Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1648; 2003(4)AWC3233(SC); 2003(2)SCALE145; (2003)5SCC622; [2003]2SCR1
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Interpretation of Section 3(3)(a)(iv) of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity as 'the said Act') falls for consideration in these appeals which arise out of a judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 7.3.2001 passed in C.W.P. No. 7245 of 1997 filed by the appellant of Civil Appeal No. 4908 of 2002. 2. M/s. DLF Universal Ltd. (DLF) is a public limited company registered and incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. It purchased free-hold lands at Gurgaon in the State of Haryana for setting up a colony known as DLF Qutab Enclave Complex. It applied for and was granted licence in terms of the provisions of the said Act.3. M/s. DLF Universal Limited and other group of companies created DLF Qutab Enclave Complex Educational Charitable Trust (Trust) wherefor 85 sites were earmarked for constructions of schools community buildings in the complexes. The said sites ve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1863; JT2003(5)SC502; 2003(3)MPHT64; 2003MPLJ115(SC); 2003(2)SCALE494; (2003)4SCC635; [2003]2SCR259; 2003(1)LC634(SC)
ORDER1. The short question that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the heirs of a tenant can be deprived of the benefit of proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') if the heirs' father from whom they inherited the tenancy rights had availed of the benefit of proviso of Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act. This question arises in the following factual background.2. It is not disputed that the appellant herein is the landlord of a shop in the town Neemuch. As far back as in the year 1960, one Badri Lal, father of respondents took the aforesaid shop on rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. It appears that Badri Lal committed default in payment of arrears of rent with the result that the appellant herein brought a suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent. However, father of the respondents claimed benefit of proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(5)SCALE537
ORDERHeard the learned counsel for the parties.1. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, the learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu after obtaining necessary instructions states that:1. The State Government will re-intsate all the government employees who are dismissed because they had gone on strike, except (i) 2,200 employees who had been arrested and (ii) employees against whom FIR had been lodged.2. This reinstatement in service would be subject to unconditional apology as well as undertaking to the effect that employees would abide by Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules 1973 which provides as under:'22. Strikes No Government servant shall engage himself in strike or in incitements thereto or in similar activities. Explanation - For the purposes of this rule the expression 'similar activities' shall be deemed to include the absence from work or neglect of duties without permission and with the object of compelling something to be done by his superior off...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2003(6)SC178; 2003(5)SCALE427; (2003)6SCC276; (2003)3UPLBEC2244
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in Civil Revision Petition No. 4278/98. An Order of the Education Tribunal was challenged before the learned Single Judge and the same was set aside and hence this appeal by way of special leave.3. The respondent was employed as a teacher in a school owned and managed by the appellant. An order was passed against the respondent terminating his service w.e.f. 21.8.1981. According to the appellant, the respondent was then working on probation, though the respondent alleged that his probation period was already over. The appellant had also contended that the respondent teacher had offered his resignation voluntarily and his resignation was accepted. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the termination of the services of the respondent, without there being a valid inquiry was not proper and therefore, the termination of service of the respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC4368; 2003(5)ALD68(SC); 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)99; [2003(4)JCR15(SC)]; JT2003(7)SC257; 2003(6)SCALE441; (2003)7SCC336; 2004(1)LC35(SC)
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. The State of Maharashtra has preferred this appeal by special leave against the judgment and order dated 31.1.1983 of High Court of Bombay by which the writ petition filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 was allowed and the orders passed by the Competent Authority and the Appellate Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act') were set aside and it was declared that the respondents do not hold any land in excess of the ceiling limit of Pune Agglomeration. The notification issued under Section 10(3) of the Act was also set aside.2. B.E. Billimoria (respondent No. 1) and Laxmidas Kalyanji Kapadia (respondent No. 2) together owned a plot bearing CIS No. 82, Koregaon Park, Pune having an area of 5428.09 sq. meters. In the statement filed under Section 6 of the Act respondent No. 1 disclosed that besides above he owned a flat having an area of 297.28 sq. meter in a building owned by a co-operative housing society in Bombay, Respondent N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3240; 2003(5)ALD39(SC); 106(2003)DLT350(SC); JT2003(7)SC446; 2003(6)SCALE831; (2003)7SCC589
S.B. Sinha, J.INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: 1. Applicability of the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 is in question in this set of appeals which arise out of a common judgment and order dated 20.3.1997 passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The appellants herein are engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of articles relating to art and craft manufactured from ivory. The appellants herein imported ivory from African countries. They have manufactured certain articles out of the same. It is not dispute that the said import had legally been made as there did not exist any restriction in that regard. 2. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for the sake of brevity) was enacted to provide for the protection of wild animals, birds and plants and for matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto or incidental therewith. Indian elephant was brought within the purview of Schedule A of the Act on or about 5.10.1977. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC4603; JT2003(Suppl2)SC613; 2003(3)KLT1081(SC); 2003(8)SCALE165; (2003)8SCC498
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Whether non-publication of a final electoral roll would render a general election invalid in law is the core question involved in this appeal filed by the Appellant herein under Section 116A of the Representation of the People-Act. 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1951 Act') which arises out of a judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala dated 7.3.2002 passed in E.P. No. 8 of 2001 whereby and whereunder his election petition was dismissed.BACKGROUND FACT.:2. The election in question was held for Kozhikode II Legislative Assembly Constituency on 10.05.2001. The first, second, third and fourth respondents herein contested the said election. The appellant herein was the election agent of the second respondent. The said election petition came to be filed in the following circumstances:3. A preliminary electoral roll (mother roll) was published in 1999 which was revised on 1.1.2000 and 1.1.2001 purported to be in terms of continuous and special revision scheme. O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC218; JT2003(8)SC413; (2004)1SCC256; [2003]134STC610(SC)
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. Challenge to the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Articles (Prescription of Standards) order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Order, for short) in its application to 'tea' having failed, the appellants are in appeal by special leave. The crux of the controversy centers around the question whether 'tea' can be included within the meaning of 'foodstuffs' listed as Sub-clause (v) of Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Essential commodities act, 1955 (hereinafter, the EC Act, for short) which defines 'essential commodity'.2. The EC Act was enacted to provide, in the Interest of the general public, for the control of the production, supply and distribution of and trade and commerce, in certain commodities. The phrase 'essential commodity' is defined by Clause (a) of Section 2 of the EC Act as under:2. Definitions - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, - xxxxx (a) 'essential commodity' means any of the following classes of commodities:- (i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(1)AWC605(SC); JT2003(9)SC548; 2003(10)SCALE43; (2004)1SCC391; (2004)1UPLBEC855
A.C. Lakshmanan, J.1. The unsuccessful respondents 2, 3 and 4 before the High Court of Allahabad are the appellants in this appeal. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein to quash the order dated 12.03.1999 (Annexure 17 to the writ petition) and for mandamus restraining the appellants herein from interfering in the business in certified seeds either before or after processing and further in restraining the appellants from demanding and realising market fee on the transaction of unprocessed or processed certified seeds.2. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowed the writ petition following the decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Rajasthan Agriculture Input Dealers Association reported in : AIR1996SC2179 which has also been followed by the Division Bench of the said Court in Writ Petition No. 7262 of 1993 dated 18.12.1996. The High Court quashed the Impugned order dated 12.03.1999 and also held that the respondents in the writ petition/appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2004)187CTR(SC)219; [2004]266ITR721(SC); JT2004(1)SC375; 2004(1)SCALE425; (2004)10SCC201
CASE NO.:Appeal (civil) 1532 of 1993PETITIONER:State of West BengalRESPONDENT:Kesoram Industries Ltd. and Ors.DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/01/2004BENCH:V.N.Khare CJI & R.C.Lahoti & B.N.Agarwal & S.B.Sinha & A.R.LakshmananJUDGMENT:JUDGMENTDELIVERED BY:R.C.LAHOTI, J.S.B.SINHA, J.WITHCivil Appeal Nos. 3518-3519 and 5149-54 of 1992, 1532-1533 and 2350 of 1993and 7614 of 1994 and C.A. Nos. 297, 298 and 299 of 2004 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 3986 of 1993, 11596 and 17549 of 1994) with W.P. (C) Nos. 262,515, 641 and 642 of 1997, 347 and 360 of 1999, 50 and 553 of 2000, 207, 288and 389 of 2001 and 81 of 2003 and Civil Appeal Nos. 5027, 6643 to 6650 and6894 of 2000 and 1077 of 2001Decided On: 15.01.2004JUDGMENTR.C. Lahoti, J.This batch of matters, some appeals by special leave under Article 136 ofthe Constitution and some writ petitions filed in this Court, raise a fewquestions of constitutional significance centering around Entries 52, 54and 97 in List I and Entries 23, 49, 50 a...
Tag this Judgment!