Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC218; (1976)ILLJ232SC; (1976)1SCC367; [1976]2SCR861; 1976(1)SLJ114(SC); 1976(8)LC101(SC)
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. This appeal is by special leave from the judgment dated 3 March, 1972 of the High Court of Madras.2. The respondent in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution asked for a writ of mandamus directing the appellant Union to pay the respondent pension at the rate of ls-9d per rupee in accordance with Regulations 934-A and 934-D of the Civil Service Regulations.3. The Respondent is a Ceylonese nations. He joined the Indian Civil Service on 6 October, 1933. After 15 August, 1947 he continued to serve in our country until his retirement on 31 December, 1949.4. At his retirement he was sanctioned an annuity of 743-2 shillings-6 pence per annum. He commuted a part of his pension leaving a balance of Rs. 500 per month.5. Between March, 1968 and October 1969 he resided in Uganda in East Africa. When the respondent was in Uganda he claimed pension at the rate of ls-9d to a rupee. His request was accepted by the Accountant General, Madras. The Union Government received...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC227; (1976)1SCC893; 1976(8)LC94(SC)
1. In this appeal, by certificate, the question for consideration to whether the respondents were liable to the appellant in damages for non delivery of mustard oil consigned by the appellant to the employees of Eastern Railway at Kanpur Central Station on 29.8.1949 for carriage and delivery to the appellant at Sabeb Bazar Jagannath Ghat Railway Station, Calcutta.2. There is no dispute that the consignment was duly accepted by the Railway employees and that it was carried to the particular station at Calcutta on 4.9.1949. However, on 6.9.1949 the appellant wrote to the railway authorities at Kanpur to redirect the consignment to Kanpur and to deliver the same to the appellant there. But the appellant was asked by the railway authorities at Kanpur to take delivery of the consignment at Calcutta. Delivery could not be made at Calcutta on 6.9.1949, as the oil was seized by the Food Inspector of Calcutta in pursuance of an order of the Health Officer of the Calcutta Corporation under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC226; (1976)1SCC353; 1976(8)LC85(SC)
M.H. Beg, J.1. The petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution makes the following allegations:(1) He was a Bench Clerk in the Additional sub Judges' Court, Purnea, in 1967. On 20th May, 1967,. The District Judge, Purnea, asked for an explanation from him with regard to a land acquisition case No. 119 of 1958 as to why the record of the case was not put up expeditiously before the presiding officer and a date fixed fore consideration of the Sarishtedar's report. He gave the explanation that he was not the dealing Assistant fur laud acquisition cases. On 15th June, 1967, the District Judge, Purnea, rejecting the correctness of the petitioner's stand, required the petitioner to show caue why his increments and promotion should not be stopped. The petitioner repeated the his explanation. He was called by tie District Judge on 1st August, 1967, in his chamber and heard f personally. On 8th August, 1967, the District Judge passed an order that the petitioner's increment and promotion be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC224; (1976)1SCC359; [1976]2SCR858; 1976(8)LC89(SC)
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. This is an appeal by certificate from the judgment dated I7th July, 1969 of the High Court of Kerala.2. The question in this appeal is whether defendants No. 1 and 4 are each entitled to share in the property allotted to defendant No. 3 in a partition decree. Defendant No. 4 is the appellant.3. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted on 19 November, 1957 for partition of properties. Properties mentioned in Schedules A and B to the plaint belonged to the mother of defendant No. 3. Properties mentioned in Schedule G to plaint were joint properties of the father and the mother of defendant No. 3.4. The plaintiff and defendant No. 2 are the sons of one of the brothers of the mother of defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 1 is the son of another brother of the mother of defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 4 is the son of defendant No.3's father's brother.5. Defendant No. 3 died during the pendency of the suit. Thereafter defendant No. 1 filed his additional written statement and c...
Tag this Judgment!