|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 950 Records
-
1974 (8) TMI 130
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the lease agreement.
2. Right to renewal of the lease.
3. Impact of the Mysore Rent Control Acts.
4. Entitlement to specific performance.
5. Doctrine of frustration.
6. Entitlement to possession and mesne profits.
7. Calculation of the lease period.
8. Relief and costs.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Lease Agreement
The lease agreement dated September 2, 1946, was a "demise in presenti," meaning it was an agreement of lease and not merely an agreement to lease. This distinction was crucial as it granted the appellant an immediate interest in the property, entitling him to sue for possession.
2. Right to Renewal of the Lease
The original lease to respondent 2 included an option to renew for another five years, subject to mutually agreed terms. However, respondent 1 refused to renew the lease, leading to a legal dispute. Respondent 1's refusal was based on alleged misbehavior and non-payment of rent by respondent 2.
3. Impact of the Mysore Rent Control Acts
The Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Order, 1948, and the subsequent Mysore Rent Control Acts affected the legal proceedings. Initially, these laws posed impediments to eviction and specific performance. However, the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961, excluded buildings with monthly rents exceeding Rs. 500, removing these impediments and allowing the court to grant relief.
4. Entitlement to Specific Performance
The court found that the suit for specific performance was misconceived because the appellant already had a vested interest in the property due to the "demise in presenti." The proper relief was to sue for possession, which the appellant had done.
5. Doctrine of Frustration
The High Court applied the doctrine of frustration, stating that changes in rent control laws made it impossible for respondent 1 to evict respondent 2 within a reasonable time. This was deemed incorrect because the lease was a "demise in presenti," not an executory contract. Therefore, the doctrine of frustration was inapplicable.
6. Entitlement to Possession and Mesne Profits
The appellant was entitled to possession and mesne profits because respondent 2 continued in possession with full notice of the lease in favor of the appellant. The court noted that respondent 1's conduct in entering a fresh lease with respondent 2 and filing a compromise was not bona fide.
7. Calculation of the Lease Period
The lease period was to commence from the date of possession, not the date of execution. Clause 2 of the lease stated that rent would be payable from the date possession was delivered to the tenant. Clause 4 provided for a 10-year lease with an option to extend for another 5 years, starting from the date possession was obtained.
8. Relief and Costs
The appeal was allowed, and the judgments of the Trial Court and the first appellate court were reversed. The appellant was to be put in possession under the terms of Exhibit D upon payment of Rs. 18,000 to respondent 1. The appellant was also awarded costs in the Supreme Court from the respondents.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court granted the appellant possession of the property under the lease terms, reversing the lower courts' judgments. The appellant was entitled to possession and mesne profits, and the doctrine of frustration was deemed inapplicable. The court also awarded costs to the appellant.
-
1974 (8) TMI 129
Issues:
1. Conviction and sentencing of accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Appeal against the acquittal of accused by the Allahabad High Court.
3. Reliability of witness testimony and evidence presented during the trial.
4. Assessment of motive and credibility of witnesses.
5. Applicability of legal principles in determining guilt or innocence.
Analysis:
1. The judgment involves the conviction and sentencing of the accused under different sections of the Indian Penal Code in connection with a murder case. The trial court convicted the accused based on the testimony of witnesses and evidence presented during the trial. The accused were sentenced to death or imprisonment based on their individual roles in the crime.
2. The State of Uttar Pradesh filed an appeal against the acquittal of two accused by the Allahabad High Court. The High Court acquitted all four accused based on the assessment of witness testimony and evidence. The appeal to the Supreme Court was made to challenge the High Court's decision in acquitting two of the accused.
3. The reliability of witness testimony, particularly that of Rajeshwari Devi, was a crucial aspect of the case. The trial court relied on her testimony, while the High Court found several inconsistencies and infirmities in her evidence. The Supreme Court also examined her testimony and concluded that the High Court's assessment of her evidence was valid, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
4. The assessment of motive and credibility of witnesses played a significant role in the case. The High Court found that the alleged dispute between the accused and the deceased regarding property partition lacked evidence. Additionally, the High Court raised concerns about witness credibility, suggesting that some witnesses may have been influenced or manipulated to provide false testimony.
5. The Supreme Court emphasized the legal principle that interference with a judgment of acquittal is warranted only if there is a glaring infirmity in the assessment of evidence. The Court highlighted that the mere existence of an alternative view on the evidence does not justify overturning a judgment of acquittal. In this case, the Supreme Court found no such weakness in the High Court's judgment to warrant interference, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
-
1974 (8) TMI 128
Issues:
- Interpretation of the scope of a Bench of the High Court in an appeal from a Single Judge's judgment.
- Conflict of decisions on the scope of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court.
- Whether a Division Bench hearing a Letters Patent appeal has the same powers as a Single Judge in a first Appellate Court.
- Applicability of limitations under Sections 100 and 101 of the CPC to an Appellate Court in a Letters Patent appeal.
- Review of findings of fact by a Letters Patent Bench in an appeal from a first appeal heard by a Single Judge.
Analysis:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a Bench of the High Court in an appeal from a Single Judge's judgment can consider all matters that a Single Judge could have decided without being limited by the restrictions of Section 100 of the CPC. The case involved a money suit for recovery of a specific amount due from the defendant. The Trial Court decreed the suit, but the Single Judge in a first appeal reversed this decision based on various observations, including the unreliability of witnesses and lack of evidence supporting the claim. The plaintiff then preferred a Letters Patent appeal, leading to a conflict on the interpretation of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court.
In the Full Bench, two Judges held that the findings of fact by the Single Judge are binding, while another Judge dissented, aligning with the consensus of other High Courts. The Supreme Court clarified that the power of a Division Bench in a Letters Patent appeal is not limited to a question of law under Section 100 of the CPC. The Court emphasized that the limitations under Sections 100 and 101 of the CPC do not apply to an Appellate Court hearing a Letters Patent appeal from a Single Judge's judgment, as a Single Judge is not subordinate to the High Court.
Referring to past judgments and legal principles, the Court highlighted that a Letters Patent appeal allows questioning of both law and findings of fact from the judgment or decree brought under the Letters Patent. The Court affirmed that a Letters Patent Bench can review findings of fact in an appeal from a first appeal heard by a Single Judge, although caution should be exercised in disturbing concurrent findings. The Supreme Court set aside the Full Bench judgment and remanded the matter for further proceedings, noting the consistent view held by various High Courts on this matter.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court clarified the powers of a Division Bench in a Letters Patent appeal, emphasizing the broader scope of review compared to restrictions under the CPC. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering both law and findings of fact in such appeals, ensuring a comprehensive review process while respecting concurrent findings where appropriate.
-
1974 (8) TMI 127
Issues Involved
1. Determination of the market value of the land acquired.
2. Validity of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.
3. Procedural errors in the issuance of notices under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act.
4. Assessment of potential value and compensation for the acquired land.
5. Admissibility and relevance of sale transactions as evidence.
6. Burden of proof in determining the market value.
Detailed Analysis
1. Determination of the Market Value of the Land Acquired
The principal question was the determination of the market value of the land acquired on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer initially made the award based on a multiple per rupee rental, considering the agricultural lands' market value at Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- per acre. However, the Additional District Judge valued the land as a building site, considering the proximity to the abadi and other amenities, and divided the land into two categories, valuing the first category at Rs. 12,000/- per acre and the second at Rs. 7,000/- per acre.
2. Validity of the Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act
The court found no invalidity attached to the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The crucial date for determining the market value was the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, i.e., the 4th December 1959.
3. Procedural Errors in the Issuance of Notices under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act
The Land Acquisition Officer initially erred by not issuing fresh notices under Section 9 after the publication of the notification under Section 6. This led to the quashing of the previous awards. However, the procedural errors were rectified in the subsequent proceedings, and the third award made on the 4th August 1969 was not challenged on procedural grounds.
4. Assessment of Potential Value and Compensation for the Acquired Land
The Additional District Judge considered the land's potential value as a building site due to its proximity to the abadi and other amenities. The claimants argued for a higher valuation, while the Government contended for a lower valuation based on agricultural use. The court ultimately determined the market value based on comparable sales and potential value, fixing the value at Rs. 5,500/- per acre for lands contiguous to the Uttai-Durg Road, Rs. 4,800/- per acre for lands close to Kasaridih abadi, and Rs. 4,400/- per acre for interior lands.
5. Admissibility and Relevance of Sale Transactions as Evidence
The court scrutinized the sale transactions presented by both parties. The claimants' evidence was found unhelpful as the sales were not comparable due to differing conditions and amenities. The Government's evidence was also questioned due to potential collusion. Ultimately, the court admitted additional evidence, including sale-deeds from previous proceedings, to determine the market value accurately.
6. Burden of Proof in Determining the Market Value
The burden of proving that the valuation made by the Land Acquisition Officer was insufficient and unfair was on the claimants. The court emphasized that the claimants' position was that of a plaintiff, and they failed to discharge the onus of proving the market value satisfactorily.
Conclusion
The court concluded that the lands must be valued on an acreage basis, with the market value fixed at Rs. 5,500/- per acre for lands contiguous to the Uttai-Durg Road, Rs. 4,800/- per acre for lands close to Kasaridih abadi, and Rs. 4,400/- per acre for interior lands. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the State's appeal allowed and the claimants' appeal dismissed. The direction as to interest was maintained.
-
1974 (8) TMI 126
Issues Involved:
1. Scope of the fiction in the Explanation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
2. Determination of the plaintiff's share in the suit property.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Scope of the Fiction in the Explanation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
The first issue pertains to the interpretation of the legal fiction introduced by Explanation 1 to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court examined whether this fiction should be interpreted as broadly as in Rangubai v. Laxman, which held that the shares of persons other than the deceased coparcener become fixed as if a partition had taken place during the deceased coparcener's lifetime. The court acknowledged that there are two possible interpretations of the legal fiction: one that extends the fiction to assume all consequences of a real partition and another that limits the fiction to its intended purpose without stretching beyond it. The court decided to proceed on the assumption that the fiction should not be stretched beyond its purpose, which is to quantify the share of the deceased coparcener for the purpose of devolution by testamentary or intestate succession.
2. Determination of the Plaintiff's Share in the Suit Property:
The second issue involved determining the plaintiff's share in the family property. The court examined the facts of the case, including the death of Shridhar, the adopted son, and the subsequent devolution of his share. Shridhar's share was deemed to be 1/3rd of the joint family property, and upon his death, this share was to be divided equally between his mother Laxmibai and his widow Shantabai. The court also considered the right of Laxmibai, as a mother, to claim a share equal to that of a son upon a notional partition as contemplated by Explanation 1 to Section 6. Consequently, Laxmibai was entitled to 1/3rd share in the joint family property due to the notional partition and an additional 1/6th share as an heir of Shridhar, totaling 1/2 share in the family property. Upon Laxmibai's death, her 1/2 share was equally divided between her husband Narayanrao and her daughter, the plaintiff, resulting in the plaintiff being entitled to a 1/4th share in the suit property.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the plaintiff, Sushilabai, is entitled to a 1/4th share in the suit property. The detailed analysis of the issues involved demonstrates the court's reliance on the legal fiction provided in Explanation 1 to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the application of Shastric Hindu law principles to determine the plaintiff's share. The court also highlighted the legislative intent to enlarge the rights of female heirs under Hindu law, reinforcing the plaintiff's entitlement to her share. The remaining issues, if any, were left to be decided by the Division Bench in light of the quantum of the plaintiff's share determined by the Full Bench.
-
1974 (8) TMI 125
Issues Involved:
1. Reliability of eyewitness testimony.
2. Nature and cause of injuries sustained by the deceased.
3. Time of the occurrence of the incident.
4. Identity of the accused.
5. Justification for the High Court's reversal of the trial court's acquittal.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony:
The prosecution relied on the testimonies of two eyewitnesses, Velunni (PW 1) and Krishnan (PW 2). The High Court based the conviction on their evidence. However, the Supreme Court found the evidence of these witnesses far from convincing. The trial court had provided cogent grounds for rejecting their testimony, noting inconsistencies in their statements regarding the identification of the accused. Velunni initially claimed to have identified the culprits by their faces but later stated he saw only their backs. Krishnan admitted knowing only two of the accused and had no previous acquaintance with the others, which undermined the reliability of their identification.
2. Nature and Cause of Injuries Sustained by the Deceased:
Dr. Chandran, who conducted the post-mortem, found five incised wounds, eight contusions, two lacerated wounds, and one abrasion on the body of the deceased, Ananthakrishnan. The doctor opined that the incised wounds, which were clean and pucca, were fatal. Although he mentioned that such wounds could be caused by sticks, he admitted in cross-examination that they appeared to be inflicted by a sharp-edged weapon. The trial court, referencing Modi's "Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology," concluded that the injuries were caused by a sharp-edged weapon, not by sticks as claimed by the eyewitnesses.
3. Time of the Occurrence of the Incident:
The trial court determined that the assault occurred before 10 a.m., contrary to the eyewitnesses' statements that it happened around 11 a.m. This conclusion was supported by the testimony of Chokkunny (PW 6), who learned of the death around 9:30 or 10 a.m., and the medical evidence provided by Dr. Chandran, who noted signs of decomposition consistent with an earlier time of death.
4. Identity of the Accused:
The trial court found the evidence regarding the identity of the culprits unsatisfactory. Velunni's inconsistent statements and Krishnan's limited acquaintance with the accused cast doubt on their ability to accurately identify the perpetrators. No identification parade was conducted to verify Krishnan's identification of the accused.
5. Justification for the High Court's Reversal of the Trial Court's Acquittal:
The Supreme Court emphasized that in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court must give proper weight to the trial judge's view on witness credibility, the presumption of innocence, and the benefit of reasonable doubt. The trial court had provided convincing reasons for acquitting the accused, which the High Court failed to adequately address. The Supreme Court noted that if two conclusions could be drawn from the evidence, the High Court should not disturb the trial court's finding of acquittal unless it was unreasonable. The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court's view was not unreasonable and thus the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's acquittal of the accused. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had insufficient grounds to reverse the well-reasoned judgment of the trial court.
-
1974 (8) TMI 124
Issues:
- Dismissal of pre-emption suit by Punjab High Court
- Claim of being co-sharers in land sold to respondents
- Interpretation of Section 15(b) fourthly of the Punjab Pre-emption Act
- Failure to produce sale deed as crucial evidence
- Adverse inference drawn due to non-submission of important document
Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the Punjab High Court's judgment dismissing a pre-emption suit. The plaintiffs claimed to be co-sharers in the land sold to the respondents and sought pre-emption rights. The trial court and the first appellate court had decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, but the High Court reversed the decision. The main issue revolved around whether the plaintiffs had superior pre-emption rights as per Section 15(b) fourthly of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. The courts emphasized that the plaintiffs needed to establish their co-ownership rights at the time of the sale and up to the date of the decree. The High Court noted the absence of a crucial sale deed dated 19-5-69, which the appellants failed to produce. This omission led to doubts about the plaintiffs' claim of retaining co-ownership rights in specific portions of the land.
The High Court highlighted that the failure to submit the sale deed hindered the verification of the alleged retained portion of land by the plaintiffs. The court drew an adverse inference against the appellants due to the non-submission of this essential document, which could have clarified the extent of their co-ownership rights. The appellants' argument based on the definition of holdings under Section 3(3) was deemed insufficient to establish their co-sharer status in the disputed land. Despite oral evidence presented, the absence of a registered document like the sale deed weakened the plaintiffs' case. The court emphasized that the appellants could have easily proven their claim through the sale deed but chose not to produce it, leading to the adverse inference against them.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to dismiss the pre-emption suit, citing the appellants' failure to substantiate their co-ownership rights in the land sold to the respondents. The non-disclosure of the sale deed and the lack of concrete evidence regarding the retained portion of land worked against the appellants' claim. The court emphasized the importance of producing relevant documents to support legal claims and reiterated that the failure to do so could result in adverse inferences being drawn. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the appellants.
-
1974 (8) TMI 123
Issues:
1. Validity of adoption and intention to transfer the adopted son from his natural family to the adoptive family.
2. Interpretation of the adoption deed and customary law in Punjab.
3. Relevance of giving and taking ceremony in adoption.
4. Impact of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 on customary adoption practices.
Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute arising from the adoption of the appellant by Maghi Singh, contested by the 1st respondent claiming a share in Maghi Singh's property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court found the giving and taking ceremony had not occurred, leading to the appeal. Justice Khanna confirmed the ceremony's occurrence, rejecting the argument against the intent of transferring the appellant. The Division Bench of the High Court held no evidence of intent to transfer and allowed the appeal, leading to the current appeal at the Supreme Court.
2. The adoption deed explicitly mentioned the giving and taking ceremony, Maghi Singh adopting the appellant as his son according to custom, making him the legal heir and representative, and transferring property rights. The court emphasized that customary law in Punjab recognized both formal and informal adoptions, with the intent to transfer the adopted son from the natural family to the adoptive family being a crucial factor.
3. The court highlighted the symbolic significance of the giving and taking ceremony in adoption, emphasizing its role in transplanting the adopted son from the birth family to the adoptive family. Reference was made to ancient texts on adoption, underlining the necessity of giving and receiving for a valid adoption, as it signifies the transfer of the child from one family to another.
4. With the enactment of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, customary adoption practices were rendered obsolete. The court clarified that after the Act's implementation, customary adoptions no longer held validity, as the Act superseded any prior customary laws or practices related to adoption, emphasizing compliance with the formalities prescribed by the Act for a valid adoption.
5. The Division Bench's error lay in assuming Maghi Singh's intent was merely to appoint an heir based on custom, disregarding the clear references to adoption in the deed. The court emphasized that the intention to transfer the adopted son to the adoptive family was evident from the adoption deed and testimonies, concluding that the adoption was valid. The Division Bench's judgment was set aside, and the Single Judge's decision was restored, with costs awarded to the appellant.
-
1974 (8) TMI 122
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act.
2. Legality of the mining lease under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948 and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949.
3. Applicability of Sections 70 and 72 of the Indian Contract Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act:
The core issue was whether Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act applied to the case. Section 65 states: "When an agreement is discovered to be void, or when a contract becomes void, any person who has received any advantage under such agreement or contract is bound to restore it, or to make compensation for it to the person from whom he received it." The court clarified that the section makes a distinction between an agreement and a contract. An agreement not enforceable by law is void, whereas a contract is an agreement enforceable by law. The section applies when an agreement is discovered to be void or when a contract becomes void due to subsequent events. However, it does not apply if both parties knew from the beginning that the agreement was unlawful and therefore void. The court concluded that since the plaintiff was already in the mining business and had legal counsel, they should have been aware of the illegality of the lease agreement from the start. Thus, Section 65 did not apply.
2. Legality of the Mining Lease under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948 and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949:
The lease was granted on September 7, 1950, after the Mineral Concession Rules came into force on October 25, 1949. Section 4 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948, states that no mining lease shall be granted except in accordance with the rules made under the Act, and any lease granted contrary to this provision is void. Rule 45 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, required a certificate of approval from the Provincial Government, which the plaintiff did not have. Rule 49 prohibited charging any premium in addition to specified fees and rents, but the lease included a premium payment. Therefore, the lease was void ab initio as it violated the Act and the Rules.
3. Applicability of Sections 70 and 72 of the Indian Contract Act:
Sections 70 and 72 were also considered. Section 70 pertains to the obligation to compensate for benefits received under non-gratuitous acts, and Section 72 deals with the obligation to return money paid under a mistake or coercion. The court found that the payment of Rs. 80,000 was not made lawfully, nor was it done under a mistake or coercion. The plaintiff should have been aware of the illegality of the agreement when it was entered into. Therefore, neither Section 70 nor Section 72 applied to the case.
Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, as the plaintiff was not entitled to relief under Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, and the lease was void under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948, and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949. Sections 70 and 72 of the Indian Contract Act were also not applicable. The appeal was dismissed without costs.
-
1974 (8) TMI 121
The High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the plaintiff, overturning the lower courts' decision to grant a temporary injunction to defendant 1. The Court found that the causes of action for the plaintiff and the defendant were different, making the injunction improper.
-
1974 (8) TMI 120
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court of Bombay was right in directing additional evidence to be led by respondents 1 to 4 under Order 41 Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Merits of the appeal concerning the disallowance of specific amounts claimed by the Official Liquidator.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Additional Evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure:
The first question addressed was whether the High Court of Bombay was justified in allowing respondents 1 to 4 to present additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure. The Court reiterated that additional evidence could be admitted if the trial court had improperly refused to admit evidence or if the appellate court required it to pronounce judgment. The Court noted that the District Judge had improperly rejected the respondents' request to present evidence and cross-examine respondent 5. Consequently, the High Court was justified in ordering additional evidence to be recorded.
2. Merits of the Appeal:
a. Disallowance of Rs. 1,30,000:
The High Court disallowed the claim of Rs. 1,30,000 as commission on the sale of a Stein-Muller Boiler to the M.P. Electricity Board. The Official Liquidator failed to establish any connection between the Nagpur Company and the sale. The Court found no evidence of an agreement entitling the Nagpur Company to the commission, thus upholding the High Court's decision.
b. Commission on General Motors Pumping Sets (Rs. 20,000):
The claim for Rs. 20,000 as commission on sales of General Motors pumping sets was also disallowed. The Official Liquidator could not establish that the Nagpur Company was entitled to the infringement commission from sales in the Bhopal area. The High Court found insufficient evidence to support the claim, and the Supreme Court agreed.
c. Commission on General Motors Supplies (Rs. 36,000):
The claim for Rs. 36,000 was based on the assertion that the Bombay Company withheld 3% commission that should have been paid to the Nagpur Company. The High Court found no sufficient evidence to support this claim, as the terms of the agreement between the two companies were not clearly established. The Supreme Court upheld this finding.
d. Supplies to Model Mills and Power House (Rs. 30,000):
The claim for Rs. 30,000 related to supplies made to Model Mills and the Power House in Nagpur. The High Court found no evidence to support the claim that the Bombay Company should reduce its commission from 5% to 2%. The Supreme Court agreed with this assessment.
e. Stock, Furniture, Motor Car (Rs. 11,927):
The High Court allowed Rs. 11,927 for the difference between the book value and the purchase price of stock, furniture, and a motor car. The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with this finding.
f. Wrongful Remission to Hyderabad Company (Rs. 2,686/3):
The claim for Rs. 2,686/3 was allowed for the wrongful remission to the Hyderabad Company. The Supreme Court found no dispute regarding this claim and upheld the High Court's decision.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Bombay High Court. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
-
1974 (8) TMI 119
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the extension order for issuing show-cause notice.
2. Timeliness and legality of the show-cause notices.
3. Application of the principle of issue-estoppel to the confiscation proceedings.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Extension Order:
The petitioner argued that the extension order was invalid as it was passed without notice to him and after the expiry of the initial six-month period provided under Sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The court found that the initial six-month period for issuing the notice expired on September 28, 1970. The Collector's order dated September 2, 1970, extending this period was invalid as no notice was given to the petitioner. The subsequent order on March 19, 1971, extending the period was also invalid as it was passed after the expiry of the initial six months. Consequently, the petitioner had a vested right to claim the return of the G.C. notes. The court concluded that the extension order was bad and without jurisdiction, thus quashing it.
2. Timeliness and Legality of the Show-Cause Notices:
The petitioner contended that the show-cause notices issued on March 22, 1971, were invalid as they were issued beyond the initial six-month period without a valid extension. The court noted that Section 124 of the Customs Act does not prescribe a time limit for issuing show-cause notices, unlike Section 110 which deals with the seizure of goods. The failure to issue a notice within the prescribed period under Section 110(2) does not invalidate the show-cause notice under Section 124. Therefore, the court disagreed with the petitioner's contention, stating that the show-cause notices were not illegal despite being issued after the initial six-month period.
3. Application of Issue-Estoppel:
The petitioner argued that the confiscation proceedings were barred by the principle of issue-estoppel as he had already been acquitted in the opium case. The court rejected this contention, stating that confiscation is a judgment in rem, while the decision in the opium case is a judgment in personam. The parties and subject matter in both cases were different. Therefore, the principle of issue-estoppel did not apply, and the continuation of the confiscation proceedings was not barred.
Conclusion:
The court partially allowed the writ petition, quashing the extension order and directing the respondent to return the G.C. notes of Rs. 1,57,000 to the petitioner, subject to the rights of the Income-tax authorities. The petition was dismissed regarding other reliefs, including quashing the show-cause notices and prohibiting the continuation of confiscation proceedings. No order as to costs was made, considering the special circumstances of the case.
-
1974 (8) TMI 118
Issues:
1. Conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
2. Qualifications of the Food Inspector.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements under Sections 11 and 22.
4. Application of Section 10(7) regarding presence of witnesses.
5. Compliance with Section 13 and Rule 7 regarding seal comparison.
6. Validity of prosecution consent under Section 20.
7. Imposition of fine below prescribed amount.
Analysis:
1. The case involves the conviction of the applicant for selling adulterated coriander under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The applicant was sentenced to 5 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of &8377; 200 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, which was confirmed by the Sessions Judge. The conviction was based on evidence provided by witnesses and the Chemical Analyst's report confirming adulteration.
2. The issue of the Food Inspector's qualifications was raised by the applicant's counsel, questioning the appointment of Veer Singh as a Food Inspector. However, the court found no reason to disbelieve Veer Singh's statement regarding his appointment and duties, as the applicant failed to challenge this evidence during cross-examination.
3. Concerning procedural compliance, the applicant argued that Sections 11 and 22 were not followed, challenging the notice given before sample collection and the quantity of sample sent for analysis. The court clarified that the notice in Form 6 is meant to record a past transaction and not required before sample purchase. Additionally, minor variations in sample quantity do not invalidate the analysis.
4. The applicant contested the application of Section 10(7) regarding witness presence during sample collection. The court noted that two Motbir witnesses were present, and the examination of a peon was deemed sufficient, dismissing the criticism of the applicant's counsel.
5. Compliance with Section 13 and Rule 7, which involve seal comparison, was also questioned. The court found no merit in this argument, as the Public Analyst confirmed seal comparison, and no disputes were raised in lower courts.
6. The validity of the prosecution consent under Section 20 was challenged based on the wording of the consent document. The court interpreted the consent as valid, emphasizing that the authority to prosecute was granted by the proper authority, even if the specific offense was not explicitly mentioned.
7. Lastly, the court noted an error in imposing a fine below the prescribed amount under Section 16(1)(f) but refrained from enhancing it due to the applicant's circumstances. Ultimately, the court upheld the applicant's conviction for selling adulterated coriander, dismissing the revision.
This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses all the issues raised in the case, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal reasoning and conclusions reached by the court.
-
1974 (8) TMI 117
Issues Involved:
1. Lawfulness of imprisonment without a signed judgment at the time of pronouncement.
2. Delay in providing a copy of the judgment to the accused.
3. Procedural irregularity regarding the signing of the judgment.
4. Validity of the Registrar's refusal to place the petition before the High Court.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Lawfulness of Imprisonment Without a Signed Judgment:
The primary issue was whether a convicted person can be considered lawfully imprisoned if the trial judge dictates the judgment but does not sign it at the time of pronouncement. The court concluded that the dictation of the concluding part of the judgment in open court by the Sessions Judge should be taken as tantamount to the pronouncement of the judgment. The procedural requirement of signing the judgment at the time of pronouncement was considered a procedural irregularity, curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and did not vitiate the conviction.
2. Delay in Providing a Copy of the Judgment:
The petitioner argued that he could not be detained for seven months without being supplied a copy of the judgment. The court acknowledged that the delay of more than nine months in supplying the copy of the judgment was wholly unjustified and highlighted the need for prompt transcription and supply of judgment copies to the accused. The court emphasized that such delays could affect the liberty of the subject and the right to appeal.
3. Procedural Irregularity Regarding the Signing of the Judgment:
The court examined whether the failure of the trial judge to sign the judgment at the time of its pronouncement constituted a procedural irregularity curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court referred to previous judgments, including Firm Gokal Chand v. Firm Nand Ram and Surendra Singh & Ors v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, to conclude that the failure to sign the judgment at the time of pronouncement was a procedural irregularity that did not affect the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the court.
4. Validity of the Registrar's Refusal to Place the Petition Before the High Court:
The petitioner challenged the validity of the Registrar's order declining to place his petition before the High Court due to non-compliance with procedural requirements. The court found no sufficient ground to quash the Registrar's order, emphasizing that the rules requiring petitions to be sent through the Jail Superintendent and countersigned by him were designed to ensure the authenticity of the petition and safeguard against potential mischief.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed all three petitions, concluding that the procedural irregularities did not vitiate the conviction and that the petitioner was lawfully imprisoned. The court also declined to quash the Registrar's order and emphasized the need for prompt supply of judgment copies to the accused. A copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the Registrar of the Bombay High Court for appropriate action regarding the prompt supply of judgment copies.
-
1974 (8) TMI 116
Issues Involved:
1. Overlapping of Routes
2. Jurisdiction of Regional Transport Authority
3. Provisions of the Bangalore Scheme
4. Interpretation of the term "Route"
5. Renewal of Permits
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Overlapping of Routes:
The primary issue was whether the renewal of a permit for a route that overlaps a notified route by three miles is permissible. The Mysore State Road Transport Corporation (the appellant) objected to the renewal of the permit for the third respondent on the grounds that it would authorize overlapping on the notified route. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, reasoning that the integrity of a scheme is not impaired if the overlapping portion is about five miles and if a condition not to pick up or set down passengers on the notified route is attached. The Supreme Court found that any route or area, either wholly or partly, can be taken over by a State Undertaking under any scheme published, approved, and notified under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. Jurisdiction of Regional Transport Authority:
The appellant argued that the Regional Transport Authority had no jurisdiction to grant the renewal of the permit which overlaps the notified route. The Supreme Court held that if a scheme prohibits private transport owners from operating on the notified area or route or any portion thereof, the Regional Transport Authority cannot renew the permit of such private owners or give any fresh permit in respect of a route that overlaps the notified route. The question is whether the scheme read as a whole prohibits the private owners from operating on any of the notified routes.
3. Provisions of the Bangalore Scheme:
The Bangalore Scheme, as approved under Section 68D(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, included "6 services between any two places therein" and the transport services were to be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking to the complete exclusion of other operators. The Supreme Court noted that the scheme's integrity is not affected if the overlapping is under five miles or because a condition has been stipulated in the permit that the operators will not pick up or set down any passengers on the overlapped route. The appellant's contention that the scheme prohibited any overlapping was upheld, and the renewal of the permit was deemed invalid.
4. Interpretation of the term "Route":
The term "route" was interpreted in light of Section 2(28A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which defines "route" as "a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another." The Supreme Court noted that the distinction between "route" and "road" is relevant in the context of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court held that overlapping of routes does not necessarily mean traversing the same line, as an intersection cannot be said to be traversing the same line, as it cuts across it.
5. Renewal of Permits:
The renewal of the permit for the third respondent was challenged on the grounds that it overlapped the notified route. The Supreme Court found that the renewal was invalid as it violated the provisions of the notified scheme. The court directed the Regional Transport Authority to comply with the requirements of the scheme in respect of any permit granted or in respect of renewal of any such permit made in favor of the third respondent during the pendency of this appeal.
Separate Judgment by Beg, J.:
Beg, J., in his separate judgment, emphasized the importance of setting out facts with sufficient particulars to enable the High Court to exercise its writ issuing prerogative powers correctly. He noted that the Bangalore Scheme was ambiguous and that the failure to specify the names of private operators in the scheme indicated that they were not considered by the framers of the scheme to be plying on any of the notified routes. He concluded that the mere overlapping of some portions of a route would not debar a private operator from plying on his own but different route which is not notified at all. Beg, J. would have dismissed the appeal with costs.
-
1974 (8) TMI 115
Issues:
1. Opportunity of being heard under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Duty of the Land Acquisition Collector to hear objections and make recommendations.
3. Interpretation of the term "attached to a religious institution" in the context of land acquisition.
4. Compliance with statutory procedures and the role of the Collector in land acquisition cases.
Analysis:
The case involved a writ petition filed by the appellant before the High Court of Delhi to quash a notification issued under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellant, a registered society, objected to the acquisition of land belonging to a religious trust. The Land Acquisition Collector did not provide an opportunity for the appellant to be heard regarding the objections filed under section 5A of the Act, leading to the quashing of the notification by a Single Judge of the Court. However, a Division Bench overturned this decision, prompting the appellant to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court emphasized the mandatory nature of affording an opportunity to be heard under section 5A by the Collector. The Court clarified that while the Collector's recommendation is not binding on the Government, the Collector must still hear objections and make recommendations before the Government decides on the acquisition. The case highlighted the importance of following statutory procedures to uphold the rule of law in the country.
Regarding the interpretation of the term "attached to a religious institution," the Court disagreed with the Division Bench's view that the objection raised only a question of law. The Court held that since the objection involved mixed questions of law and fact, the Collector was obligated to inquire into the objection and make recommendations as per section 5A. Failure to do so indicated a dereliction of duty on the part of the Collector, regardless of the ultimate decision-making authority lying with the Government.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court quashed the declaration under section 6 of the Act and directed the Land Acquisition Collector to conduct an inquiry into the objection after providing the appellant with an opportunity to be heard. The Court stressed the importance of adhering to statutory procedures in land acquisition cases and set aside the Division Bench's order, allowing the appeal without costs.
This judgment underscores the significance of procedural fairness, the duty of the Collector to hear objections, and the necessity of following statutory requirements in land acquisition matters to uphold the principles of justice and the rule of law.
-
1974 (8) TMI 114
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notification dated 28-6-1967 issued by the Central Government under clause 7 of the Sugar (Control) Order, 1966.
2. Correctness of the method adopted in fixing prices of sugar.
3. Alleged failure of the Central Government to make appropriate adjustments or allowances in the final fixation of prices.
4. Division of the country into zones for price fixation.
5. Compliance with the guidelines and schedules provided by the Sugar Enquiry Commission.
6. Reasonableness and fairness of the price fixation process.
7. Legal implications of fixing prices twice within one season.
8. Validity of the writ petitions and the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Notification Dated 28-6-1967:
The appellants challenged the notification issued by the Central Government fixing ex-factory prices for sugar factories. The Supreme Court noted that the appellants had confined their arguments to the correctness of the method adopted in fixing prices and the alleged failure to make appropriate adjustments. The Court emphasized that it was not concerned with the validity of clause 7 of the Sugar (Control) Order under which the notifications were issued.
2. Correctness of the Method Adopted in Fixing Prices:
Clause 7(2) of the Sugar (Control) Order requires the government to fix prices "having regard to the estimated cost of production of sugar on the basis of the relevant schedule." The Court noted that the expression "having regard to" obliges the government to consider relevant data but does not mandate specific adjustments for past erroneous fixations. The Court found that the price fixed was an estimated maximum price and that there was no obligation on the government to compensate for losses due to previous erroneous fixations.
3. Alleged Failure to Make Appropriate Adjustments:
The appellants argued that the government failed to make adjustments for the initial fixation of prices followed by a final fixation. The Court held that the only "adjustment" provided for was before the fixation of the estimated price and that there was no obligation to compensate for losses due to previous erroneous fixations. The Court emphasized that such adjustments could be unfair to subsequent consumers.
4. Division of the Country into Zones for Price Fixation:
The Sugar Enquiry Commission recommended dividing the country into five zones for price fixation. The appellants contended that the government had divided the country into 22 zones, which was contrary to the Commission's recommendation. The Court noted that it was difficult to determine these factual questions on the meager material available in writ proceedings. The Court found that the division into zones was intended to encourage efficiency and rationalization in the industry.
5. Compliance with Guidelines and Schedules Provided by the Sugar Enquiry Commission:
The Court examined the cost schedules provided by the Commission and found that they were only guidelines and not mandatory statutory provisions. The Court noted that the schedules gave considerable freedom to the government in determining the "fair price" and that the criteria were elastic enough to include or exclude certain items. The Court found that the government had not acted arbitrarily or unreasonably in fixing the prices.
6. Reasonableness and Fairness of the Price Fixation Process:
The Court emphasized that price fixation is more in the nature of a legislative measure and does not require a quasi-judicial procedure. The Court held that the criterion adopted must be reasonable and that there must be a reasonable nexus between the matters taken into account and the purposes of the exercise of power. The Court found that the government had acted reasonably and in accordance with the purposes of the Essential Commodities Act.
7. Legal Implications of Fixing Prices Twice Within One Season:
The appellants argued that the price fixed on 28-6-1967 should apply for the whole season and that they suffered losses due to the lower price fixed on 1-2-1967. The Court found that there was no provision in the Control Order for a provisional fixation followed by a final fixation. The Court held that the practice of fixing prices twice within a season was fair and reasonable and that there was no obligation on the government to compensate for losses due to the initial fixation.
8. Validity of the Writ Petitions and the Jurisdiction of the High Court:
The Court noted that the appellants had not shown that the price fixation was ultra vires or that there was a failure to perform a mandatory duty. The Court emphasized that no writ or order in the nature of mandamus would issue when there was no failure to perform a mandatory duty. The Court held that the writ petitions were rightly rejected by the High Court and that the appeals failed on merits.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the government had acted reasonably and in accordance with the law in fixing the prices of sugar. The Court found no grounds for issuing any writ, order, or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1974 (8) TMI 113
Issues Involved:
1. Public purpose of land acquisition.
2. Delay in acquisition proceedings and compensation adequacy.
3. Authority to issue notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.
4. Acquisition for companies and compliance with Part VII of the Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Public Purpose of Land Acquisition:
The appellants challenged the acquisition on the grounds that it was not for a public purpose but for companies, and hence, the provisions of Part VII of the Act should have been complied with. The Supreme Court noted that the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act stated that the land was needed for the "planned development of Delhi." The Court held that specifying the public purpose in the notification is crucial to enable affected parties to file objections under Section 5A. However, the Court found that the appellants did not raise this issue timely, and thus, they were precluded from challenging the notification on this ground due to laches and delay. The Court emphasized that the planned development of Delhi was a public purpose, necessitated by the influx of displaced persons and the need for organized urban growth.
2. Delay in Acquisition Proceedings and Compensation Adequacy:
The appellants argued that the delay between the notification under Section 4 and the notices under Section 9 deprived them of the appreciation in the value of their property, violating their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f). The Court observed that the delay was partly due to the large number of objections and writ petitions filed, which the government had to address. The Court upheld the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, which stipulates that compensation should be determined with reference to the market value of the land as on the date of the notification under Section 4. The Court found no unreasonable restriction on the appellants' rights, as the Land Acquisition Act is a pre-Constitution Act protected by Article 31(5) of the Constitution.
3. Authority to Issue Notification Under Section 4:
The appellants contended that the notification under Section 4 should have been issued by the Central Government under Section 15 of the Delhi Development Act, not by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi. The Court held that the planned development of Delhi had been decided upon before the Delhi Development Act came into force. Therefore, there was no inhibition in acquiring land for planned development under the Land Acquisition Act before the Master Plan was ready. The Court also noted that the appellants were precluded by their laches and acquiescence from challenging the notification on this ground.
4. Acquisition for Companies and Compliance with Part VII of the Act:
The appellants argued that the acquisition was for cooperative housing societies, which are companies within the meaning of Section 3(e) of the Act, and thus, the provisions of Part VII should have been complied with. The Court found that the acquisition was not for companies, as the land was acquired for the public purpose of planned development. The subsequent allotment of land to cooperative housing societies did not change the nature of the acquisition. The Court upheld the findings of the High Court that the acquisition was not for companies and dismissed this contention.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and writ petitions, upholding the validity of the land acquisition for the planned development of Delhi. The Court found no merit in the appellants' contentions regarding the public purpose, delay in proceedings, authority to issue the notification, and acquisition for companies. The petitions were dismissed with costs.
-
1974 (8) TMI 112
Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of corrupt practices by the appellant, including bribery and hiring vehicles for free conveyance of voters.
2. Whether the payment of Rs. 1,000 to Chatru constituted bribery.
3. Whether the hiring of vehicles for free conveyance of voters constituted a corrupt practice.
4. Whether the assistance of a member of the Armed Forces for canvassing support constituted a corrupt practice.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Allegations of Corrupt Practices:
The appellant, Umed Singh, was accused of several corrupt practices in the election to the Haryana Legislative Assembly from the Meham Assembly Constituency. The High Court found some of these allegations to be true, leading to the setting aside of the appellant's election. The corrupt practices included bribery and hiring vehicles for free conveyance of voters.
2. Payment of Rs. 1,000 to Chatru:
The allegation was that the appellant committed bribery by paying Rs. 1,000 to Chatru, a candidate, to induce him not to withdraw from the election. The evidence was primarily based on the testimony of Chatru and a piece of paper (Exhibit PW 5/1) allegedly written by Subedar Bharat Singh, the appellant's election agent. The Supreme Court found the evidence suspect and noted inconsistencies in the testimonies. The Court held that the evidence did not satisfactorily prove that the payment was made with the object of inducing Chatru not to withdraw from the contest. The Court emphasized that the expression "withdraw from being a candidate" refers to the formal withdrawal process under Section 37 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which was not applicable in this case.
3. Hiring of Vehicles for Free Conveyance of Voters:
The appellant was accused of hiring and procuring vehicles for the free conveyance of voters to and from polling stations. The evidence included testimonies of drivers and entries in a register (Exhibit PW 19/1). The Supreme Court found the evidence unreliable, noting inconsistencies and the suspect nature of the entries in the register. However, the Court confirmed the finding of the High Court regarding Truck No. HRR 7101, which was used for conveying voters between Bedwa and Seman free of charge. The evidence of an elector, Mani Ram (PW 30), was found credible and supported the allegation.
4. Assistance of a Member of the Armed Forces:
The allegation was that the appellant obtained the assistance of Dhir Singh, a member of the Armed Forces, for canvassing support. The evidence included testimonies of witnesses and the examination of Dhir Singh as a court witness. The Supreme Court found the evidence insufficient to prove the allegation. The Court noted that Dhir Singh's testimony was inconsistent and did not conclusively establish that he canvassed for the appellant with the appellant's knowledge or consent.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the appellant's election based on the finding of corrupt practice related to the hiring of Truck No. HRR 7101 for free conveyance of voters. The Court rejected the other allegations of corrupt practices, finding the evidence unreliable. The Court directed that each party bear its own costs in the appeal. Additionally, the Court overruled its previous decision in Mohd. Yunus Saleem v. Shivkumar Shastri, clarifying that the expression "withdraw from being a candidate" refers to the formal withdrawal process under Section 37 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
-
1974 (8) TMI 111
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Municipal Council's resolutions dated 11 June 1970, 18 June 1970, and 19 June 1970.
2. Compliance with the Madras Town Planning Scheme and the Madras Place of Public Resorts Act, 1888.
3. Authority of the Municipal Council under the Mysore Municipalities Act.
4. Right of the appellant to challenge the resolutions and the legal implications of statutory duties.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Municipal Council's Resolutions:
The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's decision to quash three out of four resolutions passed by the Municipal Council. The resolutions in question were:
- 11 June 1970: Granted a licence to exhibit cinematographic films.
- 18 June 1970: Imposed conditions on the granted licence.
- 19 June 1970: Granted permission for the installation of electric motors and an oil engine.
The High Court invalidated these resolutions on the grounds that the Municipal Council had no power under the Madras Place of Public Resorts Act, 1888, as it had ceased to be in force. Additionally, the High Court found no provision under the Mysore Municipalities Act authorizing the installation of electric motors and oil engines for cinema purposes.
2. Compliance with the Madras Town Planning Scheme:
The High Court found that the Municipal Council's resolutions violated the Madras Town Planning Scheme. Specifically:
- Clause 15: Restricts business premises, including cinema theatres, to designated areas and requires approval from the responsible authority and the Director of Town Planning.
- Clause 14: Limits the use of areas to residential purposes unless specific permissions are granted for other uses.
The High Court rejected the respondents' contention that the scheme had lapsed after 20 years, affirming that the scheme was still in force and applicable.
3. Authority of the Municipal Council under the Mysore Municipalities Act:
The High Court determined that the Municipal Council did not have the authority under the Mysore Municipalities Act to grant licences for the installation of electric motors and oil engines for cinema purposes. The court examined Section 256 of the Act and concluded that it did not encompass the exhibition of cinema films.
4. Right of the Appellant to Challenge the Resolutions:
The appellant, a resident in the area, argued that the Municipal Council's actions violated the statutory scheme designed for the benefit of the residents. The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's right to challenge the resolutions, emphasizing that:
- The appellant had a legal right to compel the Municipality to perform its statutory duty.
- The Municipality's actions in granting the licence and permissions were in excess of its statutory powers and violated the Town Planning Scheme.
- The High Court erred in not quashing the fourth resolution, despite acknowledging its violation of the Scheme, based on the third respondent's expenditure.
The Supreme Court concluded that the illegality of the resolutions could not be cured by the expenditure incurred by the third respondent. The court emphasized that statutory duties must be performed in accordance with the law, and any actions exceeding statutory powers are invalid.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's decision to leave the fourth resolution undisturbed. The resolution dated 19 June 1970, permitting the conversion of the Kalyana Mantap-cum-Lecture Hall into a cinema theatre, was quashed. The court reiterated that the Municipality's actions were beyond its statutory powers and violated the Town Planning Scheme, thereby affirming the appellant's right to challenge the resolutions. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
............
|
9911796707
