Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)412; JT1996(10)SC538; 1996(8)SCALE456; (1996)11SCC419; [1996]Supp8SCR849; 1997(1)LC300(SC)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is preferred by the Committee for the Protection of Democratic Righs against the order of the Bombay High Court summarily dismissing the writ petition. In the writ petition filed in the High Court the appellant had asked for the following two reliefs:(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the Commission of Inquiry appointed by the Government of Maharashtra by its Notification No. FIR/5693/Bornbay-1/ Appointment/SPL-2, dated 25th January, 1993, is not a Court of Law and there are no cases pending before the said Commission concerning the riots on and after 6th December, 1992, and on and after 6th January, 1993, and therefore, the question of subjudice does not arise in the way of the Government to launch prosecutions against the culprits responsible for the said riots;(b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)52; (1997)1CALLT108(SC); 1996(8)SCALE552; (1996)11SCC585; [1996]Supp8SCR924
ORDER1. The respondent filed a petition under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act for pre-emption in respect of two sale deeds executed by the vendors on 22nd and 23rd February 1977 transferring 1.79 acres of land in two plots in favour of the appellant. The appellants resisted the respondent's claim for pre-emption on the ground that the respondent need to have been a co-sharer in the land sold and since he claims to have purchased sometime in the past a portion of a plot, which was described in the revenue records as a 'tank', it was not 'land' as defined in the Land Reforms Act and therefore he was not a co-sharer. The trial court found that the preemptor had purchased a portion of a plot which was a 'doba' and since 'doba' was a tank, it was outside the definition of land provided in the Land Reforms Act. The appellate court concurred with that view. The High Court, however in second appeal upset it. To adjudge the correctness of the view of the High Court are the present...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)11SCC608
ORDER 1. Ratan Narain Mulla, the deceased respondent, was employed as Superintendent of Central Jail in Class I U.P. Jail Services. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on charges of misconduct. He was placed under suspension on 27-3-1959. By order dated 10-12-1960, he was dismissed from service with effect from 12-12-1960. The respondent filed a writ petition (Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 685 of 1961) in the Allahabad High Court challenging the said order of dismissal. The said writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by judgment dated 22-8-1970. Special Appeal (SA No. 828 of 1970) filed by the respondent against the said judgment was allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated 24-5-1973. By the said judgment the order of dismissal passed against the respondent was quashed. During the pendency of the said writ petition in the High Court, the respondent attained the age of superannuation on 28-8-1969. On t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)415; AIR1997SC1599; 1997(1)BLJR569; JT1996(10)SC584; 1996(8)SCALE472; (1997)1SCC177; [1996]Supp8SCR886
ORDER1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by one Madanlal Agrawal for eviction of Bharat Coking Coal Limited from land and buildings allegedly owned by him adjacent to the coal mine known as Victory Colliery, which had vested in the Central Government by virtue of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. Victory Colliery was owned by United Mining Company Private Limited. The case of the appellant is that the company was practically a one man company. If the corporate veil is lifted, it will be found that Madanlal Agrawal was de facto owner of the company. Madanlal Agrawal's case is that he had in his individual capacity purchased certain properties together with structures thereon by registered deeds of sale dated 7.7.1949 and 24.3.1950 and built further structures and remodeled them. The United Mining Company Private Limited took these structures on monthly rent. These structures were utilised as office premises of Victory Colliery as also staff quarters. Eviction was so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)45; AIR1997SC1915; 1997(1)CTC261; JT1996(10)SC573; RLW1997(1)SC62; 1996(8)SCALE498; (1996)6SCC746; [1996]Supp8SCR910
ORDER1. Special Leave granted.2. The question which arises for determination in these two appeals is whether the period of three months prescribed for making an application for re-determination of the amount of compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called 'the Act') begins to run against the applicant from the date of the Award under Section 18 of the Act or even from the date of the decision of the appeal, if any, preferred against the Award. In order to appreciate the point raised, we may at once read Section 28-A insofar as it is relevant:28-A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the court (1) Where in an award under this Part, court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under Section 4, Sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)400; AIR1997SC2557; 1997(1)ALT1(SC); 1997(1)ARBLR209(SC); 1997(1)CTC375; RLW1997(1)SC70; 1996(8)SCALE722; (1997)1SCC147; [1996]Supp8SCR931; 1997(1)LC184(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court made in Civil Revision Petition No. 293/90, dated August 7, 1990.2. The admitted position is that the appellant had entered into a contract with the respondent-State for execution of the works of widening of Gagar Diversion Bridge at Bikaner in Sri Ganganagar Section. Pursuant to a dispute which arose between the parties, in terms of the contract, the matter by mutual agreement, was referred to the arbitrator by name Sri K.L. Sethia. Pending arbitration, the respondent sought to adjust the amount due to the appellant in another contract. Thereon the appellant filed an application in the district Court under Order XXXIX Rule 1, Code of Civil procedure, 1908 read with Section 41(b) of the Arbitration Act and the Second Schedule to the Arbitration Act, 1940 for ad interim injunction, restraining the respondent from adjusting the same. The District Judge by his order held that such an appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIIAD(SC)508; AIR1997SC1487; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)232; 1997CriLJ727; 1996(4)Crimes216(SC); JT1997(1)SC29; 1996(8)SCALE384; (1997)1SCC80; [1996]Supp8SCR856
ORDER1. These two Criminal Appeals on obtaining Special Leave have been filed by the appellants challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order of acquittal dated January 28, 1988 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh.2. The prosecution had put in the challan before the Judge, Special Court Firozepur on 14.8.1985 for trial of six accused-respondents herein on the following allegations:Baldev Singh (since deceased) was the younger brother of Hardev Singh (P.W. 2) and Jaswant Singh (P.W. 1). Harbhej Singh (A-1), Gurbhej Singh (A-2), Amrik Singh (A-3) and Gurmej Singh (A-4), the respondents herein, are the real brothers whereas Sohan Singh (A-5) and Mohan Singh (A-6), the respondents herein, are the real brothers. The house of Harbhej Singh (A-1) is situated adjoining the house of Hardev Singh (P.W.2). Harbhej Singh (A-1) and Sohan Singh (A-5) are cousins. Suba Singh, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 558 of 1988 is the son of Harbhajan Singh (sin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)39; AIR1997SC1563; JT1996(10)SC771; 1996(8)SCALE363; (1997)1SCC74; [1996]Supp8SCR829
ORDER1. This appeal by special leave to appeal granted under Article 136 of the Constitution of India brings in challenge the judgment and order rendered by the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur in Second Appeal No. 310 of 1969. By the impugned judgment and order the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appellant-plaintiffs Second Appeal and confirmed the decree of dismissal of his suit for partition as rendered by the Trial Court and as confirmed by the First Appellate Court. We shall refer to the appellant as plaintiff and respondents 1 to 7, heirs of original defendant, as defendants for the sake of convenience in the latter part of the judgment. The plaintiffs suit against the original defendant Prayag who died pending the litigation was based on the ground that defendant was his uncle. That his father Ram Prasad and the defendant Prayag were sons of one Balbhaddar Teli. That plaintiffs father and the defendant had joint interest in the suit properties which were inher...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996(9)SCALE239; (1997)9SCC94; [1996]Supp8SCR935
ORDER1. The appellant alongwith Dnyandeo were tried for an offence under Sections 302/34 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Buldhana in respect of an occurrence which took place on 10th September, 1984 in which Suryabhan died after receipt of a blow on his head resulting in multiple fracture of the scalp bone. The trial court found that Gangubai, PW. 2 and Ukanda, PW. 3, who claimed to have seen the deceased being 'dragged' (pulled) by the appellant after hitting him on the head with a heavy stone, had actually not seen the occurrence or any part thereof and their evidence did not inspire confidence. The trial court also referred to the medical evidence provided by Dr. Kashinath Motiram, PW. 1, and found that the account given by PW. 2 and PW. 3 was in conflict with the medical opinion. The trial court further opined that the prosecution had introduced letter Ext. p. 22, the alleged extra Judicial confession of the appellant with a view to buttress the prosecution case. It was held tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIIAD(SC)717; 1996(88)ELT633(SC); 1996(8)SCALE468; (1997)2SCC211
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The Revenue challenges the correctness of the order of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal which holds that the totalise system installed at the race course of the respondents was not liable to excise duty. Upon the record before it, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the totalise was embedded in the earth and was not 'goods' upon which excise duty was leviable.2. Having regard to the judgment that we have just delivered in C.A. No. 2919/86, M/s. Mittal Engineering Works (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, and the content of a totalise or tote machine employed at a race course as found by the Tribunal upon the evidence, the same is not 'goods' for the purposes of levy of excise duty.3. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!