Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1109a; [1978(37)FLR156]; (1978)0GLR793; (1978)IILLJ34aSC; (1978)2SCC202; [1978]3SCR553; 1978(10)LC303(SC)
1. This appeal is preferred by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated 13th August, 1976 dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of dismissal passed by the Government on 21st January, 1976.2. The appellant B. J. Shelat was born on 4th December, 1918. He joined as a Magistrate on 5th January, 1950 in the pre reorganized State of Bombay. On the bifurcation of the State of Bombay on 1st May, 1960 he was allotted to the State of Gujarat as a Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class. On 4th November, 1961 the appellant was appointed by the Governor of Gujarat as a Magistrate for the city of Ahmedabad. On 9th November, 1970 the appellant gave a notice of retirement to the Government of Gujarat through the Registrar of the High Court. He intimated that as he had completed 50 years on 4th December, 1968 he intended to retire from 10th May 1971 if Rule 161 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules permitted him to do so. The Registrar o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC988; (1978)IILLJ30SC; (1978)2SCC196; [1978]3SCR547; 1978(1)SLJ496(SC); 1978(10)LC296(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated September 3, 1976 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petition No. 2504 of 1975 filed by the appellant under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.2. The circumstances leading to this appeal are: Six vacancies in the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) having occurred in the year 1971. the State Government requested the Punjab Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') to select and recommend six candidates to fill up the said vacancies. According to Rule 6 read with Rule 11 of the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930, recruitment to the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) 'has to be made from amongst the persons whose names are borne on the register known as 'Register B' on the basis of the result of the competitive examination held by the Commission in conformity with the rules and regulations framed in that behalf. As longer time ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC828; [1978(36)FLR339]; (1978)0GLR575; 1978LabIC637; (1978)IILLJ22SC; (1978)3SCC42; [1978]3SCR535
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2160 of 1977.(Appeal by Special Leave from the Award dated 21-2-77 of the Industrial Tribunal Gujarat in Reference I.T. No. 13 of 1975 published in the Gujarat Govt. Gazette dated 17th March', 1977).G. B. Pai, O. C. Mathur & K. J. John for the appellant. V. M. Tarkunde, K. L. Hathi, P. C.Kapur & S. C. Patel for the respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWANT SINGH. J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the award dated February 21, 1977 of the Industrial Tribunal Gujarat in reference No. 13 of 1975 made on January 21, 1975, by the Government of Gujarat in exercise of its powers under section 1O (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (XIV of 1947) (hereinafter, called 'the Act') for adjudication of the dispute relating to five demands ,viz. Washing Allowance, Woollen Jersey Unclean Allowance, Trans- port Allowance and Variable Dearne is Allowance linked with Ahmedabad cost of living index and adequate d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1978CriLJ180; (1978)3SCC133; 1978(10)LC266(SC)
P.N. Singhal, J. 1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated November 24, 1971, upholding conviction of appellant Jai Ram Lakhe of an offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for year and a fire of Rs. 100/-.2. The appellant was posted as Tehsil Welfare Officer, Samrala, district Ludhiyana, from November, 1968. Shadi Ram (P.W. 3), who was a Harijan, applied and obtained a subsidy of Rs. 800/- from the welfare Department in August, 1968 for raising a piggery. It was alleged that the appellant went to Shadi Ram's village and told him that as he had not purchased pigs of the prescribed standard, he should either purchase them from the government farm or refund the subsidy. It was alleged further that the appellant ultimately asked for a sum of Rs. 100/- as illegal gratification for dropping of the matter, & it was settled that Shadi Ram would pay him Rs. 50/-. He gave hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1061; (1978)3SCC159; 1978(10)LC290(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J. 1. The appellants filed a proceeding before the Tehsildar against the respondent for recovery of rent and obtained an order in that be half in 1956 That order was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. Thereupon, the appellants filed a suit for evicting the respondent under the Section 15 read with Section 29 of the Mysore Tenancy Act of 1952. In that suit, an order of eviction was passed by the Tehsildar against the respondent and on August 6, 1958 the appellants obtained actual possession of the suit lands from the respondent in execution of the order passed by the Tehsildar. Respondent's appeal against the older of eviction was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner but in a further appeal, the Deputy Commissioner set aside the order of eviction. The appellants thereupon filed a revision application before the Mysore Revenue Tribunal, a full Bench of which by a judgment dated February 24, 1960 allowed the Revision petition and confirm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1051; (1978)3SCC55; [1978]3SCR520; 1978(10)LC312(SC)
1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras on certificate. Appellants are the sister's grandsons of one Gopalasami Chettiar. The first defendant Ramathilakam Ammal is the daughter of Gopalasami Chettiar and the second defendant the adopted son of the first defendant is the sister's grandson of her husband Sethu Chettiar. The two defendants are respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal. Defendants 3 and 4 are the alienees of certain properties of Gopalasami Chettiar from respondents 1 and 2.2. The suit was filed by the appellants for (1) a declaration that the adoption of the second respondent by the first respondent is not true and valid; (2) declaring that in any event the second respondent as an adopted son could not take the estate of Gopalasami Chettiar either under the will of Gopalasami or by succession; (3) a declaration that alienations made by respondents 1 and 2 on 16th December, 1956 in favour of respondents ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC930; (1978)3SCC36; [1978]3SCR514; 1978(10)LC324(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave directed against a Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court raises a question with regard to the validity of an order dated June 20, 1968 whereby the Executive Engineer debarred the appellant from taking any further contract under the Buildings & Roads Division, Ernakulam.2. The appellant is a Government Contractor of 16 years standing. He has been executing major building contracts. The Executive Engineer, P.W-D. Ernakulam (Respondent No. 1) invited tenders for executing certain repairs to the English and Mathematics Blocks of the Maharaja College at Ernakulam. The appellant submitted a tender, dated March 8, 1967, for doing this work. In response to a letter from Respondent 1, the appellant sent his consent letter, dated March 27, 1967 (Ex. p-1), agreeing to reduced rates of certain items of the work, on the condition that 'as soon as the Selection Notice is issued the building should be got vacated to facilitate the starting of the work'. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1980Supp(1)SCC770
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. 1. These appeals can be disposed of by a common Order which we propose to pass in Civil Appeal No. 707/75, a principal appeal in which the matter has been fully discussed by the High Court.2. We need not set out the facts elaborately not need we discuss she Issues at length since we are disposed to agree with the High Court on all the findings it has recorded and our final order deals really with the absence of a finding of the High Court on a certain aspect of the case.3. The Haveli Mandir, Limbdi, was the owner of lands which are the subject matter of the present proceedings. The said lands were owned in Barkhali right by the Mandir; that these were owned by the Mandir and not by the private individual who laid claims to them, was established by the adjudication of the charity. Commissioner in this behalf, However, possession of the lands had been transferred under sale deed executed by one of the three brothers who claimed private ownership of the lands in ques...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1014; 1978CriLJ772; (1978)2SCC370; [1978]3SCR510; 1978(10)LC596(SC)
1. This is an appeal filed by the alleged contemner Under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the Act), from the order dated 2nd April, 1975 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana directing the issue of notice to the appellant to show cause why he should not be proceeded against for committing contempt of the High Court. The Notice was issued in accordance with the procedure prescribed Under Section 17 of the Act, to show cause against the appellant's alleged liability to be punished Under Section 15.2. A preliminary objection was raised by the Learned Solicitor General on behalf of the respondents that no appeal lies to this Court Under Section 19 of the Act from an order issuing notice as nothing yet has been decided by the High Court. Mr. Mohan Behari Lal, learned Counsel for the appellant combated this argument and submitted that an appeal does lie to this Court as a matter of right Under Section 19.3. In our opinion, the preliminary objection rai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1281; 1978LabIC1117; (1978)3SCC243; 1978(10)LC323(SC)
Krishna Iyer, J. 1. After having heard the case for some time, we were inclined to the view that the dispute between the management and the workmen was pre-eminently one to be adjusted instead of being adjudicated upon. Counsel on both sides appreciated the suggestion and consulted their respective clients. Today they have represented that substantially they have agreed and left the residuary marginal dispute to our discretionary resolution. Consequentially, we have indicated what we regard as just and ultimately both sides have agreed on a complete settlement of the current dispute on the following terms:(1) It is agreed by both sides that with effect from 1.1.1972 upto 31.12.1977, the workers will be entitled to wages (which will cover basic wages, rates of increments and dearness allowances) on the basis of 75% of the increase directed by the award plus the pre-award wages(2) With effect from 1.11.978 the wages payable will be 871/2% of the increase directed by the award plus pre-aw...
Tag this Judgment!