Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(1984)ACC218; AIR1984SC790; (1984)1CompLJ199(SC); 1984(1)SCALE142; [1984]2SCR768; 1984(16)LC364(SC)
D.P. Madon, J.1. This Appeal has been filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation pursuant to a certificate granted by the Karnataka High Court against its Judgment and Order in Writ Appeal No. 949 of 1974 on the following two questions of law :-1. Whether the conditions of a permit can be varied so as to increase the number of trips and/or the number of vehicles allowed to be operated under that permit ?2. Whether the conditions of a permit held by an existing operator on an inter-State route exempted under the Kolar Pocket Scheme, can be varied so as to allow an increase in the number of vehicles operating under that permit ?2. Before embarking on a discussion of the above questions, it will be convenient to relate the facts which have given rise to this Appeal On February 2, 1966, the First Respondent, B.A. Jayaram, had been granted by the Regional Transport Authority Bangalore a stage carnage permit on the inter-State route Cuddapah in the State of Andhra Pradesh to Ban...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC786; (1984)86BOMLR280; 1984MhLJ426(SC); 1984(1)SCALE130; (1984)1SCC588; [1984]2SCR750; 1984(16)LC297(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The appellant in this appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution was a member of the Armed Forces of the Union from August. 1942 until August 17, 1970 when he retired from the Army, In 1964, he became the owner of a flat in a co-operative society in Tardeo Bombay having inherited the same from his brother. The respondent was already the tenant of the premises when the appellant inherited it as the owner Soon after his retirement, the appellant filed a suit for ejectment against the respondent on the grounds of default in payment of rent, bona fide personal requirement and unlawful subletting. This was in 1971. While the suit was still pending, the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 was amended in 1975 by the introduction of Section 13A(1). This was a special provision aimed at enabling a member of the Armed Forces of the Union or a retired members of the said Armed Forces to recover possession of premises bona fide ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC615; 1984CriLJ337; 1984(1)SCALE136; (1984)2SCC343; [1984]2SCR760
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.1. This is a petition asking that the respondents be committed for contempt for certain statements allegedly made by Respondent 1, who is the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir. Respondent 2 is the Editor of a newspaper called Daily Kashmir Times in which those statements were published, while Respondent 3 is its correspondent.2. In the issue of the Daily Kashmir Times dated November 13, 1982, a news item appeared under the caption 'CM asks engineers to forcibly occupy club building'. According to the report, the Chief Minister, while addressing the annual general meeting of the Institute of Engineers, said that the engineers should occupy a certain building forcibly as it would not be possible for them to evict the Amar Singh Club through the normal legal process and that he would provide the necessary police assistance for that purpose. The report says that the Chief Minister advised the Institute of Engineers to move quickly in the matter before the management...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1984Supp(1)SCC702
E.S. Venkataramiah and; M.P. Thakkar, JJ.1. The finding recorded by the High Court on the basis of default in payment of arrears of rent is unsustainable and it is set aside. The High Court has not properly considered the alternative ground urged by the landlord that the premises were required by him for his own bona fide use and occupation We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court and remand the case to it to re-examine the question whether the landlord bona fide needs the premises for his own occupation. If the High Court comes to the conclusion that the premises are bona fide needed by the landlord for his own occupation, the High Court shall also consider the case of the tenant under the proviso to clause (c) sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Rent Act.2. The appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC739; 1984CriLJ404; 1984(1)Crimes508(SC); 1984(1)SCALE100; (1984)2SCC310; [1984]2SCR741
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. In the context of the right of the 'lifers' (prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment prior to 18th December, 1978 being the date of coming into force of Section 433A, Cr.P.C.) to have their cases considered for pre-mature release under the Punjab Jail Manual two contentions were urged by counsel appearing for the lifers before us in the above matters. First, it was contended that such lifers were entitled to have their cases for pre-mature release considered by the concerned authorities on completion of ten years of sentence inclusive of remissions in the case of a female prisoner or a male prisoner of under 20 years of age at the date of the commission of the offence or completion of 14 years of sentence inclusive of remissions in the case of adult prisoners under Para 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual but since November, 1971 the authorities concerned are not submitting their cases for such consideration until actual substantive imprisonment has been undergone f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC643; 1984(32)BLJR99; [1984(48)FLR276]; 1984(1)SCALE113; 1984Supp(1)SCC1; [1984]2SCR476; 1984(16)LC805(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. These appeals are filed against the judgment dated March 3, 1983 in Civil Writ Petition No. 2018 of 1981 on the file of the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashing the promotion of eight officers of the Class II Engineering Service of the Haryana Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads Branch) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Class II Service') as Executive Engineers in the Haryana Service of Engineers, Class I, Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads Branch) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Class I Service'). The said officers are S.L. Gupta, I.C. Dewan, S.K. Chopra, Bodh Raj, A.S. Parmar, O.P. Gupta, Sumair Chand Jain and G.L. Sharma. They entered the Class II Service in accordance with the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II, P.W.D. (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Class II Rules') on the dates mentioned against their names in the following table :Name Date of entry S. No. in the into Class II gradation lis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC636; [1984(48)FLR258]; 1984LabIC343; (1984)ILLJ337SC; 1984(1)SCALE105; (1984)2SCC369; [1984]2SCR453; 1984(16)LC925(SC)
ORDERWhereas the Central Government is satisfied that Shri Anoop Jaiswal, appointed to the Indian Police Service on probation on the result of the Civil Service Examination held in the year 1979, is unsuitable for being a member of the said service, he is hereby discharged under Clause (b) of Rule 12 of the Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules, 1954.The order of discharge will take effect from the date on which it is served on the said Shri Anoop jaiswal.In the name of and on behalf of the President of India. sd/- (NARENDRA PRASAD DIRECTOR 3. On receipt of the above order of discharge, the appellant made a representation on November 14, 1981 to the Government of India to reconsider the matter. It appears that the Director of the National Police Academy on this occasion recommended that the appellant may be reinstated. That representation was rejected by the Government of India on April 8, 1982. Thereafter, he filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC630; 1984(32)BLJR92; 1984LabIC337; (1984)ILLJ344SC; 1984(1)SCALE125; (1984)2SCC8; [1984]2SCR466; 1984(1)SLJ490(SC); 1984(16)LC980(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The appellant is a judicial officer of the State of Madhya Pradesh, who would have ordinarily retired on January 31, 1984 on attaining 58 years of age. He was appointed as a Munsiff-Magistrate in the erstwhile State of Bhopal in 1953. On reorganisation of States on November 1, 1956, he became a member of the Judicial Service of the State of Madhya Pradesh. He was promoted as an Additional District & Sessions Judge on January 8, 1974 and was confirmed in that post with effect from November 25, 1974. Consequent upon the decision of the State Government to reorganise the Higher Judicial Service of the State of Madhya Pradesh in accordance with the advice of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, 101 posts of the cadre of Additional District & Sessions Judges came to be abolished and the incumbents of those posts were to be absorbed as District & Sessions Judges as per Government Memorandum dated February 24, 1981. On the issue of the said Memorandum, the High Court of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC515; 1984(1)SCALE140; (1984)1SCC751; [1984]2SCR451; 1984(16)LC889(SC)
ORDERE.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The contention of the petitioner in the above case is that on a true construction of Section 6 read with Section 2(gg) of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (Act No. 20 of 1960), (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') each member of the family, including a minor son would become a holder entitled to a separate unit of the ceiling area. In other words, it is argued that a minor son who is deemed to be entitled to an area of joint family land proportionate to his share under Section 6(ii) of the Act is entitled to claim a separate ceiling area independently. It is contended that his share of land cannot be clubbed with the land which can be claimed by his father as his ceiling area.2. We have heard Shri G.L. Sanghi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. He has taken us through the relevant provisions of the Act viz. Section 2(gg), Section 6 and Section 7 of the Act. The High Court has negatived the above contention of the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC781; 1984(1)SCALE93; (1984)2SCC292; [1984]2SCR440; 1984(16)LC909(SC)
ORDERWhereas the Government of Maharashtra propose to organise a State lottery; And whereas the Central Government has no objection to it; Now, therefore, the President is pleased to permit the Government of Maharashtra to conduct a State lottery, subject to the condition that the tickets of the lottery shall not be sold in another State without the permission of the Government of that State.The President is further pleased to entrust to the Government of Maharashtra under Clause (1) of Article 258 of the Constitution the executive power of the Union in respect of lotteries organised by that Government.Sd/- (D.D. JOSHI) Deputy Secretary to the Government of India.10. It was after this entrustment of executive power of the Union to the Government of Maharashtra 'in respect of lotteries organised by that Government' that the Government of Maharashtra proceeded to issue the Press release and thereafter the individual communications, earlier referred to, making it known that the sale of lo...
Tag this Judgment!