Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)1SCC410
V.R. KRISHNA IYER, J.1.Fourteen hundred teachers share the sincere grievances firstly that they have not been given credit for past service rendered in educational institutions which were eventually taken over by the State of Orissa and secondly that the benefit of contributory provident fund scheme which the Government itself had offered, has not been implemented. We have been taken through the judgment of the High Court and the relevant facts by Shri Sikri and we are satisfied that the reasons given by the High Court are far from satisfactory. On the other hand, no serious consideration of the ground of discrimination in ignoring the past service of the teachers has been given by the High Court. Secondly, regarding the contributory provident fund scheme the High Court has given strong reasons why Government should have implemented the scheme but instead of granting positive relief, has expressed the hope that the State would take action. Unfortunately, perhaps the State did not give ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC34; 1980CriLJ1292; (1980)4SCC491
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. The appellant, Shripad Shivram Kulkarni (original accused 1) and Babulal Faras (original accused 2) were both working as Maintenance Surveyors in the same Office under the City Survey Officer, Kolhapur. Both were prosecuted under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 161 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Special Judge, Kolhapur.2. The prosecution case was that house bearing No. C.T. Section 2340, 'A' ward, Kolhapur was standing in the name of the father of one Madhav. Madhav submitted an application (Ex. 14), dated August 18, 1971, to the City Survey Officer, requesting that his name be substituted in place of his father. At the relevant time, the appellant was in charge of 'A' Ward, while Faras was in charge of another Ward. After receiving the application, the City Survey Officer (P.W. 5) initialled it and directed the complainant to take it to the appellant. Accordingly, Madhav accompanied by h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC2051; 1980Supp(1)SCC474; 1980(12)LC799(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. Mr. Sinha, appearing for the petitioners in the above Writ Petitions, contended that that Section 4(c) of the Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation Act 1956 was violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. In his submission, the provisions that any proceeding in a civil Court of the nature covered by Section 4(c) would be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Consolidation authorities and any order passed by a civil Court regarding land (title or possession or other incident) pending before the Civil Court would stand abated, was a reasonable restriction on the right of a party to go to an ordinary civil Court It also discriminated that class of litigants from other classes of litigants who enjoyed the right to approach the civil Court. In his case the decree had been passed in his favour by a civil Court but the subject matter was pending In an appeal in the High Court and the High Court passed an order nullifying the decre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC379; (1980)82BOMLR471; 1980CriLJ1424; (1980)4SCC600; [1981]1SCR175
Sarkaria, J.1. These appeals by special leave directed against Judgments, dated January 17, 1974 and March 29, 1974, of the Bombay High Court, raise, among others, three important questions, namely :(1) Whether an Officer of the Railway Protection Force, making an inquiry under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 1966 Act), in respect of an offence under Section 3 of that Act of unlawful possession of the railway property, is a Police Officer for the purposes of Section 25, Evidence Act and Section 162 of the CrPC. 1898; and as such any confession or incriminating statement recorded by him in the course of an inquiry under Section 9 of the Act is inadmissible in evidence.(2) Whether a person arrested by an Officer of the Railway Protection Force under Section 6 of the Act for the alleged commission of an offence under Section 3 of the Act, is a 'person accused of an offence' within the meaning of Article 20(3) of the Constitution.(3) Whe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC2041; 1981(29)BLJR110; (1981)IILLJ405SC; 1980Supp(1)SCC562; [1981]1SCR168; 1981(13)LC180(SC)
ORDERV.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. A simple petition to review an earlier judgment of this bench has, because of the intervening summer vacation, passed through vicissitudes, gathered episodes and been blown up into an exciting chronicle of unsavoury events, injecting more passion than reason, more heat than light, into the forensic proceedings. We kept completely clear of the unhappy imputations and confined counsel to the merits of the review proceeding before us. 'Justice discards party, friendship, and kindred and is therefore represented as blind'. This objectivity generated clarity and brevity, thanks, of course, to cooperation by counsel on both sides.2. The facts are few although the fight is furious and the parties are army officers. It is a pity that careerism makes camaraderie a casualty in a profession where self-sacrifice for a higher cause is the dedication. Without moralising, we will state the grievance of the petitioner and examine whether our earlier order deserves reconsid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1654; (1981)1SCC510; 1980(12)LC802(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. The short and single point raised by Shri Harbans Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, in this appeal by special leave is that the decree for preemption passed against the appellant is on insatiable in view of Section 3 of the Punjab Pre-emption (Repeal) Act. 1973 which reads thus:SECTION 3 :Bar to pass decree in suit for pre-emption on and from the date of commencement of the Punjab Pre-emption (Repeal) Act, 1973 no Court shall pass in a decree in any suit for pre emption.2. The section is plain and its meaning unambiguous that there is a statutory mandate against passing a decree for enforcement of a fight of preemption in the state of Punjab, The only point here is as to whether a decree already passed by the trial Court, challenged in appeal after the Act was passed and affirmed on appeal would fall within the mischief of Section 3 while the case pends in the High Court; We think that Section 3 interdicts the passing of a decree even in appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC64; 1980Supp(1)SCC668; [1981]1SCR128; 1980(12)LC833(SC); 19SCSR773
Koshal, J.1. By this judgment we shall dispose of Civil Appeal Nos. 3520 to 3524 of 1979 which are directed against a common judgment dated 11-9-1979 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala holding that in the Department of Education of the State of Kerala the post of Assistant Educational Officer (hereinafter described as A.E.O.) is not a promotion post vis-a-vis that of a High School Assistant (hereinafter referred to as H.S. Act.), that the two posts are interchangeable and that consequently the reversion of the solitary appellant in each case from the post of A.E.O. to that of H.S. Act. is not violative of Article 16 of the Constitution.2. It is not disputed before us that each of the appellants had been holding the post of A.E.O. for more than six years continuously when his reversion was ordered in implementation of the instructions issued by the State Government through a letter dated the 19th May, 1977 to the effect that every A.E.O. should be transferred back as H.S. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1239; 1981CriLJ745; 1981Supp(1)SCC64; 1980(12)LC832(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. This appeal is from an order of the Delhi High Court rejecting the Revision Petition made by the Delhi Administration against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 11th May, 1973. By the said order the Additional Sessions Judge had closed the prosecution case rejecting a prayer for adjournment made on behalf of the prosecution on the stand that it was made clean in the earlier order dated 12th April, 1972 that no further adjournment would be allowed. The relevant portion of the Additional Sessions Judges order is as followsStatement of Shri K.A. Kajagopalan, I.O. of the case has been recorded. No other witness is present today. An application has been moved by the PP Shri Mahajan stating that Sarvshri Richard Donovan Dalville Streeth, Manager of Barclay's Bank Trans val, M.J. Oliver, Account of the said Bank and I.C, Morris, another employees of the said Barclay's DCO London Bank residents of London be ordered to be examined on Commission. As observed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1750; 1980CriLJ1269; 1980Supp(1)SCC316
A.C. Gupta, J.1. The two appellants before us were convicted by the trial court of offences under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 333 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and each of them was sentenced to six years and four years rigorous imprisonment respectively under the afore said two charges. On appeal the High Court affirmed the order of conviction and the sentences passed on the accused-appellants. The prosecution case is that on 16th October, 1972 at about 2-30 a. m. P W. 1 and P.W. 9 (Bhagwan Singh and Maharaja Singh), police constables on duty, saw a truck loaded with fuel wood passing through the town Bagh towards Kukshi. P.W. 5 Latif, cleaner of the truck, and appellant Yaqoob were in the same truck. The truck belonged to the other appellant Bhagwan. Suspecting that the fuel was being illicitly taken away, the two constables stopped the truck and asked for the permit. Latif was then sent to summon appellant Bhagwan who is said to be the owner of the truck. The co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC53; 1980LabIC1167; 1983(1)SCALE66a; (1980)4SCC653; [1981]1SCR144; 1980(12)LC817(SC)
Venkataramiah, J.1. The State of Gujarat and the Development Commissioner of the State of Gujarat have filed Civil Appeal No. 359 of 1978 under Article 136 of the Constitution against the judgment, dated January 28th, 1977 passed in Special Civil Application No. 309 of 1975 on the file of the High Court of Gujarat. Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 in the above appeal were the petitioners in the aforesaid Special Civil Application. They had filed the said application with the leave of the High Court in a representative capacity for and on behalf of themselves and other officers and servants who were originally in the employment of several municipalities which had been constituted under the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Municipal Act') and who were working as the employees under gram panchayats or nagar panchayats which were established in the place of the municipalities referred to above under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 (Gujarat) Act...
Tag this Judgment!