Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)2SCC52
N.L. Untwalia,; P.N. Shinghal and; V.D. Tulzapurkar, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. On appreciating the entire facts and circumstances of the case we are satisfied that the respondent was a local candidate within the meaning of clause (b) of Rule 2 of the Mysore State Civil Services (Recruitment of Local Candidates to Class III Posts) Rules, 1966, This fact was clearly pleaded by the respondent in his writ petition. It was not denied by the State in its counter. The High Court in the impugned judgment has clearly stated that the respondent continued in the post of Foreman as a local candidate since 1963. We are satisfied that this statement of fact in the judgment of the High Court on the material placed before it was correct. An attempt was made before us to go to the past history of the respondent on which reliance was not placed in the counter. We did not permit the learned counsel to go to that history. On the footing that the respondent was a local candidate within t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC2141; [1980(41)FLR318]; 1980LabIC692; (1980)IILLJ175SC; (1980)3SCC418; [1980]3SCR902
V.R. Krishna Iyer J.1. The core controversy in this appeal by special leave rages round the legality of the selection of Readers by the Allahabad University. The fortunes of the litigation, pending for seven years have been fluctuating from court to court. The fine line of distinction between internal autonomy for educational bodies and insulation of their operations from judicial interference on the one hand and the constitutional obligation of the court to examine the legality of academic actions and correct clear injustices on the other is jurisprudentially real and the present appeal illustrates the demarcation between the two positions. While legal shibboleths like 'hand-off universities' and meticulous forensic invigilation of educational organs may both be wrong, a balanced approach of leaving universities, in their internal functioning well alone to a large extent, but striking at illegalities and injustices, if committed by however high an authority, educational or other, will...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1767; 1981CriLJ1438; 1980Supp(1)SCC183; 1980(Supp)SCC183; [1981]3SCR929
V.R. Krishna Iyer J.1. Is a prison term in Tihar Jail a post-graduate course in crime? Such is the poignant issue that emerges from the facts of this case.2. 'The fundamental human right is not to a legal system that is infallible but to one that is fair'-these great words of Lord Diplock in Moharaj v. Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (No. 2) [1978] 1 WLR 902 trigger our jurisdiction to ensure a fair legal deal to the prisoner whose petition to this Court makes frightening exposures about the insiders of Delhi's Central Jail.3. Kaushik, a 'lifer' (to use jail jargon), now lodged in the Tihar Central Jail, has moved this quasi-Habeas corpus petition wherein he bitterly complains with facts and figures, of the terror and horror, physical and psychic, let loose on him and other jail-mates by a cryptocriminal combination of senior officials and superior prisoners, thereby making the prison life within that walled world such a trauma and torment the law never meant under the sentence...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1528; (1984)4SCC516; [1980]3SCR915; 1980(12)LC647(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. This appeal by certificate under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution's by the original plaintiff-State Bank of Saurashtra (the Bank for short) whose suit for recovery of Rs. 76,368.04 J.P. from the legal representative of the deceased principal debtor Harilal Parmanaddas Adatia and his surety original defendant 2 Chitranjan Rangnath Raja. ('Surety' for short) was decreed by the trial court both against the legal representative of the principal debtor and the surety but on appeal by the surety, was dismissed by the High Court only against the surety.2. Harilal Parmananddas Adatia, hereinafter referred to as 'principal debtor', approached the Manager of the Bagasra Branch of State Bank of Saurashtra seeking facility for cash credit upto Rs. 75,000/-. He submitted proposal form Ext. 66 on 'September 10,1957, offering to give security for the cash credit by pledge of groundnut oil tins as also a personal guarantee of defendant 2 Chitranjan Rangnath Raja. After obtaining ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1980)3SCC286; 1980(12)LC697(SC)
ORDERV.R. Krishna lyer, j.1. Brevity is a necessity, especially when dealing with a matter essentially interlocutory and unwitting observations may hit a mark the archer never meant'. So we pass this laconic order disposing of the special leave petition.2. Leave is sought to challenge an order of the Chief Election Com-missioner of India which in its concluding portions runs thus: 18. Having regard to the above considerations and pending final decision in the matter arising out of the petition of Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi, dated 14th April, 1980, claiming to be the real Janata Parly, the Commission in exercise of its powers conferred on it by Article 324 of the Constitution read with Rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, paragraphs 3, 6, 7, 8 and 18 of Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 196B, and all other powers enabling it in that behalf hereby orders that;-(a) The Symbol 'Haldhar within Wheel (Chakra Haldhar)' reserved hitherto for the Janata Party be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1330; (1980)3SCC469; 1980Supp(1)SCC436; [1980]3SCR893
A.D. Koshal, J.1. This appeal by certificate granted under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution of India by the Allahabad High Court is directed against its judgment dated the 28th of January, 1966, confirming on appeal a decree passed by the Civil Judge, Kanpur, for the recovery of Rs. 46,652-14-6 with interest at the rate of 3 per cent per annum from the date of the institution of the suit till payment in favour of M/s. J.K. Gas Plant Manufacturing Company Limited against the sole defendant, namely, the Union of India.2. The case of the plaintiff company may be briefly stated thus. The Government of India had supplied some steel to the plaintiff company for manufacturing gas plants at Rampur. Only a part of the steel so supplied was utilized for the intended purpose and with regard to the rest the Regional Deputy Iron and Steel Controller, U.P. Circle, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the Kanpur Controller) directed the plaintiff company through a letter dated the 8th/10th of Nove...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1219; 1980LabIC687; (1980)IILLJ72SC; (1980)3SCC340; [1980]3SCR884
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. Santosh Gupta, the appellant-Work man (a woman), was employed in the State Bank of Patiala, the Mall, Patiala, from July 13, 1973, till August 21, 1974, when her services were terminated. Though there were some breaks in service for a few days, those breaks are not relevant for the purpose of deciding this case though we may have to advert to them in another connection. Despite the breaks, the workman had admittedly worked for 240 days in the year preceding August 21, 1974. According to the workman the termination of her services was retrenchment' within the meaning of that expression in Section 2(OO) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, since it did not fall within any of the 3 excepted cases mentioned in Section 2(OO). Since there was 'retrenchment', it was bad for non- compliance with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. On the other hand the contention of the management was that the termination of services was not due to discharge ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1535; 1980CriLJ930; (1980)3SCC526; [1980]3SCR855
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. When they arrested my neighbour I did not protest. When they arrested the men and women in the opposite house I did not protest. And when they finally came for me, there was nobody left to protest. Porstor Miemoller.This grim scenario burns into our judicial consciousness the moral emerging from the case being that if to-day freedom of one forlorn person falls to the police somewhere, tomorrow the freedom of many may fall elsewhere with none to whimper unless the court process invigilates in time and polices the police before it is too late. This futuristic thought, triggered off by a telegram from one Shukla, prisoner lodged in the Tihar Jail, has prompted the present 'habeas' proceedings. The brief message he sent runs thus:In spite of Court Order and directions of your Lordship in Sunil Batra v. Delhi handcuffs are forced on me and Ors. Admit writ of Habeas Corpus. Those who are injured to handcuffs and bar fetters on others may ignore this grievance, but the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC485; (1981)3SCC652; 1980(12)LC593(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. The suave submissions and sure assertions made by Miss Seita Vaidalingam, Counsel for the appellant, are worthy of a better causa than a shaky challenge in this Court to a revisional order by the High Court refusing to demolish a discretionary exercise by the trial Court which allowed the amendment of a plaint in a suit for partition by inclusion of the relief of dissolution of partnership together with lenditfon of accounts and for the plaintiff's share therein. The parties are relations but the fight is bitter, perhaps because the subject matter is financially succulent', being a cinema theatre and a going cinema business. To start with, the plaintiff sought relief by way of partition of his share in the super-structure of the theatre. The claim was contested by the appellant, issues were struck, two years passed, and then the respondent (plaintiff) work up to the need for an amendment for the plaint in the shape of additional reliefs and supportive averments....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1980)3SCC346; 1980(12)LC597(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. A tenant under a decree of eviction is the appellant in this appeal by special leave. Respondent Smt. Maqbool Begum initiated two separate actions being R.C.C. Nos. 15 and 16 of 1977 in the Course of the Prescribed Authority, Nainital, for eviction of two tenants, one being the present appellant and another, one Kishan Chand Pandey, under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 on the ground that the accomodation at her disposal was insufficient for her family and she needed additional accomodation. Both the cases were consolidated and the prescribed authority held that the land-lady bonafide required the premises for her own use and her need was genuine and greater hardship would be caused to her if her application for release of accomodation was rejected. Consistent with these findings the application for release of accomodation was granted in favour of the landlady. After an unsuccessful appeal by the tenant, ...
Tag this Judgment!