Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)7SCC522
A.S. Anand and; K.T. Thomas, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. On a complaint filed by one Duni Chand on 8-5-1978, seven persons were tried for offences under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. It was alleged in the complaint that the complainant had invited all the residents of the village, including Harijans, for taking meals at his house in connection with the wedding of his son. All the seven accused arrived there when Nanku son of Dharu and Chana son of Sukhiya were taking their meals. The accused allegedly stated that they would not take their meals at the house of the complainant. They also turned out Nanku and Chana, both Harijans, from there, who ran away, with the result that other persons also ran away from the house of the complainant and in this way the complainant suffered huge loss. At the trial court, Kali Das and Nanak Chand were the only two witnesses examined by the prosecution besides the complainant. Nanak Chand son of Dharu deposed at the trial that the accused person...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3067; 1998(4)ALT24(SC); JT1997(6)SC229; 1997(4)SCALE742; (1997)6SCC169; [1997]Supp2SCR231; 1997(2)LC341(SC); (1997)3UPLBEC1647
1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.3. It is most unfortunate that the Government demoralises the officers who discharge the duties honestly and diligently and brings to book the persons indulging in black marketing and contra-banding the liquor. This is one of the eloquent case where such a sorry state of affairs has come to light.4. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. Aurangabad Bench, made on December 6. 1996 in O.A.No. 925 of 1995 upholding the order of transfer of the appellant. We directed the learned Counsel appearing for the State to produce the record and the material which is made the basis for transfer of the appellant. The sequence to be mentioned hereunder stands testimony to the facts. The transfer is nothing but mala fide and arbitrary action at the behest of the persons interested to target the honest officers who efficiently discharge the duties.5. On December 28, 1994, the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3425; JT1997(6)SC593; RLW1997(3)SC363; 1997(5)SCALE40; (1997)6SCC279; [1997]Supp2SCR258; 1997(2)LC456(SC); (1997)3UPLBEC1666
ORDER1. This case has been called even after the list is revised, but nobody appears.2. A perusal of the writ petition shows that filing of this petition is a total abuse of the process of this Court. The petitioner, whose services were terminated on 5-1-1972, questioned the order of termination through writ petition No. 9484/74, which was dismissed by the High Court on 23-8-1974. He allowed that order to acquire finality and later on filed a representation against termination of his services to the State which was also dismissed on 16-9-1975. Undeterred, he once again questioned the order of termination by filing a petition before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal. That petition came to be dismissed on 4-4-1979. The petitioner filed yet another writ petition No. 4536/79, for the same cause which was dismissed by the High Court on 16-8-1979. A review petition against that order was dismissed on 16-1-1980 and an application under Article 133 of the Constitution for a certificate of fitne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2780; 1997(2)ALD(Cri)266; 1997CriLJ3397; 1997(2)Crimes82(SC); (1997)3GLR2245; JT1997(6)SC236; 1997(4)SCALE724; (1997)6SCC514; [1997]Supp2SCR234
1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. Every criminal trial is a voyage in quest of truth for public justice to punish the guilty and restore peace, stability and order in the society. Every citizen who has knowledge of the commission of cognizable offence has duty to lay information before the police and co-operate with the investigating officer who is enjoined to collect the evidence and if necessary summon the witnesses to give evidence. He is further enjoined to adopt scientific and all fair means to unearth, the real offender, lay the charge-sheet before the Court competent to take cognizance of the offence. The charge-sheet needs to contain the facts constituting the offences charged. The accused is entitled to a fair trial. Every citizen who assists the investigation is further duty-bound to appear before the Court of session or competent criminal Court, tender his ocular evidence as a dutiful and truthful citizen to unfold the prosecution case as given in his statement. Any betr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2793; JT1997(6)SC277; 1997(4)SCALE693; (1997)6SCC740; [1997]Supp2SCR197
ORDERG.N. Ray, J.1. The appeals arising out of Special Leave Petitions Nos. 5262-64 of 1992 are directed against order dated February 19, 1992 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court disposing of Writ Petition No. 10379 of 1988 challenging the notice dated April 26, 1988 and the demand dated May 17, 1988 of U.P. State Electricity Board and Writ Petition No. 16723/88 and 16325/90 challenging the validity of the bills for the month of June and July, 1988 issued by the U.P. State Electricity Board and also the demand dated June 14, 1990 made by the said Board. By the impugned judgment dated February 19, 1992, the High Court quashed various demand notices issued to the appellant on the basis of check meters installed by the respondent U.P. State Electricity Board and directing that payment for six months would be made on the basis of estimate of Electrical Inspector dated October 10, 1990 and further directing that the fresh bills for the period 7-9-87 to 10-10-90 be issue...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2938; 1997(2)BLJR1720; [1998]92CompCas426(SC); JT1997(6)SC211; (1997)117PLR870; (1997)6SCC383; [1997]Supp1SCR750
D.P. Wadhwa, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing the appeal of the appellant and confirming the order of the Maharashtra State Commission by which order the State Commission had allowed the complaint of the respondent filed under Sections 17/18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act'). In fact, there were two complaints before the State Commission; in one complaint the claim of the complainant against the appellant was settled for Rs. 5,04,841.23 and the second for Rs. 9,99,500. The complaint was also awarded costs of Rs. 500 in each of the two complaints.3. In this judgment the appellant M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd. is described as 'insurer', the respondent as 'complaint' or 'assignee' and M/s. Ajanta Paper and General Product Ltd. as the 'consignee' or 'assured'.4. The complainant is an assignee of two insurance policies taken out by M/s. Ajanta Paper and General P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2814; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)139; JT1997(6)SC86; 1997(4)SCALE455; (1997)6SCC1; [1997]Supp1SCR641
ORDERJ.S. Verma, CJI.1. By this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenge is made to the constitutional validity of sub-section (5) of Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Section 62 relates to right to vote and is as under :62. Right to vote. - (1) No person who is not, and except as expressly provided by this Act, every person who is, for the time being entered in the electoral roll of any constituency shall be entitled to vote in that constituency.(2) No person shall vote at an election in any constituency if he is subject to any of the disqualifications referred to in Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (43 of 1950).(3) No person shall vote at a general election in more than one constituency of the same class, and if a person votes in more than one such constituency, his votes in all such constituencies shall be void.(4) No person shall at any election vote in the same constituency more than once, notwithstanding that his name...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998(1)ALT31; [1997]Supp2SCR184; 1997(2)LC357(SC)
The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedWhether period of limitation for purpose of application under Section 28A begins to start from date of knowledge. Supreme Court held that period of limitation for purpose of Section 28A does not begin from date of knowledge. Period of limitation begins from date of award of Court enhancing compensation. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3426; [1997]227ITR301(SC); JT1997(6)SC260; 1997(4)SCALE547; (1997)11SCC49; [1997]Supp2SCR87
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madras dated April 25, 1984 whereby the following question was answered in the negative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to extra shift allowance in respect of the machineries added during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1970-71 on the basis of double and triple shifts worked by the entire concern?2. The High Court has placed reliance on its earlier judgment dated April 24, 1984 in T.C. No. 10.53-54 of 1979, Commissioner of Income Tax v. South India Viscose Ltd., which was based on the judgment in MA' South India Viscose Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 135 ITR 206. Civil Appeal Nos. 3179-81/82 filed against the said judgment of the High Court reported in 135 ITR 206 have been allowed by our judgment pronounced today and a similar question has been answered in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2930; JT1997(6)SC155; 1997(4)SCALE715; (1997)7SCC567; [1997]Supp2SCR187; 1997(2)LC416(SC)
1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, made on February 21, 1997 in Writ Appeal No. 7354/96.3. The petitioners, admittedly, had purchased the property in the years 1962-63 and 1963-64 from the original allottees. The Government have allotted those lands as per Saguvali Chit containing prohibition of alienation of the land. Subsequently, the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act. 1978 was enacted totally prohibiting the alienation up to a particular period. The proceedings were initiated against the petitioners for ejectment under the said Act. All the authorities have concurrently held that the alienation in favour of the petitioners was in violation of the above Rules and the said Act and hence the sales are voidable. When the case had come up before this Court, this Court while upholding the constitutionality of the Act directed the authoritie...
Tag this Judgment!