Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1027; 1976LabIC634; (1976)IILLJ306SC; (1976)2SCC862; 1975(7)LC929(SC)
N.L. Untwalia, J. 1. The common and the only question which falls for determination in all these appeals is whether the respondents, the employees of the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, were validly discharged from service by the appellant. The cases have a chequered history. We shall briefly state the facts of Civil Appeal No. 317/71 arising out of Writ Petition No. 9A/1966.2. Respondent No. 1 was recruited as a Conductor on 26-2-1962 by the Divisional Controller, Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, Mysore Division. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him for some alleged misconduct or misdemeanour resulting in his dismissal from service by order dated 29-10-1964 made by the Divisional Controller, Mysore Division. The appeal filed by respondent No. 1 before the General Manager at Bangalore was dismissed. He thereupnn, filed a write petition in the Karnataka High Court which was allowed on 16-10-1968.The appellant came up in appeal to this Court. The appeal wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC924; 1976CriLJ685; (1976)1SCC614
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. Bhagirath Singh aged 46 years, and 11 others of village Rahatpur were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Monghyr under Sections 302, 302 read with 149 and 148, Penal Code. They were acquitted. The State carried an appeal against that order of acquittal to the High Court of Patna. The High Court has reversed the acquittal of Bhagirath Singh only, and converted it into a conviction under Section 302, Penal Code, with a sentence of life imprisonment.2. Hence this appeal by him.3. The prosecution story so far as it can be gathered from somewhat discordant material on record, is that on June 17, 1965, a poll was being held in village Rahatpur for election to the office of Mukhia of Sadanand Gram Panchayat. Village Rahatpur was within the jurisdiction of that Panchayat. One of the polling booths was located in the eastern-most room of the school building at Rahatpur. Vidyapati Singh of village Rahatpur and Naval Kishore Singh of Village Sadanandpur were the rival can...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2332; (1976)2SCC876; 1975(7)LC927(SC)
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. In our view these appeals should be disposed off in the manner stated below. Counsel for the parties also agreed to this.(1) The appellants are allowed to withdraw their respective appeals as prayed for by them.(2) The direction given the High Court in the writ appeals for filing fresh petitions before the Tehsildar objecting to the attachment of the 31 chassis will have to be followed. Two petitions in pursuance of the said direction, as stated at the Bar, have already been filed before the Tehsildar. One of them has been disposed off by him and a revision before the Board is pending. On the disposal of the other a revision may be filed before the Board. The Board shall try to dispose off the revision petitions as soon as possible.(3) Counsel for the State of Kerala submitted, and in our opinion, rightly that invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court in the matter of attachment of the chassis is not the proper remedy. The remedy available in law to the aggri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC380; [1975(31)FLR434]; (1976)2SCC861
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. A dispute arose between the workmen of Indian Turpentine & Rosin Go. Ltd. and (he management for the payment of dear food allowance. The Government was moved in the matter and ultimately the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal No. III at Allahabad, who, by his order dated 28th December, 1968, gave his award and made a slight increase in the dear food allowance at the lowest level of the wages, that is to say for workers earning Rs. 32.50 per month. The appellants came up to this Court and prayed for special leave, which having been granted, this appeal has been placed before us for hearing Mr. Goyal, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted two points before us. In the first place, he argued that the award of the Industrial Tribunal contains patent anamolies, which have led to a serious error of law apparent on the face of the record, Secondly, it was submitted that the learned Tribunal has not at all considered the raising living index and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1976)2SCC875; 1975(7)LC924(SC)
H.R. Khanna, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Kerala High Court, affirming on appeal the order of the executing court, by which, a temporary injunction was granted in original execution petition against the appellant-Board restraining if from the use of certain machinery and tools.2. We have heard Mr. Patel on behalf of the appellant and find that both the executing court as well as the High Court have taken into consideration all the relevant circumstances and have thought it fit that a temporary injunction prayed for by the respondent, be granted the pendency of the execution application. We find no sufficient ground to interfere with the grant of temporary injunction in an appeal by special leave. The appeal consequently fails and is dismissed but in the circumstances with no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC477; 1976LabIC391; (1976)1SCC286; [1976]2SCR321; 1975(7)LC921(SC)
A.C. Chandrachud, J.1. On January 27, 1961 the Chief Conservator of Forests, Mysore, sent a letter to the Government of Mysore stating that large-scale illicit cutting of sandalwood trees in the Forests of Sandur Range had caused a huge loss to the Government and that such devastation of forests could not have been possible without the connivance of the respondent, C.N. Vijendra Rao, who was working as the Divisional Forest Officer. By an order dated February 16, 1961 the Government of Mysore placed the respondent under suspension 'pending inquiry', in order that he may not interfere with the conduct of the inquiry or tamper with the documentary evidence.2. The respondent was later prosecuted under Section 120-B of the Penal Code on the charge that he, along with others, had conspired to smuggle sandalwood. On June 17, 1966 the First Class Magistrate, Bellary, acquitted the respondent.3. On January 24, 1967 the Government of Mysore passed an order that the respondent should be deemed t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1093; 1976LabIC761; (1976)2SCC890; [1976]2SCR315; 1975(7)LC918(SC)
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. The only point which falls for our determination in this appeal by special leave is whether Clause 7(1)(a) of the Bombay Police Officers (Combined Cadre) Conditions of Service Order, 1954-hereinafter called the order, made by the Government of Bombay in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (b) of Section 5 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 is Constitutionally invalid being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as has been held by the Bombay High Court in the writ petition filed by respondent No. 4.2. In the Province or the State of Bombay, there were two separate-police forces-the Mofussil police force governed by the Bombay District Police Act, 1890 and the City Police of Bombay governed by the City of Bombay Police Act, 1902. Some steps for inter-mixing and inter-transfer of officers of one force to the other were taken by making some provisions in Bombay Act XVI of 1949 called the police Force (Control and Direction) Act, 1949, The Bomba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1132; 1976CriLJ847; (1976)1SCC583; 1975(7)LC916(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. On May 5, 1962 the Chief Auditor, Co-operative Societies, Delhi wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., Delhi complaining that the appellant Jagan Nath, who was the President of the Bijwasan Khas Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., and certain other office bearers of the Society had misappropriated the stock and cash belonging to the Society. ASI Hukam Chand investigated into the complaint and eventually a case was registered against the appellant and the others under Section 406 of the Penal Code,2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi held all the accused guilty under Section 120-B and under Sections 408 and 466 read with Section 120-B of the Penal Code. All the accused were sentenced by the learned Judge to an effective term of three years' rigorous imprisonment and fine. The order of conviction and sentence was confirmed in appeal by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Delhi.3. A petition for special leave was filed by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC127; (1976)2SCC167; [1976]2SCR307
P.K. Goswami, J.1. This judgment will govern both the above mentioned appeals.2. We may take the facts briefly from Civil Appeal No.107 of 1975.3. The Orissa Textile Mills Limited is a public limited company (briefly the company) and is engaged in manufacture of textile Articles. It is located at Choudwar in the District of Cuttack (Orissa). On May 12, 1960, the company (described in the agreement as Consumer) entered into an agreement with the State of Orissa (described in the agreement as the Supplier) for supply of electric power. The contract was for a period of five years from the date of supply of electric power, namely, February 1, 1963 and it was thereafter to so continue unless and until the same was determined by either party giving to the other six calendar months' notice in writing of the intention to terminate the agreement It is common ground that the agreement has not been terminated.4. It may be appropriate at this stage to refer to a few Clauses in the agreement. Claus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC281; 1976CriLJ293; (1976)1SCC141; 1975(7)LC911(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This appeal lies in a very narrow compass and a brief narration of a few relevant facts would be sufficient to appreciate the point which arises for consideration in the appeal. 2. The appellant is the owner of a restaurant called Kailash Restaurant where he manufactures aerated water sold under the name of Fresh Cola. On 11th July, 1968, the Food Inspector visited the restaurant of the appellant and took a sample containing 1800 Mili Mitres of aerated water for analysis on payment of a sum of Rs. 2.50 after giving requisite notice to the appellant. This sample of aerated water was divided into three equal parts and each part was bottled in a dry cleaned bottle and out of the three sample bottles so prepared, one was handed over to the appellant, the other was retained by the food Inspector and the third was sent to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh. The report of the analysis by the Public Analyst showed that sucrose content in the sample of aerated water went to him ...
Tag this Judgment!