Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1081; 1978CriLJ994; (1978)4SCC481
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. In this appeal by special leave the appellant has 'been convicted under Section 409 I.P.C. and sentenced to two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default simple imprisonment of two months. The Sessions Judge on appeal upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to six months R.I. maintaining the fine. A revision was taken to the High Court which was also dismissed. It appears that between the 2nd March and 3rd April, 1967 the appellant, who was a clerk-cum-accountant in the Block Development Office in. district Quilon received various sums of money amounting to about Rs. 100/-, which he did not deposit in the Treasury as required by the rules. According to the prosecution the appellant misappropriated this amount and in the course of a departmental enquiry he gave an explanation that as there was no safe in the office: he used to keep the money, received by him in the drawers, which appears to have been stolen by his peon. The learned Sessions Judge h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1979)1SCC135
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, J.1. In this appeal by special leave the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and he has also been convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to R.I. for two years. The prosecution case has been clearly described in the judgment of the High Court and that of the Sessions Judge and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same. Mr Bahal, appearing for the appellant, raised two points before us. In the first place he submitted that as the appellant was below 16 years at the time the offence was committed, the trial by the Sessions Court was illegal and he should have been tried under the East Punjab Children Act, 1949. Reliance has particularly been placed on Section 63 of the Act. In support of his argument learned Counsel has invited our attention to the statement of the accused before the committing court and the Sessions Court, where he has mentioned his age, and to the evidence of the doctor who has said t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1162; (1978)GLR833; (1978)0GLR33; (1978)3SCC142; 1978(10)LC340(SC)
N.L. Untwalia, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter called the Act, by a person who was elected from Mahemdabad Constituency, District Kaira at the general flections held in June, 1975 to the Gujarat Legislative Assembly. The first respondent in this appeal is the election petitioner at whose instance the election of the appellant was set aside by the Gujarat High Court. Respondents 2 to 6 are the unsuccessful candidates at the said election. The appellant was impleaded as respondent No. 1 in the election petition. Respondents 2 to 6 were respondents 2 to 6 in the election petition also. The appellant contested the election as an Independent candidate and out of the unsuccessful candidates, respondent No. 3 was a candidate set up by the Congress Party then known as the Ruling Congress. The election petition to all intents and purposes seems to have been Bled at the instance and for the bent tit of respondent No 3.2. The po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Central Illinois Pub. Svc. Co. v. United States - 435 U.S. 21 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Central Illinois Pub. Svc. Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21 (1978) Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. United States No. 76-1058 Argued October 12, 1977 Decided February 28, 1978 435 U.S. 21 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Reimbursement for 1963 lunch expenses of employees on nonovernight company travel did not constitute "wages" subject to withholding by their employer within the meaning of 3401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, which defines "wages" for purposes of the withholding tax provisions to include "all remuneration . . . for services performed by an employee for his employer. . . ." Pp. 435 U. S. 24 -33. 540 F.2d 300, reversed. BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, POWELL, REHNQUIST, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed a concurring opinion...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC918; 1978(26)BLJR328; 1978MPLJ510(SC); (1978)2SCC160; [1978]3SCR429; 1978(10)LC286(SC)
1. This appeal is by the auction-purchaser on a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh against its order setting aside the decisions of Single Judge and the District Judge and directing the District Judge to deal with the application under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil Procedure Code, filed by the Judgment-debtors Bhagwandas and Rameshwar Prasad on 7th February, 1966.2. The decree-holder, Smt. Bittibai, the 17th respondent herein, in execution of a money-decree in her favour against respondents 1 to 16 and 18 herein sold a house belonging to the judgment-debtors on 8th January, 1966. It was purchased in the court-auction by the appellant herein. On 17th January 1966, respondent 18 Babulal, one of the Judgment-debtors made an application in the Court of District Judge, Sugar, under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, for setting aside the sale. On 7th February, 1966 an application was filed under Order 21, Rule 8.9, by Babulal, the 18th respondent, on behalf ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC836; 1978(26)BLJR244; (1978)2SCC167; [1978]3SCR404; 1978(10)LC291(SC)
1. This appeal, on certificate, is directed against a judgment and decree, dated February 19, 1965, of the High Court of Patna. It arises out of these facts.2. At all material times, holding No. 594, Ward No. 3 in the area of the urban Municipality, Dhanbad, was owned by the appellant and respondents 2, 3, 4 & 5. On this holding, a Cinema House known as 'Ray Talkie' was constructed in March, 1948.3. On March 31, 1948, the Commissioners of Dhanbad Municipality served a notice on the appellant and the respondents 2 to 5, Under Section 115(2) of the Bihar and Orissa Municipality Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) demanding a sum of Rs. 900/- as quarterly Municipal Tax.4. The appellant and respondents 2 to 5, applied for review of the assessment. Thereupon, the Review Committee reduced the Municipal Tax to Rs. 810/- per quarter, i.e. Rs. 488/- as holding tax and Rs. 465/-as latrine tax.5. Aggrieved, the assessees instituted a Title Suit No. 17/144 of 1949 in the Court of Munsif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Simpson v. United States - 435 U.S. 6 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Simpson v. United States, 435 U.S. 6 (1978) Simpson v. United States No. 76-5761 Argued November 1, 1977 Decided February 28, 1978 * 435 U.S. 6 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The punishment for bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. 2113(a) may be enhanced under 2113(d) when the robbery is committed "by the use of a dangerous weapon or device." Title 18 U.S.C. 924(c) provides that whoever "uses a firearm to commit any felony for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United States," shall be subject to a penalty in addition to the punishment provided for the commission of such felony. Petitioners were convicted of two separate aggravated bank robberies and of using firearms to commit the robberies, in violation of 2113(a) and (d) and 924(c), and were sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment on the robbery and firearms counts, the District Court rejecting t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC986; 1978CriLJ764; (1978)2SCC403; [1978]3SCR434
1. This appeal by Special leave has been filed by accused Surinder Mohan Vikal against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated March 2, 1977, rejecting his application for revision of the Magistrate's order dated September 15, & 1976 summoning him as an accused for the trial of an offence Under Section 500 I.P.C. at the instance of respondent Ascharaj Lal Chopra.2. The appellant challenged the Magistrate's order for two reasons, but the controversy before us refers to his claim that the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offence Under Section 500 I.P.C. as the period of limitation prescribed by Section 468 of the CrPC had expired. The controversy thus relates to a short point of law and can well be examined on the basis of the admitted facts.3. The appellant was working as General Secretary of the Central Bank of India Employees Union, Punjab Ludhiana, which was a registered body. The respondent was employed as Special Assistant in that Bank, and one Amreek Sin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1113; [1978(36)FLR347]; (1978)ILLJ532SC; (1978)2SCC601; [1978]3SCR411
1. These three appeals are filed by the Shivraj Fine Arts Litho Works, Vasant Fine Arts Litho Works and Shakti Offset Works by special leave granted by this Court against the decision of the Nagpur High Court. The history of the industrial dispute may be shortly stated.2. The dispute relates to the Litho industry in the Vidarbha region. An award known as the Puranik Award was made on October 26, 1956 The award fixed Rs. 35 as the minimum wage but did not attach any scale of pay to the basic pay of Rs. 35 for the unskilled employees. By a notice dated January 22, 1958 the employees of the litho industry gave notice of change and as a result the Puranik award stood terminated as from July 22, 1958. The employees of Shivraj, Shakti and Raj gave notice of change dated September 8, 1960 making certain demands against their respective employers. On March 13, 1961 the employees of the said three Units filed three references Under Section 38A of the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settleme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1133; [1978(36)FLR371]; (1978)ILLJ518SC; (1978)2SCC378; [1978]3SCR398; 1978(10)LC250(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave which is directed against the judgment and order dated December 14, 1970 of the High Court of Mysore at Bangalore allowing the writ petition No. 1176 of 1967 filed before it by the first respondent herein under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and quashing the orders dated September 30, 1966 and January 1, 1967 of the Labour Court, Bangalore made in the appellant's application No. 171 of 1965 raises an interesting question as to the scope and ambit of Clause 4 of the Industrial Truce Agreement arrived at on January 10, 1958 between the Management of the Mysore Government Road Transport Depart-merit and the representatives of the State Transport Employees' Federaion.2. It appears that the appellant entered the service of the Bangalore Transport company Ltd. on September 1, 1950 as a Probationary Traffic Supervisor on a salary of Rs. 80/- per mensem. On completion of his probationary period, he Was confirmed in the said post on a salary of Rs. 100/...
Tag this Judgment!