Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC330; 1985(4)ECC103; 1985LC4(SC); 1985(19)ELT22(SC); [1985]154ITR172(SC); 1984(2)SCALE819; (1985)1SCC260; [1985]2SCR190; 1985(17)LC368(SC)
Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. It is indeed a great, pity and we wish we did not have to say it but we are afraid we will be signally failing in our duty if we do not do so some courts, of late, appear to have developed an unwarranted tendency to grant interim orders with a great potential for public mischief for the mere asking We feel greatly disturbed We find it more distressing that such interim orders, often ex pane and non-speaking, are made oven by the High Courts while entertaining writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, and in the Calcutta High Court, on oral application too. Recently in Samaries Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd v. S. Samuel Civil Appeal No. 4416 of 1984 reported in : [1985]2SCR24 , we had occasion to condemn and prohibit this practice of entertaining oral applications under Article 226 and passing interim orders thereon In several other cases, Siliguri Municipality v. Amelendu Das : [1984]146ITR624(SC) , Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd v. State of Orissa : [1983]142ITR...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC236; 1984(2)SCALE834; (1985)1SCC370; [1985]2SCR159
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The appellant and the respondents contested the election to Punjab Legislative Assembly held in May, 1980 from Muktsar Constituency. Polling was held on 31st May, 1980 and the result was dec la red on 1st June, 1980 in which the appellant secured 29,600 votes and respondent No. 3 secured 30,003 voles; The other candidates got only nominal votes. There was thus a difference of 403 votes in favour of the respondent No. 3, Respondent No. 3 was declared elected. The election of respondent No. 3 was challenged by an election petition alleging that the respondent No. 3 had indulged in corrupt practice in the said election and as such his election was liable to be set aside and he was liable to be disqualified for corrupt practice. Corrupt practice makes the election liable to be set aside under Section 100(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereinafter called the Act which is as follows :100. Grounds for declaring election to be void:(1) Subject to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC275; [1985(50)FLR132]; 1985LabIC541; (1985)ILLJ337SC; 1984(2)SCALE826; (1985)1SCC130; [1985]2SCR152; 1985(17)LC297(SC)
Chandrachud, C.J.1. The appellants, 22 in number, who hold a three-year Diploma in Electrical Engineering Course from the State Board of Technical Education, Punjab, were appointed as apprentices in August 1981. The Principal, Technical Training Institute, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, who is respondent 3 herein, issued the requisite certificates to the petitioners on successful completion by them of one year's apprenticeship. After obtaining those certificates, the appellants registered their names with the Employment Exchanges in Punjab. The Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation, Department of Labour (D.G.E.T.), Government of India, New Delhi, issued instructions to various offices including the Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, respondent 1 herein, asking that necessary action should be taken to ensure that the trained apprentices are absorbed in industries up to a minimum of 50 per cent of direct recruitment vacancies. These instructions were notified on March 23,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC386; 1985CriLJ660; (1985)2GLR855; 1984(2)SCALE810; (1985)1SCC200
D.A. Desai, J.1. One Jaman Malde had his hair-cutting saloon in village Kalyanpur in Jamnagar District. As usual he in company of his son, P.W. 15 Popat Jaman and his sister's son P.W. 16, Arvind Jhina were serving the customers on August 11, 1973. Around 3.55 P.M. on that day 6 persons entered his shop. Amongst them were 5 accused who were put up for trial and the Sixth person was subsequently suggested to be Lakhamshi Natha who is absconding. Accused No. 3 Mer Dhana Sida was armed with a gun and the remaining 4 accused namely, accused 1 Mer Ram Sida, accused 2 Mer Arjan Sida, accused 4 Mer Kana Giga and accused 5 Mer Kcshav Giga were armed with sticks. On entering the shop the four accused armed with sticks started inflicting blows on Jaman Malde, Popat Jaman and Arvind Jhina. At about that time one Ramshi Ram had come to the shop for his shave. He intervened and attempted to persuade the accused not to beat Jaman and others. Accused No. 3 fired his gun at Ramshi Ram and caused injur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC119; (1985)87BOMLR49; 1984(2)SCALE793; (1985)1SCC234; [1985]2SCR129; 1985(17)LC432(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.1. These appeals by the State of Maharashtra arise out of a judgment dated February 8, 1980 of the High Court of Bombay in a group of writ petitions which were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. By those writ petitions, the petitioners, who are respondents herein, challenge the validity of the Maharashtra Vacant Lands (Prohibition of Unauthorised Occupation and Summary Eviction) Act, LXVI ofii975 and the legality of certain orders passed thereunder. We will refer to the aforesaid Act as 'the Act'. The Act replaced an ordinance, bearing a similar title, which was 'promulgated by the Governor of Maharashtra on November 11, 1975. The Act was amended twice, first by Act No. XXXVII of 1976 and then by Act No. VII of 1977. We will refer to these two Acts as 'the First Amendment Act' and 'the Second Amendment Act.2. Several writ petitions were filed in the Bombay High Court to challenge the validity of the Act and the orders passed under it; the facts being bro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC308; [1985(50)FLR102]; 1985LabIC1230; (1985)IILLJ1SC; 1984(2)SCALE790; (1985)1SCC225; [1985]2SCR112; 1985(17)LC29(SC)
Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The petitioners in the several writ petitions now before us as well as the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 528 of 1982 and the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 6346-6351 of 1980 which we dismissed on 11th October, 1984 were members of the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services in 1980 when all of them, in response to an advertisement by the High Court of Allahabad, applied to be appointed by direct recruitment to the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service. They claimed that each of them had completed 7 years of practice at the bar even before their appointment to the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service and were, therefore, eligible to be appointed by direct recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service. As there was a question about the eligibility of members of the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service to appointment by direct recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service, some of them filed writ petitions in the Allahabad High Court. The said petitions were dismissed and it was held that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC278; (1985)ILLJ69SC; 1984(2)SCALE815; (1985)1SCC218; [1985]2SCR119
Ranganath Mishra, J.1. The short point which arises for determination in this appeal by special leave is as to whether a partner of a firm is an 'employee' within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). Respondent Ramanuja Match industries which is a firm engaged in manufacturing of matches within the Trichur area of Kerala State and the question as to whether it is covered under the provisions of the Act fell for consideration. The Inspector found that there were 18 regular employees and three of the partners who worked regularly for wages were to be put together. Thus the number of 20 employees as required by the Act was satisfied and the respondent did incur liability for contribution. The respondent challenged its liability before the Employees Insurance Court at Calcutta by contending that partners were not employees and when the three partners were excluded, the total number of employees did not exceed the statutory m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC207; 1984(2)SCALE829; (1985)1SCC251; [1985]2SCR102; 1985(17)LC1(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.1. The respondent-landlord filed 7 petitions for ejectment against 7 different tenants. Four out of these occupied shop premises on the ground floor and the other 3 occupied residential premises on the first floor of a building situated at Door No. 14, Pursua walkam High Road, Madras. The appellant is one of the four tenants of a shop on the ground floor.2. The case of the respondent is that he is. running a wholesale business in textiles on the first floor of a building at 93. Godown Street. Madras; that it is inconvenient and uneconomical for him to carry on his business there; that he was incurring heavy losses in his wholesale business by reason, of conditions peculiar to me location of his business and that, therefore, he wanted to wind up the wholesale business and start a retail business in the building which was in the occupation of his tenants.3. The learned trial Judge decreed all the petitions and passed orders of eviction against every one of the 7 ten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC498; 1984(2)SCALE809; (1985)1SCC310; 1985(17)LC377(SC)
ORDER1. In these Appeals the only question raised by Counsel for the appellants before us has been whether the notices served upon the respondents under Section 38H(2) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as amended by the U.P. Amendment Act, 1960 (which introduced the entire new Chapter V-A comprising Sections 38A to 38M in the Act) proposing to take over the management of the forest standing on the plots mentioned in the notices are valid or not. The High Court has taken the view that these notices are invalid on the ground that the respondents could not be regarded as claimants or owners or tenure-holders of the forest land in question.2. It appears that long prior to the issuance of the notices under Section 38H, attempts were made by the Forest Department to declare the lands in question as forming part of the 'reserved forests' but that attempt was successfully thwarted by the respondents on the ground that the lands in question did not belong to them but that they were owners only of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1984(2)SCALE788; (1985)1SCC162; [1985]2SCR70; 1985(17)LC44(SC)
ORDER1. The appellant had filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad challenging the continuance in office of Shri Charan Singh as the Prime Minister and Shri S.N. Kacker as Minister of Law, Justice and Company Affairs. Stated briefly, the contention of the appellant is that Shri Charan Singh failed to seek the mandate of the Lok Sabha within three weeks after assuming the office of the Prime- Minister as directed by the President of India, that instead of 'facing the House' he submitted the resignation of his Government on August 20, 1979 and that his continuation in office therefore as a caretaker Prime Minister without taking a fresh oath of office was unconstitutional. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by a judgment dated December 10, 1979 but it has granted a Certificate of fitness to the appellant to file this appeal.2. It is a well-known fact of history that the Government of Shri Charan Singh was in office for a very brief spell. It fell soon after it ...
Tag this Judgment!