Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1355; (1980)2SCC397; 1980(12)LC346(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order dated May 15, 1979, whereby the High Court of Punjab & Haryana summarily dismissed the appellants' writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, although the case involved important questions of law.2. Mr. P.R. Nariman, appearing for the appellants has taken us through the affidavits of the parties and the documents on record. According to his narration the undisputed facts are as follows;-3. Village Mirzapur has approximately 15731 bighas of Shamlat land. Petitioners 3 to 74 claim to be right holders and co-owners of that land, the measure of right being Hamb Rasd Khewat.4. On September 23, 1914, the local Government of then Punjab issued a notification under Section 3 of the Punjab Land Preservation (Chos) Act, 1900, converting the areas of several villages, Including village Mirzapur, Kharar Tehsil. This notification was followed by notification No. 459 of the same date issued by the local Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC2012; (1980)2SCC120; [1980]2SCR746
A.D. Koshal, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated August 7, 1979, of a Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi accepting a petition made by the landlady for revision of the order of an Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter called the Controller) of Delhi refusing to direct eviction of the tenant.2. The landlady had sought eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute on the ground covered by Clause (e) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), namely, that she required them bona fide for occupation as a residence for herself. Her application being triable in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 25B of the Act, the tenant sought the Controller's leave to contest it on grounds which were stated in his affidavit. The leave was granted and thereafter the tenant filed a written statement contesting his eviction which was ultimately disallowed. The learned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1871; AIR1980SC1871B; 1980CriLJ1339; (1980)ILLJ503SC; (1979)3SCC357; (1980)1SCC698
R.S. SARKARIA, J.1. Eighty-seven workmen were retrenched by the Coimbatore Pioneer Mills Ltd. — Respondent 2 herein. The retrenchment was announced on October 19, 1970, but simultaneously with the announcement of the retrenchment, compensation was not tendered. But the notice further stated that “the workers concerned have been/will be paid compensation as required by and in accordance with clause (b) of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947” (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The retrenchment compensation was in fact paid on October 20, 1970. Out of the said 87 workers, 47 accepted the compensation and went away. The remaining 40 workers raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court held by its judgment dated November 18, 1971 that the retrenchment was bona fide and that the reason given for such retrenchment were also legal and valid. But it further held that there was non-complian...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1981Supp(1)SCC69
N.L. UNTWALIA, J.1. Since we find no merit in this appeal, we do not consider it necessary to state the facts in any detail or to discuss any point elaborately. We may just state the only point urged before us and reject it briefly.2. The history of the case is found in the judgment of the courts below. We state only one fact. In the year 1954 the plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit against the defendant-respondent (who died during the pendency of the appeal in this Court and his heirs have been substituted, but by defendant-respondent we mean original defendant-respondent) for his eviction treating him as trespasser on the ground that he had parted with the land in question in favour of somebody else. This fact was denied by the respondent in that suit, and at the same time he also asserted that he was not a sub-tenant under the plaintiff but was himself a pucca krishak. The suit was in the Revenue Court. The Tahsildar decreed it. In pursuance of that decree the appellant obtained po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC318; 1980Supp(1)SCC364; 1980(Supp)SCC364
D.A. Desai, J.1. The appellant questioned the validity of notification dated March 31, 1958 and another notification dated December 29, 1962 under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act in Special Civil Application No. 228 of 1963 filed in the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad on the following grounds:(1) The two notifications are mala fide as they suffer from non-application of mind and are in colourable exercise of power on the two submissions: (a) There is utter impossibility of constructing a road over this plot as part of the scheme, and (b) The acquisition is in excess of the requirement.(2) Section 6 notification is illegal as it does not show the instrumentality through which the said public purpose should materialise.2. These grounds did not find favour with the High Court and the special civil application was dissmissed. Upon certificate granted under Article 133(1)(b) the present appeal is filed.3. Mr. Bhandare, learned Counsel for the appellant canvassed th...
Tag this Judgment!