Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted. 2. The appellants, Bihar State Electricity Board and its Chairman were the defendants in a suit filed by respondents 1 to 8, the plaintiffs. The respondents were the workmen of the Board and at the material time, i.e., in the year 1974 they were working as security guards at Patratu Thermal Power Station, Hazaribagh. They were proceeded against on certain charges of misconduct. In the domestic enquiry the charges were established and on the basis of the findings of the domestic enquiry, they were dismissed from service on November 11, 1975. After 4 years of dismissal from service they filed a suit (T.S. No. 95/1979) in the court of Munsiff V, Patna, seeking declarations that their dismissal was bad, unconstitutional and inoperative in law and they would be legally deemed to have continued in service. 3. The trial court allowed the suit by judgment and decree dated August 29, 1981. The appeal preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree passed by the tri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. The constitutional validity of Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich Estate (Acquisition & Transfer) Act, 1996 (in short the Acquisition Act ), the legal validity of Section 110 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short Land Reforms Act ), the Notification No. RD 217 LRA 93 dated 8th March, 1994 issued by the State Government thereunder and the scope and content of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, are the issues that have come up for consideration in these civil appeals. 2. We propose to deal with the above issues in three parts. In Part-I, we will deal with the validity of Section 110 of the Land Reforms Act and the validity of the notification dated 8.3.1994 and in Part-II, we will deal with the constitutional validity of the Acquisition Act and in Part-III, we will deal with the claim for enhanced compensation and the scope of Article 300A of the Constitution. PREFACE 3. Dr. Svetoslav Roerich, a Russian born, was an internationally acclaimed painter, artist an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.1. Appellants, the State of Jharkhand and its functionaries, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23rd December, 2005 of the Jharkhand High Court, passed in LPA No. 161 of 2004 and analogous appeals have preferred these appeals by leave of the Court.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the Governor of Jharkhand in exercise of the powers conferred by 2Article 309 of the Constitution of India framed Jharkhand Primary Teachers' Appointment Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) providing for appointment of teachers in Primary Schools. Rule 2(b) of the Rules defined `Trained' which reads as follows:"2. Definitions : -x x x x x x x (b). `Trained' means those persons who have received the following training from the recognized institution and has passed- (i) Two years Teachers training, or(ii) B.Ed/Dip. In Ed./Dip. In Teaching; and(iii) C.P.Ed/Dip.P.Ed.x x x x x x x"3. Rule 3 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted.2. The only question which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the Board of Revenue, U.P. could hear and decide the revisions filed by the appellant after creation of the State of Uttranchal (renamed as Uttrakhand) by the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 (for short "the Reorganisation Act").3. One Sanjay Ghai had purchased bhumidhari land from various tenure holders in the name of Golden Forest India Limited and its sister concerns, namely, Indian Peace Foundation Trust, Mani Majra, Chandigarh, Golden Forest India Limited, Golden Agro Forest Limited and Golden Forest Distributors Limited. Tehsildar, Dehradun, submitted report dated 12.08.1997 to Assistant Collector 1st Class-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate (for short "the Assistant Collector") with the finding that the purchases made in the name of the respondents were violative of the restriction contained in Section 154 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. This appeal, filed under Section 123 of the Jammu and Kashmir Representation of the People Act, 1957, is directed against judgment dated March 13, 2006, rendered by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu in Election Petition No. 1 of 2005 by which the Election Petition filed by the respondent No. 1, challenging election of the appellant to the Legislative Council of the State Legislature, is allowed and his election is declared void. Further the learned Single Judge has declared that in place of the appellant the respondent No. 1, i.e., Mr. Mohd. Rashid Qureshi, advocate, is proclaimed as elected.2. The facts, giving rise to the instant appeal, are as under:The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir (`the Constitution' for short) was implemented on January 26, 1957. Section 50 of the Constitution deals with composition of Legislative Council. Sub-Section (3) of Section 50 of the Constitution provides that eleven members of the Legislative Council shall b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. These three appeals by special leave arise out of three different orders passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh whereby revision petitions filed by the appellants against the orders of A.P. Wakf Tribunal have been dismissed and the orders of eviction passed by the Tribunal affirmed. Since the appeals raise a common question of law for our determination the same were heard together and shall stand disposed of by this common order. The question is whether the Wakf Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 was competent to entertain and adjudicate upon disputes regarding eviction of the appellants who are occupying different items of what are admittedly Wakf properties. The Wakf Tribunal before whom the suits for eviction of the tenants were filed answered the question regarding its jurisdiction in the affirmative and decreed the suit filed against the appellant. Aggrieved by the said orders the appellants filed revision petitions before the High Court of Andhra P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(Supp.)Bom.C.R.925
P. Sathasivam, J.1. I have had the benefit of reading the erudite judgment of my learned Brother, Hon. B. Sudershan Reddy, J. I am unable to share the view expressed by him on some points and must respectfully dissent.2. Though the facts and provisions of the relevant law have been set out in the judgment prepared by B. Sudershan Reddy, J., keeping in view of the importance in the matter, I propose to refer all the details and deliver a separate judgment in the following terms:3. Leave granted.4. 'The people of the entire country have a stake in natural gas and its benefit has to be shared by the whole country.' - Association of Natural Gas and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.: (2004) 4 SCC 489 (CB)5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay dated 15.06.2009 in Appeal No. 1 of 2008 in Company Application No. 1122 of 2006 and in Company Petition No. 731 of 2005, Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. (in short 'RNRL') has filed S.L.P.(C) Nos. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of the two appeals being CA No. 4269 of 2006 and CA No. 4270 of 2006. Civil Appeal No. 4269/2006 has been filed on behalf of North Delhi Power Limited and Civil Appeal No. 4270 of 2006 has been filed by BSES Rajdhani Limited. Since a common question falls for consideration in both the appeals, the same are disposed of by this common judgment. The question can be framed as under:Whether the appellants are responsible for meeting the liabilities relating to employees who ceased to be the employees of erstwhile Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (Predecessor of Delhi Vidhyut Board - DVB) prior to 1.7.2002 on account of their retirement, removal, dismissal or compulsory retirement in accordance with the provisions of Delhi Electric Reforms Act, 2000?By the impugned judgment dated 30.3.2006 passed by the Delhi High Court, the High Court has held that the appellants alone would be responsible to meet such liabilities.2. In order to understand t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2010(3)SC1,2010(3)LC1203(SC)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. In this batch of civil appeals, we are basically concerned with the doctrine and jurisprudence of delegated legislation.QUESTIONS OF LAW:4. The crucial points that arise for determination are:(i) Whether the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003 ('2003 Act') has jurisdiction under Section 111 to examine the validity of Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Fixation of Trading Margin) Regulations, 2006 framed in exercise of power conferred under Section 178 of the 2003 Act? (ii) Whether Parliament has conferred power of judicial review on the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity under Section 121 of the 2003 Act? (iii) Whether capping of trading margins could be done by the CERC ('Central Commission') by making a Regulation in that regard under Section 178 of the 2003 Act?FACTS:5. In this batch of civil appeals, appellants had challenged the vires of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Fixation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 166(2010)DLT659(SC); JT2009(10)SC615; (2009)8MLJ625(SC); 2009(11)SCALE278; 2009(8)LC3783(SC)
ORDER, 1951 C.O. 32, dated the 20th September, 1951. 'In exercise of the power conferred by Clause (1) of Article 341 of the Constitution of India, as amended by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, the President is pleased to make the following order namely: This order may be called the Constitution (Scheduled Cates) (Union Territories) Order, 1951. Subject to the provision of this order, the castes, races or tribes or parts of, or groups within, castes or tribes, specified in parts I to III of the Schedule to this Order shall, in relation to the Union Territories to which those parts respectively relate, be deemed to be Scheduled Castes so far as regard members thereof resident in the localities specified in relation to them respectively in those parts of that schedule. Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph 2, no person who professes a religion different from the Hindu (or Sikh or the Buddhist) Religion shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Castes. Any refe...
Tag this Judgment!