Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1993IVAD(Delhi)803; 1994(1)ARBLR385(Delhi); ILR1994Delhi110
J. K. Mehra, J.1. This is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act wherein the petitioner has alleged that the petitioner is a partnership firm and they were awarded the work of construction of factory building and ancillary building at Bawal (Haryana). According to the petitioner an agreement of M/s. Build India System Construction which had already been executed by the employer/respondent No. 1 was to be executed under the same terms and conditions and rates by the petitioner and the work was to be executed under the supervision of respondent No. 2. It is further alleged that the respondent No. 1 has invited and accepted the tender submitted by M/s. Build India Construction System Limited who had left the work after completing the work up to plinth level only and the balance work was thereafter given to the petitioner on the same terms and conditions contained in the said tender as a consequence of the letter of acceptance by respondent No. 2. 2. Differences having arisen b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2000)4GLR314
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Learned Advocate Mr. K.S. Jhaveri appearing on behalf of the petitioner Corporation and Learned Advocate Mr. J.S. Brahmbhatt appearing on behalf the respondent workmen. Rule. Learned Advocate Mr. J.S. Brahmbhatt appearing on behalf of the respondent workmen waives service of rule and with the consent of both the learned advocates, the matter has been taken up for final hearing today and the same is heard finally today.2. In the present petition, the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Approval Application No. 159 of 1997 dated 12.7.1999 has been challenged by the petitioner Corporation.3. The brief facts of the present petition is that the respondent workmen was working as a conductor Badge No.5959 in Junagadh Division at Veraval Depot. On 6.1.95 when the respondent workman was working as a conductor in Una-Veraval via Gir Gadhada. At that time his bus was checked by Depot Manager, Keshod with line checking staff at Pichhavi. At that time the allegations agains...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR2659
Ajit J. Gunjal, J.,1. This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed by the plaintiffs. They are aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Gokak in O.S. 26 of 1992, wherein the suit for possession has been dismissed.2. Few facts that are necessary to appreciate the controversy in question are:The suit property is an agricultural land situate in Kudachi village bearing Sl.No. 161/4B ad measuring 4 acres 26 guntas, which, according to the plaintiffs is valued at Rs. 1,80,000/-. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the owners of the land in question. The suit property was brought to sale in a revenue Court auction and one late Smt. Ajamatbi purchased the same. After her death the property devolved on her heirs who are the plaintiffs. According to them, even before the plaintiffs or could establish their possession in respect of the suit land pursuant to an auction sale, the defendant had filed a suit in O.S. No. 323/68 for declara...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(5)ALD590; 2005(5)ALT483
Ramesh Ranganathan, J. 1. The order passed by the Chairman and Managing Director, Cotton Corporation of India, vide proceedings dated 25-7-1994, confirming the order passed by the Director (Purchase & Sales), vide proceedings dated 26-5-1994, imposing punishment of removal from service on the petitioner, is impugned in this writ petition.2. The facts, to the extent necessary for the purpose of this writ petition, are that the petitioner joined as Junior Cotton Purchaser in the Cotton Corporation of India on 3-12-1979. After working for eight years in its Bangalore Branch, the petitioner was transferred and posted at Adilabad Branch, where he worked as Junior Cotton Purchaser till he was placed under suspension on 18-7-1991. The petitioner was on leave from 21-5-1991 and during his leave period, on the intervening night of 7/8th June 1991, a fire accident occurred at the Central Warehousing Corporation godown, Adilabad as a result of which 2351 fully pressed bales of cotton were complet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2004(2)ALT418
B.S.A. Swamy, J.1. The defendant in O.S.No. 207 of 1978 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupathi is the appellant herein. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Chittoor in A.S.No. 163 of 1991, dated 13-2-1996 decreeing the suit filed by the respondent herein for partition of the properties and allotting 1/6th share to the respondent by reversing the judgment of the Trial Court dismissing the suit, this second appeal has been preferred.2. G. Anasuya, the plaintiff, G. Padmanabha Reddy, the defendant No. 1 and Savithramma-defendant No. 3 are the children of one late Narasimha Reddy who is the husband of second defendant-Rajamma. That Narsimha Reddy died intestate seven years before filing of the suit i.e. in the year 1970. Thereafter, plaintiff got issued a legal notice-Ex.A-1 on 28-10-1977 claiming partition of the family properties and allotment of 1/8th share to her and that the defendant No. 1 sent a reply notice-Ex.A-3 dated 10-11 -1977 stating tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR2004P& H245; (2004)137PLR471
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.1. (24th February, 2004) - This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by defendant No. 1 to 3 against the judgment and decree dated 23.1.1980 passed by Additional District Judge, Sangrur, vide which suit of the plaintiffs for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the land in question was decreed.2. The dispute in this appeal is about the estate of one Sajjan Singh. The plaintiffs are the sons of uncle of the said Sajjan Singh. Defendant No. 1 is the sister and defendants No. 2 and 3 are sons of another sister of Sajjan Singh. Defendant No. 4 is the father of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were claiming the property of Sajjan Singh on the basis of a Will dated 30.12.1969, whereas defendants No. 1 to 3 claimed the said property on the basis of natural succession.3. The brief facts of the case are that there were two brothers Chetan Singh and Narain Singh. Narain Singh was having two sons, namely Gajjan Singh and Sajjan Singh and two daughte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1979)4SCC530
A.D. Koshal,; A.P. Sen and; Y.V. Chandrachud, JJ.1. In view of the concurrent findings of the Sessions Court and the High Court on the principal issues arising in the case we see no justification for granting special leave for a reconsideration of the question as regards the guilt of the petitioners. The evidence establishes the complicity of the petitioners in the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond perhaps even an unreasonable doubt. So explicit and eloquent are the facts of the case. There is hardly a case, civil or criminal, which does not raise some question of law or the other. But no question of law of general public importance is involved in these petitions. It is time that it was realised that the jurisdiction of this Court to grant special leave to appeal can be invoked in very exceptional circumstances. A question of law of general public importance or a decision which shock the conscience of the Court are some of the prime requisites for the grant of special lea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1418; 1994(1)ALT(Cri)193; 1994(1)BLJR267; 1994CriLJ2104; I(1994)DMC138SC; JT1993(6)SC69; 1993(3)SCALE845; (1994)1SCC73; [1993]Supp2SCR461
ORDERG.N. Ray, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the State of West Bengal against the judgment of acquittal dated May 14, 1990 passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 1990. By the aforesaid judgment, the conviction and sentences against the accused, Sri Orilal Jaiswal and his mother, Smt. Gujarati Debi Jaiswal, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, 12th Bench of the City Sessions Court, Calcutta on February 29, 1990 in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 1990 was set aside by the High Court and the accused were acquitted of the conviction under Section 306 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentence of 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000 in default simple imprisonment for 3 months and conviction under Section 498 read with Section 34 I.P.C. an sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.2. The prosecution case in short is that Usha Jaiswal had committed su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3417; 2005(4)AWC3079(SC); [2005(107)FLR262]; (2005)IIILLJ725SC; (2006)2MLJ162(SC); (2005)7SCC338; 2006(1)SLJ77(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of the judgment rendered by a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court holding that the order of termination passed in the departmental proceedings against the appellant was justified.2. The factual background is essentially as follows:The appellant was working as a Conductor in the organization of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. Charges were made against him which related to not issuing tickets at the boarding point itself to the passengers who were in the bus, failure to collect fare and issue tickets to persons who were alighting at a particular destination and not properly maintaining records of tickets and fare. Explanation of the appellant was considered and was found to be not, satisfactory and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the charges leveled and after giving him opportunity of hearing as regards the quantum of punishment, order of removal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)242; JT1996(10)SC511; 1996(7)SCALE935; (1996)11SCC626; [1996]Supp8SCR121
K. Venkataswami, J.1. Leave granted.2. Heard counsel on both sides at length.3. Even at the outset we would like to express our unhappiness over the disposal of the second appeal in two words 'No merit. Dismissed' by the Punjab and Haryana High Court especially when the controversy related to the genuineness of a will which is not a mere question of fact, but a mixed question of fact and law. The High Court should have gone into the matter in detail and its failure to do so made us to go through the entire records by ourselves.4. The appellants are the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration that they are the joint owners in respect of rd share of the land measuring in all 429 kanal 7 marlas as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1983-84 situated in the area of village Kahneke. The plaintiffs also prayed for a further declaration that mutation No. 3030 dated 2.6.1986 sanctioned by the Assistant Collector 1st grade, Barnala was illegal and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiffs...
Tag this Judgment!