Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1617; 1977LabIC847; (1977)1SCC469
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. The first respondent was holding the substantive post of clerk under the Bombay Government and had been promoted as officiating Aval Karkun on 16-5-1949. Subsequently, however, the Collector of Dharwar reverted the first respondent to his substantive post as clerk for the reason mentioned in his' order dated 2-9-1956 which runs as follows:No. E.S.T. 384 Office of the Collector, Dharwar 2-9-1956 CONFIDENTIAL To Shri M.K. Gadgoli, Circle Officer, Dharwar. Your work was recently re viewed and your confidential sheet was examined, it was found that your work as an Aval Karkun is un satisfactory. O.C. signed by the Sd/- Collector. for Collector, Dharwar.He was thereafter posted as clerk. He challenged this order before Government and the Mysore Government (by this time the District of Dharwar had, under the States Reorganization Act, become part of the Mysore State) rejected his appeal. However, on 1-8-59, the Additional Commissioner went into the case of the first r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC76; 1976CriLJ13; (1976)1SCC172
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Allahabad. Six persons viz., Kartarey (30), Sita Ram (45), Baljeet (45), Smt. Kaila (27), Benarsi and Ram Karan all residents of Giaspur were tried by the First Temporary Sessions Judge, Meerut for rioting and committing the murder of their co-villager, Tejpal. He convicted all the six under Section 302/149, Penal Code. Each of the first three was sentenced to death and the rest to imprisonment for life. They were also convicted under Section 148, Penal Code. The convicts appealed, while a reference under Section 374, Cr.P.C. was made by the Sessions Judge for confirmation of the death sentences. The High Court set aside the conviction of Mst Kaila, Benarsi and Ram Karan and acquitted them on all the counts. It set aside the conviction of Kartarey, Sitaram and Baljeet in respect of an offence under Section 148, Penal Code. It, however, maintained the conviction of Kartarey, Sitaram and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC123; 1976LabIC85; (1976)2SCC883; [1976]1SCR1008
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. This appeal is by certificate of fitness granted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The point concerns the scope and the power of the Chief Justice under Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India. The Chief Justice of the High Court wanted the High Court staff to be paid at the scales of pay of equivalent posts in the Secretariat staff of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The Government did not agree to do so. The respondents who are members of the High Court service belonging to the categories of Bench Clerks, Lower Division Clerks, Typists and certain other categories filed a writ petition in the High Court for a writ of mandamus against the appellants directing them to implement the recommendations of the Chief Justice of the High Court made to the Government from time to time to fix the pay scales of the various categories to which the respondents belong in accordance with the scales of pay as revised by the State Government in case of corresponding categories ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2090; (1976)4SCC820
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. The point Involved in this ease is specifically covered by a decision rendered by this Court in : [1975]1SCR605 (Amarjit Kaur v. Pritam Singh).2. The action is one for pre-emption and the son of the vendor is the preemptor, who is the plaintiff in the trial Court and respondent before us. The vendee, defendant is the appellant before us. The right of pre-emption has now been taken away by Section 3 of the Punjab Pre-emption (Repeal) Act, 1973. This operates only within the territorial limits of the Punjab State, The result is that the lands covered by the sale deed, in so far as they lie within the State of Punjab, cannot be subjected to the right of pre-emption of the plaintiff. The decree which he has secured in enforcement of such a pre-emption right, must fail and the suit, to the extent to which the lands lie within the State of Punjab, must be dismissed.3. Both sides agree that so far as the lands which lie within the Haryana State - a part of the lands so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1976)4SCC826
V.R. KRISHNA IYER, J.1. This appeal, by certificate, stems from a suit for partition instituted by the widow of a Hindu coparcener who set up a specific case that her husband, who had died in 1930, was entitled to one-sixth share in the joint family properties, since there had been an earlier partition in 1928.2. One Rambhajoo Singh, first defendant (now deceased) had two wives. By the first wife he had two sons — the second defendant and the third defendant — and by the second wife he had three sons, the late husband of the plaintiff (Rameshwar Prasad Singh) and fourth and fifth defendants. The plaintiff, the widow of Rameshwar Prasad, set up the case that she was entitled to a widow's estate in her husband's share, which she stated, was one-sixth of the entire family properties, based on her case of a partition in 1928. The defendants contested the case of partition in 1928 and set up a later partition on 1936. If Rameshwar Prasad died in 1930 and there was no prior parti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1788; (1976)4SCC854
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. These appeals relate to sales tax assessments for the period 1964-65. The assessments made were best-judgment assessments, which were challenged in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, The High Court set aside the assessments, making various observations, but directed that it would be open to the opposite party No. 1, i.e., the sales-tax officer, who is also before us, to take the question of re-assessment for the years in question. Although there were four years involved before the High Court, we are concerned only with three years since the State has not chosen to file an appeal in regard to the assessment for the year 1963-64.2. We are satisfied that there is no need to interfere with the order of the High Court, but we should like to make certain clarifications. The re-assessment for 1964-65 will be started and there will be no plea of limitation raised by the respondent, particularly, in the light of the amended provision, namely, the secon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1187; (1976)4SCC818
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. This appeal by special leave challenges the Order passed in review by the learned single Judge, whereby he reviewed his earlier Order passed in revision and held that a personal decree should be passed, overruling the contention regarding limitation.2. Shri Dikshit, appearing for the appellant, has strenuously pressed three points before us. He has contended that the whole decree was a nullity, because the minor against whom the suit was filed had not been represented properly or in accordance with law. There being no representation of the minor, the decree as against him, was void. Later in the course of the arguments, he brought it to our notice that another suit had been filed raising this ground, and prayed that we should not pronounce on the merits of this contention. We would rather leave it to the Court before which any suit may be pending to decide it on its merits. Anyway, that point is not pressed for the present purpose.3. Shri Dikshit, secondly, cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC2478; 1975LabIC1751; (1976)IILLJ1SC; (1976)3SCC282; 1975(7)LC828(SC)
P.K. Goswami, J.1. This is a case where certain Sanskrit teachers educated in the traditional way and obtaining degrees of Acharya are smarting under a grievance that they have the worse even in their own field of operation by the yardstick of the prevalent standard in the modern universities; 2. The four appellants are Acharyas and were appointed in the Vishve- shvaranand Institute of Sanskrit and Indelogical Studiesm Hoshiarpur (briefly the institute) between the years 1944 and 1963 in the teaching department as pandidts. The teaching work in the institute commenced in the year 1960. The first appellant started teaching besides his research work from that year. The other appellants were doing teaching as well as research from the dates of their respective appointments. 3. The institute was taken over by the Punjab University on November, 1967 giving it effect, however, from April 1, 1966. The Vice-Chancellor's recommendations that the pay scales of personnel in the traditional sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC932; (1976)3SCC313
A.C. Gupta, J.1. The appellant contested unsuccessfully the election to Haryana Vidhan Sabha from Pataudi Constituency held in March 1972. Poll was taken on March 11, 1972, counting took place the next day i.e. March 12 following which the first respondent was declared elected. The appellant presented an election petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the election of the first respondent on several grounds of which only three have been pressed in this appeal. All the grounds urged before us relate to corrupt practices as defined in Sub-sections (2), (3), (4), and (7)(d) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.2. Section 123(2) provides that, undue influence meaning any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of the candidate or his agent, or of any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent, with the free exercise of any electoral right shall be deemed to be corrupt practice for the purposes o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC271; (1976)GLR486; (1976)3SCC275; [1976]1SCR897; 1975(7)LC945(SC)
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. This appeal arises out of an election petition questioning the election of 1st respondent in the election held in March 1971 to the Lok Sabha from the Banaskantha constituency in Gujarat. In that election the 1st respondent, a nominee of the Ruling Congress was declared elected securing 1,16 532 votes as against 92,942 votes secured by the 2nd respondent, a nominee of the organisation congress. The appellant, a voter in the constitutency, also belonging to Organisation Congress, filed a petition challenging the validity of the election on various grounds out of which only those covered by issue No. 10, hereinafter set out survive for consideration:10. Whether respondent No 1 or his agents or other persons with his consent made a gift or promise of gratification of the petitioner with the object directly or indirectly of inducing the petitioner to vote for respondent No. 1 or to refrain from voting for respondent No. 27.2. The allegation relating to this charge in ...
Tag this Judgment!