Skip to content


Lokenath Tolaram and ors. Vs. B.N. Rangawani and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberReview Petition Nos. 7-9 of 1974
Judge
Reported inAIR1975SC279; (1974)2SCC589
AppellantLokenath Tolaram and ors.
RespondentB.N. Rangawani and ors.
Prior historyReported in MANU/SC/0314/1973
Excerpt:
.....fact held, accused had exceeded right of private defence and is liable to be convicted under section 304 part i r/w. sections 109 & 34 of i.p.c., sections 100 & 101: right of private defence - held, the force used in self defence need not be weighed in golden scales. such situations have to be pragmatically viewed and not with high powered spectacles or microscopes to detect slight or even marginal overstepping. sections 102 & 105: right of private defence commencement and continuance held, the right commences, as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to body arises from an attempt, or threat, to commit the offence and ceases as soon as cause for reasonable apprehension disappears. .....dated 8 november, 1973 has been made. the review is accepted for the following reasons. 2. civil appeal no. 1132 of 1971 and civil appeals no. 1109 and 1133 of 1971 were heard together. a common judgment was delivered in the three matters. the three appeals were dismissed. 3. one of the grounds for dismissal of the three appeals was that there were consent orders in all the three appeals. 4. it appears that in civil appeal no. 1132 of 1971 there was no consent order similar to the other appeals. 5. in civil appeal no. 1132 of 1971 a bond under rule 206 of the excise rules was entered into by fancy fabrics company for the sum of rs. 42733. 6. in civil appeal no. 1132 of 1971 it appears that fancy fabrics company filed a petition in the high court at bombay and the petition was.....
Judgment:

A.N. Ray, C.J.

1. In Civil Appeal No. 1132 of 1971 an application for review of the judgment dated 8 November, 1973 has been made. The Review is accepted for the following reasons.

2. Civil Appeal No. 1132 of 1971 and Civil Appeals No. 1109 and 1133 of 1971 were heard together. A common judgment was delivered in the three matters. The three appeals were dismissed.

3. One of the grounds for dismissal of the three appeals was that there were consent orders in all the three appeals.

4. It appears that in Civil Appeal No. 1132 of 1971 there was no consent order similar to the other appeals.

5. In Civil Appeal No. 1132 of 1971 a bond under Rule 206 of the Excise Rules was entered into by Fancy Fabrics Company for the sum of Rs. 42733.

6. In Civil Appeal No. 1132 of 1971 it appears that Fancy Fabrics Company filed a petition in the High Court at Bombay and the petition was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition.

7. In the petition before the High Court out of which Civil Appeal No. 1132 of 1971 arises M/s. Narayan Hosiery Private Limited asked for mandamus to re lease the goods and books of account, vouchers and files mentioned in the petition.

8. It appears that there aye disputes as to ownership of the goods forming the subject-matter of the petition in the High Court out of which Civil Appeal No. 1132 of 1971 arises.

9. In view of the fact that there is no consent order we are of opinion that Civil Appeal No. 1132 of 1971 should be remanded to the High Court for disposal after hearing the parties. Parties will pay and bear their own costs of the appeal and the review in this Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //