Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1984]145ITR739(SC); 1984Supp(1)SCC596
ORDERV.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. Heard Counsel.2. In all the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the smallness of the amount involved, we do not think that this Court should interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC151; 1984CriLJ162; 1983(2)Crimes942(SC); 1983(2)SCALE709; 1984Supp(1)SCC207; [1984]1SCR797
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. After hearing counsel for the parties, by virtue of our Order dated October 4, 1983, we had allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused-appellant. We now proceed to give the reasons for the said Order.2. The appellant was convicted by the High Court Under Section 408 read with Section 109, Indian Penal Code in respect of criminal breach of trust with regard to several items which have been detailed in the judgment of the High Court. The appellant was also convicted Under Sections 471 and 467 read with Section 109 of the I.P.C. Under the first count (Section 408) the appellant was sentenced to two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000, in default of payment of fine, further six months R.I. Under the second count (Section 471) he was sentenced to imprisonment for one year. The High Court further convicted the appellant Under Section 409 I.P.C. for having committed breach of trust in respect of certain oil engines and sentenced him to 3 years R.I. and a fine of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC304; 1983(2)SCALE760; (1984)1SCC143; [1984]1SCR795
ORDERS. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. This election appeal arises out of the election held in 1980 from the constituency No. 56 called Hathin to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Haryana. At the counting held by the Returning Officer, the Appellant secured 12,828 votes whereas respondent No. 1 Khillan Singh got 12,655 votes and one Ramjilal got 12,213 votes. Accordingly the appellant was declared as elected. Aggrieved by the result of the election, Khillan Singh and Ramjilal filed election petitions in the High Court. In the course of the election petition, the appellant filed a recrimination petition in which one of the grounds related to the errors committed in the counting of votes of respondent No. 1. All the parties agreed that the court should order a recount and that the parties would be bound by the result of the recount. The recount was accordingly held as a result of which Khillan Singh respondent No. 1 got 12,751 i.e. the highest number of valid votes and the appellant got ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC508; 1986Supp(1)SCC372
1. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties and after hearing them we are of the view that the High Court was in error in dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant, on the ground of limitation. The appellant was discharged from service on 27-7-61 and the appeal preferred by him against the order of discharge was rejected by the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division on 27-9-61. The appellant thereupon preferred a further appeal before the Board of Revenue but this appeal also met with the same fate and was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 4-3-64. Rule 12 of the Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1935 (hereafter referred to as Rules of 1935) empowered the State Government and the Head of the Department to call, for departmental proceedings and pass appropriate orders and pursuant to this provision the appellant filed a Revision Application before the State Government The State Government rejected the Revision Application and though the or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC1320; [1984(48)FLR89]; (1984)ILLJ110SC; 1983(2)SCALE652; (1984)1SCC244; [1984]1SCR783; 1984(1)SLJ142(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. The employer-Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation created under a State Act entitled the Transport Corporation Act of 1950 ('Corporation Act' for short) is in appeal by special leave and the common decision of a Division Bench of the High Court which held that termination of employees while on probation on ground of unsuitability amounted to retrenchment and for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Disputes Act' for short), the termination is bad, is challenged.2. As per Rule 7 made Under Section 45 of the Corporation Act, direct recruits are to be on probation for two years and such probation can be extended. The employer terminated the employment of some of the employees during the initial period of probation and of some others during the extended period on the ground of unsatisfactory service. Thereupon an industrial dispute was raised questioning the legality of their termination and the State Governmen...
Tag this Judgment!