Facts:

The appellant challenged the order of assessment of the rateable value of his property for property tax, based on the construction of his house on a specific plot in New Delhi.

Issues:

Validity of the order of assessment dated March 12, 1991.

Applicability of the principles laid down in Dr. Balbir Singh's case to the determination of rateable value.

Disparity in rateable value for old and newly constructed premises.

Held:

The Court examined the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and the Delhi Rent Control Act. It emphasized the importance of determining rateable value reasonably, considering factors such as size, situation, locality, and amenities. The upper limit was set by the standard rent, but the Court acknowledged the need to avoid significant disparity in rateable values between old and newly constructed premises.

Court examined Dr. Balbir Singh's case and highlighted the principles for determining rateable value for self-occupied residential and non-residential premises.( Para 5)

Emphasized the need to avoid illogical and irrational disparity in rateable values, considering the surge in land and building material prices.( Para 6)

Rejected the High Court's reasoning that Municipal Corporation had no means to follow the principles laid down by the Court, affirming the availability of assessment records and the quasi-judicial nature of the assessing authority's role.( Para 7)

Allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the High Court, and directed the Assessing Officer to determine the rateable value in accordance with the principles laid down in Dr. Balbir Singh's case.( Para 8)

FACTS:

The appellant was charged with various offenses, including acts of terror and attempted murder. Allegations included storing lethal weapons, committing theft, and threatening individuals to extract money.

ISSUES:

Whether the actions of the accused constituted terrorist acts under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act.

Whether the accused's actions amounted to an attempt to commit murder under Section 307 of the IPC.

The admissibility and reliability of the confessional statement (Exh. P-7) recorded by the Superintendent of Police.

HELD:

The court emphasized the specific intent required for an act to be considered a "terrorist act" under Section 3 of the TADA. The acts attributed to the appellant, such as storing weapons and making vague allegations of extortion, were found insufficient to establish a terrorist act.( Paragraph 4)

The court critically examined the confessional statement (Exh. P-7) and concluded that the acts described in the statement did not meet the requirements of Section 3(1) of the TADA. Mere allegations of criminal activities, including theft and threats, were insufficient to establish the necessary intent for a terrorist act.( Paragraph 5)

The court discussed the requirements for conviction under Section 307 IPC, emphasizing that bodily injury capable of causing death is not essential. However, the evidence presented did not support a charge of attempted murder, as there was only a threat to assault the victim, and no actual injury occurred.( Paragraph 6)

The court further clarified the stages of a crime, highlighting that an attempt to commit a crime must be distinguished from an intent to commit it or preparation for its commission. The evidence presented regarding the appellant's actions did not amount to an attempt to murder.( Paragraph 7)

Concluding that none of the charges under TADA or IPC had been established, the court set aside the appellant's conviction and acquitted him of all charges.( Paragraph 8)

REFERRED CASES:

Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 1994 SC 2623 : (1995) CriLJ 517 : (1994) 2 Crimes 916 : (1994) 4 JT 255 : (1994) 3 SCALE 109 : (1994) 3 SCALE 105 : (1994) 4 SCC 602 : (1994) 1 SCR 360 Supp : (1994) 2 UJ 786

Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi and Others Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and others, AIR 1990 SC 1962 : (1990) CriLJ 1869 : (1990) 3 JT 408 : (1990) 2 SCALE 193 : (1990) 4 SCC 76 : (1990) 3 SCR 633

Facts:

Challa Chinnappa Reddy and his son Challa Ramkrishna Reddy were involved in a criminal case, resulting in their arrest and imprisonment. In the night between 5th and 6th May 1977, a bomb attack occurred in the prison, causing injuries and death. The family filed a suit against the State of Andhra Pradesh, claiming damages for negligence.

Issues:

Whether the suit is barred by limitation.

Whether the State is immune from legal action for sovereign acts.

Violation of the right to life and fundamental rights.

Held:

The trial court contended that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 72 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The High Court, however, applied Article 113 as the residuary article, stating that the suit was within limitation. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, emphasizing that Article 72 applies when the act is in pursuance of statutory authority, and in this case, the act was not.

The question of immunity of the State was argued vehemently. The State claimed immunity for sovereign acts, especially in the establishment and maintenance of jails. The High Court, while recognizing the sovereign functions, concluded that negligence leading to violation of fundamental rights cannot be protected. The Supreme Court agreed, emphasizing that the State cannot claim immunity for acts that violate fundamental rights.

The judgment underscored the prisoners' right to life, a basic human right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court rejected the outdated defense of immunity and held that even prisoners retain their fundamental rights, and the State is not above the law.

Facts:

The incident occurred on 24th April 1986, involving the deaths of Shamsher Singh and Amar Singh.

The prosecution alleged that the appellants were involved in the murders due to enmity and rivalry.

The victims were shot at close range, and the motive was linked to the de-listing of Swaran Singh's truck from the Truck Union.

Issues:

The credibility of eyewitness accounts.

The involvement of Mittar Pal Singh.

Discrepancies in the evidence related to the time of occurrence.

Inconsistencies in the investigating officer's testimony.

Held:

The prosecution established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

Swaran Singh shot Shamsher Singh, and Jagjit Singh shot Amar Singh. The evidence was conclusive.

Enmity between the accused and Shamsher Singh was admitted, supporting the motive.

Eyewitness accounts were consistent and corroborated by material evidence, such as the site plan, photographs, and blood-stained earth.

The defense's version of the incident was not substantiated, and the medical evidence supported the prosecution's case.

The court dismissed the appeals and ordered the accused, if on bail, to be taken into custody to serve their sentences.

Facts:

The case involves the sale of a flat in Bombay, where an agreement was entered into on 1-5-1994 between the transferor (Hemant Chawla) and the six appellants (Transferees).

An amount of Rs. 4,55,000 was paid as earnest money on the execution of the agreement, and the balance of Rs. 41 lakhs was to be paid upon completion of the sale, subject to obtaining a 'no objection certificate' from the Appropriate Authority.

The Appropriate Authority issued a notice under Section 269UD(IA) of the Income Tax Act, alleging significant undervaluation and calling for a show cause.

On 30-8-1994, the Appropriate Authority ordered compulsory purchase by the Central Government for a discounted value of Rs. 44,25,680.

Issues:

The interpretation of Section 269UG of the Income Tax Act and the entitlement of the transferees to the consideration amount.

Dispute arises regarding the non-tendering of the amount claimed by the transferees and the release of the amount to the transferor by the Appropriate Authority.

Held:

The judgment clarifies the nature of the rights of transferees under Chapter XX-C of the Income Tax Act, particularly regarding the creation and enforcement of a charge on the property.

The court emphasizes that the Central Government must tender the consideration amount to the person or persons entitled thereto within the stipulated period.

The court discusses the provisions of Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, highlighting the buyer's entitlement to a charge on the property for the purchase money pre-paid.

The court observes that the Appropriate Authority must deposit the consideration amount with the Appropriate Authority if there is a dispute or if the person entitled does not consent to receive it.

The judgment emphasizes that the property vests in the Central Government subject to existing encumbrances and leasehold rights unless annulled by the Appropriate Authority.

Decision: The court dismisses the appeal, holding that the transferees are not entitled to any relief in these proceedings. It suggests that they seek a remedy against the transferor for the return of the money paid under the agreement.

Facts:

The case involves the murder of Krishan Kumar during the 1987 Municipal Committee election.

Siriyans Kumar Jain, along with others, was convicted in a criminal trial for various offenses.

The High Court upheld the conviction of two accused but acquitted Siriyans Jain and others.

The Supreme Court set aside the acquittal of Siriyans Kumar Jain, directing him to surrender and serve the remaining sentence.

Issues:

The legality of the Governor's order granting pardon to Siriyans Kumar Jain is challenged.

Allegations of non-application of mind, extraneous considerations, and lack of advice from the Government are raised.

Held:

The power of granting pardon under Article 161 is wide but subject to judicial review on limited grounds.

Judicial review is permissible if the Governor exercises the power without proper advice, transgresses jurisdiction, acts mala fide, or lacks application of mind.

The Governor's order is found to be arbitrary, as it appears to be mechanically passed without considering essential facts.

The order indicates a lack of awareness of the convict's actual sentence served and behavior during imprisonment.

The haste and unusual interest shown in the case contribute to the conclusion that the order is vitiated.

The order is quashed, but the Governor is allowed to reconsider the matter with relevant materials.

Facts:

On 12.4.1972, Dena Bank filed a suit for the recovery of a sum against a partnership firm. The suit was based on a mortgage by the partnership firm and its partners. During the suit, the State of Karnataka attempted to attach and sell the mortgaged properties for the recovery of sales tax arrears. The State eventually purchased the property in an auction. The Bank appealed, and a compromise was reached between the Bank and the borrowers during the appeal.

Issues:

The priority of the State's right to realize sales tax arrears over the Bank's right to enforce its security and whether the property mortgaged belonged to the partners individually or to the partnership firm.

Held:

The High Court decreed the suit in favor of the Bank, recognizing the State's preferential claim for sales tax arrears. However, certain clauses of the compromise were deemed illegal and unenforceable against the State. The Court directed the Bank to pay the recovered amount to the State towards sales tax arrears first before adjusting the remaining amount towards the Bank's dues.

Decision: The appeal to the Supreme Court by Dena Bank was dismissed. The Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the statutory preference given to the State for the recovery of sales tax arrears and the joint and several liability of the partners under Section 15(2A) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.

Facts:

The appellant filed a writ petition in public interest before the High Court of Allahabad, seeking a writ of mandamus to direct authorities to take action against unqualified and unregistered individuals practicing medicine without authorization in the district of Agra, Uttar Pradesh. The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that the Chief Medical Officer, Agra, would complete the pending inquiry.

Issues:

Effectiveness of the action taken by the State Government and local authorities against unauthorized medical practitioners.

Failure of authorities to prevent hazardous unauthorized medical practices.

Applicability of legal provisions under Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Medical Act, 1917.

Held:

The court observed a lack of effective action by the State Government and local authorities in curbing the unauthorized medical practices. The authorities had forwarded names of unauthorized practitioners to District Magistrates without subsequent follow-up. The court set aside the High Court's judgment and issued directives for the entire state of Uttar Pradesh. The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, was instructed to take necessary steps to stop unauthorized medical practices, including identifying and initiating legal actions against unqualified practitioners, monitoring legal proceedings, publicizing names of such practitioners, and ensuring continuous monitoring and enforcement.

Decision: The appeal was allowed, and no costs were imposed.

Facts:

The victim, a minor, was allegedly raped by the accused.

The trial court acquitted the accused based on the disbelief of the victim's testimony.

The High Court overturned the acquittal, convicting the accused under Section 376 but imposed a sentence less than the minimum prescribed by law.

Issues:

Credibility of the victim's testimony.

Adequacy and special reasons for reducing the minimum sentence.

Held:

The victim's testimony, corroborated by her mother and aunt, and confirmed by medical evidence, conclusively establishes the accused's guilt. The High Court rightly reversed the acquittal.

The Sessions Judge erred in questioning the victim's presence based on an unexplained time gap. The High Court correctly dismissed this reasoning.

The sentencing court should consider the severity of the crime, not the social status of the victim or accused. The Division Bench's reasons for reducing the sentence (the occurrence's age and the accused's potential settlement) are not adequate and special. The prescribed minimum sentence shall apply.

The victim's age was disputed, but the court relied on the mother's testimony, confirming the victim was below 12, justifying the minimum sentence of 7 years.

The accused's circumstances (age at the time of the crime, current marital status) do not constitute special reasons. The sentence is enhanced to 7 years.

The long time lag and changes in the victim's life are factors for executive consideration regarding sentence remission, without affecting the imposed sentence.