Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC2178; JT1993(1)SC474; 1992(2)SCALE703; (1993)1SCC645; [1993]1SCR594
ORDER1. We have had the benefit of going through the two judgments of our learned Brothers B.P. Jeevan Reddy and S. Mohan, JJ. We are in agreement with the judgment of Brother B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. except to the extent indicated below.2. The question which arose in the case of Miss Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka: : [1992]3SCR658 , as also in the present cases before us, is whether a citizen has a Fundamental Right to education for a medical, engineering or other professional degree. The question whether the right to primary education, as mentioned in Article 45 of the Constitution of India, is a Fundamental Right under Article 21 did not arise in Mohini Jain's case and no finding or observation on that question was called for. It was contended before us that since a positive finding on that question was recorded in Mohini Join's case it becomes necessary to consider its correctness on merits. We do not think so.3. Learned arguments were addressed in support of and against the afores...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
B.C. Basak, C.J. 1. These series of Miscellaneous Appeals involve a common question of law relating to the interpretation of some of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1939 Act'), the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1988 Act) and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1897 Act'). 2. The relevant provisions of the 1939 Act relating to appeals are as follows : Section 110D. 'Appeals -- (1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court. Provided that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. (2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal, if the amount in dispute in appeal is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2002)2UPLBEC1327
Anjani Kumar, J.1. These groups of Writ Petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution in which the common questions of law and facts are involved and since all these writ petitions raises common questions, they are being heard together and are decided by the common judgment. Learned Counsel argued treating Writ Petition No. 37124 of 2001 to be leading writ petition in which counter-affidavit, rejoinder affidavit, supplementary affidavit, supplementary counter and supplementary rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. All the learned Counsel for petitioner a well as learned Standing Counsel have made the statement that no further affidavits are required in each writ petition. The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :-'(A) To, issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari call the record of the case and advertisement dated 14.8.2001 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and quash the advertisement dated 14.8.2001 to the exten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(5)ALT1(SC); JT2009(9)SC229; (2009)IVLLJ57SC; 2009(9)SCALE99; (2009)8SCC431; 2009(7)LC3037(SC):669458
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Whether the persons employed on daily wage basis or nominal muster roll or consolidated pay or as contingent worker on full time basis in different departments of the Government of Andhra Pradesh and its agencies/instrumentalities are entitled to be regularised in service on completion of 5 years and whether amendments made in the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (for short `the 1994 Act') by Amendment Act Nos. 3 and 27 of 1998 are ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution are the questions which arise for determination in these appeals, some of which have been filed by the State Government and its agencies/instrumentalities and some have been filed by the employees, who could not convince the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') and/or the High Court to accept their prayer for issue of a mandamus to the concerned authorities to regularise ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2004(2)AWC959
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by Jay Shree Tea and Industries Ltd., a public sector company, and Jay Shree Tyres and Rubber Products as well as Sri R. P. Verma, a share holder in Jay Shree Tea and Industries Ltd., to declare Section 6W of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as constitutionally bad and invalid, violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not to enforce the provisions of Section 6W of the Act against the petitioners. The prayer No. 3 is for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 26.2.1987 published on 5.3.1987, by the Industrial Tribunal-I, Allahabad in Adjudication Case No. 4 of 1987 (between Jay Shree Tyres and Rubber Products and its workmen), and also the order of the State Government dated 29.9.1986 passed under Section 6W of the Act.2. The writ petition was heard and allowed, along with other connected petitions, by this Court on 28.3.1990. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IVAD(SC)333; AIR1996SC1963; 1996(2)BLJR971; II(1996)DMC82SC; JT1996(4)SC656; (1996)2MLJ82(SC); 1996(I)OLR(SC)598; 1996(4)SCALE131; (1996)4SCC76; [1996]Supp2SCR1
ORDERS. Saghir Ahmad, J.1. A million million spermatozoa All of them alive :Out of their cataclysm but one poorNoahDare hope to survive.And among that billion minus oneMight have chanced to beShakespeare, another Newton, a new Donne.But the one was me.So said Aldous Huxley, perhaps, in desperation and despondency. And, that is how a person would feel on being bastardized by a court verdict, disentitling him from inheriting the properties left by his father. This is the theme of the present judgment which we are required to write in view of the following facts :2. Parayankandiyil Kanhirakunnath Kurungodan Raman Nair was the proud father of 14 children from two wives, the first being Ammu Amma, who is the mother of the respondents 1 to 9, and the second being a lady of equally long name, namely, Smt. Parayankandiyal Eravath Kanapravan Kalliani Amma (appellant No. 1), who is the mother of appellants 2 to 6. He had a flair for two; two wives, two sets of children, two sets of properties, i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC645; (1997)3GLR2576; (1997)ILLJ1113SC; 1996(9)SCALE70; (1997)9SCC377; [1996]Supp9SCR579
..... as regular employees. on recording finding in that behalf, the industrial court would make his award which would be enforceable by the workmen. this court in gujarat electricity board v. hind mazdoor sabha and ors. : (1995)iillj790sc had pointed out the lacuna in the act and given directions of the manner in which the industrial action has to be taken on ..... is true that a bench of two-judges of this court to which i was a party in the case of gujarat electricity board, thermal power station, ukai, gujarat v. hind mazdoor sabha and ors. : (1995)iillj790sc in the light of earlier judgment of two-judges' bench of this court in the case of dena nath v. national fertilizers ltd. : (1992 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1288; JT1997(4)SC44; (1997)ILLJ1217SC; 1997(2)SCALE670; (1997)10SCC142; [1997]2SCR798
..... facts and the need for treating these employees in a fair and just way. this court referred with approval to the decision of the calcutta high court in maninder chandra sen v. union of india and ors. : air1973cal385 , in which the classification of railway employees into two categories, namely, those who joined on or before march 31, 1938 and those who .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1989(58)FLR731]; ILR1988Delhi467
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raise a substantial question of law as to the virus of proviso (1) of Clause 15(c)(.2) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952, framed in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) lead with Clause (c) of subjection 1 (2) of Section 53 of the Delhi Road Transport Authority Act, 1950. They also seek a declaration that the impugned dismissal orders are in violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.(2) The Delhi Road Transport Authority Act, 1950 was enacted to provide for the establishment and regulation of a Road Transport Authority for the promotion of a co ordinated system of road transport in the Union Territory of Delhi. Under Section 3 of the said Act, the Delhi Road Transport Authority was established and it took over with effect from April 1, 1950 the earlier transport system known as Delhi Transport Services whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2004(3)ALD858; 2004(4)ALT286
B.S.A. Swamy, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 25 of 1985 on the file of the Sub-Court, Nizamabad is the appellant before this Court, The Plaintiff- respondent herein filed the above suit against the first defendant, the adopted son of one Muthyala Veerappa. Second and third defendants, who are the wife and concubine of late Veerappa respectively seeking partition of the family properties by metes and bounds into three equal shares and to allot 1/3rd share to her, she being the adoptive daughter of late Veerappa towards 1/3rd share which she is entitled to. The second defendant filed a written statement stating that the respondent herein was never taken in adoption by late Veerappa and she is the daughter of younger sister of third defendant, the concubine of late Veerappa during his lifetime. He made a provision for the stay of the third defendant-concubine by giving a house bearing Door Nos. 4-5-412 and 4-5-413 and after her death the property shall revert back to the appellant h...
Tag this Judgment!