Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC363; JT1995(7)SC276; 1995(5)SCALE727; (1995)6SCC491; [1995]Supp4SCR319
ORDERK.S. Paripoornan, J.The first respondent in O.P. No. 10288/88, Kerala High Court - hereinafter referred to as the 'tenant' - appeals against the judgment of the High Court dated 27.10.1994. The petitioner in the Original Petition - hereinafter referred to as the 'landlord' - is the first respondent herein. The statutory authorities and other proforma respondents in the High Court are the respondents in this Civil Appeal. The learned Judge of the High Court, by the Judgment dated 27.10.1994, in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution, set aside the order passed by the District Judge, Palakkad in R.C.R.P. No. 6 of 1985 dated 31.7.1986 (Ext. P-3) and restored the order passed by the Rent Control Court and appellate authority rendered in LA. No. 764/82 in R.C.P. (O.P.) No. 141/77 (Ext. P-1) and R.C.A. 68/83 (Ext. P- 2). The appellant-tenant was given three months' time to surrender the possession of the building in question to the respondent-landlord.2. This litiga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC368; II(1995)BC597(SC); JT1995(7)SC393; (1996)1MLJ55(SC); 1995(5)SCALE763; (1995)6SCC608
ORDERKirpal, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of judicature at Bombay, dated 11.12.1987 in Second Appeal No. 643/81 and the main question which arises for consideration is whether there was an implied surrender of the tenancy by the appellants-defendants in favour of the respondent-plaintiff at the time when the respondent-plaintiff executed a mortgage of the premises in favour of the appellants.2. The father of the appellants-defendants, namely Vishnu Malba Hendre (hereinafter referred to as 'Vishnu') was a tenant in respect of the front portion of House No. 115, Rawiwar path, Phaltan. The said house was owned by Baburao Savalaram Kothawale, the original plaintiff, now represented by his legal heir. The said house was mortgaged by the respondent-plaintiff in favour of Vishnu by three different deeds which were styled as conditional sale-deeds. By the first deed dated 16.4.1952 for a consideration of Rs. 2,000/-, the front portion...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC372; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)559; 1995(4)Crimes244(SC); JT1995(7)SC286; 1995(5)SCALE703; (1995)6SCC593; [1995]Supp4SCR301
ORDERK.S. Paripoornan, J.1. Accused No. 1 Baldev Singh son of Roor Singh and Accused No. 3 Roor Singh son of Khushal Singh in Case No. 49/84 -Trial No. 39/84 of the Court of Shri M.L. Merchea, Judge, Special Court, Ferozepur have filed this appeal under Section 14 of the Terrorists Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act of 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') against their conviction and sentence dated 3.1.1985. There were four accused in this case. Accused No. 2 Sham Singh son of Roor Singh and Accused No. 4 Shamsheer Singh son of Roor Singh were acquitted by the same judgment. The State has not filed any appeal against the acquittal of accused Nos. 2 and 4.2. The deceased No. 1, Balbir Singh and deceased No. 2 Amrik Singh and accused Nos. 1 to 4 are near relations. The following chart will help to understand the relationship of the parties inter se :Khushal Singh | _____________________________ | | Amrik Singh Roor Singh (Deceased No. 2) (Accused No. 3) | ____________________________...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996CriLJ394; JT1995(7)SC561; 1995(5)SCALE734; (1996)7SCC322
Kirpal, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which has upheld the conviction of the appellant who had been held guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. of murdering his wife Geeta Devi and had been awarded life imprisonment. He was also convicted under Section 201 I.P.C. and awarded imprisonment for two years.2. The case of the prosecution was that the appellant, who is an advocate by profession, was married to Geeta Devi on 30.1.1982 at Alwar. During the marriage cermony, the in-laws of the appellant stopped the photographer accompanying the marriage party to take the photographs of the ladies. This was not liked by the appellant who over-reacted and took off his 'sehra' and threatened to walk-out of the 'mandap' prior to the performing of the wedding ceremonies. Ramjilal, his father-in-law, however persuaded him to resume his seat. After the marriage, Geeta Devi had been complaining to her mother that her in-laws were not happy...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(6)SCALE410; (2000)10SCC507
ORDER1. We have perused the report submitted by the Welfare Commissioner Mr. Justice S.B. Sakrikar dated 27th September, 1995. We have also perused the averments made in the pleadings of the parties and heard counsel. We think that a sufficiently long time has elapsed and yet the victims of the Gas Tragedy are still struggling to get the compensation. In fact realising the difficulty that they were facing, we had by our order dated 12th May, 1995 directed that compensation in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-may be made in death cases provided the criteria mentioned in the order was satisfied to exclude bogus claims. We had also clarified that the interim relief which was payable to the legal representatives of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month will not be stopped on the payment of this relief. We had also permitted the authorities to withdraw a sum of Rs. 100 crores for disbursing this interim compensation at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- and in some other cases interim relief granted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC383; 1996(1)ALT1(SC); 1995(6)SCALE73; (1995)6SCC500; [1995]Supp4SCR291
1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated February 13,1995 passed in Civil Revision Petition No. 2824 of 1994. By the said impugned judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed the revision application made against the order dated July 4, 1994 of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A. No. 203 of 1992 affirming the order dated April 29,1992 passed by the Prl. Rent Controller. Secunderabad in R.C. No. 316 of 1988.3. The respondent-landlady made an application under Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the A.P. Rent Act) for eviction of the tenant appellant on the ground of wilful default of payment of rent for the period September, 1988 to November, 1988 amounting to Rs. 1125. There is no dispute in this case that the tenant failed to make the payment within the stipulated peri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(7)SC664; 1995(6)SCALE8; (1996)7SCC37; [1995]Supp4SCR261; (1996)1UPLBEC193
G.B. PATTANAIK, J.— 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. These two applications are directed against the judgment dated 24-5-1993 of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 479 of 1986, one at the instance of Union of India and the other at the instance of an employee Shri O.S. Singh. Perennial dispute of determining inter se seniority between a direct recruit and a promotee in the Indian Police Service and the ticklish issue of year of allotment has cropped up again in these two applications. The appellant, Shri O.S. Singh had joined as Deputy Superintendent of Police on 26-11-1965 after being selected by the State Public Service Commission. The recruitment to the Indian Police Service is made under IPS (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as “the Recruitment Rules”). Under Rule 4 thereof, recruitment is made both by competitive examination as well as by promotion of substantive member of a State Police Service. Under sub-rul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC309; 1996(1)ALD(Cri)1; 1995(2)ALT(Cri)720; 1996(1)BLJR99; 1996CriLJ381; 1995(4)Crimes171(SC); JT1995(7)SC299; 1996(6)KarLJ205; 1995(5)SCALE670; (1995)6SCC194; [199
ORDERM.K. Mukherjee, J.1. Special leave granted. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.2. These two appeals have been heard together as they arise out of one and the same incident. Facts leading to these appeals and relevant for their disposal are as under :3. On July 29, 1988, Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj, an Officer of the Indian Administrative Service (I.A.S.) belonging to the Punjab Cadre and then working as the Special Secretary, Finance, lodged a complaint with the Inspector General of Police, Chandigarh Union Territory alleging commission of offences under Sections 341 342 352 354 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) by Mr. K.P.S. Gill, the Director General of Police, Punjab on July 18, 1988 at a dinner party. Treating that complaint as the First Information Report (FIR) a case was registered by the Central Police Station, Sector 17, Chandigarh and investigation was taken up. Thereafter on November 22, 1988, her husband Mr. B.R. Bajaj, who also happens to be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1995]216ITR607(SC); JT1995(7)SC322; 1995(5)SCALE718; (1995)6SCC465; [1995]Supp4SCR275
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. A common question arises in these three appeals. It relates to the meaning and interpretation of Sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Income-Tax Act. It would be enough if we state the facts in Civil Appeal No. 1052 of 1976.2. The respondent-assessee, Virmani Industries Private Limited, was engaged in the manufacture of soap and oil during the previous year relevant to the Assessment year 1956-57. The business was stopped in that year whereafter the factory was let out on hire. Ten years later, i.e., in the previous year relevant to Assessment year 1965-66, the assessee started the business of manufacture of steel pipes. For the purpose of this business a part of the old machinery used in the manufacture of soap and oil was utilised.3. In the assessment proceedings relating to Assessment year 1956- 57, depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) was found to be more than the profits and gains of the assessee for that assessment year. In the assessment proceedings relat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(6)SCALE25; 1995Supp(4)SCC87; [1995]Supp4SCR226
ORDER1. This is an appeal by special leave against an order dated 14-9-1978 in S.T.A. 146 of 1975 passed by the Special Appellate Tribunal, Madras, set up under the Tamil Nadu Minor Jnams (Abolition and Conversion into Royatwari) Act, 1963. As statutorily required, the Tribunal is manned by two Hon'ble Judges of the Madras High Court. The appellant-temple had put to challenge before the Special Appellate Tribunal an order dated February 22, 1971 passed by the Minor Inams Tribunal, Coimbatore on the merit of the matter. By means of the appellate order afore-referred to the Tribunal dismissed the said appeal of the appellant-temple as time barred.2. Under Section 30(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Royatwari) Act, 1963, the limitation for filing an appeal before the Special Appellate Tribunal is three months from the date of the order. But, under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 30, the Special Appellate Tribunal may, in its discretion, allow furth...
Tag this Judgment!