Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC309; 1983(2)SCALE961; (1984)1SCC390; [1984]2SCR6; 1984(16)LC873(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.1. These three Election petitions are filed under Section 14 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 to challenge the election of Respondent 1, Giani Zail Singh, as the President of India. The election to the office of the President of India was held on July 12, 1982. In all, 36 candidates had filed nomination papers including Shri Charan Lal Sahu who is the petitioner in Petition No. 2 of 1982 and Shri Nem Chandra Jain who is the petitioner in election Petition No. 3 of 1982. The Returning Officer accepted the nomination papers of two candidates only : Gaini Zail Singh and Shri H.R. Khanna, a retired Judge of this Court. The result of the election was published in the Extraordinary Gazette of India on July 15, 1982 declaring Giani Zail Singh as the successful candidate. He took oath of office on July 25, 1982.2. We wilt first take up for consideration Election Petitions 2 and 3 of 1982 which are filed respectively by Shri Charan Lal Sahu and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Rushen v. Spain - 464 U.S. 114 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114 (1983) Rushen v. Spain No. 82-2083 Decided December 12, 1983 464 U.S. 114 ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus During voir dire prior to the trial in a California court of respondent and others on various charges, including murder and conspiracy allegedly involving the Black Panther Party, a prospective juror (who became a juror) stated that she had no personal knowledge of violent crimes, and that she did not associate the Black Panther Party with any form of violence. However, evidence was introduced at the trial concerning an unrelated murder by a Black Panther, triggering the juror's recollection that the victim of the unrelated murder had been the juror's childhood friend and causing her to go twice to the judge's chambers to tell him of her personal acquaintance with the victim. On each occasion, she assured the jud...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC463; 1983(2)SCALE1057; 1984Supp(1)SCC341; [1984]2SCR1; 1984(16)LC852(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. The only question which arises for consideration of this Court in this appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the Judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Letters Patent Appeal is as to whether the Managing Officer operating under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 ('1954 Act' for short), could cancel the allotment made in favour of the appellant under the East Punjab Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1947 ('Punjab Act' for short) and schemes framed thereunder.2. Appellant, an evacuee from West Pakistan owned agricultural land in District Lyallpur. As a displaced person he was allotted a little more than six standard across of land in Village Kotla, Tehsil Jullundur in Punjab under the quasi-permanent scheme. In 1952 the Director of Rehabilitation submitted a proposal to the Financial Commissioner, Relief and Rehabilitation-cum Custodian that premium cut of 5 villages, viz., Sufi Pind, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC415; 1983(2)SCALE923; (1984)1SCC361; [1984]1SCR1016; 1984(16)LC855(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. Petitioners in this group of petitions under Article of the Constitution claimed to be carrying on the business as railway travel agents. One of the petitions in this group is filed by an association styled as Travellers Service Agents Association (Regd.). The member of the Association also claimed to carry on business as railway travel agents. Petitioners and the members of the Association claim to be engaged in the business of travel agents over a decade and a half and according to them they are rendering useful service to the travelling public in booking seats and berths in various passenger trains. According to them they ordinarily cater to the needs of middle-class and lower-middle class passenger-the common man-travelling by second class in the railways who cannot afford to wait for long hours standing in queues at railway stations and yet cannot afford to avail of the services of the railway tourist agents who generally cater to the needs of the wealthy elite of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC150; 1983(2)SCALE906; (1984)2SCC400
1. This appeal by special leave is by the tenant of a commercial premises located in the city of Madras and is directed against the confirming revisional order of the Madras High Court upholding an order of eviction. Eviction was asked for on two grounds; (1) material alteration in the building impairing the value and utility thereof; and (2) using the premises let out for non-residential purposes as residential accommodation. The Rent Controller rejected both the grounds and dismissed the petition for eviction. The appellate authority reversed the decision of the Rent Controller by accepting both the contentions and ordered eviction. The High Court agreed with the Controller that the construction of an additional room in the first floor did not materially impair the value and utility of the building but sustained the appellate order by holding :.there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the appellate authority on the other ground having regard to the fact that it had 5 not b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC458; (1984)86BOMLR178; 1984MhLJ411(SC); 1983(2)SCALE900; (1984)1SCC288; [1984]1SCR1005; 1984(16)LC860(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The principal question fox consideration in this appeal by special leave is whether a person who was formerly a member of the armed forces can recover possession of a building which was acquired by him after he had retired from the armed forces Under Section 13A(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Act No. 57 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for occupation by himself or any member of his family.2. The plaintiff Lt. Col. T.E. Ross was formerly serving as a member of the Indian Army and he retired from the military service in the year 1967. The property of which the suit building forms a part originally belonged to his mother-in-law, Mrs. Arcene Parera. She gifted the said property in favour of her daughter, Mrs. Winifred Ross, the wife of the plaintiff on November 9, 1976. The property consisted of some out-houses. The defendant has been a tenant in one of those out-houses for a number of years. The said premise...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1402; 1983(2)SCALE912; (1984)2SCC319; [1984]1SCR983; 1984(16)LC218(SC)
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. Civil Appeal Nos. 4092-4114/83 4092-4114/83 (Kanpur University and Ors. v. Samir Gapta and Ors.) and Civil Appeal Nos. 4068-4091/83 4068-4091/83 (State of U.P. and Ors. v. Samir Gupta and Ors. : [1984]1SCR73 were disposed of by this Court by its Judgment dated September 27, 1983. The instant appeals by four failed students though connected with the aforesaid appeals and arising out of a common judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 24-2-1982 could not, for some reasons, be disposed of along with the aforesaid appeals and have been assigned to this Bench. The defects, that emerged on record in implementing and carrying out the 'Multiple Choice Objective Type Test' while holding a 'Combined Pre-Medical Test' which was done pursuant to the orders issued by the State Government in that behalf Under Section 28 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 by the Kanpur University in 1982 for giving admission to the 7-Medical Colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh for t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1401; 1983(2)SCALE1035; (1984)2SCC673
ORDER1. Special leave grarited.2. We heard Mr. Manchanda, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Syed, learned Counsel for the respondents.3. The Prescribed Authority constituted under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act determined the compensation payable to respondents 3 to 6 for acquisition of the surplus land and trees in the amount of Rs. 90,637. 20 p. The State of U.P. having been dissatisfied with this quantum of compensation assessed by the Prescribed Authority preferred an appeal in the Court of the District Judge on September 19, 1972, but as the appeal was by that time barred by limitation, the appellant simultaneously filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. In support of the application under Section 5, affidavits of Sri Ahmad Ullah Khan, Shri Shiani Lal Shrivastava, Tehsildar Hasanganj, Sri Ram Bahadur Saxena, Sadar Kanungo of the Office of the Assistant Compensation Commissioner and S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(1984)ACC377; AIR1984SC346; 1984(32)BLJR210; [1984]55CompCas214(SC); (1984)1CompLJ1(SC); 1983(2)SCALE869; (1984)1SCC424; [1984]1SCR992; 1984(16)LC866(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal by special leave is whether a nominee of a life insurance policy Under Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938 (Act No. IV of 1938) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the assured 'dying intestate would become entitled to the beneficial interest in the amount received under the policy to the exclusion of the heirs of the assured.2. The facts leading to this appeal are these : One Jag Mohan Swarup who was governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 died intestate on June 15, 1967 leaving behind him his son, Alok Kumar (plaintiff No. 2), his widow Usha Devi (defendant) and his mother Sarbati Devi (plaintiff No. 1) as his heirs. He had during his lifetime taken out two insurance policies for Rs. 10,000 each and had nominated under section 39 of the Act his wife Usha Devi as the person to whom the amount was payable after his death. On the basis of the said nomination, she claimed absolute right to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC411; 1983(2)SCALE849; (1984)2SCC112; [1984]1SCR973; 1984(16)LC257(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. 3, 26, 112 adult men and women voters of Rasipuram Parliamentary Constituency reserved for the Scheduled Castes accepted the candidature of the first Respondent, B. Devarajan for the reserved seat, apparently considered him as a member of the Scheduled Castes, voted for him and elected him to the Lok Sabha, by a convincing majority of nearly sixty thousand votes at the election held in January 1980. And, it was not the first time. He was in fact a sitting member of the Lok Sabha having been elected from the same reserved constituency at the previous general election also, But the verdict of the people was not sufficient for the appellant, S. Anbalagan, who secured 1,76,240 votes in the January 1980 poll and lost the election. He wanted the verdict of an Election Tribunal on the question whether the respondent was a Charistian and not a member of the Scheduled Castes, as claimed by him. So he filed an election petition questioning the election on that ground. Th...
Tag this Judgment!