LexV.N.VASUDEVA versus SETH KIRORIMAL LUHARIWALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
6 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 181 the second part of s. 304. In our opinion, the learned Judges 1964 -, who held that view and we say it respectfully fell into the Afrahlm Slwlkll error of viewing the second part of s. 304 divorced from Th s "· / w . . h A d d • lat• 0 •II common mtenllon w atever. person oes not o an act Bingal except with a certain intention, and the common intention Hidayatul/a/i J. which is requisite for the application of s. 34 is the common intention of perpetrating a particular act. Previous cqncert which is insisted upon is the meeting of the minds regarding the achievement of a criminal act. That circumstance is completely fulfilled in a case like the present where a large number of persons attack an· individual, chase him, throw him on the ground and beat him till he dies. Even if the offence does not come to the grade of murder, and is only culpable homicide not amounting to murder, there is no doubt whatever that the offence is shared by all of them, and .s. 34 then makes the responsibility several if there was a knowledge possessed by each of them that death was likely to be caused as a result of that beating. This circumstance is completely fulfilled in the present case, and we are, there- fore, satisfied that the conviction of the appellants was pro- per, and see no reason to interfere. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. V.N.VASUDEVA v. SETH KIRORIMAL LUHARIW ALA (M. ffIDAYATULLAH AND J.C. SHAH JJ.) Rent Control--Ordor for d•po1lt of ""' at lnt•rlocutory ll•g•-lf pro,,.r-Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (59 of 1958), •· 15(1)-lndlan Income-tax Act. 1922 (II of 1922), •· "6(5A). The responllent made an 111plleation qalnst Ibo appellant under 1. 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In reply the appellant pleaded 1964 Januarv. 9 1964 V. N. Vllllldeva "· J:lrori1111JI .l.uhtlrlwala 182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964} that the respondent bad no right to recover rent from him as a nolico- under s. 46(5A) of th• Indian Income-tax Act had been issued by the Ii.come-tax Officer, that the respondent had no locll8 standi as the property was in the custody of the Court and a receiver bad been appointed and that his professional fees were agreed anll be adjusted towards the rent dues. The Rent Controller recorded the statement vf the appellant and after hearing arguments directed the appellant under •· 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 to deposit back rents at Rs. 300/· per month. On appeal the decfaion of the Rent Controller was aftlrmed, and a further appeal to the High Court also failed. The appellant contendell that the order under s. 15(1) for deposit of rent could only be made at the end of the case and not at an interlocutory stage, Held: (i) that the order under sub·•· (I) of s. IS is not a final order ~ut is preliminart to the trial of the case and is made only where the r.nt has in fact not been paid. For the purpose of an interim uder it was not nece!Sary that there should have been a full trial and that tbis was clear from the latter part of sub-s. ( 1) of s. IS because under it not only the arrears have to be deposited but rent as it falls :l.ue h•s to be deposited month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month. Nalinakhya Bysack and ,for. v. Shyam Sunder Halder, A.I.R. 1952 Cal. 198, distinguished. (;ii Tho notice unJer s. 46(5A) of the Income-tax Act did not amount to a garnishee order and the appellant could make payment •~ th-. rent wntroller without incurring personal liability because the r.·nt C'cntroller ha'd stated in his order that the amount would not be paid to any one till a clearance certificate was obtained from the Income- lax Department. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1041 of 1963. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated September 2, 1963, of the Punjab High Court (Cir- cuit Bench) at Delhi in L.P.A. No. 119-D of 1963. S. T. Desai, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and Ravin- •er Narain, for the appellant. H. N. Sanyal, Solicitor-General of India and B. P. Maheshwari, for the respondent. - 6 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS January 9, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was deli- vered by HIDAYATULLAH J.-This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the High Court, Punjab, dated August 14, 1963, by which an order of the Rent Controller 1mder s. 15 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, directing the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.