Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC329; 87(1999)CLT591(SC); 1998(6)SCALE313; (1999)1SCC377; [1998]Supp3SCR175
K. Venkataswami, J.1. This appeal by special leave arises out of proceedings taken by Harekrushana Das and Ram Chandra Das, predecessors-in-interest of the appellants herein, Under Section 41 of the Orissa Hindu Religious endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the 'Act') for a declaration that the institution in question is neither a public temple nor a math as defined in the Act and that it is a private spiritual institution for the worship by the applicants' family members only. The application Under Section 41 was seriously contested by the respondents contending that the institution in question was a public religious worship place. The Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, on the basis of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, by his order dated 27.5.71 held that the institution in question is neither a public temple nor a math as defined in the Act but it is a private institution of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the order of the Additional ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998IXAD(SC)89; AIR1999SC854; JT1998(8)SC183; (1999)121PLR471; 1998(6)SCALE291; (1999)1SCC338; [1998]Supp3SCR133
S. Saghir Ahmad, J.1. Section 10A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 provides that the State Govt. or any officer authorised by it may utilise any surplus area for the resettlement of tenants ejected or to be ejected under Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 9. The further implication of this Section is that if the surplus area, in the meantime, is acquired by the State Govt. under any law for the time being in force, or it passes to an heir by inheritance, the surplus area so acquired or inherited would not be available for utilisation. It was this statutory provision which was sought to be invoked by the appellants who contended that the surplus area, on the death of the original owner, namely Banarsi Das, was inherited by them and, therefore, it could not be utilised in any way, not even by allotment of this area in favour of Mangat Ram, which was liable to be cancelled, but they lost before all the authorities and have ultimately landed in this Court.2. Leave gra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(1999)ACC112; 1999ACJ1; AIR1999SC589; 1999(47)BLJR1; [1999]95CompCas629(SC); JT1998(8)SC217; 1999(2)KLT9(SC); (1999)IMLJ87(SC); (1999)121PLR1; RLW1999(2)SC214; 1998(6)SCAL
Nanavati, J.1. These appeals were earlier placed for hearing before a Division Bench consisting of our learned Brothers Bharucha and Majmudar, JJ. on 20.2.1996. Upon hearing the counsel, the Division Bench passed the following order:'What we are concerned with in these matters is the correct interpretation of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The question arises, specifically, in the context of the death of the owner of goods being carried in a goods vehicle, and the question is whether the insurer of the goods' vehicle is liable to pay the compensation awarded to his legal heirs. We note that there are divergent views expressed by the High Courts. Apart from that, in our view, a decision of a bench of two learned Judges in Pushpabai Parshottam Udeshi and Ors. v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. Pit. Ltd. and Anr., : [1977]3SCR372 , needs to be reconsidered in greater detail. In these circumstances, it is appropriate that these matters should be heard and disposed of by a benc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998IXAD(SC)221; AIR1999SC217; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)63; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)60; (1999)1CALLT88(SC); [1999]95CompCas48(SC); (1999)1CompLJ1(SC); 1999CriLJ268; 1998(4)Crimes123(SC); JT19
ORDERNanavati, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Calcutta allowing Criminal Revision No. 624 of 1986 and setting aside the order of discharge passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Alipur, in Criminal Case No. C/ 194/1985. The learned Magistrate had discharged the appellant on the ground that the complaint filed by the respondent and the material-on-record disclose that the dispute is really of a civil nature.2. Sometime before 29.4.1983, the appellant retired as a Chairman and Managing Director of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. ABC Products Ltd. (for short 'ABC') desired to employ him as its President and put him in overall charge of management. It, therefore, entered into an agreement with the appellant on 29.4.1983 and appointed him as the President Under the agreement, the appellant was to be provided with rent-free furnished flat described in the Schedule to that agreement. ABC Consultants (P) Ltd., stated to be a sister concern of ABC,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC849; JT1998(8)SC344; 1998(6)SCALE378; (1999)1SCC422; [1998]Supp3SCR165; 1999(1)LC480(SC)
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.2. Heard learned counsel on both sides at length.3. The facts which are necessary for the purpose of this judgment are as follows:The Governor of Karnataka, who is the Chancellor of the Mysore University, selected the appellant herein, who was Professor in Physics in the University of Mysore to be the Vice Chancellor of the said University while exercising his powers Under Section 11 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976. An order was passed by him on August 20, 1997 by which he appointed the appellant herein as Vice Chancellor for a period of three years with effect from September 4, 1997. But on the very next day, i.e. on August 21, 1997, he passed another order referring to a news item which appeared in the Times of India in respect of the appellant herein stating that he had been facing a criminal case and had been named as the Vice Chancellor. The order passed by the Chancellor stated that he was not aware earlier of the pendency of the cri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1462; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)200; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)29; (1999)1CALLT100(SC); 1999CriLJ591; 1999(1)Crimes5(SC); JT1998(8)SC391; 1998(6)SCALE452; (1999)2SCC45; 1999(1)LC752(SC)
ORDERG.T. Nanavati, J.1. This appeal was filed by three appellants. Kishore - appellant No. 1 died on 21-11-1998 and therefore his appeal has abated. The appeal by appellants - Dinesh and Hemant only now survives.2. The appellants along with Kishore (now dead) and one Subhash Gawade were tried by the Designated Court for Greater Bombay for offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 307 read with 34 and 307 read with Section 114 of I.P.C. Section 3 read with Section 25(1B)(a) and Section 5 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(2)(ii), 3(3), 3(5) and 5 and 6 of the TADA Act, 1987. Subhash Gawade diet during the pendency of the trial before the Designated Court. All those accused were alleged to be members of the gang of dreaded gangster Arun Gawali. It was also alleged that the said gang is involved in collecting 'khandani' from innocent persons under the garb of protection money. It was the prosecution case that on 28-2-1993, Subhash Gawade had telephoned PW-3 - Himmat Lal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1999)3SCC720; [1999]113STC80(SC)
ORDER1. Earlier judgments of the Kerala High Court took the view that rubber trees were not timber and were, therefore, subject to the levy of sales tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. When the latter of these two judgments was brought before this Court by way of a petition for special leave to appeal, this Court, while dismissing the petition, observed that it would 'be open to the petitioner in future years to place adequate materials to establish that rubber trees did not constitute timber...'. In the present matters the respondents-assesses placed such material before the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and relied upon the aforequoted observation. The Tribunal took the view that it was bound by the earlier judgments and, therefore, did not consider this material. The respondents-assesses moved the High Court in tax revision cases. The High Court considered the material and reached the conclusion that standing rubber trees were not timber and, therefore, not exigib...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC767; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)61; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)45; 1999CriLJ1132; 1998(4)Crimes120(SC); JT1999(8)SC173; 1998(6)SCALE269; (1999)9SCC50; 1999(1)LC54(SC)
ORDERRajendra Babu, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the order made by the High Court affirming the order of Sessions Court in convicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-.2. The prosecution case as unfolded before Trial Court is as follows :3. On 12.7.1992 at about 5 p.m. Saun Singh (deceased) accompanied by his son Didar Singh and son-in-law Kartar Singh attempted to cut Kikar trees and the same was objected to by Puran Singh asking him to wait till the actual demarcation of the trees and refrained him from cutting the trees till then. Saun Singh returned along with his son and son-in-law to his house. On the next morning that is on 13.7.1992 at about 6 a.m. Saun Singh accompanied by his son and son-in-law proceeded towards his field when Balwinder Singh, Bhola Singh (appellant) and Lakhbir Singh who were armed with a Gandasa and Jagsir Singh who ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC449; [1999(81)FLR76]; JT1998(8)SC179; 1999LabIC169; 1998(6)SCALE271; (1999)1SCC733; [1998]Supp3SCR114; 1999(2)SLJ72(SC); 1999(1)LC206(SC); (1999)1UPLBEC399
Rajendra Babu, J.1. Leave granted.2. The respondent, while discharging the duties as Asst. Sub-Inspector in CRPF at Guahati, was transferred to Jammu by order dated 31.05.991 and he was relieved on the same day to enable him to proceed to Jammu. The respondent failed to report for duty at Jammu but had remained absent on the ground that he was not well and he had been advised to take rest. He was served with memorandum of charges. The gist of it is as under:1. That he did not report for duty at the office of the IGP(OPS), CRPF, J&K;, Srinagar on his transfer/attachment and did not proceed to his new posting from present office as ASI(M) in GC, CRPF, Guahati and thereby committed an act of disobedience of the orders of his superiors in the discharge of his duties in his capacity as a member of the force Under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949; 2. That he committed an act of neglect of duty in his capacity as a member of the force inasmuch as he remained absent from duty from June 1,1991 t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998IXAD(SC)1; AIR1999SC277; JT1998(6)SC164; (1999)122PLR158; 1998(6)SCALE274; (1999)1SCC586; [1998]Supp3SCR120; (1999)1UPLBEC110
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. Municipal Board, Saharanpur having obtained the certificate of fitness to appeal to this Court under Article 133 of the Constitution of India on 12th August, 1976, has filed this appeal. While granting the certificate, the High Court has observed that the concept and meaning of the words 'common compound' used in the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is required to be decided in this appeal. This appeal raises the same contentions which are raised in the Companion Appeal being Civil Appeal No. 1218 of 1976 moved by the very same appellant - Municipal Board, Saharanpur against Imperial Tobacco of India Ltd. wherein the High Court has granted a similar certificate of fitness. Even though the certificates are granted by the High Court on the common question in both these appeals and even though our decision of even date in Civil Appeal No. 1218 of 1976 will govern the present controversy, we deem it fit to highlight the facts...
Tag this Judgment!