Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1112; [1977(34)FLR224]; (1977)ILLJ425SC; (1977)2SCC355; [1977]2SCR925; 1977(1)SLJ201(SC); 1977(9)LC228(SC)
M.H. Beg, C.J.1. The Mysore State Road Transport Corporation is the appellant by special leave before us. The first respondent, a conductor in the Mysore Govt. Road Transport Department, had petitioned in the High Court under Article 226 against the appellant and the State of Mysore and asked it to quash an order of his dismissal, passed on 25.1.1961, in disciplinary proceedings taken against him at a time when he was a servant of the Mysore Govt. Road Transport Department. The Government Department was abolished on 1.8.1961. But, before this event happened, the Mysore Govt. had sent notices to its employees on 23.6.61. proposing to transfer all those persons who were actually in its service on the date of issue of these notices and had accepted offers of appointment as employees of the corporation. The first respondent, having been already dismissed for misconduct on 25.1.1961, was not the recipient of one these notices to exercise an option.2. In his writ petition, questioning the or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1063; 1977CriLJ639; (1977)2SCC99
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. The appellant and one Gangia were tried before the Sessions Judge. Jodhpur for the offences of murder, house trespass and robbery. The scene of the crime was a hutment situate in a Jod', that is, pastureland belonging to the Government between the villages of Palasni and Kharia Khurd in Jodhpur District. One Sujan Singh, who was a forest guard, was living in the hutment with his wife Inder Kanwar, three sons Kan Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Roop Singh and his mother Lad Kanwar. On 19th October, 1967, Sujan Singh went to village Thakarise to bring his daughter and he was away from his hutment until 22nd October, 1967. Kan Singh also left the hutment for going to Bimalpur for purchase of Bajra on 21st October, 1967. When he returned to the hutment in the morning of 22nd October, 1967, he was shocked to find his mother Inder Kanwar, his two brothers Shanwar Singh and Roop Singh and his grand-mother Lad Kanwar lying murdered in the hutment, He saw a box lying outside the ro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1226; (1977)2SCC221; [1977]2SCR915; 1977(9)LC201(SC)
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the summary dismissal of defendant Piarey Lai's second appeal on August 13, 1975. As the leave has been limited to the question of interpretation of Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 30 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), 'for the purpose of deciding whether the liability of the petitioner to specifically perform the contract of sale of the old holding was transferred to the new 'chak' allotted to him on consolidation', it will be enough to state the facts which bear on it.2. Respondent Hori Lai raised the suit for specific performance of an agreement dated March 6, 1966, for the sale of six plots of land measuring nine high as and six biswas in village Hathiawalai, Tehsil Gannaur. It was alleged in the plaint that Rs. 3000/- were paid by the plaintiff Hori Lai in advance, and the balance of Rs. 2000/- was to be: paid at the time of the execution of the sale deed, with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC970; (1977)2SCC536; [1977]2SCR920; 1977(9)LC205(SC)
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. This appeal is by the legal representatives of the defendant in the suit by special leave against the Judgment and decree of the High Court of Gujarat. The suit was filed by Manilal Lalludhai and his widow Bai Mani against Nanabhai Fakirchand for partition and allotment of one-half share of the suit house and the moveable properties mentioned in the plaint. One Fakirchand had three sons, Nathubhi, (Lallubhai and Manabhai. Nanabhai is the defendant whose legal representatives are the present appellants in this Court. Lallubhai's son, Manilal was the first plaintiff and his mother and widow of Lallubhai, Bai Mani, was the second plaintiff. The second plaintiff is since dead and his legal representative are respondents 2(b) and 2(c) in this appeal. Nathubhai Lallubhai and Nanabhai were originally the members of a joint Hindu family.2. The case of the plaintiffs, respondents in this appeal, is that the three brothers Nathubhai, Lallubhai and Nanabhai were members of a j...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1553; 1977LabIC1031; (1977)2SCC365; [1977]2SCR911; 1977(9)LC192(SC)
M.H. Beg, C.J.1. The petitioners before us are employees of the Forest Research Institute and Colleges Dehra Dun in the posts designed as Computers. Their grievance is that they should be treated as Research Assistants Grade II and given the same scale of pay and other conditions of service as are applicable to Research Assistants Grade II. The respondents, Union of India and the President of the Forest Research Institute deny that the petitioners are entitled to be ex created as Research Assistants Grade II. The petitioners rely upon certain alleged admissions on behalf of the opposite parties, on certain classifications of Computers in the past, prior to the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission 1973 as well as on the last mentioned report of the Central Pay Commission. Furthermore, learned Counsel has invited our attention to the case of Purshottam Lal and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. : (1973)ILLJ407SC where upon a Writ Petition by Computers they were shown as having been g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC965; [1977(34)FLR381]; (1977)2SCC256; [1977]2SCR904; 1977(9)LC184(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. If the jurisprudence of remedies were understood and applied from the perspective of social efficacious ness, the problem raised in this appeal would not have ended the erroneous way it did in the High Court. Judges must never forget that every law has a social purpose and engineering process without appreciating which justice to the law cannot be done. Here, the sociolegal situation we are faced with is a colliery, an explosive, an accident, luckily not lethal, caused by violation of a regulation and consequential cancellation of the certificate of the delinquent shot-firer, eventually quashed by the High Court, for processual soleciems, by a writ of certiorari. 2. We may state at the outset that the learned Solicitor General agreed that the appellant, the Board of Mining Examination, would be satisfied if the law, wrongly laid down by the High Court, were set aside and declared a right and he was not insisting on the formal reversal of the order affecting the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC423; (1977)3SCC558
1. This appeal raises a short point as to whether executive instructions can be issued under Section 43-A of the Motor Vehicles (Madras Amendment) Act 1948 in determining who should be awarded a permit for running a stage carriage. This Court has held that executive instructions cannot be issued to control the discretionary jurisdiction of the tribunals and the view taken by the High Court is therefore correct. We dismiss the appeal, but, in the circumstances, without costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1302; 1977CriLJ812; (1977)2SCC405; [1977]2SCR952; 1977(9)LC240(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. This appeal on certificate of fitness turns on the meaning of the words 'in respect of' accruing in Section 23(1B) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. For a proper appreciation of the question, it is necessary to refer to two other sections of the Act, Section 4(1) and Section 23 (1)(a), before we turn to Section 23 (1B). Section 4(1) lays down :Except with the previous general or special permission of the Reserve Bank, no person other than an authorised dealer shall in India and no person resident India other than an authorised dealer shall outside India, buy or otherwise acquire or borrow from, or sell or otherwise transfer or lend to, or exchange with, any person not being an authorised-dealer, any foreign exchange.Section 23(1)(a) provides :If any person contravenes the provisions of Section 4, Section 5, Section 9, Section 10, Sub-section (2) of Section 12, Section 17, Section 18A or Section 18B or any rule, direction or order made thereunder, he shall(a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1066; 1977CriLJ642; (1977)2SCC131; [1977]2SCR901
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. In this appeal by special leave, three of the appellants, namely, Nirpal Singh, Gurdev Singh and Jagmohan Singh have been convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death. Appellants Devinder Singh and Maha Singh have also been convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code but they have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. The Sessions Judge who tried the case made a reference to the High Court which was heard along with the appeal filed by the appellants, and the High Court after considering the judgment of the Sessions Judge and hearing the parties upheld the convictions as also the sentences passed on the appellants and dismissed the appeal. The High Court thereafter refused to grant leave to appeal to Supreme Court against its decision and the appellants have, therefore, come up to this Court, after obtaining special leave from this Court.2. This is a most unfortunate case where the appellants are alleged to have run amuck and st...
Tag this Judgment!