Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2300; [1973(26)FLR311]; (1973)IILLJ100SC; (1973)2SCC277; [1973]3SCR850
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This appeal by special leave by the workmen of the Hindustan Machine Tools, Unit, IV, Kalamassery, is directed against the award dated April 16, 1969, of the National Tribunal at Calcutta in Reference No. NIT 6 of 1967, holding that the appellants are not entitled to any bonus for the years 1964-65 to 1966-67.2. By order dated October 17, 1967, the Central Government made a reference for adjudication of the disputes to the National Tribunal in the following manner :Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the employers in respect of the establishments specified in Schedule I and their workmen in respect of the matters specified in Schedule II hereto annexed and that the said dispute is of such a nature that industrial establishments situated in more than one State are likely to be interested in, or affected by, such dispute; And, whereas the Central Government is of opinion that the dispute should be adjudicated by a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1274; 1973CriLJ978; (1973)2SCC249; [1973]3SCR867
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. These two appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgment and order dated August 25, 1970, of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Revision Case No. 727 of 1969 and Criminal Appeals Nos. 201 and 202 of 1969, setting aside the judgment of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Sessions Case No. 121 of 1968 arid remanding the entire case for retrial.2. In connection with the murder of two persons, Gogineni Koteswara Rao and Venigandla Ratnababu, and the injuries sustained by the prosecution witnesses, PWs 5 to 7 and 13, on August 16, 1968, thirty persons were tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Guntur for offences under Section 148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 or alternatively under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Sections 323, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge found that accused Nos. 5 to 7, 14, 18, 19, 24 and 25 had participated in part of the occurrence that took place on that day an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1336; (1973)GLR617; (1973)0GLR60; (1973)1SCC799; 1973(5)LC593(SC)
Palekar, J.1. These are appeals by special leave from the judgment and Order dated October 18, 1966 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Civil Revision Applications Nos. 446 of 1962 and 569 of 1962 respectively.2. Bai Hiragauri-the appellant, is the aggrieved land lady and the respondents Abdul Kadar Mamadji and Abdul Rahim Musaji respectively are the tenants. The suits were for their eviction. Abdul Kadar was let out the premises bearing No. 1155 on a monthly rent of Rs. 23/- and Abdul Rahim was let out another shop bearing No. 1155/2-3 and the monthly rent was Rs. 40/-. The tenants had agreed to bear the dues in respect of municipal taxes and consumption of electricity. Abdul Kadar did not pay the rent from 1st November, 1956 to 31st August, 1957 and similarly Abdul Rahim was in arrears of rent from 1st February, 1957 to 31st August, 1957. Under the law, they were liable to be evicted for being in arrears for more than six months. As required by law the land lady gave them no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1271; 1973LabIC849; 1973MhLJ562(SC); (1973)4SCC219; [1973]3SCR878
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. In the Judicial Service of Madhya Pradesh there are three classes of officers, Civil Judges, Additional District and Sessions Judges and District Judges but under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1958 there are four classes of Civil Courts, the Court of the District Judge, the Court of the Addl. District Judge, the Court of the Civil Judge (Class I) and the Court of the Civil Judge (Class II). The respondent No. I, Shri B. A. Nigam, entered service as a Civil Judge on 20-10-1956 in Madhya Bharat. After Madhya Bharat became part of Madhya Pradesh he was absorbed as a Civil Judge and placed for purposes of seniority at No. 189. From the time when the Madhya Pradesh Civil Court Act, 1958 came into force some period of service of a Civil Judge during which he exercised powers of Civil Judge, Class I, however, small, was considered a necessary qualification for promotion to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge. On or about May 3, 1968, by a resolution...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2551; (1974)3SCC314; [1973]3SCR844
I.D. Dua, J.1. In this appeal from the judgment and order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court convicting the appellant for the murder of one Gadusula Seetha under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to death, special leave granted by this Court was limited only to the question of sentence. The preparation of the record was dispensed with and the appeal was directed to be heard on the S.L.P. paper book. In the order granting special leave dated March 1, 1973 it was specifically directed as under :Let an actual date of hearing of the appeal be fixed -which will not be longer than one month from today, and notice of the actual date of hearing of the appeal shall be sent to the respondent forthwith.Earlier, on July 5, 1972 the special leave petition has been placed before the vacation Judge (K.K. Mathew J) and notice was directed to go to the respondent to show cause why special leave should not be granted in regard to the sentence only. It is unfortunate that the matter could not be place...
Tag this Judgment!