1983 the rule of the Court, by which a sum of Rs. 95,003 was directed to be paid to the appellant by 24.6.1983 failing which it was to carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 27.3.1983 till the date of payment. On behalf of the respondent, the award was challenged on the ground that the arbitrator was incompetent to make the award in view of Section 41A(7) of the Arbitration (Orissa Amendment) Act, 1982 (Orissa Act 3 of 1983) which came into force w.e.f. 26.3.1983 and had the effect of amending the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. Since the date of the award and the date of the enforcement of the amending Act are the same, the question is of the applicability of the said amendment. This is the only question involved for decision in this appeal by special leave.3. The Arbitration (Orissa Am...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC864; 1995(6)SCALE1; (1995)6SCC527; [1995]Supp4SCR383; 1996(1)LC40(SC)
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J. 1. Leave granted.2. Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, namely, Ramesh Chandra Sharma, Ashok Kumar Sharma and Naresh Chandra Sharma respectively, were appointed Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal) at Budaun in the State of Uttar Pradesh on different dates for a fixed term mentioned in the order of appointment. Their term was renewed similarly from time to time. However, a further renewal was denied to them by an order dated 1.10.1992. This was challenged by them by a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench. A Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition of respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the order dated 1.10.1992 refusing to renew their term of appointment as Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal) for a further period was quashed. It is unnecessary to refer to the claim of respondents Nos. 4 and 5, namely, Yashpal Singh Yadav and Syed Mohd. Anas Naqvi, whose similar claim in that writ petition was dismissed. Responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC426; 1995(6)SCALE137; 1995Supp(4)SCC84; [1995]Supp4SCR406; 1996(1)LC555(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted in both the special leave petitions Nos. 8416 and 9235 of 1992.2. Special leave petition No. 843 6 of 1992 has been preferred by the Union of India and its officers against the judgment and order dated February 26, 1992 passed by the High Court of Gauhati in Civil Rule No/208 of 1990 and the other Special leave petition No.9235 of 1992has been preferred by the appellant I.S. Cheema against the same order passed by Gauhati High Court. In a Court Martial proceeding initiated against I. S. Cheema under the Border Security 'Force Act, 1968 and the consequential punishment of dismissal, a writ petition was moved before the Gauhati High Court by 1. S. Cheema who at the relevant time was holding the post of Commandant (Selection Grade) in the B.S.F. The Court Martial proceeding was initiated on a charge of corruption by directing subordinate officers to arrange for weekly payments to the said Commandant by encouraging smuggling activities in the border. Before the High C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC378; JT1995(7)SC641; (1996)1MLJ88(SC); 1995(6)SCALE18; (1995)6SCC733; [1995]Supp4SCR369
ORDERS. Saghir Ahmad, J.1. The legal proceedings for land comprising khata khatauni No. 45/63. Khasra No. 348 (Area 34.9 bighas) situate in Village Chuling, Distt. Kinnaur in the State of Himachal Pradesh was initiated by the appellants (defendants) before the Compensation Officer, Pooh, for certain relief but when their application seems to have been contested by respondents (plaintiffs), it was withdrawn on August 24, 1971. Thereafter, the present respondent's father Shri Padam Ram, who is since dead and is represented by the respondent, came forward with a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,300 as sale price for the aforesaid land against the present appellants on the ground that by document dated September 1, 1976 (referred to as 2nd September, 1976 at some places in the record), the land in question of which he was the owner was transferred to the appellant which the appellants had promised to pay on November 11,1976 but they did not pay the amount and continued to remain in poss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996(1)ALD(Cri)710; 1995(2)ALT(Cri)686; 1996CriLJ378; 1995(4)Crimes197(SC); JT1995(7)SC378; 1995(5)SCALE640; (1995)6SCC189; [1995]Supp4SCR362
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 11.9.1995 passed by the Designated Court constituted under the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'TADA') rejecting the prayer for bail made on behalf of the appellant, who is facing trial for offences under TADA and Arms Act. The prayer for bail made on behalf of the appellant had been rejected earlier by the Designated Court.3. It appears that a fresh application for bail was made before the Designated Court on 28.8.1995 primarily on the grounds:(1) Pursuant to direction given by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab : 1994CriLJ3139 , Screening/Review Committees constituted by the State Government as well as by the Central Government had examined the cases of accused persons in custody for offences under TADA, including that of the appellant in connection with the Bombay bomb blast case.(2) After review of the case...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1995(71)FLR1134]; JT1995(7)SC467; 1995(6)SCALE41; 1995Supp(4)SCC169; [1995]Supp4SCR333; (1996)1UPLBEC319
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave is by the Chairman of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal to expunge certain remarks made against him in the Order dated 26.8.1993 in Original Application No. 102(C) of 1992 (O.A. 866/1992) by a Division Bench comprising of S.K. Misra, Vice-Chairman and U.N. Mallik, Member (Administrative) of the Tribunal. That application was made by respondent No. 3 Dandanirodha Mishra for cancellation of his transfer. The transfer order was quashed by the Division Bench of the Tribunal. In making that order, strong adverse comments were made against the appellant as Chairman of the Tribunal.3. The background is of some significance. After some controversy, a Bench of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal was created at Cuttack but its functioning led to litigation and therein the making of an order even by this Court about its functioning. However, some grievance persisted in those favouring creation of the Cuttack Bench and a contempt ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC361; 1996(1)ALD(Cri)743; 1996CriLJ403; JT1995(7)SC587; 1995(5)SCALE700; (1995)6SCC488; [1995]Supp4SCR296
ORDERB.L. Hansaria, J.1. The appellant was convicted under Section 120B of the Penal Code read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, by Special Judge, Manipur. He was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 10,000 and to imprisonment till the rising of the Court. On appeal being preferred, the Imphal Bench of the Gauhati High Court dismissed the same. The learned Judge deciding the appeal, however, granted, on oral prayer being made, leave, under Article 134(c) of the Constitution to prefer an appeal to this Court, albeit without specifying the question of law involved.2. While issuing notice in the appeal, the appellant was also asked to show-cause as to why the punishment should not be enhanced.3. Dr. Dhawan, appearing for the appellant, has first contended that the conviction of the appellant itself is not tenable inasmuch as the onus of proof, which lies in a case where guilt is based on circumstantial evidence, as in this case, has not been fully discharged by prosecu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC344; (1995)129CTR(SC)205; [1995]216ITR697(SC); JT1995(7)SC339; 1995(5)SCALE742; (1995)6SCC625; [1995]Supp4SCR348
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No. 864 of 1974 decided on 4th September 1975. The said writ appeal, moved on behalf of the Revenue by Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore and First Income Tax Officer, Mangalore Circle, Mangalore against the order of learned Single Judge Venkataramiah, J., as he then was, in the Writ Petition No. 597 of 1973 came to be dismissed by the Appellate Bench of the High Court. In order to highlight the grievance of the Revenue in this appeal a few relevant introductory facts are required to be noted.Background Facts2. Respondent A.L.N. Rao Charitable Trust, Mangalore, is a charitable trust. For the assessment year 1969-70, the respondent, hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee' submitted its Return to the First Income-Tax Officer, Mangalore Circle. In the said Return, the assessee claimed that a sum of Rs. 85,262/- which was the surplu...
Tag this Judgment!