Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-10-1997
Reported in : AIR1997SC3808; 1997(2)ALD(Cri)508; 1997CriLJ1226; JT1997(8)SC1; RLW1997(3)SC400; 1997(6)SCALE99; (1997)11SCC499
ORDER1. In Sessions Case No. 122 of 1989 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fourth Court, Thane, seven persons were arraigned for rioting, five murders and other related offences. While acquitting two of them, the trial Judge convicted the other five under Sections 147 342/149 440/34 and 302/149 I.P.C. and sentenced them to different terms of imprisonment, including life, and fine. Aggrieved thereby the five convicts (who were arrayed as A 1 to A5 in the trial Court) preferred appeals in the High Court which were dismissed. Assailing the dismissal of their appeals three of them, namely A 2, A 3 and A 4 have filed these appeals which have been heard together and this judgment will dispose of them.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is as under:(a) In the Waldhuni area of Kalyan City the Railways own a number of buildings, rooms of which are allotted to its employees. Eknath Brahmane (P.W. 4), is one of such employees who was allotted room No. 7 on the ground floor of Build...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-20-1997
Reported in : AIR1997SC978; 84(1997)CLT278(SC); JT1997(1)SC712; (1997)2MLJ52(SC); 1999(I)OLR(SC)214; 1997(1)SCALE472; (1997)3SCC462; [1997]1SCR395
1. Leave granted.2. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment and order of the High Court of Orissa, made on December 16, 1996 in A.H.O. Nos. 40-42/95.3. The admitted facts are that the appellant had filed a suit for declaration that the steps taken by the respondents under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act were illegal and sought permanent injunction restraining them from disturbing its possession. Pending suit, they sought ad interim injunction not to dispossess them from the hotel. The trial Court by order dated July 12, 1994 granted status quo whereby the appellant remained in possession of the suit premises. On appeal filed by the respondents, the learned single Judge vacated the status quo order by order dated May 18, 1995. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed Letters Patent Appeal. By the impugned order the Division Bench has held that the appeals are not maintainable. Thus this appeal by special leave.4. Shri A. M. Singhvi, learned Addl. Solicitor ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-23-1997
Reported in : AIR1997SC3002; 1997(5)ALT6(SC); (1998)1GLR17; JT1997(7)SC14; (1997)IILLJ765SC; 1997(5)SCALE60; (1997)6SCC650; [1997]Supp3SCR26; 1997(2)LC727(SC)
ORDERV.N. Khare, J.1. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) is established and constituted under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). One of the duties assigned to the Corporation under the Act is to provide medical service to the residents of the Corporation. For that purpose, the Corporation has set up four dental clinics. The dentists attending the said clinics are the Corporation's employees recruited through the positive act of selection as provided under the statutory rules framed in that regard. Whenever any doctor of the Corporation is on leave, the Corporation takes the services of private doctors only with a view that patients may not be inconvenienced. Such doctors in lieu of their services are paid their fee on daily basis. The respondent herein is a dental surgeon who was carrying on his private practice from private clinics. Since early seventies the Corporation had been taking the services of the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-01-1997
Reported in : AIR1997SC1429; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)932; 1997(3)ALLMR(SC)726; 1997(1)ALT(Cri)858; 1997(2)Crimes20(SC); JT1997(4)SC428; (1997)IILLJ417SC; 1997(3)SCALE363; (1997)4SCC545; [1997]3SC
ORDERM.K. Mukherjee, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated April 26, 1996 of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in W.P. (Crl.) No; 167 of 1995 Whereby it rejected the writ petition filed by the two appellants before us. Facts leading to this appeal and relevant for its disposal are as under.3. At all material times the appellants No. 1, who is an Officer of the Indian Administrative Service, was holding the post of the Vice Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ('Corporation' for short) on deputation and appellant No. 2 was the Manager of its Nagpur region. On or about April 1, 1992 two recognised Workers Unions of the Corporation gave a joint notice terminating their earlier settlement with the Corporation and submitted their fresh charter of demands. On the failure of the management of the Corporation to attend to their demands the Unions served a notice upon the former intimating that the workers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-29-1997
Reported in : AIR1997SC3939; 1998(1)ALLMR(SC)161; 1998(1)ALT1(SC); JT1997(8)SC317; (1998)IMLJ38(SC); RLW1998(1)SC10; 1997(6)SCALE328; (1997)8SCC47; [1997]Supp4SCR362; 1997(2)LC761(SC)
K. Venkataswamj, J.1. Though before the High Court of Bombay, Panaji Bench (Goa) three questions were raised and answered, before us learned Counsel for the appellants confined the argument to one of the questions raised before the High Court, namely, whether the declaration made/published under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the 'Act') was barred by limitation.2. To appreciate the above question, certain dates are necessary. Initially a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act for acquiring land for construction and black topping of St. Sebastian Chapel Road was published on 8.11.90. That Notification lapsed as no declaration as required under Section 6 of the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984 was made. Therefore, a fresh Notification was made under Section 4(1) of the Act for the same purpose on 23.6.92, The said Notification under Section 4(1) was first published in the English daily 'O Heraldo' on 29.6.92, and in the Marathi daily 'Nav Prabha' on 2.7.92. Public...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-31-1997
Reported in : AIR1997SC1095; [1997(75)FLR962]; JT1997(2)SC467; 1997(2)SCALE103; (1997)9SCC662; [1997]1SCR750; 1997(1)LC494(SC); (1997)2UPLBEC964
1. Leave granted. We have heard the counsel on both sides.2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, made on 3-5-1996, in C. M. W. P. No. 12592 of 1995, (reported in 1996 All LJ 1579. The legislature of Uttar Pradesh enacted the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes. Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (for short, the 'Act'). Advertisement was issued by the University of Allahabad on January 30, 1995 inviting applications from all eligible persons for posts of ProfessOrs. Readers and Lecturers including the posts reserved for Scheduled Castes (for short, the 'Dalits'), Scheduled Tribes (for short, the Tribes') and Other Backward Classes (for short, the 'OBCs'). A clarification was issued by the Government on April 19,.1995 stating that for recruitment to the posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers, University or College is treated as a unit and the recruitment would be made applying the rule of r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-13-1997
Reported in : 1997(2)BLJR1361; JT1997(1)SC479; RLW1997(2)SC252; (1997)10SCC675; [1997]1SCR190
K.T. Thomas J.1. Respondent's wife (Mst. Chawli) was shot dead on 20.7,1985 while she was sleeping in her house. Respondent Bhup Singh was alleged to be the killer. Police, after investigation, upheld the allegation and challenged him. Though the Sessions Court convicted him of murder, the High Court of Rajasthan acquitted him. This appeal has been filed by special leave by the State of Rajasthan in challenge of the aforesaid acquittal.2. Prosecution case is a very short story : Chawli was first married to respondent's brother who died after a brief marital life. Thereafter, Chawli was given in marriage to the respondent, but the new alliance was marred by frequent skirmishes and bickerings between the spouses. Chawli was residing in the house of her parents. The estrangement between the couple reached a point of no return and the respondent wished to get rid of her. So he went to her house on the night of occurrence and shot at her with a pistol. When he tried to use the firearm again...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-12-1997
Reported in : AIR1998SC1474; 1998(1)ALD(Cri)184; 1998(1)ALT(Cri)179; 1998CriLJ863; 1998(1)Crimes58(SC); JT1997(10)SC54; RLW1998(1)SC124; 1997(7)SCALE620; (1998)1SCC557; [1997]Supp6SCR456
Thomas, J.1. This is a Government appeal assailing the acquittal of a government servant from graft charge. Respondent government servant was convicted by the trial court under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and also Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and was sentenced to substantive terms of imprisonment and fine but he was acquitted by a single judge of the Allahabad High Court when he appealed against the conviction and sentence.2. Respondent was working as Revenue Inspector (Wasil Baki Nawis) in a sub-Tehsil in Nainital District. The nub of the case against him is that he received Rs. 400 as bribe from PW5 Satpal Singh for doing an official act and he was caught red-handed with the bribed amount by the anti-corruption officials. After obtaining sanction from the government, respondent was challaned. In his defence, he disputed the entire incident and contended that it was a concocted case against him.3. More details about the case : A person by name Naubat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-08-1997
Reported in : JT1998(9)SC286; (1997)11SCC100
ORDER1. This appeal has been filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] by N.K. Jagannivasa Rao, appellant, who is enrolled as an Advocate with the Karnataka Bar Council. Action has been taken against the appellant for misconduct under Section 35 of the Act on the basis of a complaint made by the respondent, N. Shivananda Rao, wherein it was stated that by misstating that his income was less than Rs. 10,000 per month the appellant had obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The Karnataka Bar Council found that the said allegation in the complaint was established and directed that the appellant be suspended from practising as an Advocate for a period of six months. On appeal, the Bar Council of India, by the impugned judgment, has reduced the punishment imposed on the appellant to reprimand. We have heard Shri Mukul Mudgal, the learned Counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal. We do not find any grou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-27-1997
Reported in : 1999(1)CTC640; (1999)IILLJ147SC; (1998)9SCC696
ORDER1. The respondent was employed as a clerk in the Government High School, Raipur, Rasulpur on 26-4-1976. He was subsequently posted as a clerk in the Government High School, Bharta Khurd, (Jalandhar). On 9-5-1979 he proceeded on leave. He did not rejoin on the due date. He submitted his applications for extension of leave from time to time. As the respondent did not join duty till 2-2-1980, his services were terminated by the appellants by an order dated 2-2-1980. In March 1980, the respondent wanted to resume duty when he was informed that his services were already terminated by an order dated 2-2-1980.2. For six years thereafter the respondent did not take any action. On 8-11-1986 he filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the order of 2-2-1980 terminating his services was illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction. One of the issues which was raised at the trial was whether the suit was barred by limitation. The trial court held that because the order of termination was nul...
Tag this Judgment!