|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 242 Records
-
1980 (4) TMI 325
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 397(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) 1973.
2. Maintainability of a second revision application to the High Court after a revision has been filed in the Sessions Court.
3. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Section 397(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) 1973:
The primary issue was whether a second revision application is maintainable in the High Court once a revision application has been filed in the Sessions Court. The judgment clarified that Section 397(3) of the CrPC bars a second revision application by the same person to the High Court if a revision has already been filed in the Sessions Court. The court emphasized that the language of Section 397(3) is clear and leaves no room for interpretation that would allow a second revision by the same party.
2. Maintainability of a Second Revision Application to the High Court:
The judgment examined previous rulings, including Madhavlal Pittia v. Chandrashekhar and Sarjoo v. Babadin, and concluded that these rulings do not support the view that a second revision to the High Court is entirely untenable. The court noted that Section 399(3) of the CrPC provides that the decision of the Sessions Judge is final for the party who moved him, but it does not bar a revision to the High Court at the instance of the aggrieved or unsuccessful party. The court held that the concurrent finding of the Sessions Judge and the lower courts becomes final, but if the Sessions Judge reverses the lower court's order, the defeated party can move the High Court.
3. Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC:
The judgment acknowledged that if criminal revisions under Section 397 of the CrPC are legally untenable, the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC could be invoked. The court referred to the decision in Sarjoo's case, where it was held that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 are not barred by Sections 397(3) and 399(3) of the CrPC. The court reiterated that the inherent powers are not circumscribed by anything in the new Code.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that a revision to the High Court is tenable at the instance of a party who is unsuccessful before the Sessions Judge or who is aggrieved by his order. The judgment held that the criminal applications filed by parties aggrieved by the Sessions Judge's decisions are competent and do not need to be converted into applications under Section 482 of the CrPC. The revisions were allowed, and the criminal revisions were directed to be dealt with and disposed of by the learned single Judge according to law.
Revisions Allowed.
-
1980 (4) TMI 324
Issues Involved: Recovery of loan amount, acknowledgment of liability, relinquishment of claim, limitation period, validity of balance sheet as acknowledgment.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Recovery of Loan Amount:
The appellant, who was the President of the Akhilakerala Viswakarma Maha Sabha (the Sabha), claimed to have advanced loans to the Sabha between 1963 and 1967. The balance sheet dated 31-12-1966 reflected a due amount of Rs. 11,763.48, which was acknowledged in subsequent balance sheets. The trial court upheld the appellant's claim that loans were indeed advanced to the Sabha and that the amounts shown in the balance sheets for 1966 and 1967 were genuinely owed to him. However, the court limited the recovery to amounts advanced within three years prior to 6-5-1967, considering amounts advanced before this period as barred by limitation.
2. Acknowledgment of Liability:
The appellant argued that the balance sheets served as an acknowledgment of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The balance sheets for the years 1966 to 1970, signed by various office bearers including the appellant, were presented as evidence. The court agreed that the inclusion of the debt in the balance sheets, prepared and authenticated by the Board of Directors and approved by the general body, amounted to an acknowledgment of liability. This acknowledgment satisfied the requirements under Section 18, thereby extending the limitation period.
3. Relinquishment of Claim:
The respondents contended that the appellant had relinquished his claim during a general body meeting on 27-5-1967. The minutes of the meeting, recorded in Ext. B1, initially suggested that the appellant agreed to accept the amount in installments but were later corrected to reflect that he did not want the amount at all. The appellant admitted to making these corrections but argued that he merely meant he did not want the amount in installments. The court found that subsequent balance sheets and payments made by the Sabha contradicted the claim of relinquishment, indicating no intention to forgo the amount.
4. Limitation Period:
The trial court held that the appellant was entitled to recover only the amounts advanced within three years prior to 6-5-1967, as the balance sheet dated 6-5-1967 served as an acknowledgment of liability. Amounts advanced before this period were considered barred by limitation. The court also noted that the acknowledgment in the balance sheets extended the limitation period for the amounts advanced within the permissible timeframe.
5. Validity of Balance Sheet as Acknowledgment:
The court examined whether the balance sheets could be considered a valid acknowledgment of liability. It was established that a balance sheet, prepared and authenticated by the Board of Directors and approved by the general body, constituted an acknowledgment of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The court cited various precedents supporting this view, including cases like Rajah of Vizianagaram v. The Official Liquidator and Babulal Hukmanand v. Official Liquidator.
Conclusion:
The appeals and cross-objections were dismissed. The court upheld the trial court's decision to grant a decree in favor of the appellant for amounts not barred by limitation as of 6-5-1967, less any amounts paid subsequently. The balance sheets were deemed valid acknowledgments of liability, and the claim of relinquishment was rejected based on subsequent conduct and documentary evidence. The parties were ordered to bear their respective costs.
-
1980 (4) TMI 323
Issues Involved:
1. Payment of salary during the suspension period.
2. Compulsory retirement.
3. Reduction in pension.
Detailed Analysis:
Payment of Salary During the Suspension Period:
The petitioner, an ex-employee of the Bombay Port Trust (B.P.T.), was suspended following an arrest for theft in 1970. After being acquitted by the High Court in February 1973, the petitioner resumed duties but was later denied full salary for the suspension period. The relevant rules, particularly Rule 42 of the Digest of Pay and Allowances, Leave and Pension Rules, stipulate that if an employee is "honourably acquitted," they are entitled to full pay and allowances for the suspension period. The court emphasized that the petitioner was honourably acquitted as the prosecution failed to prove the charges, which should entitle him to full salary during suspension. The court found no application of mind by the B.P.T. in denying full salary and ruled that the petitioner was entitled to full pay and allowances for the period of suspension.
Compulsory Retirement:
The petitioner was compulsorily retired under Rule 44(b) of the Pay and Allowances, Leave and Pension Rules, effective February 1, 1976. The petitioner challenged this retirement, arguing it was unjustified and lacked proper material or reasoning. The court noted that there was a lack of specific pleadings to support the petitioner's contention against compulsory retirement and found that the petitioner did not provide sufficient grounds to challenge the order. Additionally, the court acknowledged the delay in challenging the retirement order, which could adversely affect the B.P.T. Thus, the court did not set aside the compulsory retirement order.
Reduction in Pension:
The petitioner's pension was reduced by Rs. 15 without any specific order or reason provided. Rule 28 of the Pension Rules, 1973, allows for the reduction of pension if the service is not thoroughly satisfactory, but it requires a speaking order showing application of mind. The court found that no such order or reasoning was provided in this case, and the reduction was arbitrary. Moreover, the petitioner could not appeal the reduction due to the lack of an appellate authority. Consequently, the court set aside the order reducing the pension by 5%, directing the respondents to pass necessary orders in accordance with the law.
Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the petitioner on the issues of salary during the suspension period and reduction in pension, directing the B.P.T. to pay full salary and allowances for the suspension period and to restore the full pension. However, the court upheld the compulsory retirement due to lack of specific pleadings and delay in challenging the order. The respondents were ordered to comply with the court's directions within ten weeks and pay the costs of the petition.
-
1980 (4) TMI 322
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and constitutionality of handcuffing under-trial prisoners.
2. Discrimination between "better class" and "ordinary" prisoners regarding handcuffing.
3. Procedural safeguards and judicial oversight in handcuffing practices.
4. Compliance with Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality and Constitutionality of Handcuffing Under-Trial Prisoners:
The judgment addresses the legality of handcuffing under-trial prisoners, emphasizing that handcuffing is prima facie inhuman and unreasonable, and therefore, arbitrary. It is stated that "Absent fair procedure and objective monitoring, to inflict 'irons' is to resort to zoological strategies repugnant to Article 21." The court examines the justification offered by the State for handcuffing, balancing the need to prevent escape with the need to protect the prisoner's dignity. The judgment holds that handcuffing should not be a routine practice but a measure of last resort when no other practical method of preventing escape is available.
2. Discrimination Between "Better Class" and "Ordinary" Prisoners:
The court criticizes the classification of prisoners into "better class" and "ordinary" for the purposes of handcuffing, deeming it arbitrary and irrational. It is noted that "No one shall be fettered in any form based on superior class differentia, as the law treats them equally." The judgment declares that economic and social status cannot be the basis for differentiating prisoners regarding handcuffing, as it is unconstitutional to discriminate based on wealth, political importance, or social status.
3. Procedural Safeguards and Judicial Oversight in Handcuffing Practices:
The judgment mandates that handcuffing should only be employed when absolutely necessary, and the reasons for doing so must be recorded contemporaneously by the escorting authority and shown to the presiding judge for approval. It is emphasized that "The escorting officer, whenever he handcuffs a prisoner produced in court, must show the reasons so recorded to the Presiding Judge and get his approval." This ensures judicial oversight and prevents arbitrary use of handcuffs.
4. Compliance with Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution:
The judgment extensively discusses the need for compliance with Articles 14, 19, and 21, which guarantee equality, freedom of movement, and personal liberty, respectively. It is stated that "Handcuffing is prima facie inhuman and, therefore, unreasonable, is over-harsh and at the first flush, arbitrary." The judgment asserts that any form of restraint must be justified as a reasonable restriction in the given circumstances, and the practice of routine handcuffing violates these constitutional provisions.
Separate Judgment by R.S. Pathak, J.:
Justice Pathak concurs with the main judgment but emphasizes that the decision to handcuff a prisoner should primarily lie with the authority responsible for the prisoner's custody, subject to supervisory jurisdiction by the court. He notes that "The matter is one where the circumstances may change from one moment to another, and inevitably in some cases it may fall to the decision of the escorting authority midway to decide on imposing a restraint on the prisoner." He suggests that the custodial authority should inform the trial court of the circumstances and justification for handcuffing, allowing the court to enforce control over the practice.
Conclusion:
The judgment concludes that the petition must be allowed, and the handcuffs on the prisoner dropped. It mandates that "the rule regarding a prisoner in transit between prison house and court house is freedom from handcuffs and the exception, under conditions of judicial supervision." The court declares certain provisions of the Punjab Police Manual unconstitutional and directs that no prisoner shall be handcuffed routinely or based on class distinctions. The judgment emphasizes the need for humane treatment of prisoners in compliance with constitutional guarantees.
-
1980 (4) TMI 321
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 17(2) of the Defence of India Act.
2. Compliance with Section 175(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935.
3. Applicability of Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act.
4. Legality of the order under which the plaintiff company transferred its stock to G. Brothers.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Section 17(2) of the Defence of India Act:
The core issue was whether the suit filed by the plaintiff company was barred by Section 17(2) of the Defence of India Act, which states: "Save as otherwise expressly provided under this Act, no suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Crown for any damage caused or likely to be caused by anything in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Act or any rules made thereunder or any order issued under any such rule." Both the trial court and the High Court rejected this contention, holding that the suit was not for damages or compensation but for the recovery of the price of goods supplied to G. Brothers. The Supreme Court agreed, stating: "We are clearly of the opinion that the suit is not for damages, etc., such as are contemplated by that Section."
2. Compliance with Section 175(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935:
The Union of India argued that the suit was not maintainable because the contract was not in writing and did not comply with Section 175(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935. The trial court held that the Kanpur Controller had undertaken the liability to pay for the goods and that the defendant could not escape liability even though the provisions of Section 175(3) were not complied with. The High Court concurred, stating that the agreement resulting from the correspondence was valid despite non-compliance with Section 175(3). It relied on Debi Prasad Srikrishna Prasad Ltd. v. Secretary of State and Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act to support this view.
3. Applicability of Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act:
The High Court's judgment heavily relied on Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, which states: "Where a person lawfully does anything for another person or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done or delivered." The High Court found that all three conditions for invoking Section 70 were met: the plaintiff company lawfully delivered the goods, did not intend to act gratuitously, and the defendant enjoyed the benefit. The Supreme Court upheld this view, rejecting the defendant's argument that no benefit was derived by the Union of India. The Court stated: "The Government must be held to have reaped full benefit of the delivery to G. Brothers."
4. Legality of the Order Under Which the Plaintiff Company Transferred Its Stock to G. Brothers:
The Union of India contended that the mandate issued by the Kanpur Controller was oral and thus the transaction fell outside the ambit of the law. The Supreme Court refused to entertain this argument, noting that it was a mixed question of fact and law not raised in the lower courts. The Court also pointed out that the written statement filed by the defendant stated that the fresh instructions were contained in a letter, contradicting the oral mandate argument. The Court concluded: "The legality of the order under which the plaintiff company transferred its stock to G. Brothers cannot be allowed to be questioned at this stage."
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the judgments of the trial court and the High Court. The Court held that Section 17(2) of the Defence of India Act did not bar the suit, that non-compliance with Section 175(3) of the Government of India Act did not invalidate the agreement, and that Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act applied, obligating the Union of India to compensate the plaintiff company. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
-
1980 (4) TMI 320
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a party can file a written application for a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court after failing to make an oral application immediately after the judgment, decree, final order, or sentence.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Background and Referral:
The Division Bench referred the question to the Full Bench regarding whether a party who fails to make an oral application immediately after the judgment, decree, final order, or sentence, could file a written application for a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court at any later time. The referral was necessitated by the introduction of Article 134A through the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1979, which came into force on 1-8-1979, and the corresponding amendment of Rule 3 of Chapter XIX of the Karnataka High Court Rules.
2. Historical Context and Article 134A:
Before the Forty-Fourth Amendment, the procedure for granting certificates by the High Court under Articles 132, 133, and 134 was regulated by High Court rules, some allowing written applications and others permitting oral applications immediately after judgment. Article 134A, introduced by the amendment, prescribes the procedure for granting certificates for appeals to the Supreme Court, either by the High Court's suo motu action or on an oral application made immediately after the judgment.
3. Contentions of the Petitioners:
The petitioners argued that since Article 134A does not explicitly bar written applications and given that Article 132 of the Limitation Act, 1963, prescribes a 60-day limitation for such applications, an aggrieved party should be allowed to file a written application for a certificate.
4. Constitutional Provision and Implied Bar:
The Full Bench emphasized that Article 134A now regulates the procedure for granting certificates, which was previously managed by High Court rules. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, the Bench held that if the Constitution specifies a procedure, performing the act in any other manner is impliedly barred. Therefore, since Article 134A provides for oral applications immediately after judgment, written applications are impliedly barred.
5. Objective of Article 134A:
Article 134A aims to avoid delay by requiring immediate oral applications, allowing judges to decide on the certificate while the case facts are fresh. The legislative intent, as stated in the Objects and Reasons of the Forty-Fifth Amendment Bill, 1978, and the speech by Shri Shanti Bhushan, was to eliminate delays and ensure prompt access to the Supreme Court.
6. Conflict with Limitation Act:
While Article 132 of the Limitation Act prescribes a 60-day period for written applications, the constitutional provision prevails in case of conflict. The Government indicated steps to delete Article 132 of the Limitation Act, reinforcing that Article 134A does not contemplate written applications. Aggrieved parties can still seek special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution if they miss the oral application opportunity.
7. Interpretation of "Immediately":
The term "immediately" in Article 134A implies urgency, meaning as soon as circumstances permit. The Bench referred to various judicial interpretations, concluding that "immediately" means without unreasonable delay, allowing the application to be made then and there after judgment.
8. Timing of Determination:
Article 134A requires the determination regarding the grant of a certificate to be made "as soon as may be" after judgment, indicating urgency but not as stringent as "immediately." The determination should ideally be concluded immediately after the oral application or within the shortest possible time to avoid unnecessary delays and arguments.
Conclusion:
The Full Bench answered that a party who fails to make an oral application immediately after the judgment, decree, final order, or sentence cannot file a written application for a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court at a subsequent stage. The reference was answered accordingly.
-
1980 (4) TMI 319
Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the Minister of State to dispose of the representation.
2. Expeditious handling of the representation by the State Government.
3. Rejection of the application for obtaining copies of relevant documents.
4. Delay and inaction by the Central Government in considering the representation for revocation of the detention order.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Competence of the Minister of State to Dispose of the Representation:
The petitioner argued that the Minister of State was not competent to dispose of the representation of the detenu, as the Order dated December 3, 1979, made by the Chief Minister did not invest him with the necessary authority. The representation was dealt with by the Minister of State and rejected on December 10, 1979, following the Advisory Board's report on December 6, 1979.
2. Expeditious Handling of the Representation by the State Government:
The petitioner contended that the representation was not dealt with expeditiously by the State Government. The representation was sent for remarks to the Customs Department on November 18, 1979, and the report was received by the State Government on November 28, 1979. This delay was considered mechanical and not in line with the requirement for expeditious handling.
3. Rejection of the Application for Obtaining Copies of Relevant Documents:
The detenu's application for obtaining copies of the relevant documents was improperly rejected, depriving him of his constitutional right to make an effective representation. This was argued as a violation of his rights under the Constitution.
4. Delay and Inaction by the Central Government in Considering the Representation for Revocation of the Detention Order:
The petitioner argued that the Central Government had callously ignored the representation made by the detenu on November 19, 1979, for revocation of the detention order under Section 11 of COFEPOSA. This delay and inaction, which exceeded four months, vitiated the detention. Reliance was placed on the judgments in Shyam Ambalal Siroya v. Union of India and Tara Chand v. The State of Rajasthan.
The respondents contended that Section 11 of COFEPOSA merely conferred discretion on the Central Government to revoke or modify a detention order and did not confer any right on the detenu to make a representation. The power under Section 11 was argued to be a supervisory power, intended to be exercised suo motu by the Central Government.
The court held that the power conferred by Section 11 on the Central Government carries with it a duty to consider any representation made by the detenu expeditiously. The Central Government must discharge its supervisory responsibility with vigilance and care, and any communication or petition received from the detenu must be considered with reasonable expedition.
The court found that the Central Government had not considered the detenu's representation, which was sent on November 19, 1979. This inaction, which lasted about four months, was deemed a violation of the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, rendering the detention unconstitutional and void.
Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the detention, and directed the release of the detenu. The judgment emphasized the duty of the Central Government to consider representations made by detenus under Section 11 of COFEPOSA with reasonable expedition, and any failure to do so would vitiate the detention. The reasons for allowing the writ petition and ordering the detenu's release were provided in support of the order dated March 14, 1980.
-
1980 (4) TMI 318
Issues:
Reversal of judgment in civil revision petition, liability of second petitioner, competency of appeal under Section 96(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, nature of suit cognizable by Courts of Small Causes.
Analysis:
The civil revision petition was filed to challenge the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, which reversed the decision of the District Munsif and decreed the suit for recovery of a specific amount. The suit was based on the plaintiff's subscription to a chit and non-conduct of the chit by the defendants. The trial court dismissed the suit, believing the evidence of the defendants and finding the second petitioner not liable. However, the Subordinate Judge rejected the appeal's incompetency under Section 96(4) and found the defendants liable based on the plaintiff's evidence, disbelieving the defendants' witnesses.
The main contention raised was regarding the liability of the second petitioner, with the petitioner's counsel arguing against the finding that the second petitioner was the real foreman. The petitioner's counsel also challenged the competency of the appeal under Section 96(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, stating that the Subordinate Judge exceeded jurisdiction by going into factual questions. The District Munsif's observation that the second petitioner was an unnecessary party supported the petitioners' argument.
Regarding the competency of appeal under Section 96(4), the court delved into the nature of suits cognizable by Courts of Small Causes. Referring to a Full Bench decision, the court discussed the legislative intent behind restricting appeals for suits within the Small Causes jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the nature of the suit, not the court's jurisdiction, determines appeal restrictions. It concluded that the suit in question, although exceeding the District Munsif's jurisdiction, was of a nature cognizable by a Small Cause Court, thereby questioning the Subordinate Judge's findings on the authenticity of key exhibits.
Ultimately, the court allowed the civil revision petition, setting aside the lower appellate court's judgment and decree. The appeal was remanded for proper presentation, with each party bearing their respective costs. The detailed analysis focused on the reversal of the judgment, the liability of the second petitioner, the interpretation of Section 96(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the nature of suits cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal intricacies involved in the case.
-
1980 (4) TMI 317
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include the application for recalling the warrant of possession, the interpretation of Order IX Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.), and the validity of the transfer of tenancy rights by the Official Liquidator.
Recalling the Warrant of Possession:
The case involved a dispute over the possession of premises between the landlord-appellant and Respondent No. 1, who claimed to be the tenant. The history of the case revealed multiple legal proceedings and transfers of tenancy rights. Respondent No. 1 filed an application under section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act to recall the warrant of possession issued earlier. The Rent Controller initially allowed the application, but it was later reversed by the Rent Control Tribunal. Subsequently, the High Court reversed the Tribunal's decision and restored the Rent Controller's order, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Interpretation of Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C.:
The appellant challenged the High Court's findings on two key points related to the application made under section 25. The first point revolved around whether the application was barred due to the dismissal of a previous suit under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. The appellant argued that the principles of Res Judicata or Order IX Rule 9 applied, as there was an adjudication against Respondent No. 1 in a previous suit. The Supreme Court, citing precedent, emphasized that the bar imposed by Order IX Rule 9 extends beyond the particular plaintiff suing on the same cause of action. The Court found that the application was indeed barred by Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. due to the identity of the subject matter being the same.
Validity of Tenancy Rights Transfer:
The third point of contention was regarding the transfer of tenancy rights by the Official Liquidator to Respondent No. 1. The High Court had ruled that the transfer was involuntary and, therefore, not subject to the Rent Control Act provisions. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the transfer fell within the scope of section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The Court reasoned that even if the transfer was involuntary, it constituted an assignment under the Act. The wide language of section 14(b) encompassed not only sub-leases but also assignments or any other mode of parting with possession. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the plaintiff's application under section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
The Supreme Court granted the tenant one year to vacate the premises, provided he filed an undertaking within two weeks to hand over peaceful and vacant possession to the landlord by a specified date. Failure to comply with the undertaking would result in the revocation of the granted time. No costs were awarded in the case.
-
1980 (4) TMI 316
Issues:
1. Whether the Delhi Municipal Corporation has the authority to impose restrictions on architects practicing in the Union Territory of Delhi.
2. Whether the Corporation can regulate the profession and practice of architects registered under the Architects Act, 1972.
3. Whether the Corporation has the power to issue licenses to architects and draughtsmen.
4. Whether the regulatory scheme imposed by the Corporation is contrary to the Architects Act, 1972.
5. The impact of the passing of the Architects Act, 1972 on the authority of the Corporation to regulate architects.
Analysis:
1. The respondents, registered architects practicing in Delhi, challenged the power of the Delhi Municipal Corporation to restrict their right to practice. The Corporation's authority to license architects and draughtsmen was examined under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. The Act lacked specific provisions empowering the Corporation to issue licenses to architects. The Corporation's power to make bye-laws for efficient municipal government was considered a residuary power.
2. Post the Architects Act, 1972, the issue was whether the Corporation could regulate architects' practice by requiring them to possess a license issued by the Corporation. The Architects Act outlined qualifications for architects' registration and prohibited unregistered individuals from using the title "architect." The Act did not restrict non-registered individuals from performing architectural work, leaving a gap for the Corporation to potentially regulate them.
3. The Corporation proposed bye-laws for licensing architects and draughtsmen based on existing bye-laws referencing licensed architects. The single Judge allowed the respondents' writ petitions, declaring the regulatory scheme ultra vires the Architects Act, 1972. The Corporation's actions, including resolutions and orders, were quashed, leading to the Corporation's appeal against the decision.
4. The authority of the Corporation to regulate architects' practice was analyzed in two aspects. Firstly, the Act and bye-laws' validity were questioned, and secondly, the impact of the Architects Act, 1972 on the Corporation's authority was considered. Section 502 of the Act acknowledged the Architects Act as a special law governing architects' qualifications, rendering the Corporation's regulatory powers obsolete post the Architects Act's enactment.
5. The judgment concluded that the Corporation's provisions, bye-laws, and resolutions did not affect registered architects under the Architects Act, 1972. The appeals were dismissed, affirming that the Corporation lacked authority to regulate registered architects' practice and that the Architects Act governed all related aspects comprehensively.
-
1980 (4) TMI 315
Issues Involved:
1. Rate of interest on compensation under the Land Acquisition Act for lands acquired for the Central Government in 1963.
2. Applicability of the Land Acquisition (Madras Amendment) Act, 1953.
3. Interpretation of administrative instructions versus statutory provisions.
4. Estoppel against the government.
5. Grounds for review under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code.
6. Discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Rate of Interest on Compensation:
The primary issue in this case was the rate of interest to be awarded on the compensation amount for lands acquired for the Central Government in 1963. The petitioners argued that the interest should be 6% per annum as per paragraph 21 of Schedule IV of Part III of the Land Acquisition Manual, which was applicable before its amendment in 1966. The court initially awarded 4% per annum, which was confirmed in the appeal sought to be reviewed.
2. Applicability of the Land Acquisition (Madras Amendment) Act, 1953:
The petitioners contended that the Madras Amendment Act, 1953, which reduced the interest rate from 6% to 4%, applied only to lands acquired for the State Government and not for the Central Government. This was supported by the Board's proceedings and Government Memos issued in 1953. The counter-argument was that the Amendment Act did not distinguish between lands acquired for the State or Central Government, and subsequent government orders clarified that the 4% rate applied to all acquisitions.
3. Interpretation of Administrative Instructions vs. Statutory Provisions:
The court noted that administrative instructions, such as those in the Land Acquisition Manual, do not confer legal rights and cannot override statutory provisions. The Supreme Court's decisions in similar cases reinforced that administrative instructions are only for guidance and cannot be used to interpret statutes. Therefore, the 1953 Amendment Act's provision of 4% interest was upheld, regardless of the administrative instructions suggesting otherwise.
4. Estoppel Against the Government:
The petitioners argued that the government was estopped from questioning paragraph 21 of the Board's Standing Order 90 because it had been acted upon until its amendment in 1966. The court rejected this contention, stating that there cannot be any estoppel against a statute, and the statutory provision of 4% interest must prevail.
5. Grounds for Review Under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code:
The petitioners sought review on the grounds that their counsel had made an honest mistake by not bringing paragraph 21 of the Board's Standing Order 90 to the court's notice during the original appeal. The court acknowledged that a mistake by counsel could be a sufficient ground for review if it leads to an error apparent on the face of the record. The court cited precedents where similar mistakes had warranted a review.
6. Discrimination and Violation of Article 14:
The petitioners argued that the Madras Amendment Act, 1953, was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution because it resulted in different interest rates for land acquired for the Central Government in different states. The court agreed, stating that the Amendment Act was discriminatory as it did not provide an intelligible differentia or a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Consequently, the court held the Amendment Act void as it was violative of Article 14.
Conclusion:
The review petitions were allowed, and the court ruled that the interest rate on compensation for lands acquired for the Central Government should be 6% per annum, as per the pre-1966 provisions. The court also certified that the case involved a substantial question of law of general importance, granting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. An interim suspension of the review judgment was granted for four weeks, conditional upon the government depositing the enhanced interest amount.
-
1980 (4) TMI 314
Issues Involved:
1. Consolidation of suits.
2. Application of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. Alleged prejudice and embarrassment to the defendant-firm.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Consolidation of Suits:
The original defendant challenged the order of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, which directed that the subsequently instituted suit should be tried and decided along with the previously instituted suit. The plaintiff-company had filed two suits arising from the same contract: the first suit to restrain the defendant-firm from diverting the machines to a third party, and the second suit for damages due to non-performance of the contract. The learned Judge consolidated the suits to save public time and expense and to avoid inconvenience to witnesses.
2. Application of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The defendant-firm argued that the subsequently instituted suit should be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which mandates that no Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties. The Court examined whether the matter in issue in both suits was identical. It was held that although both suits arose from the same contract, the issues were not identical. The first suit sought to prevent a breach of contract, while the second suit sought damages for non-performance. Therefore, the field of controversy in both suits was not substantially the same, and Section 10 did not apply.
3. Inherent Powers of the Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The defendant-firm contended that the Court did not have the power to consolidate suits under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the face of an objection by one of the parties. The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting that the inherent powers under Section 151 allow the Court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the Court's process. It was noted that consolidation of suits is permissible where common questions arise between the same parties, as it saves time and resources.
4. Alleged Prejudice and Embarrassment to the Defendant-Firm:
The defendant-firm argued that consolidating the suits would cause prejudice and embarrassment due to inconsistent pleas in the two suits. In the first suit, the plaintiff-company claimed that damages could not be adequately relieved by compensation in money, while in the second suit, it claimed substantial damages. The Court held that this inconsistency did not justify rejecting the consolidation of suits. It was noted that the plaintiff-company could seek specific performance and damages in the alternative, and the issue of election could be addressed at trial.
Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the Revision Application, holding that the order directing the consolidation of the two suits and refusing to stay the subsequently instituted suit under Section 10 was not erroneous. The rule was discharged with costs, and the application was dismissed.
-
1980 (4) TMI 313
Issues:
1. Whether the trial Court was justified in allowing the amendment of the plaint to include the relief of dissolution of partnership in a suit for partition.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in refusing to interfere with the trial Court's decision to allow the amendment.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint in a suit for partition to include the relief of dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts related to a cinema theatre business. The defendant vehemently opposed the amendment, arguing that it would change the nature of the litigation from a partition suit to a partnership dissolution action, thereby altering the scope of the suit and prejudicing the defendant. The trial Court, exercising its discretion, allowed the amendment based on the view that the facts remained substantially the same, and the partnership aspect was already present in the original plaint. The amendment aimed to avoid multiplicity of suits and facilitate the resolution of the dispute. The Court emphasized that amendments of pleadings are within the discretion of the Court, guided by principles of justice and fairness to both parties.
Issue 2:
The High Court, in a revision, upheld the trial Court's decision to allow the amendment, concluding that there was no total transformation of the nature of the litigation to warrant interference. The Court highlighted that the defendant had ample opportunity to respond to the amended pleadings and present evidence to challenge the plaintiff's claims. The appellant's Counsel argued against the delay in seeking the amendment and questioned the legitimacy of the partnership claim. However, the Court found no glaring mis-exercise of discretion by the trial Court, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Court also addressed the issue of delay in seeking the amendment, imposing a condition of payment of costs along with allowing the amendment.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the trial Court and the High Court, emphasizing the liberal principles guiding the allowance of amendments in legal proceedings. The Court highlighted the importance of avoiding injustice and prejudice while ensuring the proper administration of justice. The judgment underscored the discretion of the Court in permitting amendments, subject to considerations of fairness and the avoidance of unnecessary litigation.
-
1980 (4) TMI 312
Issues:
Two connected petitions for eviction based on tenancy disputes.
1. Interpretation of Section 85 of the Evidence Act regarding authentication by Notary Public.
2. Review of trial court's finding on the existence of landlord-tenant relationship.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 85 of the Evidence Act
The petitioners challenged the legality of the decrees passed by the District Judge on two grounds. Firstly, the petitioners argued that the Notary Public from Pakistan authenticating the power of attorney could not be considered a Notary Public within the meaning of Section 85 of the Evidence Act. The petitioners contended that the presumption under Section 85 only applies to Notaries Public as defined by the Notaries Act. The court considered various precedents cited by both parties and concluded that documents authenticated by Notaries Public from other countries should be presumed duly notarized under Section 85. The court emphasized that the provisions of the Notaries Act should not limit the application of Section 85, citing relevant case laws to support this interpretation.
Issue 2: Review of Trial Court's Finding
The second ground of challenge involved the review of the trial court's finding on the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The District Judge set aside the trial court's finding, emphasizing that vital admissions crucial to the case were ignored by the trial court. The District Judge justified the reversal under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, stating that the trial court's finding was not in accordance with the evidence on record. The District Judge carefully analyzed the evidence and circumstances to conclude that the reversal of the trial court's finding was warranted. The High Court upheld the District Judge's decision, noting that the trial court had overlooked significant evidence, leading to an incorrect finding. Therefore, the High Court dismissed both petitions, granting the petitioners four months to vacate the accommodation and pay damages if necessary.
-
1980 (4) TMI 311
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the selection process for Readers at Allahabad University.
2. Interpretation of qualifications required for the post of Readers.
3. Validity of the interview process used by the selection committee.
4. Unequal treatment of candidates during the selection process.
5. Consequences of invalidating appointments made years ago.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the Selection Process:
The core controversy revolves around the legality of the selection of Readers by Allahabad University. The court acknowledged the delicate balance between the internal autonomy of educational bodies and judicial oversight to correct clear injustices. The court concluded that no authority, including university organs, is above the law. The court found that the appellate judgment should be reversed, restoring the single Judge's judgment that quashed the selections made by the University bodies for the posts of Readers in English.
2. Interpretation of Qualifications:
The qualifications for the post of Readers are prescribed under Ordinance 9 of the Allahabad University Act, 1921. The qualifications include a first or high second class Master's degree, established reputation for sound scholarship, a doctoral degree or equivalent published work, and at least five years of teaching experience. The court emphasized that the term "high second class" is mandatory and not directory. The court held that a high second class must be interpreted as marks above the midpoint of the second class range, specifically above 54%. Consequently, respondents 5, 6, and 8, who did not meet this criterion, were deemed ineligible.
3. Validity of the Interview Process:
The selection committee's decision to use interviews as part of the selection process was scrutinized. The court found no inherent flaw in the methodology of interviews, provided they adhered to the basics of natural justice, fairness, and reasonableness. The court acknowledged that while interviews are not inherently bad, they must be conducted transparently and without arbitrariness. The court dismissed the argument that the interview process was unauthorized, stating that the selection committee had the discretion to adopt pragmatic and functionally viable processes.
4. Unequal Treatment of Candidates:
The court highlighted the unequal treatment of candidates during the selection process. Specifically, the second petitioner did not appear for the interview, while respondent 9, Dr. Bhattacharya, was given a second opportunity to appear. The court found this to be a violation of Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law. The court concluded that the selection of Dr. Bhattacharya was invalid due to this unequal treatment.
5. Consequences of Invalidating Appointments:
The court acknowledged the hardship that invalidating the appointments would cause, given that respondents 5, 6, 8, and 9 had been functioning as Readers for several years without blemish. The court suggested that the University might take steps to mitigate the hardship caused by the invalidation of their appointments. The court allowed the appeal and directed a fresh selection process for the posts of Readers, ensuring that only those who met the qualifications as interpreted by the court would be considered.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the court directed a fresh selection process for the posts of Readers. The appointments of respondents 7 and 10 were upheld, while the appointments of respondents 5, 6, 8, and 9 were invalidated. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed qualifications and ensuring fairness and equality in the selection process.
-
1980 (4) TMI 310
Issues involved:
Eviction under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Building Act, 1972; Interpretation of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 21; Date of purchase of accommodation affecting application for release of accommodation.
Summary:
1. The tenant appealed against a decree of eviction initiated by the landlady under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Building Act, 1972. The High Court held that the application for release of accommodation was maintainable within three years of purchase. The tenant then sought special leave contending that the proviso to Section 21 prohibits entertaining such applications within three years of purchase. The Supreme Court granted leave to decide the substantial question of law on this issue.
2. After the grant of leave, the landlady contended that the accommodation was purchased earlier than claimed by the tenant, affecting the applicability of the proviso. The Court decided to hear the appeal on merits based on the date of purchase of the accommodation.
3. The original sale deed showed the accommodation was purchased on July 27, 1974, not in November as claimed. The Court clarified that the proviso prohibits entertaining an application within three years of purchase, not registration. As the application was made after three years from purchase, the proviso did not apply. The appeal was dismissed, and the tenant was given time until April 30, 1981, to vacate the premises.
Separate Judgement:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
-
1980 (4) TMI 309
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the Special Courts Act, 9 1979.
2. Whether the procedure prescribed by the Act violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
3. Legality of the transfer of appeals from the High Court to the Supreme Court.
4. Whether the Act's provisions are excessively harsh and prejudicial to the accused.
5. Whether the evidence supports the conviction of the appellants for the alleged offences.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Constitutional Validity of the Special Courts Act, 1979:
The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of the Special Courts Act, 1979, arguing that it contravened Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court noted that the Act was passed to provide for the speedy trial of certain offences committed by persons holding high public or political offices. The Court held that the classification made by the Act was reasonable and had a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, i.e., speedy trial. The Act was deemed to contain sufficient safeguards and guidelines, thus not violating Article 14. The Court further held that the Act did not violate Article 21, as it ensured a fair trial by providing for the appointment of sitting High Court judges as Special Judges, thus maintaining judicial independence.
2. Whether the Procedure Prescribed by the Act Violates Articles 14 and 21:
The appellants argued that the procedure prescribed by the Act was harsher and more prejudicial than the ordinary criminal procedure, thus violating Articles 14 and 21. The Court held that once the classification is held to be valid, the procedure prescribed, even if harsher, does not attract Article 14. The Court found that the procedure under the Act was not harsher but more advantageous to the accused, as it provided for a speedy trial and appeals directly to the Supreme Court, thus ensuring a fair trial.
3. Legality of the Transfer of Appeals from the High Court to the Supreme Court:
The appellants contended that the transfer of appeals from the High Court to the Supreme Court under Section 7 of the Act was illegal. The Court held that the provision for automatic transfer of appeals to the Supreme Court was within the legislative competence of Parliament and did not violate any constitutional provisions. The Court noted that the transfer did not involve any judicial power being exercised by the legislature, thus upholding the validity of Section 7.
4. Whether the Act's Provisions are Excessively Harsh and Prejudicial to the Accused:
The appellants argued that the Act's provisions, particularly those related to appeals and revisions, were harsh and prejudicial. The Court found that the right of appeal to the Supreme Court provided under the Act was broader and more advantageous than the ordinary right of appeal to the High Court. The Court also noted that the exclusion of interlocutory orders from the scope of appeal was consistent with the Code of Criminal Procedure and did not result in any prejudice to the accused.
5. Whether the Evidence Supports the Conviction of the Appellants:
The Court examined the evidence presented by the prosecution to support the conviction of the appellants for various offences, including conspiracy to destroy the film "Kissa Kursi Kaa." The Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the existence of a conspiracy between the appellants or their involvement in the destruction of the film. The evidence presented was deemed insufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellants of all charges and set aside their convictions and sentences.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Special Courts Act, 1979, and found that the procedure prescribed by the Act did not violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court also held that the transfer of appeals from the High Court to the Supreme Court was legal and within the legislative competence of Parliament. However, the Court found that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction of the appellants, leading to their acquittal on all charges.
-
1980 (4) TMI 308
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 79(k) and Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 in relation to regulations framed by the U.P. State Electricity Board for appointment, disciplinary action, and termination of employees.
Analysis:
The Supreme Court addressed two questions of fact and law in the appeals. The Attorney-General focused on the correct construction of Section 79(k) read with Section 15 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, and the validity of regulations framed by the U.P. State Electricity Board on December 18, 1970. The regulation in question outlined the appointment process, appointing authorities, disciplinary actions, and appeal procedures. The High Court had previously struck down the regulation, citing lack of delegation power by the Board. However, the Supreme Court delved into the interpretation of Section 79(c) and Section 79(k) of the Act to determine the Board's authority to make such regulations.
The Court highlighted that Section 79(k) is a residuary provision allowing the Board to make regulations on matters arising from its functions under the Act. On the other hand, Section 79(c) specifically deals with the duties, salaries, allowances, and conditions of service of the Board's officers and employees. The Court emphasized that Section 79(k) empowers the Board to make regulations regarding termination of service and disciplinary actions concerning its employees. This power is implied from Section 15, which grants the Board the authority to appoint officers and employees necessary for its functions.
The Court rejected the High Court's view that the regulation was invalid, emphasizing the practicality of the situation. Considering the substantial number of employees under the Electricity Board, it would be impractical for the Board to handle all disciplinary actions centrally. Therefore, the Court held that the Board was competent to make the regulation in question. However, the Court, taking into account the specific circumstances, agreed to uphold the reinstatement of the employees as per the Attorney-General's suggestion. Consequently, the appeal was allowed partially concerning the regulation's validity but dismissed regarding the factual conclusion, with no order as to costs.
-
1980 (4) TMI 307
Issues Involved:
1. Exemption from customs duty for imported skimmed milk powder.
2. Validity and application of notifications under section 25(1) and 25(2) of the Customs Act.
3. Retrospectivity of the exemption order.
4. Competence of the Collector and the Board to ignore the Central Government's order.
5. Alleged misrepresentation by the petitioners.
6. Distribution of milk powder under the supervision of the Maharashtra Government.
7. Application of the principle of promissory estoppel.
8. Exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Exemption from Customs Duty for Imported Skimmed Milk Powder:
The petitioners, trustees of a charitable trust, sought exemption from customs duty for imported skimmed milk powder donated for free distribution among children and the poor. Initially, the customs authorities granted exemption under a notification dated 16-7-1977. However, a subsequent notification dated 18-6-1979 imposed additional conditions, including that the donor must also be a charitable organization. The Central Government later issued a special order on 17-8-1979 under section 25(2) of the Customs Act, exempting the milk powder from duty.
2. Validity and Application of Notifications under Section 25(1) and 25(2):
The court analyzed the scope and nature of the Central Government's powers under sections 25(1) and 25(2). Section 25(1) allows for general exemptions through notifications, while section 25(2) permits special exemptions in exceptional circumstances. The court held that the order under section 25(2) was not retrospective and did not violate the principles of retrospectivity.
3. Retrospectivity of the Exemption Order:
The court examined whether the exemption order under section 25(2) was retrospective. It concluded that the order was not retrospective as it merely removed a temporary cloud created by the subsequent notification dated 18-6-1979. The court emphasized that the order did not impair vested rights or create new obligations.
4. Competence of the Collector and the Board to Ignore the Central Government's Order:
The court held that the Collector and the Board, being subordinate authorities, had no power to challenge or ignore the orders of the Central Government. The impugned order under section 25(2) was still operative and had not been withdrawn by the Central Government.
5. Alleged Misrepresentation by the Petitioners:
The Board had alleged that the petitioners misrepresented facts regarding the filing of the bill of entry. The court found no evidence of such misrepresentation and held that the order of the Central Government did not become void ab initio by reason of fraud. The findings of the Board were set aside as untenable in law.
6. Distribution of Milk Powder under the Supervision of the Maharashtra Government:
The court noted that the Central Government's order under section 25(2) required the milk powder to be distributed under the supervision of the Department of Social Welfare, Government of Maharashtra. The petitioners had complied with this condition, and there was no evidence that they were not distributing the milk powder to the poor and needy.
7. Application of the Principle of Promissory Estoppel:
The court applied the principle of promissory estoppel, holding that the respondents were estopped from resiling from their promise and subjecting the goods to import duty and restrictions. The petitioners had acted on the representations made by the Central Government, the Customs Department, and the Government of Maharashtra, and had changed their position accordingly.
8. Exercise of Extraordinary Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, considering the special circumstances of the case, including the perishable nature of the milk powder and the urgent need for its distribution during the Child Year. The court set aside the orders of the Collector and the Board, and directed the immediate release of the seized milk powder for distribution under the supervision of the Government of Maharashtra.
Conclusion:
The court quashed the show cause notices, confiscation orders, and the orders of the Collector and the Board. It directed the immediate release of the seized milk powder and ordered its distribution among the poor and needy under the supervision of the Department of Social Welfare, Government of Maharashtra. The court also held that the respondents were estopped from imposing customs duty and import restrictions on the milk powder.
-
1980 (4) TMI 306
Issues involved: Constitutional validity of Rule 3 of the All India Services (Conditions of Service-residuary matters) Rules, 1960; Power of Central Government to review its earlier orders.
Constitutional Validity of Rule 3:
The appellant challenged the Central Government's order on three grounds, including the contention that Rule 3 of the All India Services Rules was ultra vires as it conferred arbitrary power. The rule allows the Central Government to relax rules causing undue hardship, and the appellant argued it gave absolute discretion without objective standards. However, the court clarified that the rule aims to prevent undue hardship on civil servants and is guided by the public interest in efficiency and integrity. The court emphasized that the power to relax rules is to be exercised justly and equitably, not arbitrarily. Judicial review is applicable to ensure the power is used in the public interest. The court found Rule 3 constitutional, as it serves the purpose of ensuring efficiency and integrity in civil services.
Power of Central Government to Review Orders:
The appellant contended that the Central Government lacked the power to review its earlier orders as the rules did not explicitly grant such authority. Citing previous cases, the appellant argued that the power to review must be conferred by statute. However, the court differentiated between administrative and quasi-judicial decisions, stating that administrative decisions are subject to policy changes. Governments should have the flexibility to alter decisions in administrative matters without being bound by strict judicial procedures. The court emphasized that administrative decisions, when reviewed, remain subject to judicial review. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Central Government's authority to review its decisions in administrative matters.
........
|
9911796707
