Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1921; (1976)IILLJ321SC; (1976)3SCC638; [1976]SuppSCR630; 1976(1)SLJ501(SC); 1976(8)LC662(SC)
P.K. Goswami, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by which the appellant's application under Article 226 of the Constitution was rejected.2. The appellant was a veterinary compounder serving at the material lime under the Chairman, Panchayat Samiti, Hansi-I. The Zila Parishad Tribunal transferred him from Hansi-I Block to Singhani (Loharu Block) by its resolution of June 30, 1967. The order appears to be transmitted by Memo No. 3201-A of July 6, 1967. On July 27, 1967, the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, Hansi-I, requested the Chairman of the Zila Parishad, Hissar, to reconsider the decision of transfer and to allow him to continue at his village Umra in public interest. A copy of this letter written to the Zila Parishad was forwarded to the appellant. Since the appellant did not comply with the order of transfer, the Chairman, Zila Parishad Tribunal, served a notice upon him on August 13, 1967,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2062; (1976)IILLJ259SC; (1976)4SCC606; [1976]SuppSCR635; 1976(1)SLJ521(SC)
P.K. Goswami, J. 1. This is an appeal at the instance of the workman on certificate of the Calcutta High Court from the decision of the Division Bench reversing the earlier judgment and order of the learned single Judge in an application under article 226 of the Constitution directed against the award of the First Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, made under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. The appellant (hereinafter to be described as the workman) was employed by M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd. (hereinafter to be described as the company) since August 3, 1949. On August 3, 1956, the workman entered into an agreement of service with the company wherein the first clause reads as follows :The Employer agrees to and does hereby engage the services of the employee for a period of 5 years beginning with 1-6-56 and thereafter until this agreement shall be determined by either party hereto giving to the other 3 months' notices in writing of such intended termination.Provided that in c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2177; (1976)IILLJ274SC; (1976)3SCC294; [1976]SuppSCR621; 1976(8)LC674(SC)
H.R. Khanna, J.1. This judgment would dispose of civil appeals Nos. 600, 601, 877, 878 and 1699 to 1714 of 1975 which have been filed by special leave against the judgment of Gujarat High Court dismissing petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the appellants. The appellants in these petitions assailed the validity of Sections 53A and 53B of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (Bombay Act No. 1 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act). These sections along with some other provisions were inserted in the principal Act by the Bombay Industrial Relations and Industrial Disputes (Gujarat Amendment') Act. 1972 (Gujarat Act No. 21 of 1972). The appellants also challenged the validity of the rules which were added to the Bombay Industrial Relations (Gujarat) Rules, 1961 as per notification dated June 4, 1973. In addition to that, the appellants challenged the validity of notification dated December 17, 1973.2. The principal Act was enacted to reg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1503; (1976)3SCC800; [1976]SuppSCR664
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court deciding a court fee matter in connection with the memorandum of appeal filed by the appellants before the Allahabad High Court against a decree passed by the Tribunal appointed under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951--hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The appellants had filed an application under Section 13 of the Act before the Tribunal alleging that it was a partnership firm and claimed that an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- by way of refund of security deposits and a sum of Rs. 55,000,- as commission was due from the respondents. The application was tried by the Tribunal and the claim preferred by the appellants was ultimately dismissed by the Tribunal by its decree dated May 19, 1965. Additional Civil Judge of Badaun was assigned as the Tribunal under the aforesaid Act. The appellants then filed an appeal before the Allahabad High Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1559; 1976(0)KLT415(SC); (1976)3SCC748; [1976]SuppSCR601; 1976(8)LC589(SC)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1116 of 1975. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 21st January, 1975 of the High Court of Madras at Madras in Writ Petition No. 3962 of 1972. Petitioner in person; for the Appellant. A. V. Rangam and (Miss) A. Subhashini; for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. This appeal is by special leave from the judgment dated 21 January, 1975 of the Madras High Court. The appellant made an application under Article 226 challenging the power of the Government of Tamil Nadu to grant of pension to Anti-Hindi agitators. The appellant further challenged the power of the State to make payment from the Consolidated Fund of the State Exchequer. Article 351 of the Constitution says that it shall be the duty of the Union Government to promote the spread of the Hindi language to develop so that it may serve as a medium of expression for all the elements of the composite culture of our country. The appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1560; 1976CriLJ1199; (1976)78PLR724; (1976)3SCC635; 1976(8)LC522(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. The appellants in all these five appeals by special leave were convicted by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh of the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (referred to as the Act hereinafter) end sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10000/-; in default of payment of fine they were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further two months. They were acquitted by the trial courts, and the Municipal Committee, AmritSir appealed to the High Court against the orders of acquittal. The High Court found them guilty of being in possession of adulterated toria oil for sale and thereby committing an offence punishable under the aforesaid provision. The Municipal Food Inspector purchased the samples in each of these cases on December 12, 1967.lt was conceded before tbe High Court that the samples purchased by the Food Inspector did not measure up to the standard laid down in the Act and the Rul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC349; (1976)3SCC478
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. These appeals and the petition for review arise out of the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated November 7, 1974, upholding the conviction of appellants Mukund Singh and Kartar Singh and petitioner Malkiat Singh in the following circumstances:Roor Singh (deceased) used to live in village Kurrar. His daughter Smt. Pritam Kaur was married to one Karnail Singh who was appointed by some Sadhs as their mukhtaram in respect of their lands measuring 15 bighas in that village. Kar nail Singh sold that land to his father-in-law Roor Singh. Kalu Sadh filed a suit for pre-emption through his wife Smt. Harnam Kaur. The suit was decreed some five or six months before the date of incident. Roor Singh filed a suit in the court of Sub-Judge, Barnala, claiming that he was in possession of the land and was entitled to it, but it was dismissed. He again filed a suit against Smt. Harnam Kaur and Kalu Sadh, and it was pending on the date of the incident. Roor Singh obt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1681; [1976]103ITR799(SC); 1976(0)KLT382(SC); (1976)3SCC438; [1976]SuppSCR657; 1976(8)LC598(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. One T.V. Kochuvareed who owned rubber plantations in Trichur was assessed by the Agricultural income-tax officer, Trichur, on a net agricultural income or Rs. 31,662/- and Rs. 30,856/- respectively for the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61. The assessee had in his possession immature rubber plantation covering 193 acres during the assessment year 1959-60 and 293 acres during the assessment year 1960-61. In computing the income for the said two years, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer had disallowed out of the expenses claimed for the upkeep and maintenance of the immature area Rs. 2500/- for the year 1959-60 and Rs. 3500/- for the year 1960-61. T.V. Kochuvareed died in 1961 leaving behind him as his heir and legal representative his wife who is the respondent before us. On March 13, 1963 the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax issued a notice under Section 34 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1960 to the respondent, which was served on her on March 15...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1734; (1976)3SCC492; 1976(8)LC590(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court reversing a decree passed by the Civil Judge, Etah. The original decree was pissed by the Civil Judge on 31st March, 1953 in a suit instituted on 10th August, 1950. The judgment of the High Court reversing it was given on 31st January, 1964. It took neatly eleven years for the High Court to dispose of the appeal before it. Then followed an appeal to this Court by certificate. The certificate proceedings took about four years. It was on 22nd January. 1968 that the certificate was granted. The appeal which came to be filed on the strength of this certificate had then to undergo a period of incubation in this Court for about eight years before this Court could get time to take it up for hearing, at long last, the unfortunate and heroic saga of this litigation is coming to an end. It has witnessed a silver jubilee, thanks to our system of administration of Justice and our callowaness...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1841; 1976LabIC1190; (1976)2SCC977; [1976]SuppSCR603; 1976(8)LC641(SC)
A.N. Ray, C.J. 1. This appeal is by certificate from the judgment dated 18 November, 1971 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.2. The respondent joined the Punjab Civil Service, (Executive Branch) in November, 1954. He was selected for the Judicial Branch of the Punjab Civil Service on or about 1 May, 1965. On 15 November, 1968 he was promoted as officiating Additional District and Sessions Judge.3. The respondent was due to attain the age of 55 years on 24 February, 1971. His case was referred to the High Court for their recommendation whether the respondent should retire at the age of 55 years or he should be retained in service till the age of 58 years which is the prescribed age of superannuation under the Punjab Civil Service Rules.4. The High Court was of opinion that the work of the respondent as Additional District and Sessions Judge was not satisfactory. The High Court was not inclined to recommend the respondent's continuance in Superior Judicial Service up to the age of 58 y...
Tag this Judgment!