Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1598; 1972LabIC864; (1972)IILLJ165SC; (1972)1SCC898; [1973]1SCR185
I.D. Dua, J.-1. This appeal has been presented to this Court by the Ahmedabad ., pursuant to the certificate granted by the Gujarat High Court under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution. The Gujarat High Court had, on being approached by the respondents under Article 227 of the Constitution, quashed and set aside the order of the Industrial Court, Gujarat dated February 5, 1964 which had affirmed the order of the Second Labour Court, Ahmedabad dated August 9, 1963, and after setting aside that order had directed the Industrial Court to decide the matter afresh in the light of the observations made by the High Court in the impugned order.2. The respondents in this Court had applied to the Labour Court under Section 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, No. XI of 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) in December, 1962 complaining that the appellant company was liable to pay to the respondents (applicants before the Labour Court) dearness allowance every month according to the Dearness ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC365; (1972)IILLJ130SC; (1974)3SCC108
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is against the Award dated October 24. 1967 of the Additional Industrial Tribunal. Delhi, in I. D. No. 34 of 1966.2. Two disputes between the Workmen of the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking and the Management of the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking were referred by the Chief Commissioner. Delhi, for adjudication to the Additional Industrial Tribunal. Delhi. Those two disputes were I. D. No. 34 of 1966 and I. D. No. 102 of 1966. A common Award in both the disputes was given by the Tribunal. This Court has granted by its order dated May 1, 1968 special leave limited to the following points:(1) Whether the Inspectors and Superintendents required to work beyond their normal duty hours are entitled to payment of overtime for the extra time and what directions are necessary in this respect.(2) Whether conveyance allowance to Inspectors and Superintendents needs to be increased and what directions are necessary in this respect.3. The De...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC778; (1973)2SCC63
K.S. Hegde, J.1. These are appeals by special leave. The appellant Ganga Devi is the defendant in both these appeals. The suit was for partition. The genealogy of the family is as under:(See next page for Genealogy Table).Laita Prasad son of Bal Gobind and Rajinder Bahadur son of Ram Bharose were the co-owners of the suit property. On the death of Lalta Prasad on December 26, 1948, his widow Chhabili Kuer succeeded to his share. After the death of Lalta Prasad and Rajendra Bahadur, Chhabili Kuer and Ganga Devi were in possession of the suit properties as co-owners. They were the zamindars of the land. Their zamindari rights were abolished by U.P. Act 1 of 1951 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). Thereafter, the title to the suit properties vested in the State of U. P., but in view of Section 18 of that Act the persons who were in possession of the land which vested in the Government became bhumidhars. Prima facie Chhabili Kuer and Ganga Devi became co-bhumi-dhars, in view of Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1564; 1972CriLJ1051; (1972)3SCC820; 1972(4)LC893(SC)
ORDERNo. 86/71 Dated 29-6-71Whereas I am satisfied with result to the Derson known as shri Jagannath Das @ Jaga son of Late Bhanu Das of Kurimatu, P.S. Bangaon Distt. 24 Parganas, that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it is necessary so to do, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the west Bengal (Prevention of violent Activities Act, 1970 (President's Act No. 19 of 1970, make this order directing that the said Shri Jagannath Das @ Jaga be detained.Given under my hand and seal of office.Sd/- IllegibleDistrict Magistrate24-Parganas.29-6-712. The grounds of detention which was served along with the order of detention upon the petitioner recited that on the night of June 1, 1971 at about 1.30 a.m. while committing theft of rice from wagon No. SE 39751 at Ban Won railway station yard, the petitioner and his associates charged bombs upon the party of Rai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC581; (1973)2SCC56b; 1972(4)LC912(SC)
A.N. Grover, J.1. This appeal from a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which is directed against an order of the Chief Election Commissioner allowing inspection in terms of Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 shall stand disposed of in the following manner : --2. Counsel for the appellant and the contesting respondent who is the returned candidate agree that the order of the Chief Election Commissioner dated 15th March, 1971 would be set aside on the ground that no reasons have been recorded in that order as required by Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The formal order of 16th March, 1971, shall also stand set aside as not being the order of the Chief Election Commissioner. This will, however, be without prejudice to the right of the appellant to seek an order of inspection of the ballot papers and the electoral rolls used for the Lok Sabha Parliamentary election of the Fazilka constituency held in March 1971 and/or any recount in the election peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2290; (1973)2SCC56; 1972(4)LC909(SC)
1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court. The facts may be shortly stated.2. By means of a notification dated April 19, 1949 issued Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) it was notified for general information that the land mentioned in the schedule was needed for a public purpose. In the schedule the area was given as 117 Bighas and 9 Biswas. The schedule also contained the following : -For what purpose required : For the construction of residential quarters for the members of Aligarh Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Vishnupuri, Aligarh.3. In November 1951, an agreement was entered into between the Governor of U.P. and the Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, Vishnupuri, Ali Garh, in accordance with the provisions of Part VII of the Act. On November 30, 1951, a notification was issued under Section 6 of the Act in which it was stated that the Governor after considering the report made under Section 5A(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2284; (1972)3SCC717; [1973]1SCR172; 1972(4)LC885(SC)
M.H. Beg, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The appellant'selection, held on 11-4-1970, to the Madras Legislative Council from the Madras District Graduates' Constituency was set aside by a learned Judge of the Madras High Court who decided all the issues except one in favour of the appellant. The only issue decided against the appellant, which is now before us, was framed as follows :Whether the first Respondent was not qualified to stand for election to the Graduates Constituency on all or any of the grounds set out by the petitioner in paragraph 7 to 9 of the election Petition ?2. Paragraphs 7 to 9 of the election petition against the appellant are lengthy, prolix, and argumentative. The case and the contentions of the Respondent G. Panneerselvam, the petitioner before the High Court, which were accepted by the High Court, may be summarised as follows:3. Firstly, the whole purpose of Article 171 of the Constitution was to confer a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2477; (1973)2SCC59
A.N. Grover, J.1. The main point involved in this appeal namely the challenge to the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act have been disposed of by us in the connected civil appeal No. 34 of 1972, and the decision therein will govern the decision in this case as well. The only other contention is the one which was raised as the third argument before the High Court. According to the High Court the appellant had admittedly purchased the plot in dispute from. Ram Sarup and Madan Mohan in the year 1951, i.e. subsequent to the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. He took no steps to get his name mutated. When the time came for the issue of notice under Section 9 Ram Sarup and Madan Mohan were still shown in the official papers as the tenure holders of the plot in question and the individual notice required by Section 9(3) was therefore issued to them and not to the petitioner Bhola Shanker, the present appellant. The High Court rightl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1721; (1972)IILLJ136SC; 1972MhLJ768(SC); (1972)2SCC108; [1973]1SCR161
I.D. Dua, J.1. These two appeals by special leave (C. As Nos. 1704 and 1937 of 1967) are directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated August 19, 1966 dismissing four applications under Articles 227 of the Constitution arising out of orders made by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act 11 of 1948 (hereinafter called the Act) in respect of claims made by employees of the 'City of Nagpur Corporation' (hereinafter called the Corporation) working in various Departments of the Corporation.2. On July 13, 1964 Sitaram Madhorao, Chaukidar and 9 other employees of the Octroi Department of the Corporation filed an application under Section 20 of the Act in the Court of Small Causes at Nagpur, which was the Authority appointed under the Act. The application was presented through the General Secretary of the Nagpur Corporation Employees' Association which was a registered trade union. The application is brief and, therefore, we consider it proper to reproduce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC569; (1972)2SCC200; [1973]1SCR139
M.H. Beg, J.1. Jayaram Mudaliar, the Appellant before us by Special Leave, purchased some lease hold land for Rs. 10,500/- from Munisami Mudaliar and others under a sale deed of 7-7-1958 (Exhibit B-7) and some other lands shown in a sales' certificate dated 15-7-1960, (Exhibit B-51) sold to him for Rs. 6,550/- at a public auction of immovable property held to realise the dues in respect of loans taken by Munisami Mudaliar under the Land Improvement Loans' Act 19 of 1883. Both Jayaram and Munisami, mentioned above, were impleaded as codefendants in a partition suit, in Vellore, Madras, now before us in appeal, commenced by a pauper application dated 23-6-1958 filed by the plaintiff-respondent Ayyaswami Mudaliar so that the suit must be deemed to have been filed on that date. The plaintiff respondent before us had challenged, by an amendment of his plaint on 18-9-1961, the validity of the- sales of land mentioned above, consisting of items given in Schedule 'B' to the plaint, on the grou...
Tag this Judgment!