Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2617; 43(1977)CLT595(SC); [1977(34)FLR300]; 1976LabIC1697; (1977)3SCC396; 1976(8)LC967(SC)
P.N. Singhal, JJ.1. This appeal by the State of Orissa is directed against the judgment of the Orissa High Court dated April 11, 1975, on a petition filed by respondent Pyarimohan Samantary (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner claimed that he was a permanent member of the Orissa Administrative Service Class I, since 1959 and was senior to those who were arrayed in the petition as respondents Nos. 4 to 13. His grievance was that the committee which was constituted under regulation 3 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, hereinafter referred to a the Regulations, prepared a list of State Civil Service officers under regulation 5, for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service, in 1960, but did not include his name even though there was no justification for his supersession by those who were arrayed as respondents Nos. 4 to 13. The petitioner also felt aggrieved because ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2082; (1976)4SCC763
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. This appeal is by certificate from the judgment dated 8 February 1965 passed in Regular First Appeal No. 59-D of the 1956 by the High Court of Punjab Circuit Bench at Delhi.2. The appellant filed suit against respondent No. 2 herein and claimed possession of suit premises. Respondent No. 2 had taken possession of the premises on 1 February 1954. On 17 September 1954 respondent No. 2 gave notice to the appellant that the premises occupied by it would not be required by it after 30 September 1954.3. The controversy is that respondent No. 2 did not deliver vacant possession to the appellant or his son though the appellant specifically wrote to the respondent in that behalf.4. The ease of the respondent is that the respondent had entered in to possession on 1 February 1954 and one Gaya Prasad agent of the appellant had let the respondent into pos session. The same Gaya Prasad who as agent of the appellant had let the respondent into possession took vacant possession of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1823; (1977)1SCC491
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. This appeal is by certificate from the judgment dated 9 May 1966 of the High Court of Allahabad. 2. Reoti Saran filed a suit for partition of immovable properties consisting of shops, houses and vacant lands. He claimed one third share in the properties. The claim was con tested by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who are the sons of Gaya Prasad. 3. The principal question was whether Reoti Saran had relinquished his share by two deeds of relinquishment made in the year 1922. The trial Court accepted the defence and came to the conclusion that Reoti Saran had relinquished his share. The trial Court therefore dismissed the suit. 4. The High Court on appeal set aside the judgment and held that the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for partition of one-third share in the properties. 5. We are in agreement with the conclusion as well as the reasons given by the High Court. The High Court gave two cogent reasons as to why the deeds of relinquishment were never acted upon. One was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC322; (1976)4SCC736; [1977]2SCR15
P.K. Goswami, J.1. This appeal by special leave brings forth a rather disquieting feature of union rivalry whereby the significance of collective bargaining, which is the forte of a union, is sought to be made a flop. We say this in the absence of any suggestion of mala fides or of any other ulterior motive alleged by the contending union on the part of the rival union or its principal officer who had negotiated a certain settlement on behalf of the workmen in substitution of the award of the Industrial Tribunal out of which this appeal arose.2. The appellant before us is the employer, supported. wholehog, by the Bombay General Kamgar Sabha, respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 2 is the only contending union, viz., Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha.3. On May 18, 1967, there was a reference by the Government of Maharashtra of an industrial dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudicating eight demands such as, wage scales, adjustment of increments...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2621; (1976)4SCC719; [1977]2SCR10; 1976(8)LC979(SC)
M.H. Beg, J.1. After issuing a notice to show cause why special leave should not be granted, this Court granted, on 13th October, 1976, the leave prayed for to appeal against the judgment and order of a learned Judge of the Delhi High Court. That Court had interfered, under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code, with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in this case that, as the plaintiff could not make out a prima facie case, no interim injunction could be granted to the respondent to restrain the appellant, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, from realising a sum of Rs. 27,216/- on account of house tax from the plaintiffs pending the disposal of a suit for a permanent injunction. this Court directed a hearing of this appeal on 28th October, 1976. Accordingly, the appeal is now before us.2. The plaintiff had purchased a house in South Extension, New Delhi, on 21st February, 1969, free from all incumberances, demands, or liabilities under the sale deed, and the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC548; (1977)1SCC234; [1977]1SCR1065; [1976]38STC565(SC); 1976(8)LC994(SC)
H.R. Khanna, J.1. These appeals by special leave are against the judgment of Madras High Court whereby that court repelled the challenge to the validity of items 7(a) and 7(b) of the Second Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the State Act).2. The appellants are dealers in hides and skins. The appellants purchase raw hides and skins locally as well as in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. The raw hides and skins are converted into dressed hides and skins and are sold either locally or in the course of export. The matter relates to the assessment year 1968-69 and the dispute between the parties arises because of the inclusion in the turnover of the sale and purchase price of some of the above goods. The appellants by means of writ petitions challenged the validity of items 7(a) and 7(b) of the Second Schedule to the State Act. The High Court, as already mentioned, repelled the attack on the validity of those items and dismissed the w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1977)6CTR(SC)14
Khanna, J. - These appeals by special leave are against the judgment of Madras High Court whereby that court repelled the challenge to the validity of items 7(a) and 7(b) of the Second Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the State Act.)2. The appellants are dealers in hides and skins. The appellants purchase raw hides and skins locally as well as in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. The raw hides and skins are converted into dressed hides and skins and are sold either locally or in the course of export. The matter relates to the assessment year 1968-69 and the dispute between the parties arises because of the inclusion in the turnover of the sale and purchase price of some of the above goods. The appellants by means of writ petitions challenged the validity of items 7(a) and 7(b) of the Second Schedule to the State Act. The High Court, as already mentioned, repelled the attack on the validity of those items and dismissed the writ p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2602; (1977)1SCC155; [1977]1SCR1072
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. Two principal submissions, whose implications perhaps are of profound moment and have public impact, have been, at wide-ranging length, urged in this appeal by certificate, by Shri Shanti Bhushan, for the appellant/defendant and, with effective brevity, controverted by the Solicitor General, for respondent/1st plaintiff. The two focal points of the controversy are : (a) Is the appeal to the High Court by the State/1st plaintiff at all competent, entitlement as a 'party aggrieved' being absent, having regard to the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act 1 of 1951) (for short, the Act) ?; and (b) Is it sound to conceptualise 'area appurtenant to buildings' in Section 9 of the Act so narrowly as has been done by the High Court There were two plaintiffs-the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Gaon Sabha of Bedpura claiming common but alternative reliefs. The suit was for injunction or ejectment, on title, of the sole defendant who...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1; (1976)4SCC691; [1977]2SCR1; 1976(8)LC960(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. In the general elections to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly held in March 1972 from the Ganganagar constituency the respondent who was sponsored by the Sanyukt Socialist Party defeated the appellant, a Congress (R) candidate, by over 22000 votes. The appellant filed Election petition No. 5 of 1972 in the Rajasthan High Court challenging the election of the respondent on the ground of corrupt practices committed by him and his election agent Bhagirath Singh. The petition having been dismissed the election petitioner has filed this appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.2. We are concerned in this appeal with the two corrupt practices said to have been committed by the respondent. It is alleged, firstly, that a pamphlet (Ex. 1) was distributed by the respondent and his election agent in a meeting held on February 23, 1272 at Nehru Park, Ganganagar. The second corrupt practice alleged against the respondent is that several copies ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1766; 1977CriLJ1158; (1977)1SCC463
P.N. Bhagwati, J. 1. The appellant was posted as Patwari in Revenue Circle Raisina, Gurgaon and he took charge of his post on 6.11.967. When the charge of the post was taken by him, a memo, Ex. PA was prepared, setting out various books, documents and papers which were received by him at the time of taking charge. It appears that within a short time the appellant ran into difficulties and he was suspended in connection with a departmental inquiry which was proposed to be held against him. Though he was directed to hand over charge of the post on account of his suspension, he failed to do so and hence under the orders of the Revenue Assistant, Gurgaon the lock of his room had to be broken open on 29th December, 1967 and the charge was taken by his successor Abdul Wahid and a list, Ex. PB was prepared setting out of the books, documents and papers which were found in the room and of which possession was taken by Abdul Wahid. Another list Ex. PF was also prepared at this time showing the ...
Tag this Judgment!