|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 107 Records
-
1971 (2) TMI 135
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 23C(1) and Section 23C(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 in the context of vicarious liability for contraventions committed by a company.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a review petition filed by one of the appellants against their conviction under Criminal Appeals. The petitioner argued that Section 23C(2) of the Act, which deals with vicarious liability, was not considered during the original judgment. The Court reopened the case to examine this provision. The petitioner contended that neither Section 23C(1) nor Section 23C(2) applied to him based on the facts found by the Court. The defense raised was that the contravention occurred without his knowledge as he was abroad at the time. However, this defense was not presented in the lower courts initially. The Court noted that strict construction should be applied to Section 23C(1) due to its penal nature, imposing vicarious liability.
The Court delved into the meaning of being "in-charge and responsible for the conduct of the affairs of a company." It was established that this term implies overall control of the day-to-day business operations. Various judicial interpretations from different High Courts were cited to support the notion that mere directorship or partnership does not automatically render one criminally liable unless specific involvement or neglect is proven. The evidence presented by the prosecution included statements from witnesses identifying the accused as being in charge of the firm. The appellant himself admitted to looking after the affairs of the firm, indicating his role in the business.
Regarding the physical absence of the appellant during the offense, the Court held that being abroad did not absolve him of being in charge unless evidence showed he relinquished control. The Court balanced the vicarious punishment with the possibility of the offense occurring without the appellant's knowledge or due to neglect. Ultimately, the Court partially allowed the review petition, modifying the sentence to a fine of Rs. 2,000, considering the circumstances. The Court emphasized that the failure to highlight Section 23C(2) during arguments justified the review and subsequent modification of the original judgment.
-
1971 (2) TMI 133
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the power of the Collector of Customs under the proviso to the second Sub-section of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 52 of 1962.
2. Whether the Collector can extend the period for giving notice under Section 124(a) of the Customs Act after the initial or extended period has expired.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Nature of the Power of the Collector of Customs:
The primary issue revolves around the nature of the power vested in the Collector of Customs under the proviso to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act. The Court examined whether this power is administrative or quasi-judicial.
Legal Framework and Interpretation:
Section 110(1) allows seizure of goods if a proper officer has "reason to believe" they are liable to confiscation. Section 110(2) mandates the return of seized goods if no notice under Section 124(a) is given within six months, unless extended by the Collector for a period not exceeding six months, upon "sufficient cause being shown."
Court's Reasoning:
The Court emphasized that the power to extend time under the proviso requires a judicial approach. The phrase "sufficient cause being shown" necessitates an inquiry into the facts presented, implying a quasi-judicial function. The Collector must determine on materials placed before him whether an extension is warranted, ensuring the decision is not arbitrary or mechanical.
Precedents and Analogies:
The Court referred to cases like *De Verteuil v. Knaggs* and *Kraipak v. Union of India*, highlighting the necessity of a fair inquiry when determining sufficient cause. The Court also noted that the difference in language between "reason to believe" in Section 110(1) and "sufficient cause being shown" in the proviso to Section 110(2) indicates a deliberate legislative intent to impose a higher standard for extending the period.
Conclusion:
The power under the proviso is quasi-judicial, requiring a judicial approach and an opportunity for the affected party to be heard before an extension is granted.
2. Extension of the Period for Giving Notice:
The second issue concerns whether the Collector can extend the period for giving notice under Section 124(a) after the initial or extended period has expired.
Facts and Procedural History:
The respondent's business premises were raided, and watches were seized on March 19, 1963. The initial six-month period expired on September 19, 1963, and an extension was granted until January 19, 1964. A further extension was granted on February 20, 1964, after the first extended period had expired.
Contentions:
The appellant argued that the liability to return seized goods is not absolute and can be extended within an overall period of one year. The respondent contended that the right to restoration of goods vested upon the expiry of the initial or extended period and could not be divested by an order passed after the period had lapsed.
Court's Analysis:
The Court held that the right to restoration of goods accrues upon the expiry of the initial or extended period. An order for extension passed after this period is invalid as it defeats the vested right of the respondent. The Court emphasized that the Collector's power to extend time must be exercised within the prescribed period, and any extension beyond this period without a prior order is not permissible.
Conclusion:
The Collector cannot extend the period for giving notice under Section 124(a) after the initial or extended period has expired. The right to restoration of goods becomes absolute upon the expiry of these periods.
Separate Judgments:
The judgment was delivered by J.M. Shelat, J., with no separate judgments from other judges.
Final Decision:
The appeal was dismissed with costs, upholding the judgment of the Division Bench, which ordered the restoration of the seized watches to the respondent. The Court did not address the issue of the vagueness of the notice under Section 124(a) as it was not challenged before them.
-
1971 (2) TMI 132
Issues:
- Interpretation of U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947
- Validity of agreement between tenant and landlord
- Applicability of Section 1-A of the Act
- Consideration of public policy in contractual agreements
Analysis:
The case involved an appeal regarding the entitlement of a tenant to the benefit of Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. The tenant had occupied a shop belonging to the landlord and an agreement was made for the tenant to vacate temporarily for construction purposes. The key issue was whether the landlord could waive the benefit of Section 1-A of the Act through this agreement.
The Act aimed to protect tenants from arbitrary eviction and regulate rent control. Section 1-A exempted buildings constructed after January 1, 1951, from the Act's provisions. The central question was whether the landlord could waive this exemption through a contractual agreement, considering the legality and public policy implications of such a waiver.
The court analyzed the Indian Contract Act's Section 23, which deems agreements void if they defeat any law's provisions. The court examined whether the agreement between the tenant and landlord, waiving the benefit of Section 1-A, was contrary to public policy or unlawful. The court emphasized that agreements contrary to public policy or involving illegal acts are void.
The court referred to legal principles stating that parties can waive statutory benefits unless expressly prohibited by law or against public policy. The court held that the landlord could waive the benefit of Section 1-A, as it was intended for the landlord's advantage, and the agreement did not involve any illegal act or public policy violation. Therefore, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the trial court's decision in favor of the tenant.
In conclusion, the judgment clarified the legality of agreements waiving statutory benefits under the U.P. Rent Control Act and emphasized the importance of analyzing agreements in light of public policy considerations.
-
1971 (2) TMI 131
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Morena Court to execute the decree.
2. Applicability of res judicata.
3. Bar under Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. Limitation period for execution.
5. Whether the decree is a foreign decree.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of Morena Court to Execute the Decree:
The decree-holders obtained a decree from the Sub-Judge in Bankura, West Bengal, and sought its execution in Morena, Madhya Bharat. Initially, the Morena court dismissed the execution on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction as the decree was from a foreign court and passed ex parte. The Supreme Court upheld this dismissal in Hansraj Nathu Ram v. Lalji Raj and Sons of Bankura, ruling that the transfer was invalid since the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code) did not apply to Morena at that time. However, after the Code was extended to Madhya Bharat in 1951, the decree-holders refiled for execution in Morena. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh later ruled that the decree was not executable as it was from a foreign court. The Supreme Court, however, clarified that the Bankura court was not a "foreign court" as per the Code's definition, and thus the decree was not a foreign decree. Therefore, the Morena court had jurisdiction to execute the decree.
2. Applicability of Res Judicata:
The judgment-debtors argued that the execution was barred by res judicata due to the Supreme Court's earlier decision. The Supreme Court, however, found that res judicata did not apply because the legal context had changed with the extension of the Code to Madhya Bharat. The earlier decision was based on the jurisdictional limitations existing before the Code's extension, which were no longer applicable.
3. Bar under Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The judgment-debtors contended that the execution was barred under Section 48 of the Code, which limits the period for executing a decree to twelve years. The Supreme Court noted that both the executing court and the High Court had extended this limitation period under Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908, due to the decree-holders' diligent and good faith prosecution of the earlier execution proceedings, which became infructuous due to jurisdictional issues. The Court agreed with this extension, emphasizing that Section 48 prescribes a period of limitation, not an absolute bar.
4. Limitation Period for Execution:
The Supreme Court examined whether Section 48 of the Code was a bar or a period of limitation. It concluded that Section 48 is indeed a period of limitation, controlled by the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Court noted that the subsequent history of legislation, including the deletion of Section 48 in the Limitation Act of 1963 and its replacement by Article 136, supported this interpretation. Therefore, the decree-holders could benefit from the extension of the limitation period under Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act.
5. Whether the Decree is a Foreign Decree:
The judgment-debtors argued that the decree was a foreign decree and thus not executable. The Supreme Court clarified that the Bankura court was not a foreign court as defined by the Code, either under the old or new definition. Consequently, the decree was not a foreign decree. The Court also dismissed the argument that the decree was a nullity due to being ex parte, as the judgment-debtors had been served notice but chose not to appear. The Court further distinguished the present case from the decision in Shitole's case, noting that the Bankura court and Morena court were both governed by the Code at the time of the decree's transfer for execution.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the trial court's order. It directed the executing court to proceed with the execution, emphasizing that the decree was neither a foreign decree nor barred by Section 48 of the Code. The judgment-debtors were ordered to pay the costs of the appellants in both the Supreme Court and the High Court.
-
1971 (2) TMI 130
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order dated September 22, 1967.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition.
3. Existence and communication of the order of revocation dated April 4, 1962.
4. Compliance with principles of natural justice in the revocation order.
5. Merger of the original order of revocation with the order passed by the Central Government in revision.
6. Impact of Rule 28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 on the grant.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Order Dated September 22, 1967:
The petitioner, Serajuddin & Co., challenged the order dated September 22, 1967, issued by the Secretary, Department of Mining & Geology, Government of Orissa. The order directed the petitioner to stop working and quit possession of the mining area within 30 days. The petitioner limited its challenge to this order, arguing it was based on a non-existent or void revocation order. The Court found that the revocation order dated April 4, 1962, did exist and was communicated to the petitioner through a memo dated April 11, 1962. Therefore, the Court did not accept the argument that the impugned order was based on a non-existent order.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Entertain the Writ Petition:
The respondents contended that the High Court lacked jurisdiction as all respondents were located outside its territorial jurisdiction. However, the Court overruled this objection, citing the Fifteenth Amendment of 1963 to Article 226(1A) of the Constitution, which allows the High Court to entertain writ petitions if part of the cause of action arises within its jurisdiction. In this case, the service of the impugned order at the petitioner's Calcutta address provided sufficient cause of action within the Court's jurisdiction.
3. Existence and Communication of the Order of Revocation Dated April 4, 1962:
The petitioner argued that there was no valid order of revocation. The Court found that the revocation order dated April 4, 1962, did exist and was communicated to the petitioner through a memo dated April 11, 1962. The Court held that the communication of the substance of the order was sufficient to make the order effective in law.
4. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice in the Revocation Order:
The petitioner contended that the revocation order was void as it was made without affording an opportunity to show cause, violating principles of natural justice. The Court agreed, stating that the revocation deprived the petitioner of a valuable right without due process. The Court cited several Supreme Court decisions affirming the necessity of following natural justice principles in such cases.
5. Merger of the Original Order of Revocation with the Order Passed by the Central Government in Revision:
The respondents argued that the original revocation order had merged with the Central Government's order passed in revision, which was not challenged by the petitioner. The Court agreed, stating that the order of revocation had merged into the order passed by the Central Government in revision. Since the petitioner did not challenge the Central Government's order, it could not seek relief against the original revocation order or the consequential order dated September 22, 1967.
6. Impact of Rule 28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 on the Grant:
The Court noted that the petitioner's original application for a mining lease was made under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, and the grant was made on December 6, 1949. Under Rule 28A, if the formal lease was not executed within six months, the grant stood revoked by operation of law. The Court found that the grant stood revoked under Rule 28A, and thus, the petitioner had no legal basis for its claim.
Conclusion:
The writ petition was dismissed, and the Rule was discharged. The Court found that the petitioner had no valid grounds to challenge the order dated September 22, 1967, as the original revocation order was validly communicated and had merged with the Central Government's order in revision. Additionally, the grant stood revoked by operation of law under Rule 28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949. The Court stayed the operation of its order for one month.
-
1971 (2) TMI 129
Issues Involved:
1. Transfer of Tenancy Rights by Official Liquidator
2. Applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act
3. Status of Company Property During Liquidation
4. Interpretation of "Transfer by Operation of Law"
Detailed Analysis:
1. Transfer of Tenancy Rights by Official Liquidator:
The Official Liquidator sought permission to sell the tenancy rights of a company in liquidation. The landlord opposed this, arguing that the tenancy should be surrendered as the premises were no longer required by the company and the landlord had not received rent since October 1, 1968. The landlord also contended that the tenancy rights were non-transferable under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
2. Applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act:
The court examined the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, specifically Sections 5, 14, and 16, which restrict the transfer or assignment of tenancy rights without the landlord's written consent. Section 5(3) explicitly states that it is unlawful for a tenant to receive any payment in consideration of the relinquishment, transfer, or assignment of tenancy rights. The court noted that any such transfer by the Official Liquidator would be subject to these restrictions and could render the company liable to penalties under Section 48 of the Rent Act.
3. Status of Company Property During Liquidation:
The court clarified that the property of a company in liquidation does not vest in the court or the Official Liquidator but remains with the company. The Official Liquidator acts as an administrator or agent of the company, and the property is deemed to be in the custody of the court only for the purpose of administration. This distinction was supported by several precedents, including decisions from the Travancore-Cochin High Court and the Supreme Court of India.
4. Interpretation of "Transfer by Operation of Law":
The court rejected the argument that a sale by the Official Liquidator constitutes a "transfer by operation of law." It held that such a sale is a transaction by the company, acting through its Liquidator, and not by the court. The court distinguished between transfers that occur by operation of law, such as those due to death or devolution, and those that require an act of the parties, even if sanctioned by the court. The court cited the decision in Farrow's Bank Limited to support this interpretation, emphasizing that the Liquidator's actions are on behalf of the company and not a result of operation of law.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the tenancy rights could not be transferred without the landlord's consent, as per the Delhi Rent Control Act. The application by the Official Liquidator to sell the tenancy rights was dismissed, and no order for costs was made. The court upheld the Division Bench's decision, affirming that the sale by the Liquidator is not a sale by operation of law and is subject to all existing liabilities and restrictions.
-
1971 (2) TMI 128
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the goods in question were dutiable goods.
2. Whether the alleged misdeclaration of value in the shipping bills was material under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Whether there was an obligation on the petitioner to declare the value based on the price paid by the ultimate foreign buyer.
4. Whether Section 114(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be applied for imposing penalties in this case.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the goods in question were dutiable goods:
The primary issue was whether the goods in question were "dutiable goods" under the Customs Act, 1962. The court referred to Section 2(14) of the Act, which defines "dutiable goods" as any goods chargeable to duty and on which duty has not been paid. The court noted that the goods must fulfill two conditions: they should be chargeable to duty and the duty should not have been paid. The court held that since the duty had been paid and refunded, the goods were not dutiable at the time of export. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the expression "and" in the definition should be read as "or" to align with the legislative intent, stating that such an interpretation would render the first part of the definition redundant and lead to absurdity. Therefore, the court concluded that the goods were not dutiable, and Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, would not be attracted.
2. Whether the alleged misdeclaration of value in the shipping bills was material under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The court examined whether the alleged misdeclaration of value was a "material particular" under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The court held that "material" must refer to particulars relevant to the Customs Act, which primarily concerns levying and realizing duty and preventing the exportation or importation of prohibited goods. Since the alleged misdeclaration did not affect duty payment or involve prohibited goods, it was not material for the purposes of the Customs Act. The court rejected the respondent's argument that any violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act would also involve a violation of Section 50(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the court concluded that the alleged misdeclaration did not attract the provisions of Section 113(i), and the notice was liable to be quashed on this ground.
3. Whether there was an obligation on the petitioner to declare the value based on the price paid by the ultimate foreign buyer:
The petitioner argued that there was no obligation to declare the value based on the price paid by the ultimate foreign buyer. The court referred to Section 14(a) of the Customs Act and the definition of "value" but did not find it necessary to decide this issue. The court noted that the declaration of value for foreign exchange purposes was not material for the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Whether Section 114(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be applied for imposing penalties in this case:
The court examined whether Section 114(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962, could be applied to impose penalties. The section provides for a penalty not exceeding five times the duty sought to be evaded or Rs. 1,000, whichever is greater. Since no duty was being evaded in this case, the court held that the section could not be applied as a comparative assessment was not possible. Therefore, the notice was liable to be quashed on this ground as well.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the show cause notice dated 10th July 1970 was liable to be quashed on the grounds that the goods were not dutiable and the alleged misdeclaration was not material under the Customs Act, 1962. The court issued appropriate writs in the nature of certiorari and mandamus, restraining the respondents from proceeding with the said notice. The rule was made absolute to the extent indicated, and there was no order as to costs. The operation of the order was stayed for five weeks.
-
1971 (2) TMI 127
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the arbitration agreement and award due to the lack of a lawful guardian for the minor appellant.
2. Allegations of fraud and misrepresentation by Abdul Hai regarding the nature of the properties.
3. Whether the suit was barred by limitation.
4. The effect of the decree by the Darul Khaza Court on the partition of the properties.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Arbitration Agreement and Award:
The appellant challenged the arbitration agreement and the subsequent award on the grounds that the minor appellant was represented by his brother, Nooruddin, who was not a lawful guardian under Mohammedan Law. The Supreme Court cited the case of *Mohd. Amin & Ors. v. Vakil Ahmed & Ors.* and *Imambandi v. Mutsaddi* to support the principle that a brother is not a legal guardian. The Court concluded that the arbitration agreement, the award, and the decree were void due to the lack of a lawful guardian to protect the minor's interests.
2. Allegations of Fraud and Misrepresentation:
The appellant alleged that Abdul Hai fraudulently misrepresented the properties marked Exhibits B-1 to B-10 as Dargah and Khankah properties, which were, in fact, Matrooka properties. The trial court found that Abdul Hai was in full possession of the properties and had misrepresented their nature to the arbitrators. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that Abdul Hai had concealed the true character of the properties and misled the parties, which constituted fraud.
3. Whether the Suit was Barred by Limitation:
The High Court held that the appellant's suit was barred by limitation, asserting that the appellant had knowledge of Abdul Hai's adverse possession since 1927. However, the Supreme Court found that there was no evidence to show that the appellant was aware of the adverse claim in 1927. The Court emphasized that possession by one co-owner is presumed to be possession by all co-owners unless there is an open denial of title. The Court concluded that the appellant's suit was not barred by limitation, as the appellant only became aware of the true nature of the properties in 1941.
4. The Effect of the Decree by the Darul Khaza Court:
The High Court had held that the decree by the Darul Khaza Court was not obtained by fraud and was not a nullity. However, the Supreme Court found that the decree was invalid because it was based on the fraudulent misrepresentation of the properties' nature by Abdul Hai. The Court noted that the properties were not Dargah and Khankah properties but Matrooka properties, which should be available for partition among the heirs. The Court concluded that the decree of the Darul Khaza Court could not stand due to the fraud and misrepresentation involved.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and restored the judgment and decree of the trial court. The appellant was entitled to costs of the Supreme Court, and the parties were to bear their own costs in the High Court. The appeal was allowed.
-
1971 (2) TMI 126
Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC.
2. Right of private defense.
3. Conviction under Sections 324 and 323 IPC.
4. Evidence and credibility of witnesses.
5. Abduction claim under Section 362 IPC.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC:
The appellant, Sohanlal, was originally convicted under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court altered his conviction to Section 302 IPC simpliciter, maintaining the life imprisonment sentence. The appellant contended that there was no evidence proving he inflicted a fatal injury on the deceased, Jhanjan. The Supreme Court examined the testimonies of the eye witnesses (Makhan, Chunni Lal, Tota Ram, and Ram Lal), noting inconsistencies and the absence of evidence that Sohanlal delivered a lathi blow to the deceased's head. The Court found that the prosecution's evidence did not justify a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
2. Right of Private Defense:
The appellant argued that he acted in private defense to rescue his sister, Chameli, who was allegedly being abducted by Makhan and his companions. The Court noted that prima facie, a husband taking his wife does not constitute abduction. Chameli's testimony that she was taken forcibly lacked credibility, especially since she denied giving birth to a child, which was contradicted by medical evidence. The Court concluded that Chameli was not being abducted, thus negating the appellant's claim of exercising his right of private defense.
3. Conviction under Sections 324 and 323 IPC:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to maintain the convictions and sentences under Sections 324 and 323 read with 34 IPC. The High Court had confirmed that all three accused attacked Makhan, Chunni, and Jhanjan with the intention of causing bodily injury. The Court found no reason to disturb this finding.
4. Evidence and Credibility of Witnesses:
The Court scrutinized the testimonies of the eye witnesses and found inconsistencies. None of the witnesses testified that Sohanlal delivered a lathi blow to the deceased's head. The Court also noted that the blood-stained lathi found at Sohanlal's house could have come into contact with blood when he threw it down. The Court determined that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
5. Abduction Claim under Section 362 IPC:
The appellant's defense included a claim that Makhan was abducting Chameli by deceitful means. The Court found this claim to lack validity, as Chameli's testimony did not inspire confidence and was contradicted by other evidence. The Court concluded that there was no abduction, thus negating the appellant's right to private defense.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC, acquitting the appellant of the murder charge. The appellant was instead found guilty under Section 325 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment. The convictions and sentences under Sections 324 and 323 read with 34 IPC were maintained, with all sentences to run concurrently. The appeal was partly allowed.
-
1971 (2) TMI 125
Issues: Partnership dispute, legality of partnership agreements, subletting of business rights, jurisdiction of the court, dissolution of partnership, costs allocation, sale of lease interest.
In this case, the suit was filed by four sons against a fifth son and two others regarding a partnership dispute. The family had been in the salt business since 1909, with agreements specifying profit-sharing ratios. The legality of these partnership agreements was challenged, alleging they were illegal due to the nature of the business involving salt manufacturing licenses. The key issue was whether admitting partners to share profits amounted to subletting or alienation of business rights. The court referred to precedents to determine the legality of such partnerships under specific licensing conditions. The court emphasized that sharing profits did not constitute subletting unless there was a direct transfer of business rights. The court also examined the involvement of partners in the business operations to assess compliance with licensing conditions.
Regarding jurisdiction, the court established its authority to hear the case despite the business being primarily conducted in a different location. The court addressed issues related to a lease obtained by one of the parties, determining that profits from the lease should be included in the partnership accounts. The court ordered a dissolution of the partnership and appointed a Commissioner to take account based on the findings. Costs were allocated, with the plaintiffs' costs to be paid from the assets, and specific costs assigned to individual defendants. The court also ordered the sale of the defendant's interest under a lease, subject to obtaining necessary consents for a valid transfer of rights. The parties were granted liberty to bid at the sale, ensuring a fair process.
-
1971 (2) TMI 124
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the resolutions passed by the Board of Directors and the shareholders.
2. Legality of the termination of the plaintiff's employment.
3. Maintainability of the suit for declaration and ancillary reliefs.
4. Compliance with statutory provisions under the Companies Act, 1956.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Resolutions Passed by the Board of Directors and the Shareholders:
The plaintiff, an employee of the company, challenged the resolutions passed by the Board of Directors on April 24, 1963, and the shareholders on July 29, 1963, claiming they were illegal, void, and not binding. The Board's resolution on April 24, 1963, abolished the post of Supervisor and appointed the plaintiff as Store-in-Charge. However, the shareholders' meeting on July 29, 1963, passed a resolution stating that the plaintiff was not to be appointed as Store-in-Charge and had ceased to hold office from May 1, 1963. The trial court found the Board's resolution legal but invalidated the shareholders' resolution. This decision was upheld by the appellate court.
2. Legality of the Termination of the Plaintiff's Employment:
The plaintiff argued that the termination of his employment was unlawful as the shareholders' resolution was void. The trial court held that the plaintiff continued to be employed as Store-in-Charge and was entitled to salary and allowances from July 1963 to the date of filing the suit. The defendants contended that the termination was lawful and the suit was barred under the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The court, however, found that the resolution terminating the plaintiff's employment was invalid due to non-compliance with statutory provisions, thus rendering the termination unlawful.
3. Maintainability of the Suit for Declaration and Ancillary Reliefs:
The defendants argued that the suit was not maintainable as it sought enforcement of a personal contract of service, which is not permissible under Section 21(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The plaintiff countered that the suit was for a declaration that the resolution was void and ultra vires, not for wrongful dismissal. The court held that the suit was maintainable as it sought a declaration that the resolution was void due to non-compliance with mandatory statutory provisions, which is different from seeking enforcement of a personal service contract.
4. Compliance with Statutory Provisions under the Companies Act, 1956:
The plaintiff argued that the resolutions violated Sections 171 and 172 of the Companies Act, 1956, which mandate proper notice and explanatory statements for resolutions. The court agreed, stating that these provisions are mandatory, and non-compliance renders the resolutions void and ultra vires. The resolution passed on July 29, 1963, was not notified to the shareholders, violating Section 172, thus making it invalid and void.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the suit was maintainable and the impugned resolution was void and ultra vires due to non-compliance with mandatory statutory provisions. The plaintiff was entitled to the declaration that the resolution was invalid and to the consequential reliefs, including salary and allowances. The appeal was dismissed, and the decree was stayed for three weeks.
-
1971 (2) TMI 123
Issues:
1. Applicability of the Acquisition Act to Chandernagore.
2. Authority of the Collector of Hooghly to issue requisition orders.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Applicability of the Acquisition Act to Chandernagore
The case involved a dispute regarding the applicability of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 to Chandernagore. The Chandernagore (Merger) Act, 1954 merged Chandernagore into the State of West Bengal, extending laws to the region. The argument was made that the Acquisition Act did not apply to Chandernagore. However, the court held that Section 3 of the Chandernagore (Merger) Act made Chandernagore part of West Bengal and extended the Acquisition Act to it. The court interpreted the definition of "law" in the Chandernagore (Assimilation of Laws) Act, 1955, to include the Acquisition Act, as it related to matters listed in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
Issue 2: Authority of the Collector of Hooghly
The second issue revolved around the authority of the Collector of Hooghly to issue requisition orders in Chandernagore. The notification of 1948 empowered the Collector to requisition land within the local limits of his jurisdiction. The court determined that the Collector had the authority to issue requisition orders in Chandernagore as it had become part of his jurisdiction. Additionally, the court noted that the appointment of Sri B.K. Chatterjee as an Additional District Magistrate was a special appointment within the definition of "Collector," granting him the authority to issue requisition orders.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the applicability of the Acquisition Act to Chandernagore and affirming the authority of the Collector of Hooghly to issue requisition orders in the region. The court's decision clarified the legal framework surrounding the extension of laws to merged territories and the powers of designated officials in executing requisition orders.
-
1971 (2) TMI 122
Issues:
1. Liability of directors of a cooperative society for actions related to a private bank before its transfer.
2. Interpretation of Section 63 of the Madhya Bharat Co-operative Societies Act, 1954.
3. Jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar and the Board of Revenue in imposing liabilities on directors.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The petition involved eight directors of a cooperative society formed to take over a private bank. The liquidator sought recovery of funds from the directors, alleging negligence in recovering debts and mismanagement. The Deputy Registrar initially imposed liability on the directors, which was challenged in a writ petition. The Board of Revenue remanded the case to ascertain specific amounts. The petitioners contended that liabilities could only arise post-transfer to the cooperative society, not for actions related to the private bank.
2. The interpretation of Section 63 of the Act was crucial in determining liability. The section allows imposing liabilities on those involved in the organization or management of the society for misapplication of funds or breach of trust. The petitioners argued that their actions post-formation of the cooperative society should be considered for liability, not actions related to the private bank before the transfer. The section outlines specific conditions for ordering repayment or restoration of funds, emphasizing acts concerning the society's property or misfeasance.
3. The Court analyzed the powers of the Registrar under Section 63, emphasizing the need for strict interpretation due to the Registrar's broad authority. The Registrar can order compensation only if the society suffered a loss due to the individual's actions. In this case, the society had no assets of its own, as the private bank was transferred to it. The Court concluded that liabilities could not be imposed on the directors for actions related to the private bank before the transfer, quashing the previous orders and directing the Deputy Registrar to proceed as per the law.
In conclusion, the Court held that the orders imposing liability on the directors for actions related to the private bank before its transfer to the cooperative society were without jurisdiction. The case was remanded to the Deputy Registrar for further proceedings in accordance with the Court's interpretation of the law. Each item of liability was to be assessed based on post-transfer actions. The parties were directed to bear their own costs, and the security deposit was to be refunded to the petitioners.
-
1971 (2) TMI 121
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the temple and the properties in suit are the personal properties of the plaintiff or are trust properties under the provisions of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1951.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Personal Properties vs. Trust Properties:
- Background and Claims: The respondent-mahant claimed that the asthal and its properties were personal properties, originally gifted personally to the founding mahant and subsequently to his successors. The Board argued that these were not personal gifts but were intended for the asthal, thus constituting a public trust.
- Trial Court's Judgment: The Trial Judge framed the issue based on whether the properties were personal or trust properties. He concluded that the properties were public religious trust properties, considering factors such as the celibate nature of the mahants, the establishment of a sampradaya, public use of the temple, and the nature of ceremonies performed.
- High Court's Judgment: The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court's interpretation in Mahant Ramsaroop Das Ji v. S. P. Sahi, held that the trust defined in the Act meant only public trusts and did not include private trusts. It found that the factors used by the Trial Judge to presume a public trust were consistent with a private religious trust. Therefore, it reversed the Trial Judge's decision and decreed in favor of the respondent, holding that the Act did not apply to the properties in suit.
2. Evidence and Presumptions:
- Oral Evidence: The oral evidence provided by the Board's witnesses was deemed not credible, as it lacked personal knowledge and was interested. The High Court noted that the mere failure of the mahant to produce original sanads did not justify an adverse inference against him.
- Documentary Evidence: The documentary evidence included deeds of gift or nomination, sales, purchases, mortgage deeds, and revenue records. The High Court emphasized that the properties were recorded in the names of the mahants as proprietors, not in the name of the deities.
- Burden of Proof: The High Court held that the burden of proof was on the appellant-Board to show that the properties were held on trust for public purposes. The Trial Judge erred in drawing an adverse inference from the non-production of sanads by the respondent-mahant.
3. Public vs. Private Trust:
- Public Use and Ceremonies: The High Court observed that public use of the temple and participation in festivals did not necessarily indicate a public trust. According to Hindu sentiments, turning away worshippers is uncommon, and public participation does not automatically imply public trust.
- Precedent Cases: The High Court referred to cases like Parmanand v. Nihal Chand and Babu Bhagwan Din vs. Gir Har Saroop, where public use did not convert private properties into public trusts. The mere presence of the public and their offerings were insufficient to establish a public trust.
- Declarations and User: Unlike in Mahant Puran Atal v. Darshan Das, there were no declarations or consistent use of properties indicating a charitable trust in the present case.
4. Nature of Asthal and Properties:
- Asthal as a Private Institution: The High Court noted that an asthal could be a private institution where the endowment is not intended for public benefit. The properties were managed and acquired by the mahants in their own names, indicating private ownership.
- Ceremonies and Descriptions: The High Court found no clear evidence of ceremonies like Pratistha or Utsarga that would indicate public dedication. Descriptions of properties as "appertaining to the asthal" in deeds did not conclusively establish a public trust.
Conclusion:
The High Court correctly reversed the Trial Court's judgment, holding that the appellant-Board failed to prove that the properties were public trust properties under the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1951. The respondent-mahant's suit was rightly decreed, affirming that the properties did not fall within the ambit of the Act. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with costs.
-
1971 (2) TMI 120
Issues Involved:1. Legality of the reversal of acquittal by the High Court. 2. Credibility of the prosecution's witnesses and evidence. 3. Presence of anthracene powder on the appellant's hands and the cap. 4. Alleged demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant. 5. Inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and the evidence presented. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the reversal of acquittal by the High Court: The Supreme Court scrutinized the High Court's decision to reverse the acquittal of the appellant. The High Court had convicted the appellant based on the evidence presented, which it believed was sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that while the High Court has the power to reverse an acquittal, it must consider all matters on record, including the reasons given by the Trial Court for the acquittal. The High Court should particularly consider aspects in favor of the accused and avoid acting on conjectures or surmises. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's reversal was not warranted, leading to the reinstatement of the acquittal. 2. Credibility of the prosecution's witnesses and evidence: The Supreme Court examined the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses, including the complainant (P.W. 1), the Panch witnesses (P.W. 3 and P.W. 5), and the Anti-Corruption Officer (P.S.I. Parab, P.W. 12). The Special Judge had found discrepancies and contradictions in the witnesses' statements, leading to doubts about their reliability. The High Court, however, had relied on the evidence of Panch Patil (P.W. 5) and P.S.I. Parab to convict the appellant. The Supreme Court noted that the Special Judge's detailed consideration of the evidence revealed significant inconsistencies, which the High Court failed to adequately address. The Supreme Court found the Special Judge's assessment more credible and reinstated the acquittal. 3. Presence of anthracene powder on the appellant's hands and the cap: The presence of anthracene powder on the appellant's hands was a crucial piece of evidence. The prosecution claimed that anthracene powder was found on the appellant's left hand fingers, which he allegedly used to tap the bribe money inside an envelope. However, the Supreme Court noted that no anthracene powder was found on the appellant's cap, which he had allegedly removed with the same hand. This inconsistency was not adequately considered by the High Court. The Special Judge had rightly pointed out that if the appellant had anthracene powder on his fingers, it would have transferred to the cap. The Supreme Court found this to be a significant oversight by the High Court and concluded that the evidence of anthracene powder was not reliable. 4. Alleged demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant: The prosecution alleged that the appellant had demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 25 from the complainant. The complainant's testimony was supported by Panch Patil (P.W. 5) and P.S.I. Parab. However, the Special Judge found the complainant's story not credible, noting contradictions and improbabilities in the prosecution's case. The High Court had relied on the conversation between the appellant and the complainant on 6th February and the evidence of Panch Patil and P.S.I. Parab. The Supreme Court, however, found the Special Judge's assessment more convincing, highlighting the improbability of the appellant demanding a monthly bribe and the lack of a credible motive. The Supreme Court reinstated the acquittal based on these findings. 5. Inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and the evidence presented: The Supreme Court identified several inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. The complainant's testimony contained contradictions, such as the timing of the application for permission and the presence of Shetty at the hotel. The evidence of the Panch witnesses also had discrepancies, with P.W. 3 not supporting the prosecution's case and P.W. 5's testimony being unreliable. The Special Judge had meticulously considered these inconsistencies, leading to the acquittal of the appellant. The High Court, however, had not given due weight to these contradictions. The Supreme Court found the Special Judge's reasoning more persuasive and reinstated the acquittal. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reversed the High Court's judgment, and acquitted the appellant. The appellant's bail bond was canceled. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of considering all evidence and avoiding conjectures or surmises when reversing an acquittal. The inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution's case, along with the lack of credible evidence of anthracene powder on the appellant's hands and cap, led to the reinstatement of the acquittal.
-
1971 (2) TMI 119
Issues:
1. Interpretation of charge-sheet in disciplinary proceedings.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Consideration of additional points in the judgment.
4. Applicability of Civil Procedure Code in remand orders.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Interpretation of charge-sheet in disciplinary proceedings
The appeal challenged an order by the Collector of Customs removing the petitioner from service based on a charge-sheet alleging possession of disproportionate assets. The main contention was whether the charge-sheet was defective due to the interpretation of the terms "found" and "giving rise to the presumption." The High Court emphasized that a charge-sheet in disciplinary proceedings should be interpreted fairly and reasonably, not strictly like in criminal cases. The Court cited the Federal Trade Commission v. Gratz case to highlight the requirement of a plain statement of the alleged wrongdoing to enable the accused to defend themselves adequately.
Issue 2: Violation of principles of natural justice
The High Court examined whether the use of the terms "found" and "giving rise to the presumption" in the charge-sheet violated the principles of natural justice. It was argued that these terms indicated bias on the part of the Collector of Customs. However, the Court found that the context of the charge and the proceedings did not necessarily imply bias or a violation of natural justice. The Court noted that no presumption was actually drawn against the petitioner, and the evidence was presented and cross-examined appropriately. The judgment highlighted the need to consider the entire context of the case before concluding on the violation of natural justice principles.
Issue 3: Consideration of additional points in the judgment
The judgment mentioned four other points raised during the proceedings, including the petitioner being found guilty of "Benami," alleged perverse findings by the Enquiring Officer, consideration of documents behind the petitioner's back, and misplacement of the burden of proof. The Court did not express opinions on these points but emphasized the importance of addressing them to reach a comprehensive conclusion on the case.
Issue 4: Applicability of Civil Procedure Code in remand orders
The High Court addressed the question of whether a remand could be ordered in an appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution, focusing on a single preliminary issue. The Court affirmed its jurisdiction to order a remand in such cases, citing relevant rules of the High Court at Calcutta and the inherent jurisdiction for the ends of justice. The judgment referred to previous decisions where provisions of the Civil Procedure Code were applied in similar circumstances, emphasizing the flexibility in applying procedural rules to ensure justice.
In conclusion, the High Court remanded the case to the lower court for findings on the unresolved points and highlighted the need for a comprehensive assessment of all issues to reach a final decision. The judgment underscored the importance of interpreting charge-sheets in disciplinary proceedings fairly and considering the context of the allegations to uphold principles of natural justice.
-
1971 (2) TMI 118
Issues Involved:
1. Liability under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling adulterated vinegar.
2. Implied repeal of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the Fruit Products Order.
3. Harmonious coexistence of the Adulteration Act and the Fruit Order.
4. Application of Section 26 of the General Clauses Act.
5. Article 14 challenge regarding prosecutorial discretion.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Liability under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling adulterated vinegar:
The primary question addressed was whether the respondent could be prosecuted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for selling adulterated vinegar, despite holding a license under the Fruit Products Order, 1955. The High Court had previously ruled, based on an unreported decision in State v. Raj Kumar, that the respondent could not be prosecuted under the Adulteration Act. The Supreme Court examined whether the provisions of the Adulteration Act were overridden by the Fruit Order.
2. Implied repeal of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the Fruit Products Order:
The Court considered the principle of implied repeal, which states that when two Acts are inconsistent or repugnant, the later Act is presumed to repeal the earlier one. It was argued that the Fruit Order, being a later and more specific regulation, implicitly repealed the Adulteration Act concerning the sale of vinegar. The Court, however, found no fatal conflict or inconsistency between the two provisions that would necessitate an implied repeal. The Court emphasized that the legislature does not intend to create confusion and that laws should be presumed to be consistent and harmonious unless explicitly stated otherwise.
3. Harmonious coexistence of the Adulteration Act and the Fruit Order:
The Court examined the history and objectives of both the Adulteration Act and the Essential Commodities Act, under which the Fruit Order was issued. The Adulteration Act aimed to prevent the sale of unwholesome food, while the Essential Commodities Act focused on controlling the production and distribution of essential commodities. The Court concluded that the two statutes could operate in their respective spheres without causing absurdities or grave inconvenience. The provisions of the Adulteration Act and the Fruit Order were found to be supplementary and cumulative, rather than mutually exclusive.
4. Application of Section 26 of the General Clauses Act:
Section 26 of the General Clauses Act was invoked to address concerns about double jeopardy. This section provides that if an act constitutes an offense under multiple laws, the offender can be prosecuted under any of those laws but cannot be punished twice for the same offense. The Court held that this provision would protect the respondents from being penalized twice for the same act, thus allowing both the Adulteration Act and the Fruit Order to coexist without resulting in double punishment.
5. Article 14 challenge regarding prosecutorial discretion:
The respondent's counsel raised a last-minute argument under Article 14 of the Constitution, claiming that the prosecuting authorities had unguided discretion to prosecute under either statute, leading to unequal treatment. The Court did not allow this argument to be raised at this stage, as it had not been addressed in the lower courts. However, the respondent was given the liberty to raise this point in the trial court if so advised.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, rejecting the argument of implied repeal and holding that the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Fruit Products Order could operate harmoniously. The cases were remitted to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the law and the observations made in the judgment. The Court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of the cases, which had been pending since 1962.
-
1971 (2) TMI 117
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act No. 13 of 1962.
2. Infringement of the right to form an association under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution.
3. Legislative competence of Parliament to enact the Act under Entry 63 of List I of the Seventh Schedule.
4. Potential violation of Article 19(1)(f) regarding the right to hold property.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act No. 13 of 1962:
The Act was challenged primarily on the grounds of its constitutionality. The original Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, founded in 1910 and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, faced internal disputes leading to litigation and the appointment of a receiver. Subsequently, the U.P. Legislature enacted the U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act, 1956, which was declared void by the Allahabad High Court. The present Act, passed by Parliament, declared the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan as an institution of national importance and reconstituted it as a statutory body corporate. The petitioners argued that the Act interfered with their right to form an association and altered the composition and administration of the original Society.
2. Infringement of the Right to Form an Association under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution:
The petitioners contended that the Act infringed their fundamental right to form an association guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c). The Act included all members of the original Society in the new Sammelan but also added new members without the consent of the existing members. This addition of members without the original members' approval was seen as a clear interference with their right to continue the association as voluntarily formed. The Court agreed, stating that the right to form an association includes the right to continue it with its chosen membership. Any law altering the composition of the association without the members' consent violates this right.
3. Legislative Competence of Parliament to Enact the Act under Entry 63 of List I of the Seventh Schedule:
The Act was passed under Entry 63 of List I, which allows Parliament to legislate on institutions of national importance. The petitioners argued that the Act reconstituted the Society into a new Sammelan, which was not declared as an institution of national importance. The Court found that Parliament's competence was limited to legislating for the Society declared as of national importance, not a newly constituted body. Therefore, the Act exceeded Parliament's legislative competence as it purported to legislate for a new entity not declared of national importance.
4. Potential Violation of Article 19(1)(f) Regarding the Right to Hold Property:
The petitioners argued that the Act deprived the Society and its Governing Body of their property rights without reasonable justification. The Act transferred all properties and assets of the Society to the new Sammelan, effectively depriving the Society of its properties. The Court held that such total deprivation of property could not be justified as a reasonable restriction in the public interest under Article 19(5). The Act's provisions amounted to an unreasonable restriction on the right to hold property, thus violating Article 19(1)(f).
Conclusion:
The Court declared the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act No. 13 of 1962 invalid, as it infringed the fundamental right to form an association under Article 19(1)(c) and exceeded Parliament's legislative competence. The Act also violated the right to hold property under Article 19(1)(f). Consequently, the petition and appeal were allowed, and the concerned bodies, including the Union Government, were restrained from taking or continuing any action under the Act.
-
1971 (2) TMI 116
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the communal policy for promotions in the Education Department of Jammu & Kashmir.
2. Compliance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution.
3. Validity of promotions under the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeals) Rules, 1956.
4. Legitimacy of promotions made after the Supreme Court's previous judgment.
5. Impact of the Supreme Court's earlier decision on current promotions and adjustments.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Constitutionality of the Communal Policy for Promotions:
The petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was filed to challenge the communal policy of reserving 50% of vacancies for Muslims, 40% for Jamvi Hindus, and 10% for others, including Kashmiri Pandits, in the Education Department of Jammu & Kashmir. This policy was previously struck down in Triloki Nath & Another v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others ([1969] 1 S.C.R. 103) as it violated the constitutional guarantee under Article 16.
2. Compliance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution:
Articles 14 and 16 were made applicable to Jammu & Kashmir in 1954. Rule 19 of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeals) Rules, 1956, allowed reservations for backward classes. However, the communal policy was not a reservation but a distribution of posts based on religion, caste, and place of birth, which was found unconstitutional. The Supreme Court reiterated that such a policy directly offended the Constitution.
3. Validity of Promotions under the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services Rules, 1956:
Promotions were to be made based on merit and ability as per Rule 25 of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services Rules. The communal policy did not comply with this rule. Promotions were made on communal lines rather than merit, violating the constitutional guarantee under Article 16(1) and (2).
4. Legitimacy of Promotions Made After the Supreme Court's Previous Judgment:
Despite the Supreme Court's earlier judgment, the Education Department continued to promote teachers based on the same communal policy. The Court found that promotions made after the judgment, even for those not party to the previous petition, were unconstitutional. The judgment declared that the communal policy was invalid and binding on all, regardless of their participation in the previous petition.
5. Impact of the Supreme Court's Earlier Decision on Current Promotions and Adjustments:
The Supreme Court found that the State's officers attempted to circumvent its earlier decision by adjusting reverted teachers into non-gazetted cadres with the same emoluments. This was deemed an ingenious device to maintain the communal policy's effect. The Court ordered that all promotions made pursuant to the communal policy be revised and reconsidered in accordance with the law. The new rules framed by the State were not evaluated in this judgment.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the petition, declaring all promotions made under the communal policy illegal and unconstitutional. The Court directed respondents to revise and reconsider promotions in accordance with the law, emphasizing compliance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioners were awarded costs.
-
1971 (2) TMI 115
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court was justified in disallowing the expenses and air fare for the Appellant's lawyer to be taken to Germany.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a Commission on an interlocutory application in a revision application against the discharge of an accused person.
3. Whether the High Court could grant an application for Commission when a similar application was rejected by another Bench of the same High Court on the merits and substantially on the same facts.
4. Applicability of Section 503 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the issue of a Commission.
5. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to enlarge the scope of Section 503 on the ground of a lacuna in the provision.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Justification for Disallowing Expenses and Air Fare for Appellant's Lawyer:
The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's refusal to allow any expenses for the Appellant's lawyer to be taken to Germany was justified. The High Court had denied these expenses based on a concluded finding of fact that the Appellant had intimidated and tampered with the German witnesses. The Supreme Court emphasized that in every criminal trial, the accused is entitled to have witnesses examined in his presence. If witnesses cannot be brought to India and must be examined on commission abroad, it is incumbent upon the prosecution and the Court to ensure a fair trial by affording the accused the same facilities as other accused, including the payment of the lawyer's air fare and daily expenses. The Court found little merit in singling out the Appellant and concluded that the interest of justice required treating him the same as the other accused. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the prosecution was directed to pay the Appellant's lawyer's air fare and daily expenses.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Issue a Commission:
The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court had the power to issue a Commission on an interlocutory application in a revision application against the discharge of an accused person. The Court noted that the High Court has ample power and jurisdiction to direct additional evidence in the interest of justice and fair play, even before setting aside an order of discharge. The decision in Rajeswar Prasad Mishra v. State of West Bengal was cited to support this contention, emphasizing that the High Court can direct further evidence if necessary for justice.
3. Granting an Application for Commission After Rejection by Another Bench:
The issue of whether the High Court could grant an application for Commission when a similar application was previously rejected by another Bench of the same High Court was raised. The Supreme Court did not delve deeply into this issue in the judgment, focusing instead on the specific question of expenses for the Appellant's lawyer. However, it implied that the High Court's actions were within its jurisdiction and powers.
4. Applicability of Section 503 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
The question of whether the case fell within the provision of Section 503 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the issue of a Commission was raised. The Supreme Court did not explicitly address this issue in detail but implied that the High Court's decision to issue a Commission was within its legal powers and jurisdiction.
5. Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court:
The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court has inherent jurisdiction to enlarge the scope of Section 503 on the ground of a lacuna in the provision. The judgment suggested that the High Court has the inherent power to ensure justice and fair play, including directing additional evidence or issuing a Commission if necessary.
Separate Judgment for Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 890 of 1970:
The Supreme Court also addressed a similar petition by another accused (A1), which raised grounds similar to those of the Appellant. The Court reiterated that the High Court has the jurisdiction to direct further evidence even before setting aside an order of discharge. The petition was rejected, affirming the High Court's power to issue the Commission and the decision not to grant leave for additional questions raised.
In summary, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal regarding the expenses for the Appellant's lawyer, ensuring he received the same facilities as other accused. The Court affirmed the High Court's jurisdiction to issue a Commission and direct additional evidence in the interest of justice, rejecting the petition that challenged these powers.
........
|
9911796707
