Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1666; [1977(34)FLR235]; (1977)ILLJ471SC; (1977)2SCC705; [1977]3SCR332
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. The principal question that arises in this appeal by special leave is : Whether an order of the Labour Court to the effect, that since no demand of the workmen had been served on the employer, no industrial dispute had come into existence in accordance with law, and as such the Reference was invalid and the Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter referred to it by the Government, is an 'award' for the purposes of Section 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, called the Act)? 2. Cox & Kings (Agents) Ltd. (for short, the Management) dismissed from service three of their workmen after a domestic enquiry conducted against them on certain charges. 3. In May 1967, the Lt. Governor of Delhi made a Reference under Section 10 read with Section 12(5) of the Act to the Labour Court, Delhi, to determine:Whether the terminations of services of S/Shri H.B. Rawat, Bidhi Cband and Ram Sarup Gupta were unlawful and unjustified, and if so, to what relief are ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1614; (1977)4SCC599C; 1977(9)LC356(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. The appellant was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Glass, Gurgaon, under Sections 354 and 506 Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year under the former charge and to concurrent sentence of six months under the latter. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, set aside the conviction under Section 506, but upheld the one under Section 354. He, however, reduced the sentence from one year's rigorous imprisonment to one month's rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appellant filed a revision application in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which was dismissed summarily by the High Court on May 18, 1976. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.2. Mr. Marwah, who appears on behalf of the appellant, has criticised the evidence led by the prosecution on various grounds. The complainant, Nirmal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1496; (1977)3SCC457; [1977]3SCR249
M.H. Beg, C.J.1. These appeals are before us after certification of the cases, raising identical questions of law as fit for appeal to this Court, dealt with by one Judgment and orders of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court on two writ petitions. The petitions were directed against orders of the State Government passed in 1974 revising the rate of royalty payable by the petitioner appellants under a lease of 1970. and after that, canceling the lease by a letter of 15th March, 1975. The petitioners' case was that the revision of the rate' of royalty payable by the petitioners for the lease to collect and exploit sal seeds from forest area was illegal during the subsistence of the lease, and, thereafter, cancellation of the lease itself was illegal for various reasons.2. Primarily, the case of the petitioners is that of a breach of contract, for which the State would be liable ordinarily to pay damages if it had broken it If the petitioners could establish some right, either contrac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1569; (1977)2SCC835; [1977]3SCR312
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. Delhi, the home of Power and the nidus of paradoxes, presents many pathological problems to the students of history, social science, politics and law, often interacting with each other. We are here concerned with the socio-legal malady of accommodation scarcity and the syndrome of long queues of government employees waiting, not knowing for how long, for allotment of government quarters at moderate rents and the co-existence of several well-to-do officers enjoying, by virtue of their office, State-allotted residential accommodation while owning their own but letting them out at lucrative rents, making substantial incomes in the bargain. The law awoke to end this unhappy development and to help the helpless nonallottees get government accommodation. Such is the back-drop to Section 14A which, read along with Section 25B, of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act LIX of 1958) (for short, the Act), falls for our consideration in the present appeal by special leave.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1265; (1977)3SCC145; 1977(9)LC293(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. Palanisamy Gounder and Nallasamy Gounder were step brothers and the first respondent Nallammal was the wife of Palanisamy Gounder. Palanisamy Gounder died in 1936. Nallasamy Gounder died on March 11, 1949 leaving his widow Sellammal and two sons Pariyasamy Gounder and Doraisami Gounder. Admittedly P. Gounder and N. Gounder were members of a joint family but the plaintiff Nallammal claimed that there was a division in the family. This fact was contested by N. Gounder who took proceedings against the plaintiff Nallammal in Original Suit No. 43 of 1942 where it was held that there was no division in the status between the two brothers. P. Gounder and N. Gounder and that the entire family properties passed by survivorship to the other brother Nallaswami Gounder. This judgment is dated February 22, 1945 and it was confirmed in appeal by sub-Judge on March 17, 1946, The plaintiff's case was that after this suit there was a Panchayat in the family some time in the y...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1353; (1977)2SCC640; [1977]3SCR327; 1977(9)LC327(SC)
Jaswant Singh, J.1. This appeal by special leave which is directed against the judgment and order dated April 28, 1975, of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, dismissing Civil Writ Petition No. 1819 of 1975 filed by the appellants and respondents 3 to 37 herein, who are industrial workers employed in factories situate in the industrial area in Chandigarh.2. The facts leading to this appeal are: In 1956, the Legislature of the then State of Punjab enacted what is called the Punjab Industrial Housing Act, 1956 (Punjab Act 16 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to provide for allotment, recovery of rent, eviction and other ancillary matters in respect of houses constructed under the subsidised Industrial Housing Scheme for industrial workers in the State of Punjab. In exercise of the powers conferred on it under Section 24 of the Act, the State Government made rules called the Punjab Industrial Housing Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Rule ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1357; (1977)3SCC517; 1977(9)LC295(SC)
v.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. Scarcity of accommodation creates problems of misery which it is beyond this Court to solve except in some marginal, clumsy way. We mention this by way of prefatory observation because we are, in this case, faced with a situtation where the facts are not too clear, the law has been ill-understood and the justice of the situation may justify a decision either way.2. The landlords respondents had let out to the first appellant, for the benefit of the joint family of which he was a senior member, the suit premises consisting of three rooms. A suit for eviction was filed on the ground of sub letting based on the fact that the 1st appellant had built a large house into which he had moved leaving the second appellant still in the suit premises. The Court found that there was no case of sub letting and dismissed the suit. This did not end the story but gave rise to a fresh litigation which has spiralled to this Court now. The second litigation was for eviction under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1977)3SCC99; [1977]3SCR261
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. We have had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by our learned brother S. Murtaza Fazal Ali and we agree with the conclusion reached by him in that judgment but we would prefer to give our own reasons. The facts giving rise to the appeal are set out clearly and succinctly in the judgment of our learned brother and we do not think it necessary to reiterate them.2. The short question that arise? for determination in this appeal is as to whether it is Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. 1956 that applies where property is given to a . Hindu female in lieu of maintenance under an instrument which in so many terms restricts the nature of the interest given to her in the property If Sub-section (1) applies, then the limitations on the nature of her interest are wiped out and she becomes the full owner of the property, while on the other hand, if Sub-section (2) governs such a case, her limited interest in the property i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1504; (1977)2SCC586; 1977(9)LC441(SC)
v.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. This appeal by special leave assails the order of the High Court affirming the decision of the appellate court directing eviction of the appellant tenant from the building belonging to the landlord-respondent who applied for eviction on the ground of bonafides requirement to commence a business Both the landlord and the tenant are hardware merchants in the same area. The landlord purchased the property apparently for the purpose of setting up his sons to start a hardware business and after buying the property sent a notice to the tenant appellant demanding surrender of possession. Thereafter, proceedings were instituted for recovery of possession on the ground of bonafide requirement as stated above. The trial court dismissed the eviction petition but the appellate court up held the bonafide requirement set up by the landlord. The High Court affirmed the view taken by the appellate court.2. We have heard counsel on both sides and are satisfied that there is hard...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1703; (1977)2SCC494; 1977(9)LC344(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. These two appeals by special leave relate to the same subject matter, namely, the validity of the selection to the Bar Council of Madhy Pradesh of twenty returned candidates. We are not going into the grounds of the challenge nor do we propose to express any view thereon since we are disposed to allow the appeals on the short ground that the High Court fell into a grievous error in entertaining the writ petition. 2. Briefly the facts are as follows : The election to the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh took place under the Indian Advocates Act. There are rules framed by the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh with the approval of the Bar Council of India regulating the disputes regarding election. There is specific provision regarding the Constitution of election tribunal, the period of limitation within which election petitions should be filed and other connected matters. Rule 31 of the Election Rules framed by the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh governs the situation. Th...
Tag this Judgment!