Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2192; (1974)IILLJ465SC; (1974)2SCC831; [1975]1SCR814; 1975(1)SLJ1(SC)
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. These two appeals are from the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.2. Appellants joined the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch). They were both on probation.3. By an order dated 27th April, 1967 the services of the appellant Shamsher Singh were terminated. The order was as follows :The Governor of Punjab is pleased to terminate the services of Shri Shamsher Singh. Subordinate Judge, on probation, under Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 with immediate effect. It is requested that these orders may be conveyed to the officer concerned under intimation to the Government.4. By an order dated 15 December, 1969 the services of the appellant Ishwar Chand Aggarwal were terminated. The order was as follows:--On the recommendation of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to dispense with the services of Shri Ishwar Chand Agarwal, P.C.S. (Judicial Branch), with immediate effect, under Rule 7(3) in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2077; (1975)4SCC285; [1975]1SCR802; 1974(6)LC765(SC)
K.K. Mathew, J.1. These writ petitions and civil appeals raise common questions and they are, therefore, disposed of by a common judgment. The Civil Appeals arise out of the decision of High Court of Delhi dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging the validity of the proceedings for acquisition of the land in question, for 'planned development of Delhi'. In the writ petitions, the validity of the same proceedings is being challenged on certain additional grounds also.2. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued on November 13, 1950, stating that an area of 34,070 acres of land was needed for a public purpose, viz., the planned development of Delhi. Between 1959 and 1961, about six thousand objections were filed under Section 5A of the Act. The objections were overruled. On March 18, 1966, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in respect of a portion of the area. Thereafter, in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2136; 1974CriLJ1465; (1975)3SCC210; [1975]1SCR881
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. This appeal by special leave raises questions regarding the interpretation of the provisions of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, XXIX of 1966. The main question for division is whether the inquiry which an officer of the Railway Protection Force holds under Section 8(1) of the Act is an investigation within the meaning of the CrPC, 1898. If so, statements recorded during the course of the inquiry would be inadmissible in evidence by reason of the injunction contained in Section 162 of the Code. A further question which requires consideration is whether the entire trial is vitiated if signatures of witnesses are obtained on the statements made by them during the course of the inquiry.2. The respondent Durga Prasad was working as a Turner in the Railway Workshop at Gorakhpur. On April 2, 1968 he was found in possession of a steel rod and two pieces of moulded brass shells belonging to the Railway. After the preparation of a recovery memo the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2055; 1974LabIC1362; (1975)3SCC171; [1975]1SCR797; 1974(6)LC543(SC)
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. The only question which falls for determination in these petitions and appeal is whether Regulations 561 and 983 of the Civil Service Regulations could be amended by the Former Secretary of State, Service Officers (Conditions of Service) Act, 1972.2. The 1972 Act is to provide for the variation or revocation of the conditions of service of former Secretary of State Service Officers in respect of certain matters and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The 1972 Act has changed Regulations 561 and 983 of the Civil Service Regulations.3. Regulation 561 provided that officers who had joined the Indian Civil Service prior to 1921 were entitled to annuity of 1000. Officers who joined the Indian Civil Service after 1921 were entitled to annuity of Rs. 10,666-10-8. The annuity was subject to a minimum of 1000.4. Regulation 983 provided that officers who joined service prior to 1921 could be paid annuities in sterling money in London or in India in rupees at Rs. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC207; (1974)2SCC586; 1974(6)LC546(SC)
Beg. J.1. This is defendants' appeal after certification under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution2. The plaintiffs-respondent had brought a suit for recovery of possession after declaration of his title to a plot of land 50 bighas in area, including one bigha area occupied by the defendant appellants, who claimed sub tenancy rights and also set up the pleas of waiver and estoppel to prevent their eviction. The trial court had decreed the suit after repelling the plea of limitation, set up inconsistently with a plea of tenancy right by Bajrang Bali Engineering Company, defendant No. 1 which even alleged to be agents of the plaintiff for letting out lands to others. It also rejected the pleas of waiver and estoppel. It appears that the defendant No. 1 taking advantage of the fact that the plaintiff lived at considerable distance from the land in dispute, had started dumping scrap iron on the land. The plaintiff, immediately after becoming aware of this fact gave notice in writing to d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2154; 1974CriLJ1479; (1975)3SCC198; [1975]1SCR778
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. The Constitutional validity of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 being Act No. 26 of 1971 is challenged in these petitions.2. First, it is said that the law of preventive detention is unreasonable, and, therefore, it violates Article 19. Second, it is said that the Act violates Article 21 because the guarantee of a right to be heard is infringed. Third, it is said that the Act does not lay down the just procedure for giving effect to' Article 22(5). Fourth, it is said that the Act violates Article 14 because it permits discrimination.3. The Act confers power on the Central Government or the State Government to make orders directing detention of persons. Section 3 of the Act provides that when the Central Government or the State Government is satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to (i) the defence of India, the relations of India with foreign powers, or the security of India, or (ii) t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2141; (1974)2SCC695; [1975]1SCR790; 1974(6)LC607(SC)
K.K. Mathew, J.1. The appellants, as plaintiffs, filed a suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code alleging breach of a trust created for a public purpose of a religious nature and praying for removal of the defendant, the head of the Math in question claiming title to the office under a will executed by the predecessor-in-office and for other relief!. The District Court dismissed the suit on the Ground that the 6uit will not lie under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. The High Court, on appeal, upheld that judgment and, this appeal, by special leave, is directed against that judgment.2. Adi Shankaracharya founded Maths at four centers in India about a thousand years ago. The math with which we are concerned was established by him in Himalayas. This Math was known by the name of Jyotir Math or Jyotish Peeth. For centuries, the existence of this Math was unknown to the public and even the place where the Math stood had to be found out. In 1940, a society known as Bharat Dh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2263; 1974LabIC1427; (1974)IILLJ438SC; (1975)3SCC182; [1975]1SCR774; 1974(6)LC541(SC)
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 5 November, 1969 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The only person is whether the order of termination of the service of the appellant who was a probationer is in violation of Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1952.2. The appellant was selected by the Public Service Commission as a direct recruit on 20 May, 1965. He was appointed on 26 May, 1965. He joined as a probationer. The period of probation was two years.3. Rule 8(b) of the Punjab Police Service Rules 1959 states that the services of a member recruited by direct appointment may be dispensed with by the Government on his failing to pass the final examination at the end of his period of training, or on his being reported on during or at the end of his period of probation, as unfit for appointment.4. The order terminating the services of the appellant was as follows:--The President of India is pleased to dispense with th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2145; 1974CriLJ1471; (1975)3SCC193; 1974(6)LC591(SC)
Khanna, J.1. The nine appellants, Rajendra Rai (28), Baleshwar Rai (19), Dhupa Rai (20), Ramlakhan Rai (60) Ramanand Rai (65), Judagi Rai (18), Dhuli Rai (32), Dhorha (25) and Krishna Rai (22) were tried along with three others Jadu Rai (17), Ramnandan Rai (23) and Jitan Rai (60) in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patna and were acquitted. On appeal filed by the State of Bihar and revision petition filed by Harbandan Singh, the Patna High Court set aside the acquittal of the nine appellants and convicted them for offences under Section 302 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code for the murder of Palaknath Singh (28) and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. Conviction was also recorded against the appellants for other offences but it is not necessary to set out their details. Acquittal of Jitan Rai, Ramanandan Rai and Jadu Rai was affirmed. The nine appellants thereafter came up in appeal to this Court by special leave.2. The nine appellants as well...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2265; (1974)IILLJ435bSC; (1975)3SCC175; 1975(1)SLJ245(SC); 1974(6)LC601(SC)
Ray, C.J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 28 June, 1972 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.2. The only question for consideration is whether the Government was right in confirming the respondent as senior to the appellant.3. The appellant was appointed by promotion as Assistant Secretary on 1 June, 1956 in the Law Department. He was confirmed in the post of Assistant Secretary on 11 October, 1957. He was temporarily promoted as a Deputy Secretary in the Law Department on 10th July, 1961. His probation was declared on 23 July, 1962. Then he went to serve in the Law Commission as Deputy Secretary.4. The respondent Naidu was appointed as District Munsif in the State Judicial Service on 16 February, 1956. On 27 Jane, 1960 he was appointed as Under Secretary in the Law Department. With the concurrence of the High Court, he was temporarily appointed on 10 July, 1961 as Deputy Secretary in the Law Department.5. On 1 April, 1963, a substantive vacancy in the categ...
Tag this Judgment!