Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 79(1999)DLT555(SC); (2004)2GLR1066
A.S. Anand, C.J.,; K.T. Thomas and; S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.3. In this appeal filed on behalf of the detenu Pandit Kishan Fulore, the judgment of the Bombay High Court dismissing Criminal Writ Petition No. 1763 of 2000 is under challenge. In the said writ petition the order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, Thane, against the detenu under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (55 of 1981) (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was challenged.4. From the discussions in the judgment of the High Court it appears that the detention order was challenged on the grounds that due to the delay in passing the order of detention by the authority the nexus between the activities allegedly committed by the detenu and the necessity for passing the order of preventive detention was lost; that the in-camera state...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2203; JT1999(3)SC298; (1999)3MLJ117(SC); RLW1999(3)SC434; 1999(2)SCALE690; (1999)4SCC331; [1999]2SCR779; 1999(2)LC837(SC)
ORDERK. Venkataswami, J.1. This appeal by special leave is preferred against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in U.S.A. No. 1807/71 dated February 3, 1982. The appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred hereinafter as 'plaintiff and 'defendants'. The second defendant, a proforma party, is the father of the first defendant.2. The plaintiff filed Suit No. 722/67 for recovery of possession of the suit site from the defendants. According to the averments in the plaint, the suit site was acquired by the plaintiff under a gift deed dated 18,1.1961 registered on 9.2.1961 and marked as Exbt. PW- 6/1 in the suit. One Kanwar Chander Raj Saran Singh was the donor under the said gift deed. The plaintiff before filing the present suit for possession preferred an application for ejectment of the defendants before the Rent Controller alleging that the first defendant who was a tenant under him denied the t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2302; JT1999(3)SC212; 1999(2)SCALE708; (1999)4SCC357; [1999]2SCR798; [1999]115STC29(SC); 1999(2)LC953(SC)
ORDERSujata V. Manohar, J. 1. At all material times the respondent was an industry engaged in the business of oil extraction and manufacture in the State of Rajasthan.2. By a notification dated 23rd of May, 1987 issued in the exercise of its powers under Section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, the appellant - State of Rajasthan notified a Sales Tax Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Incentive Scheme') under which it exempted (inter alia) new industrial units from payment of tax on the sale of goods manufactured by them for sale within the State of Rajasthan in the manner and to the extent and for the period as specified in that notification. The operative period of the scheme under that notification was from 5th of March, 1987 to 31st of March, 1992. It was subsequently extended to 31st March, 1997. The incentive scheme was applicable, inter alia, to new industrial units set up in areas mentioned in Annexure-A to the notification. Annexure...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1942; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)879; 1999CriLJ2879; JT1999(4)SC87; 1999(3)SCALE520B; (1999)5SCC588; 1999(2)LC1062(SC)
ORDERNanavati, J.1. The State has filed this appeal as respondent Laeeq, who was convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable Under Section 304 IPC, has been acquitted by the High Court.2. Laeeq was tried a along with three others for committing murder of Ashfaq Hussain and causing injuries to Mohd. Yaseen, Ayub, Chhotey and Nathu. The trial Court did not believe the evidence of the eye-witnesses as regards the genesis of the incident and gave benefit of doubt to accused Mohd. Noor, Qayum Abdul Qayaum and Arshad and acquitted them. The role played by the respondent Laeeq was believed but giving him benefit of exception (4) to Section 300 IPC convicted him Under Section 304 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the other three accused, State filed an appeal before the High Court and aggrieved by the order of his conviction, Laeeq also filed an appeal before the High Court. Both the appeals were heard together. The High Court dism...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1371; JT1999(3)SC181; 1999(2)SCALE716; (1999)5SCC199; [1999]2SCR810
ORDERB.N. Kirpal, J.1. Punganur Estate in Chittoor District in Andhra Pradesh was an impartible estate of which Raja Veera Basava Chikkar Royal Varu was the last Zamindar. The question involved in these appeals by special leave relates to the alienations made by the said Raja of some of the properties which formed part of the said estate.2. It is an admitted case that the estate was governed by the provisions of the Impartible Act 1904. Under Section 4 of the said Act the Zamindar had no right to alienate impartible property beyond his life time. The estate was governed by the rule of primogeniture and an alienation under the 1904 Act could, inter alia, be done for the benefit of the family.3. In 1908 the Madras Estates Land Act was passed defining the substitution, rights and liabilities of land-holders of ryoti and made declarations of the existence of the occupancy rights of the ryoti. The lands were divided into two classes; [1] ryoti land and ; [2] private land. It is not necessar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2188; JT1999(3)SC236; 1999(2)SCALE689; (1999)4SCC195; 1999(2)LC929(SC)
ORDERS.N. Phukan, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway against the Judgment and Order dated 30th January, 1982 passed by the Railway Rates Tribunal, Madras.2. A complaint was filed under Section 41(1)(c) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 by the respondent regarding the siding changes levied by the appellant at the respondent's siding at Saharanpur and fixation of maintenance charges of the siding by the railway. The tribunal framed as many as 7 issues and after elaborate discussion framed as many as 7 issues and after elaborate discussion held that the siding charges and maintenance charges fixed by railway w.e.f. 13.3.1980 were unreasonable. Hence the present appeal.3. We have heard Ms. Anjani Aiyangiri, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pradeep Misra, learned Counsel for the respondent.4. From the impugned judgment we find that maintenance charges were fixed at Rs. 4838/- for the period 3.10.80 to 31.3.81 and also fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(1)ALD(Cri)24; 1999CriLJ5009; JT1999(9)SC365; (1999)6SCC63
ORDER1. Respondent No. 1 is stated to have died. Accordingly, the appeal abates against him.2. This appeal is directed against an order of acquittal passed by the High Court of Patna. The two respondents were convicted under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Saharsa (Camp at Madhipura) on a finding that on 7-3-1973 at about 12 noon they murdered Surya Narain Yadav by shooting arrows at him. The learned Sessions Judge relied upon the dying declaration of the deceased by the Magistrate (PW-5) in the presence of the Doctor (PW- 18) as well as on the evidence of PWs-6 and 8, who were alleged to have been following the deceased at the fateful time.3. On appeal, the High Court did not rely upon the evidence of the aforesaid two witnesses, PWs-6 and 8 and came to the conclusion that the dying declaration itself cannot be said to be such a compelling piece of evidence so as to be sufficient to convict the accused persons o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1999(9)SC174; (1999)5SCC638
ORDER1. Sarnam Singh and Brahmanand who are the appellants before us were let out certain land by the Zamindar who subsequently evicted them from that land in 1943 in proceedings under Section 171 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. Later, when the U.P. Tenancy Act was amended by the U.P. Act 10 of 1947 and Section 27 was inserted in that Act, the appellants made an application for reinstatement over that land.2. While the proceedings under Section 27 were pending, the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 was enforced with effect from 1-7-1952. In the meantime, proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 started in pursuance of a notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. The proceedings under Section 27 of the U.P. Tenancy Act were, on the date of notification, pending and had not been disposed of. In those proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, Respondents 2 to 7 filed objections under Section 9A(2) of the Act claiming Sirdari rights o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2116; JT1999(3)SC208; 1999(2)SCALE681; (1999)4SCC184; 1999(2)LC868(SC); (1999)2UPLBEC1028
ORDERS.N. Phukan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16th December, 1994 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O,A. No. 1036 of 1990.2. For the purpose of appreciating the points urged in this appeal we may briefly state the facts.3. The appellant herein was appointed as Mechanical Operator on 19.03.1965 by the respondents and from the impugned judgment we find that her appointment was on probation for a period of two years and further this period was neither extended nor her appointment was confirmed, However, she was declared quasi permanent w.e.f. 19.03.1968. On 30.05.78 she submitted a letter of resignation on the ground of alleged harassment but on the next day i.e. 31.05.78 she submitted another letter for withdrawal of the resignation. However, the respondents accepted her resignation and informed her accordingly.4. On being dissatisfied the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1715; [1999]96CompCas804(SC); (1999)3CompLJ287(SC); JT1999(3)SC168; 1999(2)SCALE667; (1999)4SCC383; [1999]2SCR750
ORDER1. The relevant facts need to be set out to appreciate what is involved in these appeals from the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta.2. In June, 1985 a winding petition was filed against the first respondent company, now in liquidation ('the said company'). On 30th September, 1986 a mortgage suit (Title Suit No. 143 of 1986) was filed by the Punjab National Bank and the Bank of Baroda against the said company for recovery of the sum of Rs. 1,94,24,886,37 before the Subordinate Judge, Burdwan, On the same day a hypothecation suit (Suit No.737 of 1986) was filed by the United Bank of India, the Punjab National Bank and American Express against the said company for recovery of the sums of Rs. 20,46,010.31 and 17,87,796.49 in the Calcutta High Court. On the same day, a hypothecation suit (Suit No. 737 of 1986) was filed by the Allahabad Bank against the said company for recovery of the sums of Rs.29,18,360.65 and 11,64,370.00 in the Calcutta High Cour...
Tag this Judgment!