Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(1985)ACC583; AIR1985SC606; (1985)1SCC431; 1985(17)LC551(SC)
ORDER1. The only ground on which the High Court has dismissed the writ petition is that it has abated as a whole against Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 since it abated against Respondent No. 5 on account of the legal representatives of Respondent No. 5 not having been brought on record within a period of 90 days after the death of respondent No. 5 which occurred on 21-11-1976. It is true that no steps were taken by the appellants for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 5 on record for about 6 years even though according to respondent No. 4 the appellants knew about the death of respondent No. 5. But merely because no application was made by the appellants for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 5 on record we do not think that in the circumstances of the present case that would be a valid ground for refusing to grant the application of the appellants for setting aside the abatement and bringing the legal representatives of the decea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC404; 1986CriLJ831; (1985)87PLR103; 1984(2)SCALE996; (1985)1SCC422
A.P. Sen, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated May 9, 1984 upholding with certain modifications the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala dated April 24, 1984 directing that the two sessions trials be consolidated and clubbed together, and the evidence recorded in one case be read as evidence in the other.2. The short point involved in this appeal is whether under Section 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 it is permissible for the Court to club and consolidate the case on a police challan and the case on a complaint where the prosecution versions in the police challan case and the complaint case are materially different, contradictory and mutually exclusive. The question is whether the Court should in the facts and circumstances of the case direct that the two cases should be tried together but not consolidated i.e. the evidence be recorded separately in both cases and they may be disposed of sim...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC311; [1985(50)FLR186]; (1985)ILLJ314SC; 1984(2)SCALE1000; 1984Supp(1)SCC663; [1985]2SCR492
D.A. Desai, J.1. Two unions of workmen employed in the first respondent Company M/s. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. ('employer for short) are at loggerheads and their inter se rivalry has thus landed in this Court. Appellant Balmer Lawrie Workers' Union {'non-recognised Union' for short) filed Writ Petition No. 1518 of 1984 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging the constitutional validity of Section 20(2) read with Schedule I of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ('1971 Act' for short). To this petition, they impleaded the employer company and the Balmer Lawrie Employees' Union ('Recognised Union' for short).2. Few facts giving rise to the writ petition may be stated. A settlement was arrived at between the employer and the recognised union resolving a number of industrial disputes pending between them. Clause 17 of the Settlement reads as under :17. Arrears will be paid within two months from the date of signing of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC323; 1985(33)BLJR70; (1985)87BOMLR120; (1985)1CompLJ330(SC); [1985(50)FLR123]; (1985)ILLJ238SC; 1984(2)SCALE967; 1984Supp(1)SCC610; [1985]2SCR516; 1985(17)LC516(SC
E.S. Venkararamiah, J.1. This appeal by Special Leave involves the question whether the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Act XIX of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) were applicable on the date of the suit out of which this appeal arises to the factory which was purchased by the appellant in the year 1955 in certain liquidation proceedings.2. Prior to December, 1954 a company called' Hirji Mills Ltd' was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of textile goods in its factory situated at, Fergusson Road, Lower Parel, Bombay. That company was ordered to be wound up by the High Court of Bombay and its assets were ordered to be sold by the Official Liquidator. At the sale held by the Official Liquidator, the appellant which was a Public Limited Company, purchased the above said factory. It is stated that the workmen had been discharged earlier and the goodwill of the company in liquidation had not been acquired by the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC383; 1986CriLJ834; (1985)1SCC342; [1985]2SCR488
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. In these appeals by special leave four persons, namely Mohinder Singh. Gurcharan Singh. Bharpur Singh and Jagvinder Singh were tried by the Sessions Judge for offences under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC and also under S, 27 of the Arms Act. After recording the entire evidence the trial court convicted Mohinder Singh under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced him to 7 years rigorous imprisonment. The other three accused were acquitted by the Sessions Judge. Mohinder Singh filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana against his conviction and sentence. The State Government also filed an appeal against 'Gurcharan Singh, Bharpur Singh and Jagvinder Singh so far as their acquittal was concerned and against Mohinder Singh so far as his acquittal under Section 302 IPC was concerned. The High Court without-making any real attempt to analyse and appreciate the evidence led in support of the prosecution came to a general conclusion that the judgment o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC364; 1985LabIC672; (1985)ILLJ514SC; 1984(2)SCALE991; 1984Supp(1)SCC540; [1985]2SCR479; 1985(1)SLJ90(SC); 1985(17)LC411(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. Guru Nanak Khalsa High School ('School1 for short) an aided school and hence governed by The Punjab Aided Schools (Security of Service) Act 1969 ('1969 Act' for short) in its application to the Union Territory of Chandigarh dispensed with the service of the Headmaster of the School, appellant Shri Manmohan Singh Jaitla, and the drawing teacher Amir Singh claiming to exercise power under an agreement executed by each of them with the management of the school Admittedly, the school receives 95% of its expenses as grant from the Government and for contributing 5% of the expenses claims thoroughly arbitrary powers to be presently pointed out which appears to be anachronistic The action of the Managing Committee of the school in dispensing with the services of both the aforementioned persons is questioned in these two matters on more of less identical grounds and therefore they were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.In Re: CA. No. 2137/84 :2. Pursuan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC356; 1985(33)BLJR83; 1985LabIC664; (1985)ILLJ530SC; 1984(2)SCALE959; (1985)1SCC429; [1985]2SCR476; 1985(1)SLJ106(SC); 1985(17)LC764(SC)
ORDER1. Pension and gratuity are no longer an bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become, under the decisions of this Court valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment2. Usually the delay occurs by reason of non-production of the LP.C. (Last Pay Certificate) and the N.LC, (No Liability Certificate) from the concerned Departments but both these documents pertain to matters, records whereof would be with the concerned Government Departments, Since the date of retirement of every Government servant is very much known in advance we fail to appreciate why the process of collecting the requisite information and issuance of these two documents should not be completed at least a week before the date of retirement so that the payment of gratuity amount could be made to the Governm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC472; 1984(2)SCALE1014; (1985)1SCC427
ORDER1. Special Leave granted.2. Challenge in this application is to the order of the Allahabad High Court refusing to interfere in its revisional jurisdiction against an order directing initiation of proceedings under Section 145, CrPC (Code for short), and attachment of the property at the instance of respondents 2-5. Indisputably, in respect of the very properly there was a suit for possession and injunction being Title Suit No. 87/75 filed in the Court of the Civil Judge at Ballia wherein the question of title was gone into and by judgment dated February 28, 1981, the said suit was dismissed. The appellant was the defendant in that suit. According to the appellant close relations of respondents 2-5 were the plaintiffs and we gather from the counter affidavit filed in this Court that on appeal has been carried from the decree of the Civil Judge and the same is still pending disposal before the appellate court. The assertion made in the Petition for Special Leave to the effect that r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1986]160ITR969(SC)
Direct Taxation - abuse of process of law - Section 132 (3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 - appeal against release of stock under interim Order of High Court - High Court in writ petition granted relief from operation of prohibitory order of Income Tax Authorities - respondent took benefit of interim Order and disposed stock withheld under prohibitory order - respondent directed to deposit sales proceeds of stock with appellant during pendency of proceedings.Order1. (1984, December 17): This is one of those rare cases where we find that the process of law has been completely abused for the purpose of gaining undeserved advantage. Three prohibitory orders under Section 132(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were issued to the first respondent with respect to goods in the following three godowns :(a) No. 1, Krishnan Koil Street, Madras-600 001, (b) No. 143, Mannarswamy Koil Street, Royapuram, (c) Old No. 9/143, Mount Road, Guindy, Madras,by the income-tax authorities. The first respondent thereup...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC251; 1985(33)BLJR76; [1985(50)FLR147]; 1985LabIC534; (1985)ILLJ267SC; 1984(2)SCALE927; 1984Supp(1)SCC554; [1985]2SCR428; 1985(1)SLJ109(SC); 1985(17)LC281(SC)
ORDERHaving considered the matter fully, I am satisfied that it is no longer expedient to employ Shri Manas Mukherjee, Assistant, Order Department, Durgapur Steel Plant any further.It is therefore ordered that Shri Manas Mukherjee be removed from the service of the Company with effect from 24-8-1970.He is allowed three months' salary which he may collect from- the cash section of the Finance Department by 26-8-1970.Sd/-Maj. Gen.Director InchargeThe expression 'no longer expedient' as used in the order clearly spells out the fact that some enquiry was started. .What prompted the General Manager to close the enquiry, one cannot gather from the order. But our attention was invited to Ann. R-2 which according to the respondents specifies the reasons recorded in writing for dispensing with the enquiry. Briefly, in Ann. R-2, it is stated that the authority concerned has looked into the secret report sent to him by Shri P. S. Rao Naidu, Planning & Progress Officer, Order Deptt. and the commen...
Tag this Judgment!