Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2194; [1979]118ITR583(SC); (1977)4SCC606d; 1977(9)LC486(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated March 2, 1972 rejecting an application filed by the appellant, the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad, under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, asking that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal be directed to refer a certain question of law to the High Court.2. The Tribunal has set aside the penalty of Rs. 7,500/- levied on the assessee by the Income tax Officer and confirmed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, following a judgment of this Court in CIT v. Anwar Ali : [1970]76ITR696(SC) ,. We see the plausibility of Mr. Ahuja's submission on behalf of the appellant, that the Tribunal appears to have overlooked the amendment made by Act 5 of 1964 to Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The word 'deliberately', which occurred in the unamended section was omitted by the amendment and an explanation was added to that section which was previously not there. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2226; 1977CriLJ1897; (1977)3SCC562; 1977(9)LC546(SC)
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. In this appeal by special leave filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, there are three respondents-(1) Mohammad Musheer Khan; (2) Mohammad Shamim Khan and (3) Siraj Ahmad Khan. All the three were tried by the Sessions Judge of Sultanpur for the offence of committing the murder of Nirmaljeet Singh, brother of Bimaljeet Singh, P.W. 1. Respondent No. 1 was convicted under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to death. The other two respondents were convicted for the said offence with the aid of Section 34 and each of them was awarded a sentence of life imprisonment. The respondents filed an appeal in the Allahabad High Court and a reference for the confirmation of the death sentence imposed upon respondent No. 1 was also made by the Sessions Judge. The High Court has rejected the reference allowed the appeal and acquitted all the three respondents. Hence this appeal by the State.2. There is a college known as B.P. Intermediate College at Kurwar, P.S.Kotwali, in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2183; (1977)4SCC374; 1977(9)LC502(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. The appellants are owners of a house situated at 1204/23, Shivaji Nagar, Poona. They filed a suit against the respondent for possession of a block of three rooms and a verandah let out to him as a monthly tenant. After considering the requirements of the appellants and on consideration of the question of comparative hardship to the parties, the Trial Court passed a decree for possession in favour of the appellants. That decree was confirmed in appeal by the learned Joint Judge, Poona whereupon the respondent filed a petition in the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. By a judgment dated February 12, 1976 the High Court allowed that petition, set aside the judgment of the Joint Judge and remanded the appeal to him for a decision in the light of the observations contained in its judgments. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court.2. Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2185; 1977CriLJ1891; (1977)79PLR695; (1977)4SCC137; [1978]1SCR222
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by special leave involves an important question as to the interpretation scope, ambit and connotation word 'interlocutory order' as appearing in Sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the CrPC 1973. For the purpose of brevity, we shall refer to the CrPC, 1898 as 'the 1898 Code', to the CrPC, 1898 as amended in 1955 as 'the 1955 Amendment' and to, the CrPC, 1973 as 'the 1973 Code'. The appeal arises in the following circumstances.2. An incident took place in village Amin on April 23, 1976 in the course of which three persons died and, F. I. R. No. 139 dated April 23, 1976 was filed at police station Butana, District Kamal at about 5-30 P. M. The F. I. R. mentioned a number of accused persons including the appellants as having participated in the occurrence which resulted in the death of the deceased. The police, after holding investigations, submitted a charge-sheet against the other accused persons except the appellants against whom the police opined t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Divans v. California - 434 U.S. 1303 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court Divans v. California, 434 U.S. 1303 (1977) Divans v. California No. A-91 Decided July 28, 1977 434 U.S. 1303 ON APPLICATION FOR STAY Syllabus Application for stay of applicant's second state criminal trial pending the filing and disposition of a petition for certiorari in this Court is denied where the first trial resulted in a mistrial upon applicant's motion because of a prosecutorial error found by the trial judge t be of the kind not intentionally committed to provoke a mistrial request. MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, Circuit Justice. Applicant has requested that I stay the commencement of his second trial in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, Cal., pending the filing and disposition of a petition for certiorari here. His first trial aborted as a result of the trial judge's declaration of a mistrial upon applicant's motion. I have determined the application should be denied. Any order granting a mistrial at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2021; [1977]47CompCas666(SC); (1977)4SCC9; [1978]1SCR218; 1977(9)LC499(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. The two appellants and the six respondents were partners of a firm called 'Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works.' The appellants as plaintiffs instituted civil suit No. 9 off 1974 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nagpur, for dissolution of the partnership and accounts. The reliefs asked for included a declaration that the firm stood dissolved on and from January 9, 1974. It appears that thereafter the original defendants who are the respondents before us were transposed as plaintiffs and the appellants who were originally the plaintiffs were transferred to the category of defendants. The transposed defendants raised an objection that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions of Part X he Companies Act, 1956. The trial court rejected the application The defendants then moved the Bombay High Court, Nagpur in revision. The High Court having dismissed the revision on the present appeal has been filed with special leave granted is Court.2....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1992; (1977)4SCC153; [1978]1SCR208; 1977(9)LC528(SC)
P.K. Goswami, J.1. This appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of an election to the U.P. Legislative Council held on April 28, 1974, from the Local Authorities' Constituency, Faizabad. We are concerned here with Kshettra Samitis which are the local authorities (see Fourth Schedule of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, Uttar Pradesh). Besides the appellant, ten candidates (respondents 1 to 10) filed their nomination papers. Six of them (respondents 5 to 10) had withdrawn their candidature. Out of the five left there was no contest worth the name from respondents 2. 3 and 4. The principal contest, therefore, was between the appellant and respondent No. 1 (hereinafter to be described only as respondent). The last date for submission of nomination papers was April 2, 1974. At the poll the appellant secured 927 votes and the respondent 909, the difference being only of 18 v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2171; 1977(2)KarLJ355; (1977)4SCC16; [1978]1SCR193
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. Four heavy volumes of case records confronted us in this appeal, as counsel opened the arguments, but some Socratic processing seemed to condense the controversy and forensic prolixity so much so we first thought the case had shrunk to such small dimensions as to be disposed of in a short judgment. But what we initially felt, when the brief narration of facts was given, proved a snare. For, when we read out in court our opinion on the only crucial aspect of the case, counsel for the 1st respondent hopefully insisted that the factual grounds, requiring our ploughing through ponderous tomes of testimonial collection, pleadings and what not, should be investigated as he expected to sustain the invalidation of the election by the High Court on the score of corrupt practice and the consequential disqualification of the rival candidate i.e., the appellant before us. He was entitled to press that part of his case and so we agreed to hear both sides extensively thereon....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1985; (1977)3SCC515; [1976]SuppSCR486; 1977(9)LC485(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. Even after hearing an interesting argument from Mr. Nariman, who appears on behalf of the respondent-landlord, we are left in no doubt that the High Court, inspite of several decisions of this Court, has manifestly exceeded the limits of its narrow jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. We are unable to appreciate that the High Court should have persuaded itself to accept the contention of the landlord in the teeth of the concurrent finding of the Rent Controller and the Collector that the tenant was not a habitual defaulter. Normally, a monthly tenant is under an obligation to pay the rent from month to month but this obligation is subject to a contract to the contrary. Such a contract need not be reflected in a formal document and can be spelt out from the conduct of the parties, spread over a fairly long period of time. The evidence in the case, which was believed by the two tribunals of fact, shows that the tenant has been paying rent at an inter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2196; (1977)4SCC2; [1978]1SCR181; 1977(9)LC512(SC)
Jaswant Singh, J.1. This appeal by special leave which is directed against the Judgment and decree dated February 5, 1968 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad affirming the decisions of the District Judge and the Civil Judge, Basti, dated May 20, 1960 and July 27, 1959 respectively decreeing the suit instituted by respondent No. 1 herein under Sub-section (7) of Section 212A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as 'the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act'), which came into force on January 26, 1951, arises in the following circumstances:2. The land in dispute measuring 142 bighas, 1 biswa and 18 dhurs situate in village Baudhara, Tappa Menhdawal, Pargana Maghar East, Tehsil Khalilabad, District Basti, belonged in 1950 A.D. to Girdhar Das and Purshottam Das, Zamindars of Gorakhpur City, who became intermediaries under the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. Finding that the said land was lying uncultivated, the Collector, Gorakhpur,...
Tag this Judgment!