|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 153 Records
-
1978 (9) TMI 201
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the chargesheet issued by an unauthorized authority.
2. Legitimacy of charges based on suspicion.
3. Adherence to principles of natural justice in the enquiry process.
4. Compliance with procedural requirements for issuing a second show-cause notice.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Chargesheet Issued by an Unauthorized Authority:
The petitioner contended that the chargesheet was invalid as it was not issued by the disciplinary authority but by a substitute acting in a stopgap arrangement. The respondent No. 2, who issued the chargesheet, was temporarily filling in for the absent respondent No. 1. The court referred to a notification and a decision by the Central Government which stated that officers performing current duties cannot exercise statutory powers. Supporting this, the court cited the case of T.R. Pandey v. The Chief Commissioner, Andaman & Nicobar Islands and K.K. Murty v. The General Manager South Eastern Railway, where it was held that only the authorized disciplinary authority could issue such documents. Consequently, the chargesheet was deemed invalid.
2. Legitimacy of Charges Based on Suspicion:
The petitioner argued that the chargesheet was based on mere suspicion, which cannot be a basis for punishment. The court referenced the Supreme Court decision in Nand Kishore Prasad v. State of Behar, which emphasized that disciplinary proceedings must be based on concrete evidence and not suspicion. The court agreed that suspicion cannot replace proof, and thus, the charges based on suspicion were invalid.
3. Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice in the Enquiry Process:
The petitioner was not informed about the examination of a crucial witness and was denied the opportunity to cross-examine this witness. This was a violation of the principles of natural justice. The court held that the enquiry was flawed because the petitioner was not given a fair chance to defend himself. This was in line with the Supreme Court's stance in Union of India v. H.C. Goel, which stressed the importance of fairness and opportunity in disciplinary proceedings.
4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements for Issuing a Second Show-Cause Notice:
The petitioner argued that the second show-cause notice was not in compliance with the directions given by the previous judgment. The court noted that the disciplinary authority had already made up its mind about the petitioner's guilt, which indicated bias. Furthermore, the court highlighted that the disciplinary authority did not record reasons for proposing a harsher punishment than that suggested by the Enquiring Authority, as required by Rule 10(12) of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971. The court cited State of Assam v. Bimal Kumar Pandit, emphasizing that the second show-cause notice must allow the petitioner to challenge both the findings and the proposed punishment.
Conclusion:
The court found multiple procedural and substantive flaws in the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The chargesheet was invalid as it was issued by an unauthorized authority. The charges were based on suspicion rather than concrete evidence. The enquiry process violated principles of natural justice, and the second show-cause notice was procedurally defective. Consequently, the petitioner succeeded, and the rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs.
-
1978 (9) TMI 200
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the election of the 1st respondent is void under Section 9-A of the Representation of the People Act due to disqualification from subsisting contracts with the State Government.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be declared elected in place of the disqualified 1st respondent.
Issue 1: Disqualification under Section 9-A of the Representation of the People Act
The petitioner contended that the 1st respondent was disqualified under Section 9-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, due to subsisting contracts with the State Government for the sale of arrack and toddy. The 1st respondent had entered into agreements with the Government to sell liquor in retail for the year 1977-78, which were still in effect when he filed his nomination for the election.
The 1st respondent argued that he did not engage in any trade or business and only participated in the auctions as an arbitrator to settle disputes among local toddy tappers. He claimed that the contracts were not in the course of his trade or business and did not involve the supply of goods to the Government or the execution of any works undertaken by the Government.
The court examined whether the conditions for disqualification under Section 9-A were met, which include:
1. Existence of a contract with the Government.
2. Contract for the supply of goods or execution of works undertaken by the Government.
3. Contract entered in the course of trade or business.
4. Contract subsisting on the date of filing the nomination.
The court found that the contracts were subsisting at the time of filing the nomination, but they did not involve the supply of goods to the Government or the execution of any works undertaken by the Government. The contracts were for selling toddy and arrack to the public, not for supplying goods to the Government. The court also noted that the language of Section 9-A is clear and should be interpreted strictly, without extending its scope to cover contracts not explicitly mentioned.
Issue 2: Declaration of Petitioner as Elected
Since the court concluded that the 1st respondent was not disqualified under Section 9-A, the petitioner's request to be declared elected was not considered. The court emphasized that Section 9-A does not cover contracts for selling liquor to the public, and the 1st respondent's contracts did not fall within the disqualifying provisions of the Act.
Conclusion:
The election petition was dismissed, and the 1st respondent was not disqualified under Section 9-A of the Representation of the People Act. The petitioner was not entitled to be declared elected. The court ordered the petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 10,000.
-
1978 (9) TMI 199
Issues:
- Dismissal of complaint for want of prosecution by trial Magistrate
- Maintainability of appeal filed by private complainant after the expiry of the prescribed period
- Change of procedure from a warrant case to a summons case
- Applicability of section 5 of the Limitation Act to appeals under section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Issue 1: Dismissal of complaint for want of prosecution
The appeal was filed against the trial Magistrate's order dismissing the complaint due to the absence of the complainant and his counsel. The appellant argued that once the case was treated as a warrant case and charges were framed, it was improper to dismiss the case for lack of appearance by the complainant. The court found the trial Magistrate's order to be illegal as the provisions of section 249 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which apply to cases where charges have not been framed, were not relevant in this situation.
Issue 2: Maintainability of appeal filed after the prescribed period
The respondents contended that the appeal filed by the complainant after the expiry of the 60-day period stipulated under section 378(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code was not maintainable. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Kaushalya Rani v. Gopal Singh, they argued that section 5 of the Limitation Act did not apply to such appeals. However, the appellant argued that post the enactment of the Limitation Act, 1963, section 5 was applicable to cases governed by special or local laws, including appeals under section 378(4). The court held that section 5 of the Limitation Act applied to the present appeal, and the delay had been condoned.
Issue 3: Change of procedure from a warrant case to a summons case
The respondents argued that even though the case initially started as a warrant case, the charges framed were for offenses triable as a summons case, making the dismissal order akin to one under section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They relied on precedents to support their contention. However, the appellant pointed out that changing the procedure from a warrant case to a summons case after the trial had commenced was not permissible. Citing relevant case law, the court agreed with the appellant's argument and held that the trial Magistrate's order was incorrect.
Issue 4: Applicability of section 5 of the Limitation Act
The respondents contended that section 5 of the Limitation Act did not apply to appeals under section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the appellant argued that post the enactment of the Limitation Act, 1963, section 5 was applicable to such cases. The court agreed with the appellant, citing relevant case law, and held that section 5 of the Limitation Act governed the present appeal, and the delay had been condoned.
In conclusion, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial Magistrate's order, and directed the case to be heard from the stage at which it was dismissed, emphasizing the importance of following the correct legal procedures in criminal cases.
-
1978 (9) TMI 198
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of Verladescheins under the Evidence Act.
2. Authority of Magistrate to discharge accused after framing charges.
3. Interpretation of High Court's directions in previous judgments.
4. Double jeopardy and autrefois acquit.
5. Delay and abuse of process by the prosecution.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Admissibility of Verladescheins under the Evidence Act:
The case revolves around the admissibility of 10 Verladescheins (mate's receipts) as evidence. Initially, the Magistrate ruled these documents inadmissible under the Evidence Act or the Commercial Documents Evidence Act, 1939. However, upon review, 9 out of the 10 Verladescheins were admitted under Section 10 of the Evidence Act. The High Court later held that these documents could not be admitted under Section 32 as the preliminary conditions were not met. The High Court suggested that the prosecution could still prove the correctness of these documents in the ordinary way without resorting to Section 32.
2. Authority of Magistrate to Discharge Accused After Framing Charges:
The Magistrate framed charges against the accused on December 21, 1962, but later, on February 26, 1969, deleted charges 2 to 9 and discharged the accused. The High Court ruled that the Magistrate had no legal power to discharge the accused after framing charges. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that once a charge is framed, the Magistrate can only proceed to trial and cannot discharge the accused. The trial must continue to a logical end, either resulting in acquittal or conviction.
3. Interpretation of High Court's Directions in Previous Judgments:
The appellant argued that the Magistrate acted in accordance with the High Court's directions in previous judgments by Justice Gokhale, which allegedly implied the need to review the charges. However, the Supreme Court clarified that Justice Gokhale's directions did not authorize the Magistrate to delete the charges or discharge the accused. Instead, the directions were to amend the charges to reflect the correct period of conspiracy and consider additional evidence.
4. Double Jeopardy and Autrefois Acquit:
The appellant contended that the discharge should be treated as an acquittal, invoking the principle of double jeopardy or autrefois acquit, which would prevent retrial on the same charges. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the discharge was not based on the merits of the case but was an arbitrary decision without trial. Thus, it did not constitute a valid acquittal, and the High Court was within its rights to order de novo proceedings.
5. Delay and Abuse of Process by the Prosecution:
The appellant highlighted the significant delay in the proceedings, attributing it to the prosecution's laxity and abuse of process. The Supreme Court acknowledged the delay but emphasized the gravity of the charges and the necessity of a fair trial. The Court directed the Magistrate to proceed with utmost despatch and, if feasible, hold day-to-day hearings to expedite the trial within six months.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order, setting aside the Magistrate's discharge of the accused and directing the Magistrate to proceed with the trial. The Court emphasized the importance of following due process and ensuring a fair trial, despite the procedural delays and complexities involved in the case.
-
1978 (9) TMI 197
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the revenue sale of joint family property.
2. Nature of the Tagai loan and its binding effect on joint family property.
3. Doctrine of pious obligation of Hindu sons to pay the father's debts.
4. Impact of partition on the liability of joint family property for pre-partition debts.
5. Applicability of the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883 to joint Hindu families.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Revenue Sale of Joint Family Property:
The trial court held that the suit land was joint family property but ruled the sale void due to an effective partition prior to the revenue sale. The High Court upheld this, stating the auction sale was not binding as the land was not offered as security for the loan. However, the Supreme Court reversed this, emphasizing that the joint family property was liable for the debt incurred by the father as Karta for the family's benefit. The Court concluded that the sale was valid and the purchaser acquired full title to the property.
2. Nature of the Tagai Loan and Its Binding Effect on Joint Family Property:
The Supreme Court examined whether the Tagai loan was a personal debt of Dattatraya or a joint family debt. It found that the loan was borrowed for improving joint family lands, making it a joint family debt. The Court stated, "If the loan was borrowed by Dattatraya, the father, as Karta of the joint Hindu family for the benefit of the family, certainly it would be a joint family debt and all the joint family property would be liable for this debt."
3. Doctrine of Pious Obligation of Hindu Sons to Pay the Father's Debts:
The Court reiterated that under Hindu law, sons are obligated to pay their father's debts unless tainted with illegality or immorality. This obligation persists even after partition. The Court noted, "The doctrine of pious obligation is not merely a religious doctrine but has passed into the realm of law." The sons' liability extends to the joint family property in their hands, reaffirming that the sale for the father's debt was valid.
4. Impact of Partition on the Liability of Joint Family Property for Pre-Partition Debts:
The Court clarified that if no provision for repayment of joint family debts is made at partition, the joint family property remains liable for those debts. The Court cited, "If thus the partition makes no provision for repayment of just debts payable out of the joint family property, the joint family property in the hands of coparceners acquired on partition as well as the pious obligation of the sons to pay the debts of the father will still remain."
5. Applicability of the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883 to Joint Hindu Families:
The High Court's view that the Act applies only to individuals was rejected. The Supreme Court held that the Karta of a joint Hindu family could be a borrower under the Act, making the joint family property liable for the loan. The Court stated, "We see no justification for restricting the word 'borrower' to be an individual alone." The Act's applicability to all communities does not exclude joint Hindu families.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. It held that the Tagai loan was a joint family debt, the property was liable for its repayment, and the revenue sale was valid. The doctrine of pious obligation and the comprehensive scope of the Land Improvement Loans Act supported the binding nature of the debt on the joint family property. The Court concluded, "The sale is valid and the purchaser acquired a full and complete title to the property." The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs throughout.
-
1978 (9) TMI 196
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdictional points under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. Validity and enforcement of the impugned notification under Section 3(b) of the U.P. Act.
3. Compatibility between Section 3(b) of the U.P. Act and Section 34 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.
4. Existence and binding nature of an agreement under Section 34(1) of the Bonus Act.
5. Authority of the representatives of the Association to bind its members.
6. Enforcement mechanisms under the U.P. Act versus the Bonus Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdictional Points under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
The appellant-owner of two sugar factories in Uttar Pradesh challenged the jurisdictional validity of a notification issued under Section 3(b) of the U.P. Act. The court emphasized the importance of understanding the social realities and the legislative intent behind the U.P. Act, which was enacted as an emergency measure to address industrial disputes and maintain public order and essential supplies.
2. Validity and Enforcement of the Impugned Notification under Section 3(b) of the U.P. Act:
The court examined the notification issued by the State Government under Section 3(b) of the U.P. Act, which required employers to observe certain terms and conditions of employment. The notification was based on recommendations from a tripartite committee formed under Section 3(c) of the Act. The court upheld the notification, stating that it was issued to maintain public order and essential supplies, and was therefore within the State Government's powers.
3. Compatibility between Section 3(b) of the U.P. Act and Section 34 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965:
The appellant argued that the Bonus Act, being a complete code on profit-sharing bonus, precluded the application of any other law, including the U.P. Act. The court, however, found that Section 3(b) of the U.P. Act and Section 34 of the Bonus Act were not mutually exclusive. The U.P. Act addressed emergency situations requiring immediate administrative action, while the Bonus Act provided a long-term judicial remedy. The court concluded that both statutes could coexist without inconsistency.
4. Existence and Binding Nature of an Agreement under Section 34(1) of the Bonus Act:
The court scrutinized whether an agreement on bonus existed under Section 34(1) of the Bonus Act. It noted that the tripartite committee, which included representatives of both employers and employees, had reached a consensus on the bonus formula. This agreement was subsequently incorporated into the State Government's order under Section 3(b) of the U.P. Act. The court affirmed that a valid agreement existed, which was binding under Section 34 of the Bonus Act.
5. Authority of the Representatives of the Association to Bind its Members:
The appellant contended that its representatives did not have the authority to agree to the bonus formula. The court rejected this argument, stating that the Association, a registered trade union, had the functional competence to regulate relations between workmen and employers. The court emphasized that the appellant had participated in the committee's deliberations and had not objected to the authority of its representatives during the process.
6. Enforcement Mechanisms under the U.P. Act versus the Bonus Act:
The appellant argued that any agreement on bonus should be enforced under the Bonus Act rather than the U.P. Act. The court disagreed, highlighting the urgency and administrative nature of the U.P. Act's provisions. It noted that the U.P. Act allowed for immediate administrative action to prevent industrial unrest, while the Bonus Act provided a judicial mechanism for resolving disputes. The court concluded that the State Government's order under Section 3(b) was a necessary and valid measure to maintain public order and essential supplies.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming the validity of the State Government's notification under Section 3(b) of the U.P. Act. The court found no inconsistency between the U.P. Act and the Bonus Act, and confirmed the existence of a binding agreement on bonus under Section 34 of the Bonus Act. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
-
1978 (9) TMI 195
Issues Involved:
1. Definition and determination of "compensation."
2. Legislative competence and validity of the Oriental Gas Company Act.
3. Method of compensation determination under the amended Act.
4. Relevance of principles specified for compensation.
5. Payment of compensation in bonds and its implications.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Definition and Determination of "Compensation":
The primary issue revolves around the definition of "compensation" and its determination. The Court noted that the question of what constitutes compensation has been addressed through constitutional amendments and judicial precedents, narrowing the scope for controversy. The appellant argued that the principle of capitalizing net profit as the sole factor was not a relevant principle for determining compensation for a public utility undertaking. The Court, however, disagreed, stating that the principle of capitalization of net income is a sound and relevant principle for valuation, even if it might not yield the highest result for the owner.
2. Legislative Competence and Validity of the Oriental Gas Company Act:
The appellant challenged the vires of the Act, questioning the legislative competence of the West Bengal State Legislature to pass the Act. The Calcutta High Court had previously upheld the validity of the Act, and the Supreme Court had also rejected the contention regarding legislative competence. The Court reiterated that the West Bengal Legislature had the authority to enact the law under Entry 42 of List III and Entry 25 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
3. Method of Compensation Determination Under the Amended Act:
The Oriental Gas Company Act was amended multiple times, changing the method of compensation determination. Initially, compensation was determined by the method of cost less depreciation or capitalisation, whichever was less. The 1968 amendment provided for compensation based on the full market value of the undertaking. The 1970 amendment reverted to the method of capitalisation, specifying eight times the average net income of the undertaking over the preceding five years. The appellant contended that this method was arbitrary and did not reflect the true value of the undertaking.
4. Relevance of Principles Specified for Compensation:
The Court examined whether the principle of capitalizing net profit was relevant for determining compensation. It referred to various authorities and concluded that capitalisation of net profit is a recognized principle of valuation for public utility undertakings. The Court dismissed the appellant's argument that the principle was irrelevant, emphasizing that the basic consideration for any purchaser would be the profit-yielding capacity of the undertaking.
5. Payment of Compensation in Bonds and Its Implications:
The appellant argued that the provision for payment in bonds payable in twenty years and carrying interest at 3% per annum effectively reduced the compensation, violating Article 31(2) of the Constitution. The Court acknowledged the force in this submission but noted that if Section 9(2) was severable from the rest of the Act, the State would have to make the payment in cash instead of bonds. The Court decided not to strike down Section 9(2) as ultra vires, leaving the matter unresolved but indicating that the provision might impair the guarantee of compensation.
In conclusion, the Court upheld the method of compensation determination under the 1970 amendment, dismissed the appellant's writ petition, and awarded costs to the respondent.
-
1978 (9) TMI 194
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of retrenchment.
2. Entitlement to reinstatement.
3. Criteria for awarding full back wages.
Summary:
1. Validity of Retrenchment:
The Labour Court found that the reasons stated in the notice of retrenchment, such as heavy loss, non-availability of tin plates, and power curbs, were not genuine. Instead, the real reason was the management's annoyance due to the workmen's refusal to agree to a proposed settlement. Consequently, the retrenchment was deemed illegal.
2. Entitlement to Reinstatement:
The Labour Court directed reinstatement of the retrenched workmen with full back wages from the date of retrenchment. The Supreme Court, while granting special leave, limited the appeal to the question of back wages, thereby affirming the reinstatement.
3. Criteria for Awarding Full Back Wages:
The Supreme Court emphasized that ordinarily, a workman whose service has been illegally terminated is entitled to full back wages unless the employer can establish circumstances necessitating a departure from this rule. The Court noted that the employer must bear the responsibility for the wages lost due to illegal termination. The appellant's argument of financial loss was considered, but the Court found that the company had started making profits since 1976-77. Given these circumstances, the Court modified the Labour Court's award to grant 75% of the back wages to the workmen, to be paid in two equal installments, after deducting any wages already paid and retrenchment compensation.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the Labour Court's decision on reinstatement but modified the award of back wages to 75%, considering the financial condition of the appellant company and the principle of shared sacrifice between management and labor.
-
1978 (9) TMI 193
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the property gifted to the respondent at the time of marriage constitutes her stridhan.
2. Whether the complaint under Section 406, IPC, alleging criminal breach of trust, is maintainable.
3. The impact of the Hindu Succession Act and Hindu Marriage Act on the concept of stridhan.
4. The applicability of the Dowry Prohibition Act to the presents given at the time of marriage.
5. Whether the complaint discloses a prima facie case warranting summoning the accused.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the property gifted to the respondent at the time of marriage constitutes her stridhan:
The respondent alleged that the items received at her marriage, including ornaments, clothes, furniture, and household articles, became her stridhan. The petitioners contended that post the Hindu Succession Act and Hindu Marriage Act, such property is now governed by Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, making it joint property. The court, however, emphasized that the concept of stridhan remains intact under Hindu law, and a female has an absolute right over her stridhan, which she can use or dispose of as she pleases. The court cited authoritative texts on Hindu Law to support this position.
2. Whether the complaint under Section 406, IPC, alleging criminal breach of trust, is maintainable:
The complaint alleged that the petitioners misappropriated the respondent's stridhan. The petitioners argued that the complaint did not disclose an offense under Section 406, IPC. The court held that the allegations of misappropriation and refusal to return the entrusted property, if proven, constitute a prima facie case of criminal breach of trust. The court stated that the complaint should not be quashed at this stage and the respondent should be given an opportunity to prove her allegations.
3. The impact of the Hindu Succession Act and Hindu Marriage Act on the concept of stridhan:
The petitioners argued that the Hindu Succession Act and Hindu Marriage Act have abolished the concept of stridhan. The court rejected this argument, stating that these statutes have only partially modified Hindu law principles and have not abolished the concept of stridhan. The court reiterated that a woman retains absolute ownership over her stridhan, and the husband's limited rights over it during distress do not negate her ownership.
4. The applicability of the Dowry Prohibition Act to the presents given at the time of marriage:
The petitioners contended that the presents given at the time of marriage do not constitute dowry. The court clarified that the Dowry Prohibition Act defines dowry as property given as consideration for marriage. However, presents voluntarily given without such consideration do not fall under this definition. The court noted that the presents given to the respondent at her marriage, forming part of her stridhan, are not affected by the Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. Whether the complaint discloses a prima facie case warranting summoning the accused:
The court reviewed the complaint and the supporting statements, finding that they disclosed a prima facie case of criminal breach of trust. The Chief Judicial Magistrate had already found sufficient grounds to summon the petitioners. The court emphasized that at this stage, the allegations must be taken at face value, and it is not appropriate to quash the complaint without giving the respondent a chance to prove her case.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition to quash the complaint, upholding the respondent's right to pursue her allegations of criminal breach of trust. The court also expressed hope for an amicable resolution between the parties in the future and directed the trial magistrate to grant the petitioners exemption from personal appearance as deemed necessary.
-
1978 (9) TMI 192
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the minimum charges levied by the restaurant constituted a payment for admission to entertainment under the U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1977.
2. Whether the trial court's acquittal was justified based on the evidence presented.
3. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1977.
4. Applicability of English legal precedents to the case.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the minimum charges levied by the restaurant constituted a payment for admission to entertainment under the U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1977:
The core issue was whether the minimum charges of Rs. 5/- for evening tea and Rs. 10/- for dinner constituted a payment for admission to the cabaret entertainment provided at Lido Restaurant. The High Court found that these charges were indeed a payment for admission to entertainment, as they were mandatory regardless of whether the customer consumed any eatables. This conclusion was based on the evidence that the cabaret performance was an item of entertainment and the minimum charges were connected to this entertainment. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's interpretation, noting that the payment of Rs. 5/- or Rs. 10/- was a condition for attending or continuing to attend the entertainment, thus falling under the definition of "payment for admission" in Section 2(6)(iv) of the Act.
2. Whether the trial court's acquittal was justified based on the evidence presented:
The trial court had acquitted the accused on the grounds that no offence had been established, reasoning that the charges were only for eatables and not for the cabaret performance. However, the High Court overturned this acquittal, finding that the minimum charges were indeed for the entertainment. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, confirming that the charges were a form of payment for admission to the entertainment, thus justifying the conviction of the appellants.
3. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1977:
The Supreme Court examined Sections 3(1), 3(3), and 4(1) of the U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1977. Section 3(1) imposes a tax on all payments for admission to any entertainment. Section 4(1) mandates that no person shall be admitted to any entertainment without a ticket denoting that the proper entertainment tax has been paid. The Court clarified that "payment for admission" includes any payment connected with an entertainment that a person is required to make as a condition of attending or continuing to attend the entertainment. The Court found that the minimum charges levied by the restaurant fell within this definition, thus attracting the entertainment tax.
4. Applicability of English legal precedents to the case:
The Supreme Court referred to various English legal precedents to support its interpretation. Notably, the Court discussed cases such as Williams v. Wright, Kitchner v. Evening Standard Co. Ltd., and J. Lyons & Co. Ltd. v. Fox. These cases dealt with the interpretation of payments for entertainment and their tax implications. The Court noted that while these cases provided useful insights, the U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1977, had a broader scope and application. The Court emphasized that the Act included payments for any purpose connected with entertainment, thus supporting the High Court's conclusion that the minimum charges were indeed payments for admission to the cabaret entertainment.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court confirmed the High Court's judgment, holding that the minimum charges levied by the restaurant constituted a payment for admission to entertainment under the U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1977. The Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court, as well as the direction regarding the levy of the tax, and dismissed the appeal.
-
1978 (9) TMI 191
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the rejection of renewal application for a contract carriage permit by the State Transport Authority (S.T.A.) and the subsequent affirmance of the rejection by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (S.T.A.T.), leading to the denial of fair consideration of the appellant's claim and the significant financial loss incurred due to non-renewal.
Judgment Details:
Rejection of Renewal Application:
The appellant, who owned a luxury coach and plied it under a permit granted in 1971, applied for renewal two months before the permit's expiry in March 1976. The rejection was based on the reasoning that existing public sector undertakings provided adequate facilities, and renewal would result in unhealthy competition. The rejection lacked specific objections from any party and was affirmed by S.T.A.T., which failed to consider the appellant's claim of meritorious service and dismissed it without factual basis.
Legal Considerations:
The Supreme Court emphasized that a permit holder has an ordinary right of renewal unless public interest dictates otherwise. The Motor Vehicles Act restricts permits reasonably, and the key criterion for a contract carriage permit is whether an additional vehicle is unnecessary or undesirable in the public interest. The Court highlighted the importance of acting on relevant considerations, not hearsay, and ensuring a fair process for permit renewal.
Judicial Intervention and Decision:
The Court intervened under Article 136 due to the social trauma caused by the denial of renewal and the need to uphold the rule of law. The rejection lacked tangible evidence to support the decision, and the reasoning provided was deemed untenable. The Court quashed the refusal, directing S.T.A. to reconsider the renewal within two weeks, considering the long delay and absence of disqualifications. The decision was based on breach of natural justice, importation of non-materials, and the fundamental right involved in the case.
Conclusion:
The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the refusal of renewal and emphasizing the importance of fair consideration in permit decisions. While the Court is generally hesitant to reinvestigate motor vehicle permit issues, exceptions are made in cases where fundamental rights are at stake. The judgment aimed to rectify the denial of renewal, ensuring a just process for the appellant and highlighting the significance of upholding fundamental rights in administrative decisions.
-
1978 (9) TMI 190
Issues:
1. Validity of service of notice on the son of a partner of the firm.
2. Interpretation of Rule 77 regarding modes of service for a firm.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a question of law referred by the Revising Authority regarding the validity of serving notice of a revision hearing on the son of a partner of the firm. The issue arose when the notice was served on the son of a partner, and the assessee contended that this was not a valid service on the firm. The Judge (Revisions) had rejected this contention, leading to the reference to the High Court for opinion.
2. The crux of the matter lies in the interpretation of Rule 77, which outlines the modes of service for notices, summons, or orders under the Act. The relevant provision of Rule 77 states that service can be effected by tendering it to the dealer, his manager, agent, or leaving it at the last known place of business or residence, or giving it to an adult male member of the family if the dealer cannot be found easily. The counsel for the assessee argued that since the dealer in this case was a firm, the provision regarding service on an adult male member of the family did not apply.
3. The High Court delved into the interpretation of Rule 77 in the context of a firm. It was highlighted that while a firm is recognized as an assessable body under the Sales Tax Act, it does not have a family like a natural person. Therefore, the provision allowing service on an adult male member of the family does not extend to a firm as it lacks the characteristics of a natural person. Consequently, serving notice on the son of a partner of the firm was deemed invalid as it did not comply with the requirements of Rule 77.
4. In conclusion, the High Court answered the referred question in the negative, favoring the assessee and ruling against the Department. The Court held that the service of notice on the son of a partner of the firm was not valid under Rule 77. Additionally, the Court awarded costs to the assessee amounting to Rs. 200.
-
1978 (9) TMI 189
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act during the pendency of proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
2. Applicability of Section 5(2)(a) and Section 49 of the Consolidation Act to proceedings under the Ceiling Act.
3. Impact of the Explanation added to Section 5(2) of the Consolidation Act by the U.P. Laws Amendment Act No. 34 of 1974.
4. Applicability of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to proceedings under the Ceiling Act.
5. Principle of comity of courts in the context of overlapping proceedings under the Ceiling Act and Consolidation Act.
6. Potential anomalies arising from concurrent or sequential proceedings under the Ceiling Act and Consolidation Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Maintainability of Proceedings under the Ceiling Act during Consolidation Proceedings:
The core legal question was whether proceedings under the Ceiling Act can continue during the pendency of proceedings under the Consolidation Act. The court noted that the Consolidation Act involves the determination of title and consolidation of holdings into compact areas, whereas the Ceiling Act deals with declaring surplus land of a tenure-holder. The Full Bench referenced previous judgments and legislative amendments to conclude that proceedings under the Ceiling Act are maintainable during consolidation operations.
2. Applicability of Section 5(2)(a) and Section 49 of the Consolidation Act:
Section 5(2)(a) of the Consolidation Act provides for the abatement of certain proceedings upon the commencement of consolidation operations. Section 49 debars civil or revenue courts from entertaining suits regarding rights in land under consolidation. The court analyzed these provisions and previous judgments, concluding that Section 5 covers pending proceedings while Section 49 addresses future proceedings. The Supreme Court had previously held that proceedings under the Ceiling Act would abate under Section 5, but the legislative amendment clarified that such proceedings do not fall under this provision.
3. Impact of the Explanation Added to Section 5(2) of the Consolidation Act:
The U.P. Laws Amendment Act No. 34 of 1974 added an explanation to Section 5(2), stating that proceedings under the Ceiling Act are not deemed to be proceedings for declaration of rights or interest in any land. This clarification removed the bar imposed by Section 5(2)(a), allowing ceiling proceedings to continue despite ongoing consolidation operations. The court extended this reasoning to Section 49, interpreting that the explanation also applies to future litigation, thereby excluding ceiling proceedings from the purview of the Consolidation Act.
4. Applicability of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The petitioner argued that ceiling proceedings should be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court rejected this argument, referencing previous decisions that Section 10, C.P.C., which relates to the jurisdiction of courts, does not apply to proceedings under the Ceiling Act. The court emphasized that the issues in ceiling proceedings differ from those in consolidation proceedings, thus Section 10, C.P.C., is not applicable.
5. Principle of Comity of Courts:
The petitioner contended that ceiling proceedings should be stayed on the principle of comity of courts to avoid conflicting orders. The court dismissed this argument, explaining that the Consolidation Act and Ceiling Act serve different purposes and cover different areas. The court noted that decisions under the Ceiling Act are binding and not subject to the principle of comity of courts, as consolidation proceedings respect final declarations of rights by other authorities.
6. Potential Anomalies from Concurrent or Sequential Proceedings:
The court acknowledged potential anomalies, such as a tenure-holder losing land due to overlapping proceedings under the Ceiling Act and Consolidation Act. The court provided examples and clarified that legislative provisions ensure that decisions in ceiling proceedings are binding, even in consolidation cases. The court recognized that some anomalies might require legislative intervention but concluded that the legislative mandate necessitates the continuation of ceiling proceedings despite consolidation operations.
Conclusion:
The court answered the question of law in the negative, holding that proceedings under the Ceiling Act are not liable to be stayed during the pendency of consolidation proceedings. The writ petition was dismissed with costs. The concurring judges agreed with the Chief Justice's judgment and had nothing to add.
-
1978 (9) TMI 188
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the Rice-Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 as amended in 1968.
2. Requirement for rice husking mills or rice hullers to obtain a license.
3. Validity of Ordinance No. 14 of 1977.
4. Whether the Act treats unequals as equals by equating rice hullers with rice millers.
5. Whether Sections 5 and 6 of the Act contain unguided and uncanalised powers.
6. Whether the licensing provisions constitute an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on business.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Constitutional Validity of the Rice-Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 as Amended in 1968:
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the Act, arguing that certain provisions violated Articles 14, 19, and 301 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted the Act's objectives, which include preserving the indigenous hand pounding industry and modernizing rice mills. The Court found that the Act falls within Parliament's competence under Entry 52 List I Schedule VII of the Constitution, and there was no question of legislative incompetency.
2. Requirement for Rice Husking Mills or Rice Hullers to Obtain a License:
The petitioners contended that the requirement to obtain a license for operating rice husking mills or rice hullers infringed on their fundamental right to carry on business. The Court examined Sections 5 and 6 of the Act, which outline the licensing procedure and the conditions under which licenses are granted. The Court concluded that the licensing provisions are regulatory in nature and do not amount to an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on business.
3. Validity of Ordinance No. 14 of 1977:
The petitioners in Writ Petitions No. 1135 to 1155 of 1977 challenged the validity of Ordinance No. 14 of 1977, which repealed portions of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) West Bengal Second Amendment Act of 1974 and deleted Section 6A. The Court did not find any merit in this challenge and dismissed the petitions.
4. Whether the Act Treats Unequals as Equals by Equating Rice Hullers with Rice Millers:
The petitioners argued that the Act improperly equates rice hullers with rice millers, thus treating unequals as equals. The Court found that both rice hullers and rice millers use power-driven machines to process rice, and there is not much difference between their operations. The classification was deemed reasonable and based on intelligible differentia, with a rational relation to the Act's objectives. Therefore, the Court overruled this contention.
5. Whether Sections 5 and 6 of the Act Contain Unguided and Uncanalised Powers:
The petitioners argued that Sections 5 and 6 confer unguided and uncanalised powers, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court examined the provisions and found that Section 6 mandates the licensing officer to grant a license upon receiving an application, leaving no discretion to refuse. Section 5 contains specific guidelines for granting permits, ensuring that the powers are not arbitrary. The Court concluded that the provisions do not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation.
6. Whether the Licensing Provisions Constitute an Unreasonable Restriction on the Right to Carry on Business:
The petitioners contended that the licensing provisions impose an unreasonable restriction on their right to carry on business. The Court held that the provisions are in public interest and aimed at regulating the industry to protect the hand pounding industry and improve rice quality. The Court cited previous judgments to support the view that regulatory measures in public interest do not constitute unreasonable restrictions. Therefore, the Court dismissed this contention as well.
Conclusion:
The Court dismissed all the writ petitions, upholding the constitutional validity of the Rice-Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 as amended in 1968, and the requirement for rice husking mills or rice hullers to obtain a license. The Court found no merit in the challenges to Ordinance No. 14 of 1977 and determined that the Act does not treat unequals as equals, does not confer unguided and uncanalised powers, and does not impose unreasonable restrictions on the right to carry on business.
-
1978 (9) TMI 187
Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction
2. Violation of Fundamental Rights
3. Delay in Filing the Petition
4. Submission to the Jurisdiction of the Commission
5. Validity of the Notification under Article 77
6. Discretionary Power of the Government under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act
7. Definite Matters of Public Importance
8. Mala Fide and Extraneous Considerations
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction:
The respondents contended that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction as no part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. The petitioner's registered office was in Orissa, and the notification was published in Delhi. However, the petitioner argued that the Commission had a regional office in Calcutta, and requisitions were made from this office to the petitioner's Calcutta office. The court held that part of the cause of action did arise within its jurisdiction, thus it had the authority to entertain the application under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. Violation of Fundamental Rights:
The respondents argued that the petition did not fall under Clauses (a), (b), or (c) of Article 226(1) of the Constitution, claiming no violation of fundamental rights or substantial injury. However, the court found that if the entire proceeding was without jurisdiction, subjecting the petitioner to such a proceeding itself constituted substantial injury. The court referenced its own decision in Gulab Kanwar v. Enforcement Officer, stating it would be unjust to compel the petitioner to appear before authorities in void proceedings.
3. Delay in Filing the Petition:
The respondents contended there was an inordinate delay in filing the petition, as the notification was issued in February 1970, and the petition was filed in May 1974. The court held that delay is not a bar when a writ of prohibition is sought for lack of jurisdiction. The court referenced Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate Asst. Commr. of Income Tax, where a delay of five years was not considered a bar to relief.
4. Submission to the Jurisdiction of the Commission:
The respondents argued that the petitioner had submitted to the Commission's jurisdiction by complying with its requisitions. The court held that acquiescence does not confer jurisdiction where there is an inherent lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner's challenge to the Commission's jurisdiction was valid, and their compliance with requisitions did not bar them from seeking relief.
5. Validity of the Notification under Article 77:
The petitioner contended that the notification was void as it was not expressed in the name of the President of India as required by Article 77(1) and was not authenticated as specified under Article 77(2). The court found that the requirements of Article 77(1) and (2) are directory and not mandatory, and substantial compliance was sufficient. The court noted that the notification was signed by the Secretary to the Government of India, who was authorized to authenticate it.
6. Discretionary Power of the Government under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act:
The petitioner argued that the government's discretionary power under Section 3 could not be exercised contrary to Parliament's decision, as resolutions for appointing a Commission were defeated in both houses of Parliament. The court held that the discretionary power to appoint a Commission is not fettered by the loss of a resolution in Parliament. The two parts of Section 3 are mutually exclusive, and the government can still exercise its discretionary power.
7. Definite Matters of Public Importance:
The petitioner contended that the matters in Schedule 'C' were not definite matters of public importance and that the conditions precedent for exercising powers under Section 3(1) were not fulfilled. The court found that the items in Schedule 'C' were vague and indefinite, lacking specificity and relevance. The court referenced the principles laid down in Dalmia's case and other judgments, emphasizing that the subject matter must be definite and of public importance.
8. Mala Fide and Extraneous Considerations:
The petitioner argued that the items in Schedule 'C' were included mala fide and on extraneous considerations, to placate political factions. The court did not find it necessary to decide on mala fide, as it had already determined that the conditions precedent for exercising powers under Section 3 were not fulfilled.
Conclusion:
The court quashed items 2, 4, 9, 11, 12, and 13 of Schedule 'C' to the notification, issuing a writ of prohibition against the Commission of Inquiry from inquiring into these items. However, the Commission was allowed to proceed with other matters in the notification in accordance with the law. No order as to costs was made.
-
1978 (9) TMI 186
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Arms Act, 1959, in Sikkim.
2. Appeal against conviction based on a plea of guilty under Section 412 of Cr.P.C. 1898.
3. Repeal of the Sikkim Arms Rules, 1962, upon extension of the Arms Act, 1959.
4. Interpretation of Article 371F (n) of the Constitution of India.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Arms Act, 1959, in Sikkim:
The accused-appellant was convicted under Section 25(1) of the Arms Act, 1959, which was extended to Sikkim by the President through a notification under Article 371F (n) of the Constitution of India on May 16, 1975, and enforced on August 1, 1976. The charge was that the accused possessed a revolver and a live cartridge without a license. The court emphasized that if the Arms Act, 1959, is validly operative in Sikkim, the conviction must be maintained and the appeal dismissed.
2. Appeal against conviction based on a plea of guilty under Section 412 of Cr.P.C. 1898:
Under Section 412 of Cr.P.C. 1898, which is applicable in Sikkim, if an accused pleads guilty and is convicted on such a plea, there is no appeal except as to the extent or legality of the sentence, unless the conviction is by a Magistrate of the Second or Third Class. The court noted that if the law under which the accused is convicted is not in force, the plea of guilty does not amount to an admission of an offense. Therefore, if the Arms Act, 1959, is not validly operative in Sikkim, the appeal challenging the legality of the conviction is maintainable.
3. Repeal of the Sikkim Arms Rules, 1962, upon extension of the Arms Act, 1959:
The court examined whether the extension of the Arms Act, 1959, to Sikkim was valid despite the non-repeal of the Sikkim Arms Rules, 1962. The Advocate-General argued that the extension was valid even without repealing the Sikkim law, citing other Central enactments extended to Sikkim similarly. The court referred to the Delhi Laws Act case (AIR 1951 SC 332) and Bhaiyalal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1962 SC 981) to analyze the validity of extending laws without repealing existing ones. The court concluded that the extension of the Arms Act, 1959, to Sikkim was valid and that the Sikkim Arms Rules, 1962, were impliedly repealed.
4. Interpretation of Article 371F (n) of the Constitution of India:
The court discussed the provisions of Article 371F (n), which allows the President to extend any enactment in force in a State in India to Sikkim with modifications. The court noted that the majority view in the Delhi Laws Act case supports the validity of extending laws by the Executive, even if it results in the repeal of existing laws. The court emphasized that the delegation under Article 371F (n) was made by Parliament in exercise of its constituent power, making it valid despite resulting in the repeal of existing laws.
The court also addressed the argument that the Constitution provides for the repeal of Sikkim laws only by a competent Legislature or by the President under Clause (l) of Article 371F. The court rejected this argument, stating that the implied repeal of Sikkim laws by the extension of Central laws under Clause (n) is valid and within the scope of the Constitution.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Arms Act, 1959, was validly extended to Sikkim and that the Sikkim Arms Rules, 1962, were impliedly repealed. Therefore, the conviction of the accused-appellant was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
-
1978 (9) TMI 185
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Ordinance 33(4) to minority educational institutions.
2. Validity of the Vice-Chancellor's appellate power under Ordinance 33(4).
3. Compatibility of Ordinance 33(4) with Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
4. The extent of the State's regulatory power over minority educational institutions.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Applicability of Ordinance 33(4) to Minority Educational Institutions
The primary issue was whether an educational institution established and managed by a religious or linguistic minority is bound by the provisions of Ordinance 33(4), Chapter LVII of the Ordinances framed by the Syndicate of the University of Kerala, under Section 19(j) of the Kerala University Act, 1957. The Kerala High Court initially held that the right of appeal conferred by Ordinance 33(4) forms part of the 'conditions of service' and is therefore valid. However, the Supreme Court reversed this, holding that Ordinance 33(4) was not applicable to minority educational institutions as it interferes with their disciplinary control, thus violating Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
Issue 2: Validity of the Vice-Chancellor's Appellate Power under Ordinance 33(4)
The High Court had held that while the Vice-Chancellor had the power to hear an appeal against an order of dismissal under Ordinance 33(4), he did not have the power to order reinstatement or grant a declaration that the services of the appellant had been wrongly terminated. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the power to hear an appeal necessarily includes the power to annul, vary, or set aside the order appealed from, including reinstatement. However, it ultimately held that the conferment of such wide appellate powers on the Vice-Chancellor was an infringement of the right of administration guaranteed under Article 30(1).
Issue 3: Compatibility of Ordinance 33(4) with Article 30(1) of the Constitution
Article 30(1) guarantees religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The Supreme Court held that the conferment of a right of appeal to an outside authority like the Vice-Chancellor under Ordinance 33(4) takes away the disciplinary power of a minority educational institution, thus violating Article 30(1). The Court emphasized that while the State can regulate the exercise of this right, it cannot impose restrictions that are destructive of the right itself.
Issue 4: The Extent of the State's Regulatory Power over Minority Educational Institutions
The Court reiterated that the State has the power to regulate educational institutions to ensure efficiency, discipline, and fairness, but such regulations must not interfere with the core right of administration under Article 30(1). The Court cited previous judgments, including the St. Xaviers College case, which held that regulations imposing blanket powers on an outside authority like the Vice-Chancellor to veto disciplinary actions of the management are unconstitutional as they interfere with the institution's right to administer.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court concluded that Ordinance 33(4) of the Kerala University Act, 1969, which conferred appellate powers on the Vice-Chancellor, was not applicable to minority educational institutions as it violated Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The judgment of the Kerala High Court was upheld on different grounds, emphasizing that the Vice-Chancellor had no power to entertain appeals from the impugned orders of dismissal or suspension of the appellant. The appeals were dismissed, and costs were to be borne by the parties as incurred.
-
1978 (9) TMI 184
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Sections 25-O and 25-R of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. Right to close down a business as part of the right to carry on a business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
3. Reasonableness of the restrictions imposed by Sections 25-O and 25-R.
4. Applicability of Article 31C of the Constitution to the impugned law.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Constitutional Validity of Sections 25-O and 25-R of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
The employers challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 25-O and 25-R of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 25-O requires employers to seek prior approval from the government before closing down an undertaking, and Section 25-R prescribes penalties for non-compliance. The court examined whether these provisions were reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) of the Constitution.
2. Right to Close Down a Business as Part of the Right to Carry on a Business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution:
The employers argued that the right to close down a business is an integral part of the right to carry on a business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g). The court recognized that "the right to close down a business is an integral part of the right to carry on a business." However, it noted that this right is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions.
3. Reasonableness of the Restrictions Imposed by Sections 25-O and 25-R:
The court considered several arguments regarding the unreasonableness of the restrictions:
- Section 25-O does not require the government to provide reasons for its decision.
- No time limit is set for the government to refuse permission.
- The law leaves the decision to the discretion of the authority without clear guidelines.
- There is no provision for appeal, revision, or review of the government's decision.
- The employer is compelled to comply with Section 25N only after approval of closure, which is impractical.
- The penalties under Section 25-R are excessive.
The court found these restrictions to be excessive and unreasonable, stating, "It is not always easy to strike a balance between the parallel and conflicting interests. Yet it is not fair to unreasonably tilt the balance in favour of one interest by ignoring the other."
4. Applicability of Article 31C of the Constitution to the Impugned Law:
The respondents argued that the impugned law was protected by Article 31C, which shields laws giving effect to certain directive principles from being challenged on the grounds of violating fundamental rights. The court examined whether the law fell within the scope of Article 31C, particularly after its amendment by the Forty-second Amendment Act, 1976. The court concluded that the amended Article 31C could not save the law, stating, "The amended Article 31C did not save it."
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court declared Sections 25-O and 25-R of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as unconstitutional and invalid for violating Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court held that the restrictions imposed by these sections were excessive and unreasonable. Consequently, the impugned orders passed under Section 25-O(2) were void, and the respondents were restrained from enforcing them. The court did not express any views on the merits of the orders otherwise and made no order as to costs in any of the petitions.
-
1978 (9) TMI 183
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the finding of Civil Court u/s 146 (1B) can be challenged by way of an appeal, review, or revision.
2. Whether an order passed by the Magistrate on the receipt of the finding of the Civil Court, in conformity with the decision of the Civil Court, can be challenged before the High Court u/s 435 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. Whether an order passed by the Magistrate u/s 146 (1B) can be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Summary:
Issue 1:
The Supreme Court examined whether the finding of the Civil Court u/s 146 (1B) regarding possession can be challenged by way of appeal, review, or revision. The Court held that the finding of the Civil Court is final and cannot be challenged by way of appeal, review, or revision. This is supported by the express provision in Section 146 (1D) which states, "No appeal shall lie from any finding of the Civil Court given on a reference under this Section nor shall any review or revision of any such finding be allowed." The Court referenced the case of State of U.P. & Anr. v. Ramchandra Aggarwal and Anr., affirming that the wording of Section 146 (1D) puts the matter beyond any controversy.
Issue 2:
The Court addressed whether an order passed by the Magistrate on receipt of a finding from the Civil Court can be challenged by way of revision before the High Court. The Court concluded that if the Magistrate's order is in conformity with the decision of the Civil Court, it cannot be challenged. The Court emphasized that the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere under Sections 435 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code when there is an express provision in sub-Section (1D) against the challenge of the finding of the Civil Court. The answer to the second question is that an order passed by the Magistrate u/s 146 (1B) in conformity with the decision of the Civil Court cannot be challenged under Sections 435 and 439.
Issue 3:
The Court considered whether an order u/s 146 (1B) can be interfered with by the High Court in the exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Court acknowledged that the powers conferred on the High Court under Art. 227 cannot be curtailed by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the scope of interference by the High Court under Art. 227 is restricted. The Court reiterated that the power of superintendence under Article 227 is to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. The Court found that the High Court was in error in invoking Sections 435 and 439 for interfering with the finding of the Civil Court regarding possession in a reference under Section 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and restored the order of the Magistrate. The Court noted that Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 has been replaced by the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973, and the issues dealt with in this case can no longer arise under the new provisions.
-
1978 (9) TMI 182
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the election petition.
2. Whether the election was vitiated by corrupt practices under Section 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
3. Reliefs and costs.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Maintainability of the Election Petition
The High Court held that the election petition was maintainable, a finding that was not challenged by the appellant. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed this finding.
Issue 2: Corrupt Practices under Section 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
The primary allegation was that the appellant, as the Chief Editor of the newspaper "Chandrika," was responsible for publishing articles and cartoons that promoted ill-will and hatred between different classes of citizens, specifically targeting the Janasangh and the Muslim League. The High Court found the appellant guilty based on the presumption under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, which was contested in the Supreme Court.
Legal Aspect:
- Section 7 of the Press Act: The Supreme Court emphasized that the presumption under Section 7 applies only to the "Editor" as defined in the Act, i.e., the person who controls the selection of the matter published in a newspaper.
- Definition of Editor: The appellant was listed as the Chief Editor, but the newspaper named V.C. Aboobaker as the Editor, who had filed the necessary declarations under the Press Act. The role of Chief Editor is not recognized under the Press Act.
Factual Aspect:
- Appellant's Role: Evidence showed that the appellant did not control the editorial content of "Chandrika." He was primarily involved in fundraising and was busy with election duties, leaving no time for editorial work.
- Testimonies: Witnesses, including P.W. 2 (Aboobaker), confirmed that the appellant had no role in the day-to-day editorial functions. The editorial responsibilities were solely managed by Aboobaker and his team.
Key Findings:
- Presumption under Section 7: The Supreme Court concluded that the presumption under Section 7 of the Press Act could not be applied to the appellant as he did not fulfill the role of an editor.
- Evidence of Corrupt Practices: The Supreme Court found that the petitioner failed to provide clear and cogent evidence that the appellant had knowledge or consented to the publication of the offending articles and cartoons. The allegations were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue 3: Reliefs and Costs
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the High Court's judgment that had set aside the appellant's election and disqualified him from contesting elections for six years. The election petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed, and the appellant was awarded costs.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the appellant was not the editor of "Chandrika" and had no control over its editorial content. The presumption under Section 7 of the Press Act was not applicable, and the petitioner failed to prove the corrupt practices alleged under Section 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Consequently, the High Court's judgment was overturned, and the appellant's election was upheld.
........
|
9911796707
