Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC825; JT1992(6)SC235; 1992(3)SCALE45; (1993)1SCC302; [1992]Supp2SCR274
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. The petitioner State of Madhya Pradesh in both these petitions seeks leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution against the common judgment and order dated 8.5.1992 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 481 of 1992 and 533 of 1992 under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court has allowed both these writ petitions.2. The material facts are these. In Miscellaneous Petition No. 3909 of 1987 filed in public interest by Kailash Joshi, then Leader of the Opposition in Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha and now a Cabinet Minister in Madhya Pradesh, relating to the affairs of the Churhat Children's Welfare Society and the lottery conducted by it, the M.P. High Court by its judgment dated 20.1.1989 issued a direction for setting up an independent high power agency to hold an inquiry into the affairs of the said Society of which respondent No. 1 Ajay Singh was one of the office bearers. In compliance of that direction, the State Gove...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC2267; (1988)90BOMLR434; 1988(3)Crimes655(SC); [1989]176ITR1(SC); JT1988(4)SC265; 1988(2)SCALE688; (1988)4SCC419; [1988]Supp2SCR942; [1989]72STC384(SC)
A.P. Sen, J.1. This appeal by special leave directed against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated August 11, 1987 raises a question of far-reaching importance. The question is whether a Commission of Inquiry constituted under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is a 'Court' for purposes of Section 95(1)(b) of the CrPC, 1973.2. We had the benefit of hearing Dr. Y.S. Chitale, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Dr.Baliram Waman Hiray, who at one time was the Health Minister of Maharashtra, and Shri A.S. Bobde, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Government, as to the purport and effect of the inclusive clause of Sub-section (3) of Section 95 of the Code which provides that in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1), the term 'Court' means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1340; 1988(1)ARBLR394(SC); JT1988(2)SC212; 1988(1)SCALE965; (1988)3SCC36; [1988]3SCR426; 1988(2)LC91(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This petition under Article 136 of the Constitution challenges the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay dated 21st March, 1988. The petitioner in this case on 23rd June, 1961, had agreed to sell to the predecessor of respondent raw petroleum coke. There was a second agreement on 22nd April, 1971. The said agreement was arrived at between the parties whereunder it was provided that in case the respondent failed to lift raw petroleum coke as agreed, the petitioner would have right to shift raw petroleum coke at the risk and expense of the respondent. There was a third agreement providing that in case of delay in payment, the respondent would pay interest at 4 per cent over the I.O.C. Bank borrowing rate, on the value of the stock not uplifted. It appears that on 5th August, 1982, the respondent wrote a letter to the petitioner showing inability to pay the arrears of the price against delivery of raw petroleum coke. On 4th October,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VIAD(SC)220; AIR1998SC2713; 1998(2)CTC742; JT1998(5)SC548; 1998LabIC3012; (1998)IILLJ809SC; 1998(4)SCALE608; (1998)7SCC84; [1998]Supp1SCR22; 1999(1)SLJ271(SC); (1998)3U
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. In these two appeals the common question which arises for consideration is that when the inquiry officer, during the course of disciplinary proceedings, comes to a conclusion that all or some of the charges alleging misconduct against an official are not proved then can the disciplinary authority differ from that and give a contrary finding without affording any opportunity to the delinquent officer.2. The respondents in these two appeals, namely, Shri Kunj Behari Misra and Shri Shanti Prasad Goel were working in the appellant bank in the Hazratganj Branch, Lucknow, as Assistant Managers. On 10.11.1981 on physical verification of the currency chest a shortage of Rs. 1 lac currency notes was found. Thereafter first information report was lodged and disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the appellant bank against both the respondents, who were also placed under suspension. Six charges were framed against Misra while the charge sheet served on Goel contained seven c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC122; [1966]SuppSCR401
Sarkar, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Jammu and Kashmir, G. M. Sadiq, Chief Minister of that State and D. P. Dhar, its Home Minister. The appeal is contested by respondent No. 1, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad. The other respondent, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, a retired Judge of this Court, has not appeared in this Court or in the court below. These are the parties to the proceedings before us. 2. After the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India in 1947, a responsible Government was set up there under the Prime Ministership of Shiekh Mohammad Abdulla. Bakshi Ghulam Muhammad was the Deputy Prime Minister in that Government and G. M. Sadiq was also in the Cabinet. In 1953 Sheikh Mohammad Abdulla was dismissed from office and a new Government was formed with Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad as the Prime Minister and G. M. Sadiq and D. P. Dhar were included in the Cabinet. On January 26, 1957, a new Constitution was framed for Jammu & Kashmir. In the first elections held under the Const...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1515; 1974(0)BLJR305; 1973CriLJ453; (1972)1SCC573; [1972]3SCR183; 1972(4)LC629(SC)
H.R. Khanna, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave by Sammbhu Nath Jha who along with two others has been found by the Patna High Court to be guilty of contempt of Court. In view of the fact that the contempt, in the opinion of the High Court, was of a technical nature, the contemners were let off with a warning.2. On January 2, 1966 a report was lodged with the police by Lachho Paswan that when he and his brother Dwarka Paswan were going to Jamui market, Kedar Prasad respondent abused them. Kedar Prasad also exhorted others to assault Dwarka Paswan. An assault was then made upon Dwarka Paswan and he was surrounded. Arjun Pandey thrust Saif in the chest of Dwarka Paswan, as a result of which he died on the spot. The motive for the assault was stated to be that Lachho Paswan and Dwarka Paswan had voted against Kedar Prasad in the election to the office of Mukhia. The police on the basis of that report investigated the case and submitted a charge sheet for offences under Sections 148 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3460a; [1999]Supp2SCR654
ORDER1. Our order dated 14th October, 1998 shall be treated as a part of this order.2. Mr. N. Ravi Shankar, Secretary, Home Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh has filed an affidavit dated 8th of December, 1998 in this Court on 11th of December, 1998. Alongwith the affidavit, he has also filed summary of the Justice C.D. Parekh Commission Report. From the affidavit of Mr. Ravi Shankar it transpires that the Parekh Commission Report, which was submitted as early as in 1988, relating to the riots which took place in Meerut in September, 1982 was considered by State Cabinet and the following decisions were taken by it.(i) Report of the Commission be tabled on the floor of the House in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(4) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.(ii) Report relating to the incident of 20.9.1982 was received by the State Government in November, 1988. Since then up till now no former Government considered it proper to take any decision. The Commission did not fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC1334; JT1998(1)SC734; (1998)IIIMLJ34(SC); 1998(1)SCALE672; (1998)3SCC276; [1998]1SCR988; 1998(1)LC658(SC)
M. Jagannadha Rao. J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal Nos. 8451-53 of 1996 dated 11.6.1997 by which, the High Court dismissed the Writ appeals and confirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 23657 to 23659 of 1992 dated 23.7.1996. In so doing, the High Court followed the judgment of a Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 1821 of 1995 dated 10.6.1997 Iswarappa & Another v. The Deputy Commissioner, Dharwar & Others) whereby the judgment in Writ Petition No. 16302 of 1987 dated 23.3.1995 was affirmed.3. The point concerns the applicability of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Central Act, 1894) for the purposes of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for House Sites Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Karnataka Act, 1972) (Act 18 of 1973). Appellants contend that the new Section 11-A is attracted to proceedings for land acquisition under the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC124; [2005(107)FLR840]; JT2005(12)SC515; 2005(8)SCALE397; (2005)8SCC760; 2006(1)SLJ312(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted in S.L.P.(C) 21363 of 2005/CC No. 6855 of 1999.2. Both these appeals have matrix in a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal filed by Ashok Kumar, the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 1999 and the appellant in the connected appeal. For the sake of convenience said Ashok Kumar is described hereinafter as the 'delinquent officer'. By the impugned judgment the High Court held that the removal of the delinquent officer from service was in violation of the provisions contained in Section 10 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (in short 'the Act') read with Rule 20 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (in short 'the Rules). The appeal filed by the delinquent officer was allowed upsetting the judgment of the learned Single Judge who had dismissed the writ petition filed by the delinquent officer.3. Factual position, filtering out unnecessary details, is as follows:There was a raid in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2679; 2002(4)ALT33(SC); (2002)4CompLJ170(SC); II(2002)CPJ1(SC); [2002(94)FLR745]; (2002)3GLR830; [2002(3)JCR78(SC)]; JT2002(5)SC149; 2002(3)KLT25(SC); 2002LabIC264
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Leave granted.2. A group of advocates practicing in the High Court of Madras filed a writ petition alleging that a sitting Judge of that High Court ceased to be a Judge as he was appointed as President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pondicherry, (for short 'the State Commission') and prayed for an appropriate writ or other directions. The writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court and aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.3. The post of the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Pondicherry was being manned by a retired High Court Judge. After the completion of this term of office, nobody else was willing to be considered for appointment as President of the State Commission. Pondicherry being a small Union Territory with limited financial resources could not afford to have a full-time President for the State Commission. The post was lying vacant for a considerable period. ...
Tag this Judgment!