Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1982(1)SCALE502a; (1983)2SCC308
ORDER1. When this Writ Petition came up for hearing before us on 8th May, 1981 we made an order giving various directions in order to ensure that the inmates of the protective Home at Agra do not continue to live in inhuman and degrading conditions and that the right to live with dignity enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution is made real and meaningful for them. We gave to the State Government which is running the home, the entire period of vacation for carrying out these directions. Miss Srivastava, Superintendent of the Home, has filed an affidavit before us setting out the action taken by the State Government with a view to complying with these directions.2. Before we proceed to consider how far the directions made by us have been complied with we should like to mention that Miss Srivastave has insinuated in paragraph 2 of her affidavit that the present petition has been filed by Dr. Baxi and Mrs. Latika Sarkar 'as a last resort to compel the Government to leave the present ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1685; (1981)IILLJ348SC; 1981(3)SCALE1125; (1981)3SCC596; [1982]1SCR164; 1981(13)LC954(SC)
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the award of the Industrial Tribunal Maharashtra, Bombay, dated September 22, 1977, in Reference (I.T.) No. 248 of 1975 in the industrial dispute between the respondent and the workmen employed by it and published in Maharashtra Government Gazette on November 3, 1977. Though the demands made by the workers' Union and the adjudication thereon by the Tribunal related to items like wage scale, dearness allowance, extra show allowance, gratuity, service conditions of non-permanent staff and retrospectivity, while granting special leave this Court confined the appeal to three points, namely, (i) retrospectivity of the award, (ii) linkage of dearness allowance to some rational principle and (iii) construction of Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and leave was expressly refused in regard to the other grounds mentioned in the special leave petition. We, therefore, proceed to deal with the aforesaid three p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1981Supp(1)SCC5302a
R.S. Pathak,; E.S. Venkataramiah and; V.B. Eradi, JJ.1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We see no force in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. But having regard to the circumstances of the case we grant time to the appellant to vacate the premises bearing house No. 141, Budhana Gate, Meerut, presently occupied by him, on or before April 30, 1982 if the appellant files an undertaking within two weeks from today to the following effect:“1. That the appellant will hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the respondent-landlord on or before April 30, 1982.2. That the appellant will pay to the respondent the arrears of rent, if any, within one month from today.3. That the appellant will pay to the respondent future compensation for use and occupation of the suit premises month by month before the 10th of every month.4. That the appellant will not induct any other person in the suit premises.”2. In default of compliance with any one o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC789; (1981)4SCC209
ORDER1. We heard Mr. Phadke, learned Counsel for the appellant for some time. After the discussion, at a certain stage, a contention was advanced by Mr. Phadke on a particular point, in the case and he conceded that it was not the case pleaded in the plaint. At this stage Mr. Phadke wishes to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action or on a different cause of action. Having considered the fact that non-pleading may prove a technical impediment and may result in the dismissal of the appeal which may impede a fresh adjudication if a point is to be made though belated, we consider it just and proper in the interests of justice to permit the appellant-plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit as stated hereinabove. We accordingly grant the permission subject to the condition that the appellant shall pay Rs. 1,000/- by way of costs in this Court within two months from today in addition to any costs paid already under the orders o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC100; (1981)4SCC147
R.S. Pathak, J.1. This is a tenant's appeal directed against the judgment dated Sep. 21, 1977 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing his revision petition in limine.2. A petition was filed by the landlord for the eviction of the tenant on the ground that he needed the accommodation for his bona fide personal requirement The accommodation consists of a shop-cum-flat and was leased out @ Rs. 300/- per month. The statutory authorities under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act concurrently held that the accommodation was a 'residential building' by virtue of the definition in Sub-section (g) of Section 2 of the Act. That finding was not assailed before the High Court.3. Before us learned Counsel for the appellant wants to reopen the finding whether the accommodation in question can be described as a 'residential building' within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act. Having refrained from challenging the finding in the High Court we do not see why we should be permitted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1106; (1981)4SCC148; [1983]52STC1(SC)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated April, 3, 1980, of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposing of a writ petition filed by the respondent. It seems that the principal grievance embodied in the writ petition was that the Government of Haryana acted contrary to law in issuing instructions to the Assessing Authorities under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, directing them to treat the supply of rice to the State Government in pursuance of a levy procurement scheme under the provisions of the Punjab Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1950, as transactions of sale liable to sales tax. When the writ petition came on for hearing before the High Court it was conceded by the counsel appearing for the State that it was not proper for the Government to issue such instructions and, indeed, the learned Counsel assured the court that the State Government would withdraw the instructions complained of. The High Court noted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1653; [1981(43)FLR331]; (1981)IILLJ263SC; 1981(3)SCALE1103; (1981)3SCC528; [1982]1SCR159; 1981(2)SLJ263(SC); 1981(13)LC591(SC)
V. Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. This appeal preferred by special leave is against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court setting aside the decision of a learned single judge of that Court and dismissing a writ petition filed by the present appellant.2. The appellant, who was working as an officer of the Forest Department in the State of Andhra Pradesh, approached the High Court challenging the provisional integrated gradation list of Forest Officers of the former Andhra and Hyderabad States published under the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act, as annexure to a State Government Order dated January 27, 1962. The contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition were mainly two-fold. Firstly, it was urged that the inter-se seniority between the appellant and the 6th respondent, both of whom originally belonged to the Andhra Cadre, had been wrongly fixed in the provisional gradation list by showing the 6th respondent as senior to the appellant, wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC120a; (1981)4SCC431
1. The only question raised in this appeal is whether the suit 'filed by the respondent for a declaration that the retrenchment of his services by the appellant Allahabad Distt. Co-op. Ltd., Allahabad, a co-operative society constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act is (sic) barred by the provisions of Section 70 of the Act. According to, Mr. Pramod Swarup, learned Counsel for the appellant, the dispute relates to the business of the co-operative society arid, therefore; the. suit is barred by the provisions of Section 70.2. The expression 'business of the society' has been construed by several decisions of this Court. In Deccan Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Dalichand Jugraj Jain : [1969]1SCR887 it was pointed out 'the word 'business' has been used in a narrower sense and it means the actual trading or commercial or' other similar business activity' of. the society which the society is authorised to enter into under the Act and the Rules and its bye-laws.' In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1765; 1981LabIC1579; (1981)3SCC595; 1981(13)LC704(SC)
R.S. Pathak, J. 1. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi contending that his compulsory retirement by the Punjab and Sind Bank was contrary to law. The Writ Petition was taken up for a preliminary hearing by a Bench of two learned judges of the High Court. The learned judges differed on whether the Writ Petition should be dismissed in limine or a rule should be issued The matter was referred to a third learned Judge who, on November 11, 1980, passed an order dismissing the Writ Petition in limine. By this appeal the appellant seeks relief against the dismissal of the Writ Petition. 2. It seems to us that this is a case which should not have been dismissed in limine by the High Court. The High Court should have issued a rule and after hearing the parties on the questions arising in the case, should have disposed it of in final hearing. This the High Court will now do. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the High Court and send the case back to it for restorin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1690; (1981)0GLR1063; 1981(3)SCALE1114; (1981)3SCC502; [1982]1SCR153; 1981(13)LC588(SC)
A.P. Sen, J.1. This appeal, by special leave from a judgment of the Gujarat High Court, involves the question of comparative hardship under Section 13(2) of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947-for brevity 'the Act'. 2. First as to the facts. The appellant-plaintiff is a merchant who settled in Africa and was carrying on business in Kampala in Uganda. Due to political upheaval in that country, he along with his family migrated to India in 1964 and began living in a rented house at Rajkot, where he owns a building known as 'Trivedi House'. On September 21, 1964 he brought a suit for eviction of the respondent-defendant, Laxmishanker Tribhoyan, from the suit premises, which consists of a shop on the ground floor of the said building, on the ground that he reasonably and bona fide required the suit premises for starting his business. The defendant denied the claim and pleaded that the plaintiff did not want to settle down at Rajkot and had already gone back to ...
Tag this Judgment!