Supreme Court Decisions/Judgements Directory

Judges: K Singh, P Sawant, N Kasliwal

22 October, 1992·1. A Central Sector Scheme known as Rural Functional Literacy Programme was operating in the State of Karnataka. The State of Karnataka set up an Adult Education Council for the purposes of running the Central Sector Programme. The petitioners were employed in the four Rural Functional Literacy Proj...

Judges: K J Reddy, G Ray

22 October, 1992·ORDER K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 379 Cr.P.C. read with Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act. There are five appellants. They were tried by Sessions Judge, Rupnagar for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, 307,...

Judges: Kuldip Singh And N M Kasliwal, Jj Act Constitution Of India 1950 Article 136 Appeal Execution Of Promissory Note, Equitable Mortgage Etc For Loans For Bank Proof Statutory Presumption U S 118 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Liability Of Defendants To Pay The Amount Claimed By Bank Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 118 Promissory Note Consideration Presumption Of Proof Of Execution Of Pronote, Equitable Mortgage Etc For Bank Loans Liability Of Defendant To Pay The Amount Claimed By Bank Headnote The Appellant Bank Filed A Suit For The Recovery Of An Amount Of Rs 1, 21, 006 98 Due Under An Equitable Mortgage And Pronote Against The Defendant No 1, His Wife And His Son, The Defendant Nos 2 And 3 Respectively Accordingly To The Bank, The Defendant Nos 1 To 3 Executed A Promissory Note For Rs 1, 00, 000 On 26 8 1971 In Favour Of The Bank And Two Hypothecation Deeds In Respect Of A Schedule Properties They Also Executed And Equitable Mortgage On 28 8 1971 For B Schedule Properties The Consideration For The Transaction Also Included An Amount Of Rs 71, 000 Granted By The Bank In Favour Of 37 Persons By Way Of Short Term Loans The Defendant No 1 Has Executed A Guarantee Agreement On 14 6 1971 In Favour Of The Bank In Respect Of The Short Term Loan In Favour Of 37 Persons The Defendant No 1 Denied The Execution Of Guarantee Agreement As Well As The Promissory Note He Also Denied The Furnishing Of Any Guarantee With Regard To The Repayment Of Loans Amounting To Rs 71, 000 To 37 Persons He Contended That The Agent Of The Bank In Order To Ward Off His Own Prosecution And Arrest For Having Advanced Large Amounts As Loans To Landless Persons In An Irregular Manner, Obtained The Signatures Of The Defendant On A Printed Promissory Note Without The Details Having Been Filled Up And That The Documents Were Got Executed By Exercise Of Fraud, Undue Influence, Coercion And Misrepresentation The Defendant Nos 2 And 3 In Their Separate Written Statements Took The Same Stand As Taken By The Defendant No 1 The Defendant No 3 Also Filed A Separate Additional Written Statement Taking The Ground That As He Was Born On 12 11 1953, He Being Minor On The Date Of The Alleged Execution Of The Promissory Note, The Same Was Void As Against Him The Trial Court Decreed The Suit In Favour Of The Ban

22 October, 1992·PETITIONER:TEJ SINGH RAO Vs. RESPONDENT:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DATE OF JUDGMENT19/08/1992 BENCH:KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH:KULDIP SINGH (J) RAMASWAMY, K.CITATION:1993 AIR 1227 1992 SCR (3) 929 1992 SCC Supl. (2) 554 JT 1992 (4) 520 1992 SCALE (2)199 ACT:Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on H...

Judges: Kuldip Singh And N M Kasliwal, Jj Act Constitution Of India 1950 Article 136 Appeal Execution Of Promissory Note, Equitable Mortgage Etc For Loans For Bank Proof Statutory Presumption U S 118 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Liability Of Defendants To Pay The Amount Claimed By Bank Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 118 Promissory Note Consideration Presumption Of Proof Of Execution Of Pronote, Equitable Mortgage Etc For Bank Loans Liability Of Defendant To Pay The Amount Claimed By Bank Headnote The Appellant Bank Filed A Suit For The Recovery Of An Amount Of Rs 1, 21, 006 98 Due Under An Equitable Mortgage And Pronote Against The Defendant No 1, His Wife And His Son, The Defendant Nos 2 And 3 Respectively Accordingly To The Bank, The Defendant Nos 1 To 3 Executed A Promissory Note For Rs 1, 00, 000 On 26 8 1971 In Favour Of The Bank And Two Hypothecation Deeds In Respect Of A Schedule Properties They Also Executed And Equitable Mortgage On 28 8 1971 For B Schedule Properties The Consideration For The Transaction Also Included An Amount Of Rs 71, 000 Granted By The Bank In Favour Of 37 Persons By Way Of Short Term Loans The Defendant No 1 Has Executed A Guarantee Agreement On 14 6 1971 In Favour Of The Bank In Respect Of The Short Term Loan In Favour Of 37 Persons The Defendant No 1 Denied The Execution Of Guarantee Agreement As Well As The Promissory Note He Also Denied The Furnishing Of Any Guarantee With Regard To The Repayment Of Loans Amounting To Rs 71, 000 To 37 Persons He Contended That The Agent Of The Bank In Order To Ward Off His Own Prosecution And Arrest For Having Advanced Large Amounts As Loans To Landless Persons In An Irregular Manner, Obtained The Signatures Of The Defendant On A Printed Promissory Note Without The Details Having Been Filled Up And That The Documents Were Got Executed By Exercise Of Fraud, Undue Influence, Coercion And Misrepresentation The Defendant Nos 2 And 3 In Their Separate Written Statements Took The Same Stand As Taken By The Defendant No 1 The Defendant No 3 Also Filed A Separate Additional Written Statement Taking The Ground That As He Was Born On 12 11 1953, He Being Minor On The Date Of The Alleged Execution Of The Promissory Note, The Same Was Void As Against Him The Trial Court Decreed The Suit In Favour Of The Ban

22 October, 1992·PETITIONER:DARSHAN PRASHAD AND ANR.Vs. RESPONDENT:CIVIL JUDGE II, GORAKHPUR AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT13/03/1992 BENCH:KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) BENCH:KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) RAMASWAMY, K.CITATION:<table cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;margin-left:8.5pt"><tbody><tr style="height:12pt"><td style="...

Judges: Kuldip Singh And N M Kasliwal, Jj Act Constitution Of India 1950 Article 136 Appeal Execution Of Promissory Note, Equitable Mortgage Etc For Loans For Bank Proof Statutory Presumption U S 118 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Liability Of Defendants To Pay The Amount Claimed By Bank Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 118 Promissory Note Consideration Presumption Of Proof Of Execution Of Pronote, Equitable Mortgage Etc For Bank Loans Liability Of Defendant To Pay The Amount Claimed By Bank Headnote The Appellant Bank Filed A Suit For The Recovery Of An Amount Of Rs 1, 21, 006 98 Due Under An Equitable Mortgage And Pronote Against The Defendant No 1, His Wife And His Son, The Defendant Nos 2 And 3 Respectively Accordingly To The Bank, The Defendant Nos 1 To 3 Executed A Promissory Note For Rs 1, 00, 000 On 26 8 1971 In Favour Of The Bank And Two Hypothecation Deeds In Respect Of A Schedule Properties They Also Executed And Equitable Mortgage On 28 8 1971 For B Schedule Properties The Consideration For The Transaction Also Included An Amount Of Rs 71, 000 Granted By The Bank In Favour Of 37 Persons By Way Of Short Term Loans The Defendant No 1 Has Executed A Guarantee Agreement On 14 6 1971 In Favour Of The Bank In Respect Of The Short Term Loan In Favour Of 37 Persons The Defendant No 1 Denied The Execution Of Guarantee Agreement As Well As The Promissory Note He Also Denied The Furnishing Of Any Guarantee With Regard To The Repayment Of Loans Amounting To Rs 71, 000 To 37 Persons He Contended That The Agent Of The Bank In Order To Ward Off His Own Prosecution And Arrest For Having Advanced Large Amounts As Loans To Landless Persons In An Irregular Manner, Obtained The Signatures Of The Defendant On A Printed Promissory Note Without The Details Having Been Filled Up And That The Documents Were Got Executed By Exercise Of Fraud, Undue Influence, Coercion And Misrepresentation The Defendant Nos 2 And 3 In Their Separate Written Statements Took The Same Stand As Taken By The Defendant No 1 The Defendant No 3 Also Filed A Separate Additional Written Statement Taking The Ground That As He Was Born On 12 11 1953, He Being Minor On The Date Of The Alleged Execution Of The Promissory Note, The Same Was Void As Against Him The Trial Court Decreed The Suit In Favour Of The Ban

22 October, 1992·PETITIONER:KIRLOSKAR BROTHERS LTD., DEWAS (M.P.) Vs. RESPONDENT:UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT10/03/1992 BENCH:YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J) BENCH:YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J) RANGNATHAN, S. RAMASWAMI, V. (J) II CITATION:1992 AIR 1324 1992 SCR (2) 81 1992 SCC (2) 658 JT 1992 (2) 286 1992 SCALE (1)59...

Judges: Kuldip Singh And N M Kasliwal, Jj Act Constitution Of India 1950 Article 136 Appeal Execution Of Promissory Note, Equitable Mortgage Etc For Loans For Bank Proof Statutory Presumption U S 118 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Liability Of Defendants To Pay The Amount Claimed By Bank Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 118 Promissory Note Consideration Presumption Of Proof Of Execution Of Pronote, Equitable Mortgage Etc For Bank Loans Liability Of Defendant To Pay The Amount Claimed By Bank Headnote The Appellant Bank Filed A Suit For The Recovery Of An Amount Of Rs 1, 21, 006 98 Due Under An Equitable Mortgage And Pronote Against The Defendant No 1, His Wife And His Son, The Defendant Nos 2 And 3 Respectively Accordingly To The Bank, The Defendant Nos 1 To 3 Executed A Promissory Note For Rs 1, 00, 000 On 26 8 1971 In Favour Of The Bank And Two Hypothecation Deeds In Respect Of A Schedule Properties They Also Executed And Equitable Mortgage On 28 8 1971 For B Schedule Properties The Consideration For The Transaction Also Included An Amount Of Rs 71, 000 Granted By The Bank In Favour Of 37 Persons By Way Of Short Term Loans The Defendant No 1 Has Executed A Guarantee Agreement On 14 6 1971 In Favour Of The Bank In Respect Of The Short Term Loan In Favour Of 37 Persons The Defendant No 1 Denied The Execution Of Guarantee Agreement As Well As The Promissory Note He Also Denied The Furnishing Of Any Guarantee With Regard To The Repayment Of Loans Amounting To Rs 71, 000 To 37 Persons He Contended That The Agent Of The Bank In Order To Ward Off His Own Prosecution And Arrest For Having Advanced Large Amounts As Loans To Landless Persons In An Irregular Manner, Obtained The Signatures Of The Defendant On A Printed Promissory Note Without The Details Having Been Filled Up And That The Documents Were Got Executed By Exercise Of Fraud, Undue Influence, Coercion And Misrepresentation The Defendant Nos 2 And 3 In Their Separate Written Statements Took The Same Stand As Taken By The Defendant No 1 The Defendant No 3 Also Filed A Separate Additional Written Statement Taking The Ground That As He Was Born On 12 11 1953, He Being Minor On The Date Of The Alleged Execution Of The Promissory Note, The Same Was Void As Against Him The Trial Court Decreed The Suit In Favour Of The Ban

22 October, 1992·PETITIONER:INDIAN BANK Vs. RESPONDENT:K. NATARAJA PILLAI AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT22/10/1992 BENCH:[KULDIP SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] ACT:Constitution of India 1950-Article 136-Appeal-Execution of promissory note, equitable mortgage etc. for loans for bank- Proof-Statutory presumption u/s. 118-Ne...

Judges: Kuldip Singh And N M Kasliwal, Jj Act Constitution Of India 1950 Article 136 Appeal Execution Of Promissory Note, Equitable Mortgage Etc For Loans For Bank Proof Statutory Presumption U S 118 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Liability Of Defendants To Pay The Amount Claimed By Bank Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 118 Promissory Note Consideration Presumption Of Proof Of Execution Of Pronote, Equitable Mortgage Etc For Bank Loans Liability Of Defendant To Pay The Amount Claimed By Bank Headnote The Appellant Bank Filed A Suit For The Recovery Of An Amount Of Rs 1, 21, 006 98 Due Under An Equitable Mortgage And Pronote Against The Defendant No 1, His Wife And His Son, The Defendant Nos 2 And 3 Respectively Accordingly To The Bank, The Defendant Nos 1 To 3 Executed A Promissory Note For Rs 1, 00, 000 On 26 8 1971 In Favour Of The Bank And Two Hypothecation Deeds In Respect Of A Schedule Properties They Also Executed And Equitable Mortgage On 28 8 1971 For B Schedule Properties The Consideration For The Transaction Also Included An Amount Of Rs 71, 000 Granted By The Bank In Favour Of 37 Persons By Way Of Short Term Loans The Defendant No 1 Has Executed A Guarantee Agreement On 14 6 1971 In Favour Of The Bank In Respect Of The Short Term Loan In Favour Of 37 Persons The Defendant No 1 Denied The Execution Of Guarantee Agreement As Well As The Promissory Note He Also Denied The Furnishing Of Any Guarantee With Regard To The Repayment Of Loans Amounting To Rs 71, 000 To 37 Persons He Contended That The Agent Of The Bank In Order To Ward Off His Own Prosecution And Arrest For Having Advanced Large Amounts As Loans To Landless Persons In An Irregular Manner, Obtained The Signatures Of The Defendant On A Printed Promissory Note Without The Details Having Been Filled Up And That The Documents Were Got Executed By Exercise Of Fraud, Undue Influence, Coercion And Misrepresentation The Defendant Nos 2 And 3 In Their Separate Written Statements Took The Same Stand As Taken By The Defendant No 1 The Defendant No 3 Also Filed A Separate Additional Written Statement Taking The Ground That As He Was Born On 12 11 1953, He Being Minor On The Date Of The Alleged Execution Of The Promissory Note, The Same Was Void As Against Him The Trial Court Decreed The Suit In Favour Of The Ban

22 October, 1992·PETITIONER:S. GANAPATHRAJ SURANA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.Vs. RESPONDENT:STATE OF TAMIL NADU ETC. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT04/08/1992 BENCH:SHARMA, L.M. (J) BENCH:SHARMA, L.M. (J) MOHAN, S. (J) CITATION:1992 SCR (3) 721 1993 SCC Supl. (2) 565 JT 1992 (5) 310 1992 SCALE (2)379 ACT:Constitution of India, ...

Judges: Kuldip Singh And N M Kasliwal, Jj Act Constitution Of India 1950 Article 136 Appeal Execution Of Promissory Note, Equitable Mortgage Etc For Loans For Bank Proof Statutory Presumption U S 118 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Liability Of Defendants To Pay The Amount Claimed By Bank Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 118 Promissory Note Consideration Presumption Of Proof Of Execution Of Pronote, Equitable Mortgage Etc For Bank Loans Liability Of Defendant To Pay The Amount Claimed By Bank Headnote The Appellant Bank Filed A Suit For The Recovery Of An Amount Of Rs 1, 21, 006 98 Due Under An Equitable Mortgage And Pronote Against The Defendant No 1, His Wife And His Son, The Defendant Nos 2 And 3 Respectively Accordingly To The Bank, The Defendant Nos 1 To 3 Executed A Promissory Note For Rs 1, 00, 000 On 26 8 1971 In Favour Of The Bank And Two Hypothecation Deeds In Respect Of A Schedule Properties They Also Executed And Equitable Mortgage On 28 8 1971 For B Schedule Properties The Consideration For The Transaction Also Included An Amount Of Rs 71, 000 Granted By The Bank In Favour Of 37 Persons By Way Of Short Term Loans The Defendant No 1 Has Executed A Guarantee Agreement On 14 6 1971 In Favour Of The Bank In Respect Of The Short Term Loan In Favour Of 37 Persons The Defendant No 1 Denied The Execution Of Guarantee Agreement As Well As The Promissory Note He Also Denied The Furnishing Of Any Guarantee With Regard To The Repayment Of Loans Amounting To Rs 71, 000 To 37 Persons He Contended That The Agent Of The Bank In Order To Ward Off His Own Prosecution And Arrest For Having Advanced Large Amounts As Loans To Landless Persons In An Irregular Manner, Obtained The Signatures Of The Defendant On A Printed Promissory Note Without The Details Having Been Filled Up And That The Documents Were Got Executed By Exercise Of Fraud, Undue Influence, Coercion And Misrepresentation The Defendant Nos 2 And 3 In Their Separate Written Statements Took The Same Stand As Taken By The Defendant No 1 The Defendant No 3 Also Filed A Separate Additional Written Statement Taking The Ground That As He Was Born On 12 11 1953, He Being Minor On The Date Of The Alleged Execution Of The Promissory Note, The Same Was Void As Against Him The Trial Court Decreed The Suit In Favour Of The Ban

22 October, 1992·PETITIONER:VIJAY ENTERPRISES AND ORS.Vs. RESPONDENT:SALES TAX OFFICER AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT11/02/1992 BENCH:REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) BENCH:REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) PATNAIK, R.C. (J) CITATION:1992 AIR 760 1992 SCR (1) 594 1992 SCC (2) 55 JT 1992 (1) 579 1992 SCALE (1)304 ACT:Uttar Prad...

Judges: Kuldip Singh And N M Kasliwal, Jj Act Constitution Of India 1950 Article 136 Appeal Execution Of Promissory Note, Equitable Mortgage Etc For Loans For Bank Proof Statutory Presumption U S 118 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Liability Of Defendants To Pay The Amount Claimed By Bank Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 118 Promissory Note Consideration Presumption Of Proof Of Execution Of Pronote, Equitable Mortgage Etc For Bank Loans Liability Of Defendant To Pay The Amount Claimed By Bank Headnote The Appellant Bank Filed A Suit For The Recovery Of An Amount Of Rs 1, 21, 006 98 Due Under An Equitable Mortgage And Pronote Against The Defendant No 1, His Wife And His Son, The Defendant Nos 2 And 3 Respectively Accordingly To The Bank, The Defendant Nos 1 To 3 Executed A Promissory Note For Rs 1, 00, 000 On 26 8 1971 In Favour Of The Bank And Two Hypothecation Deeds In Respect Of A Schedule Properties They Also Executed And Equitable Mortgage On 28 8 1971 For B Schedule Properties The Consideration For The Transaction Also Included An Amount Of Rs 71, 000 Granted By The Bank In Favour Of 37 Persons By Way Of Short Term Loans The Defendant No 1 Has Executed A Guarantee Agreement On 14 6 1971 In Favour Of The Bank In Respect Of The Short Term Loan In Favour Of 37 Persons The Defendant No 1 Denied The Execution Of Guarantee Agreement As Well As The Promissory Note He Also Denied The Furnishing Of Any Guarantee With Regard To The Repayment Of Loans Amounting To Rs 71, 000 To 37 Persons He Contended That The Agent Of The Bank In Order To Ward Off His Own Prosecution And Arrest For Having Advanced Large Amounts As Loans To Landless Persons In An Irregular Manner, Obtained The Signatures Of The Defendant On A Printed Promissory Note Without The Details Having Been Filled Up And That The Documents Were Got Executed By Exercise Of Fraud, Undue Influence, Coercion And Misrepresentation The Defendant Nos 2 And 3 In Their Separate Written Statements Took The Same Stand As Taken By The Defendant No 1 The Defendant No 3 Also Filed A Separate Additional Written Statement Taking The Ground That As He Was Born On 12 11 1953, He Being Minor On The Date Of The Alleged Execution Of The Promissory Note, The Same Was Void As Against Him The Trial Court Decreed The Suit In Favour Of The Ban

22 October, 1992·PETITIONER:DR. L.P. AGARWAL Vs. RESPONDENT:UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT21/07/1992 BENCH:KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH:KULDIP SINGH (J) ANAND, A.S. (J) CITATION:<table cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;margin-left:8.5pt"><tbody><tr style="height:12pt"><td style="width:129pt"><p cla...

Judges: L Sharma, S Mohan, N Venkatachala

21 October, 1992·JUDGMENT S. Mohan, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 18.12.1990 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in Original Application Nos. 135 and 146 of 1990. The short facts are as under:The second respondent, Jankar Patra...