Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2581; (1976)IILLJ405SC; (1976)4SCC709; [1977]1SCR1022; 1977(1)SLJ65(SC); 1976(8)LC950(SC)
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. This appeal is by certificate from the judgment dated 26 October 1968 of the Judicial Commissioner for Manipur.2. The appellant by a writ petition challenged the order of respondent No. 1 by which the appellant was compulsorily retired.3. The Judicial Commissioner dismissed the writ petition of the appellant.4. The appellant was born on 1 January 1911. He joined the erstwhile State of Manipur as a junior clerk in 1935. Though he was not a Law Graduate, he rose to become a permanent Puisne Judge in Manipur State Chief Court with effect from 5 October 1949. After the Government of India took over the administration of Manipur the appellant was appointed as a Subordinate Judge with, effect from 25 January 1950 on a temporary basis. On the enactment of Manipur Courts Act 1955 the Court of Subordinate Judge was established on 1 March 1956. The appellant was appointed as the Judge of that Subordinate Court from that date.5. The appellant did not earn good reports from superi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC251; 1977LabIC38; (1977)1SCC308; [1977]1SCR1037
V.R. KRISHNA IYER, J.1. This is a typical “service” appeal, by special leave, which prompts the topical question : Is it wiser national policy to process disputes regarding seniority, promotion, termination and allied matters affecting the public services, through the docket-bound, formalised, methodology of the judicature adopting its traditional, time-consuming, tier-upon-tier system and handicapped by absence of administrative expertise, accessibility to critical information and other limitations on the mode and extent of relief, or, alternatively, through built-in, high-powered, but credibility-wise less commanding, agencies of composite skills and processes and flexible remedial jurisdictions? “Justice and Reform” is a recurrent interrogation. 2. Our civil services, if only the static and stratified system were transformed and the men properly oriented and activated, may well prove equal to the dynamic challenges of our times but for the pathetic phenomenon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1977)1SCC593; [1977]1SCR1026
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. This appeal is by certificate from the judgment dated 17 February, 1969 of the High Court of Kerala.2. The respondent filed this suit against the appellant for recovery of property with arrears of rent and mesne profits and damages for waste.3. The property measuring 550.37 acres consisted of 279.86 acres of planted area and the rest was unplanted area.4. By a lease dated 7 October, 1950, the respondent leased out to the appellant the plantations together with Bungalow, quarters of what is described as 'Beenachi Estate'. The lease was for a period of 12 years with effect from 1 January, 1950. The rent for the first six years was fixed at Rs. 3600/- per annum. The rent for the second period of six years was fixed at Rs. 4500/- per annum. The rent was payable in advance on 1 January of each calendar year.5. The respondent's case is that since 1953 the appellant failed and neglected to pay rent fixed under the lease. Clause 4 of the lease provided that if the rent would b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC577; (1976)4SCC687; [1977]1SCR1060; 1976(8)LC953(SC)
M.H. Beg. J.1. The plaintiff-respondent alleged to be a registered partnership firm filed a suit on 25th April, 1974, through Smt. Pushpa Mittal, shown as one of its partners, for the recovery of Rs. 21,265.28 as principal and Rs. 7655/-, as interest at 12% per annum, according to law and Mercantile usage, on the strength of a cheque drawn by the defendant on 12th May, 1971, on the State Bank of India, which, on presentation, was dishonoured. The plaintiff alleged that the cheque was given as price of goods supplied. The defendant-appellant firm admitted the issue of the cheque by its Managing partner, but, it denied any privity of contract with the plaintiff firm. The defendant-appellant had its own version as to the reasons and purposes for which the cheque was drawn.2. The suit was instituted under the provisions of Order 37 Civil Procedure Code so that the defendant-appellant had to apply for leave under Order 37, Rule 2, of the Code to defend. This leave was granted unconditionall...
Tag this Judgment!