Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC577; 1979CriLJ584; (1979)3SCC30; [1979]2SCR805
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. The appellant in this appeal by special leave was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur under Section 304 Part-I, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to two years' further rigorous imprisonment. The fine, if recovered, was directed to be paid to the dependants of the deceased in equal shares. The appellant filed a criminal appeal in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana against his conviction and sentence. The State also filed an appeal and the widow of the deceased filed a revision in the High Court for convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Penal Code instead of Section 304 Part-I. The High Court dismissed both the appeals as also the revision. The appellant only has preferred this appeal in this Court.2. The appellant was running a factory at Jullundur and on account of non-availability of raw-materials the factory remained closed for a fortnight from the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC607; (1979)8CTR(SC)371; [1979(38)FLR315]; [1979]117ITR1(SC); (1979)2SCC354; [1979]2SCR788
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. These appeals, by certificates are directed against the common judgment and order rendered by the Calcutta High Court on February 8, 1977 in Income Tax Reference No. 156 of 1969 and Income Tax References Nos. 398, 399 and 400 of 1969, whereby the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(iv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of three sums of Rs. 95,421/-, Rs. 1,00,564/- and Rs. 1,17,969/- out of the total contributions made by the assessee to a recognised Provident Fund for the assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 respectively was disallowed and the principal question raised in these appeals is whether the expression 'salary' as defined in Rule 2(h) in Part A of the Fourth Schedule to the Act includes 'Commission' paid by the assessee to its salesmen in terms of their contracts of employment 2. The assessee is a private limited company and carries on the business of manufacture and sale of dupli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1914; (1979)4SCC804; 1979(11)LC166(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. These appeals have come up by certificate to this Court issued by the High Court under Articles 132(1) and 133(1) of the Constitution. As the case was opened, counsel for the appellant, Shri A.K. Sen, raised a preliminary point that these appeals had to be referred to a Constitution Bench as they attracted Article 145 of the Constitution. In fact, he developed his contention, supported by many submissions. He argued that Article 227 and its interpretation came in a substantial way, with special reference to the concept of 'tribunal'. He urged that once a certificate under Article 132 had been issued, the appeal had necessarily to go before a Constitution Bench, on a fair construction of Article 145(3). He also put forward the plea that Article 226, as amended by the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution, led to the same result. Indeed, the arguments spread over a wide ground.2. This plea for a reference to a Constitution Bench based on the provisions of Article 145...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1717; (1979)4SCC175; 1979(11)LC167(SC)
ORDERR.S. Sarkaria, J.1. After hearing counsel on both sides we are clearly of the view that there is no substance in this appeal. Even counsel for the appellants did not raise any serious contention on the merits on the point that has been decided by the High Court. His only grievance was that the High Court in its judgment dated May 26, 1969 has made certain observations with regard to Article 4 of Civil Service Regulations and according to learned Counsel (hose observations unnecessarily try to fetter or limit the power of the Central Government to alter the tenure of service of a government servant. After setting out the Article the High Court has observed thus :The article obviously does not give any liberty to the Government to change the period of tenure of any incumbent and this could not be done indirectly under the guise of dealing with the employee's pension arising from the date of superannuation. The contention, therefore, that any power is reserved under Article 4 to cut ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC75; 1980LabIC1189; (1979)3SCC786; 1979(11)LC183(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. The petitioner who really represents a class of aggrieved persons who are employees under the Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (DESU) has come up to this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution claiming that his fundamental right under Article 16 of the Constitution has been violated and that an appropriate writ should be issued in enforcement of that right.2. A detailed narration of the facts is uncalled for and a capsulated statement sufficient to bring out the core contention will now be made.3. Among the various categories of posts in the hierarchy under the DESU are, two posts designated as steno-typist and junior stenographer. They were different in the nature of their duties, different in the salary scales and natureliy different in their status. Indeed, steno-typists form the basis cadre from which promotion is given as junior stenographers. At some intermediate stage in the history of this service (around 1973) distinctions in regard to salary sc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC777; 1979CriLJ679; (1980)2SCC91; [1979]2SCR717
Jaswant Singh, J.1. I have had the advantage of going through the judgments prepared by my esteemed Brothers Kailasam and Koshal. While I find myself unable to agree with the view expressed by my learned Brother Kailasam, I am inclined to agree with the opinion of and the conclusion arrived at by my learned brother Koshal.P.S. Kailasam, J.2. This appeal is filed by special leave by Kamlapati Trivedi against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1006 of 1970 by which it refused to quash the proceedings which were taken cognizance of by the Magistrate, on a complaint given by one Satya Narayan Pathak.3. Satya Narayan Pathak is the Secretary of Bhartiya Primary School in Howrah. The appellant before us, Kamlapati Trivedi, was a Head Teacher of the Bhartiya Primary School. On 18th April, 1970 Satya Narayan Pathak served a Notice on the appellant calling upon him to show cause why he should not be found guilty of negligence of duty. On receipt of the Notice, the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1444; (1979)2SCC511; [1979]2SCR757
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. These two appeals on certificate arise out of a common judgment and decree, dated January 18, 1966, of a Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad. The facts material to these appeals may be set out as under:2. M/s. Hindustan Metal Industries, respondent herein, (hereinafter called the plantiff) is a registered partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacturing brass and German silver utensils at Mirzapur. M/s. Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam, appellant herein, (hereinafter called the defendant) is a concern carrying on the business of manufacturing dishes and utensils in Mirzapur.3. On August 8, 1953, the plaintiff instituted a suit for injunction and damages, preceded by a notice, served on the defendant on September 9, 1952, in the Court of the District Judge, Allahabad, within whose jurisdiction Mirzapur is situated, with these allegations:4. The old method of manufacturing utensils, partciularly shallow dishes, was to turn scrap and polish them on som...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC621; [1979]118ITR326(SC); (1979)2SCC409; [1979]2SCR641; [1979]44STC42(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, J.,1. This appeal by certificate raises a question of considerable importance in the field of public law. How far and to what extent is the State bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel It is a doctrine of comparatively recent origin but it is potentially so fruitful and pregnant with such vast possibilities for growth that traditional lawyers are alarmed lest it might upset existing doctrines which are looked upon almost reverentially and which have held the field for a long number of years. The law in regard to promissory estoppel is not yet well settled though it has been the subject of considerable debate in England as well as the United States of America and it has also received consideration in some recent decisions in India and we, therefore, propose to discuss it in some detail with a view to defining its contours and demarcating its parameters. We will first state briefly the facts giving rise to this appeal. This is necessary because it is only where certa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1019; 1979CriLJ892; (1979)4SCC189
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. There are nine respondents in this appeal filed by the State of Haryana on grant of special leave by this Court. The trial Court convicted each of the said respondents under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. and awarded life imprisonment to each. They were further convicted under Section 325 read with Section 149 and for the offence of rioting. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has acquitted Prabhu, respondent No. 1 and Hoshiar, respondent No. 6 of all the charges accepting their plea of alibi. It has maintained the conviction of other seven respondents only under Section 325 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code and not under Section 302 read with Section 149. A sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment has been awarded to Sheoram plus a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and the others have been given a sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment plus Rs. 1,000/- fine, each. They did not challenge their conviction in this Court by filing any appeal. We...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC687; (1979)3SCC189; [1979]2SCR699
R.S. Pathak, J.1. These appeals, on certificate granted by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, are directed against the judgment and order dated August 9, 1966 passed by the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction against orders and directions issued by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on a petition filed by the Official Trustee of Maharashtra in regard to the properties of the former Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahirn Baronetcy Trust.2. On July 21, 1911, His Majesty King George V issued Letters Patent conferring the 'dignity, state and degree' of a Baronet of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland on Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim of Bombay and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten and to be begotten. In order to provide for the upkeep and dignity of the Baronetcy, the then Governor General of India in Council enacted the Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim Baronetcy Act, 1913 (hereinafter referred to simply as 'the Baronetcy Act') by virtue of which considerable properties belonging to ...
Tag this Judgment!