Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC69; [1985(50)FLR9]; 1985LabIC570; (1985)ILLJ85SC; 1984(2)SCALE632; (1985)1SCC134; [1985]1SCR1040; 1985(17)LC269(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. Appellant joined service as a Clerk in the Civil Supplies Department of the erstwhile Patiala and East Punjab States Union ('PEPSU' for short) on September 2, 1949. He was a temporary employee and he was discharged from service on September 30, 1953. On February 2,2, 1954, he was again recruited as a clerk in the Consolidation department of PEPSU. In course of time, he was promoted as senior clerk and came to be allocated to Punjab State on the merger of PEPSU with erstwhile Punjab State. The Deputy Commissioner of Bhatinda transferred the appellant and posted him as Assistant in his office after obtaining concurrence of the Subordinate Service Selection Board. Punjab with effect from January 1,1962. On the reorganisation of Punjab State in 1966, the appellant came to be allocated to Punjab State. After declaration of national emergency, the Governor of Punjab in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and all other powers enab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC338; 1984(2)SCALE759; 1984Supp(1)SCC590
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. The award passed by the arbitrator suffers from an error which is apparent on the face of the Award. That error has to be corrected. 3. Section 37 of the Partnership Act, 1952 provides, in so far as relevant, that where any member of a firm has died and the surviving, partners carry on the business of the firm with the property of the firm without any final settlement of accounts, then, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, the estate of the deceased partner is entitled at its option to a share in the profits made by the partnership which is attributable to the use of the share of the deceased partner in the property of the firm or to interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the amount of his share in the property of the firm. The error committed by the arbitrator is that he awarded interest at 9 per cent instead of 6 per cent. 4. Accordingly we direct that the appellants shall be liable to pay to the respondents interest at the rate of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC107; 1984(2)SCALE595; 1984(Supp)SCC720
ORDERRanganath Misra, J.1. This is an application under Article 136 of the Constitution and is directed against the decision of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court dismissing a writ petition made to that Court under Article 226. Petitioner is a Government company in which under Section 5 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation Act), 1973, Act 26 of 1973, (Nationalisation Act' for short), the right, title and interest of the owner of the Jagaldaga Colliery came to vest following nationalisation. The District Mining Officer, Palamu, raised a demand of dead rent as payable under the Mineral Concession Rules of 1960, amounting to Rs. 1,41,140.87 paise for the period May 1, 1973 to September 30, 1974. The certificate Officer constituted under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, IV of 1914, signed a certificate on the basis of the requisition of the Mining Officer and called upon the petitioner to satisfy the demand. The claim was resisted by the petitioner, on several grounds,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC328; 1984Supp(1)SCC701
ORDER1. We are not inclined to grant special leave in this matter. However, before we reject the same we want to make it specifically clear that the findings recorded by the High Court in the writ petition filed before it and from the judgment of which the present special leave petition arises shall remain confined and be held applicable only to the petitioner before the High Court who is respondent before us and none else. By this we mean that the certificate issued in favour of the respondent candidate shall remain valid in his favour on the footing that he qualified for the reservation But the larger question decided by the High Court as to whether 'Halba' is a Scheduled Tribe and entitled to reservation is kept open and it would be always open to the State of Maharashtra and any other competent authority to raise that question and the same shall be dealt with on merits and not held concluded by the judgment under appeal.2. To avoid disputes like the present one where admission is g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC4; 1984(2)SCALE650; (1985)1SCC1; [1985]1SCR1025; 1985(17)LC422(SC)
D.P. Madon, J.1. This Appeal by Special Leave granted by this Court is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dismissing the revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act No. 59 of 1958) (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the Act'), filed by the Appellant against an order of eviction passed against him by the Rent Controller, Delhi, on an application filed by the Respondent on the ground specified in Section 14A(1) of the Act.2. The Appellant was the ten7ant of the Respondent in respect of premises situate at 3474, Gali Kartar Singh, Subzi Mandi, Delhi, consisting of one room and two tin sheds at a rent of Rs. 10.50 per month excluding water, electricity and other charges. Prior to January 1975, the Respondent was an employee in the Posts and Telegraphs, Audit and Accounts Department of the Government of India, and in January 1975 he was sent on deputation to the Union Public Service Commission. He retired ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC294; [1985(50)FLR6]; 1985LabIC738; (1985)ILLJ79SC; 1984Supp(1)SCC712
D.A. Desai, J.1. Special leave granted.2. We heard Mr. Harhans Lal, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Atul C. Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent.3. Art industrial dispute arising out of the termination of service of the appellant who was employed as a conductor, by the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication and it was numbered as Reference No. 55 of 1981. On receipt of the notice of the reference, the workman and the employer both filed, their respective statements. The reference came up for hearing on February 23, 1982 and when it was called out neither the appellant nor his representative one Shri M.L. Gupta was present. The Labour Court directed the matter to be heard ex parte. After making that Order, the Labour Court proceeded to observe that as no evidence has been led by the appellant, there is nothing to show that the termination of service was illegal or invalid, and concluded that the appellant was therefore, not entit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC28; 1984(2)SCALE608; 1984Supp(1)SCC571; [1985]1SCR1003
D.A. Desai, J.1. The appellant was ill-advised in filing this appeal because the more the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant dived deep into a veritable dustbin of facts, the further hearing caused deep anguish more on account of the realisation as to how occasionally, and we are happy to record very occasionally, a member of the noble profession sinks to the lowest and to vindicate his actions tries to clutch at the highest.2. One M. Ram Mohan Rao, who was described as a senior of appellant M. Veerabhadra Rao has been a practising advocate at Hyderabad. Appellant M. Veerabhadra Rao was enrolled as an advocate in the year 1961 as stated in his evidence. He joined the chamber of his senior and at the relevant time he was working in the chamber of his senior. Shri M. Ram Mohan Rao was a tenant of the premises bearing Municipal No. 3242 situated at Rashtrapathi Road, Kingsway, Secunderabad of which respondent Tek Chand son of Lala Moti Ram was the owner. It is alleged that the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1984(2)SCALE628; 1984Supp(1)SCC708
ORDER1. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties in these writ petitions, we are of the opinion that the orders whereby the petitioners were dismissed from service are unsupportable. Accordingly, we set aside those orders and direct that the petitioners shall be reinstated in service on or before November 1, 1984, without a break in their service. They will be entitled to 50 per cent of back wages only, from the date of their dismissal until reinstatement, that is, until November 1, 1984, They will be entitled to full pay and admissible allowance with effect from November 1, 1984.2. Having regard to the nature of the allegations against the petitioners, no further enquiry shall be held nor any disciplinary action taken against them or any one or more of them, in regard to the incidents which resulted in their dismissal from service and which form the subject matter of these writ petitions.3. The petitioners will report for duty punctually on November 1, 1984 at the respec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC785; 1985LabIC677; 1985(1)SCALE229; 1984Supp(1)SCC650; [1985]1SCR992; 1985(17)LC525(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These writ petitions raise a common question of law relating to the liability of the State of Tamil Nadu for payment of family pension to widows of employees who were in the service of the former State of Madras and who retired from service before reorganisation of States under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. The facts giving rise to these writ petitions are almost identical and it will therefore be enough if we state the facts of only one writ petition, namely, Writ Petition No. 4309 of 1982.2. This writ petition came to be initiated as a result of a letter addressed to this Court by the petitioner complaining that though she was the widow of an employee of the former State of Madras, who retired before the reorganisation of the States under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, she was not being given the benefit of family pension which was granted by the State of Tamil Nadu under a Notification dated 26th May, 1979. The letter of the petitioner was treated as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC146; [1985]57CompCas1(SC); (1985)1CompLJ74(SC); (1984)43CTR(SC)164; [1984]150ITR539(SC); 1984(2)SCALE646; (1985)1SCC45; [1985]1SCR971; [1984]19TAXMAN11(SC); 1985(1
V. Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. Whether a company in liquidation is chargeable to super profits tax under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963- Act XIV of 1963 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is the short question arising for determination in this appeal. The answer thereto will depend upon whether during the period subsequent to the dale of winding up, any part of the funds in the hands of the official liquidator can be distinctly classified as representing paid-up share capital of the company as on the first day of the year of account relevant to assessment year and whether any portion of the fund can be similarly identified as forming as 'reserve'.2. The assessee is a banking company, namely, The Palai Central Bank Ltd., which went into liquidation on August 8, 1960. On that date the Official Liquidator took charge of the assets and liabilities of the company and a balance-sheet had been prepared as on the same date Thereafter, for every year, the liquidator used to prepare only an income and ...
Tag this Judgment!