Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1413; (1984)3SCC568; 1984(16)LC553(SC)
ORDER1. This appeal arises out of a proceeding for consolidation of holdings commenced under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 in respect of Khata No. 23 in village Rasulpur Mafi in District Moradabad in the State of U.P. The dispute is whether Smt. Hardai respondent No. 2 had inherited the share of her husband and, was entitled to retain it as a co-sharer, Mr. Sanwat, the present appellant filed an objection in consolidation proceedings urging that Smt. Hardai was not entitled to a share in the land because on the death of her husband Darya who was admittedly a (sic) she had contracted a kareva form at marriage with one Govinda. After a remand at one stage, it was ultimately held that the present appellant had failed to prove that after the death of Darya, the first respondent,. Smt Hardai had ever contracted Kareva form of marriage. This finding led to the upholding of the right claimed by Smt. Hardai that she had a share as co-sharer in Khata No. 23. The present appellant fil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1059; 1984(1)SCALE572; (1984)2SCC614; [1984]3SCR372; 1984(16)LC613(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. Whether a religious and/or charitable institution, situated in village Mahal Khurd, Tehsil Barnala of Sangrur District is a Sikh Gurdwara within the meaning of the expression in the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 ('Act' for short) is the subject matter of controversy between the parties in this appeal by special leave.2. About 56 persons residing in village Mahal Khurd and professing Sikh religion made an application to the Government of Punjab on December 23, 1960 requesting the Government to declare the institution more particularly described in the application as a Sikh Gurdwara. This application was published in the Official Gazette where upon Mahant Kirpa Ram, respondent No. 1 ('respondent' for short) filed objections under Section 8 of the Act contending that the institution was not a Sikh Gurd7wara and that he was entitled to raise that contention because he was the holder of hereditary office of mahant of the institution.3. The application was forwarded under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1227; [1984(49)FLR102]; 1984LabIC864; (1984)IILLJ105SC; 1984(1)SCALE596; 1984Supp(1)SCC87; [1984]3SCR361; 1984(1)SLJ657(SC); 1984(16)LC627(SC)
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. The principal question raised for our determination in these appeals is: Whether on its proper construction the certified Standing Order 17 provides for second opportunity being given to a workman after conclusion of the inquiry into his misconduct and before inflicting on him the punishment of dismissal and if so whether the enquiry gets vitiated by not affording him such opportunity2. Facts giving rise to the question may be stated. The Associated Cement Companies Limited (hereinafter called 'the Appellant') has quarries worked by its department called Kymore & Bamangaon Limestone Mines at Kymore, District Jabalpur, M.P. Workers employed in the said quarries have a union called Kymore Quarry Karamchari Sangh and the four concerned workmen Rama Shanker, Barmaprauhan, Emmanual and Mohd. Rauf (hereinafter called 'the Respondents') were at the material time the office bearers in the union.3. In connection with the implementation of the Recommendations of Second Cen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1984)2SCC719; [1984]3SCR350; 1984(16)LC1040(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This appeal is by a certificate granted on 18th September, 1970 by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution as it stood at the relevant time against the Judgment and decree of the High Court dated 16th April, 1970. By the said Judgment and decree, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh had reversed the Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Masulipatam dated 19th November, 1964 dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents against the appellant. Late Shri Raja Vasireddi Chandra Dhara Prashad was the husband of respondent No. 1 and father of the respondents No. 2 to 5 herein. The respondents filed a suit in the Subordinate Court of Sub-Judge being Original suit No. 2 of 1964 on 10th January, 1964. The short facts leading to this case are:2. One Late Raja Vasireddi Chandra Dhara Prasad (hereinafter referred to as a 'deceased') died intestate on 12th January, 1961. He had filled a proposal for insurance for Rs, 50,000 on 27th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1264a; 1984(16)LC599(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy J.1. We grant special leave and proceed to dispose of the appeal.2. M/S. Oswal Woollen Mills Limited having its registered office at Ludhiana in the State of Punjab and a branch office at Calcutta, and Narayan Das Jain, Secretary of the Company have filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court seeking various reliefs against the Union of India (through the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi), the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi, the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Amritsar, the Collector of Customs, Calcutta and the State Trading Corporation of India, New Delhi. The primary prayer in the writ petition is to prevent or to quash an apprehended or purported action under clause 8-B of the Import Control Order. All the other reliefs sought in the writ petition revolve round the principal relief regarding clause 8-B of the Import Control Order. The other prayers are either ancillary or incidental to the principal prayer or are...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1264; (1984)2CompLJ205(SC); 1985(4)ECC97; 1984(18)ELT284(SC); [1985]154ITR135(SC); 1984(1)SCALE568; (1984)2SCC646; [1984]3SCR342
ORDERO. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. We grant special leave and proceed to dispose of the appeal.2. M/s. Oswal Woollen Mills Limited, having its registered office at Ludhiana in the State of Punjab and a branch office at Calcutta, and Narayan Das Jain, Secretary of the Company have filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court seeking various reliefs against the Union of India (through the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi), the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports New Delhi, the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Amritsar, the Collector of Customs, Calcutta and the State Trading Corporation of India, New Delhi. The primary prayer in the writ petition is to prevent or to quash an apprehended or purported action under Clause 8-B of the Import Control Order. All the other reliefs sought in the writ petition revolve round the principal relief regarding Clause 8-B of the Import Control Order. The other prayers are either ancillary or incidental to the principal prayer ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1064; [1984(49)FLR1]; 1984LabIC790; (1984)IILLJ223SC; 1984(1)SCALE586; (1984)3SCC369; [1984]3SCR325; 1984(16)LC986(SC)
D.A. Deasi, J.1. Appellant, an employee of Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited ('Company' for short) has been chasing a mirage: to wit to recover a paltry sum of Rs. 14,040 being the amount of gratuity to which he was entitled for the continuous service rendered by him from December 31, 1929 till August 31, 1959 under what are styled as Retiring Gratuity Rules, 1937 ('Gratuity Rules' for short) from the Company and in this wholly unequal fight he laid down his life before enjoying the pittance to which he was entitled after three decades of loyal service. What a dreadful return for abject loyalty When the appellant retired by resignation from service he was paid his provident fund dues but gratuity which he was entitled to be paid under the relevant rules was not paid to him. When the appellant claimed payment of gratuity, the respondent turned deaf ears to it. Appellant served a notice dated September 6, 1981 calling upon the respondent to pay the amount of gratuity being Rs. 14040/-....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1376; 1984(1)SCALE578; (1984)2SCC582; [1984]3SCR315; 1984(16)LC1055(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. We would first take up Civil appeal No. 379 of 1980 which is directed against an Order dated March 28, 1979 passed by the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition of the appellant and arises in the following circumstances.2. The appellant owns a house bearing No. 113, Amroha Gate, Fruit Market, Moradabad, in a portion of which he had inducted respondent No. 3 (Vishwa Nath Kapoor) as a tenant while retaining some portion for himself, when he (appellant) was serving as a Judicial Officer in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In the year 1968, the appellant retired as a District Judge as a result of which he had to vacate his official residence, which necessitated the present eviction proceedings against respondent No. 3. The application for eviction was filed on 2.1.1973 under Section 21(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the '1972 Act') in which the appellant prayed that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1043; 1984(32)BLJR219; 1984(1)SCALE536; (1984)2SCC627; [1984]3SCR309; 1984(16)LC619(SC)
V. Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal by special leave concerns the true scope and application of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in a suit instituted in the Munsiffs Court, Bihar Sharif, seeking the reliefs of declaration of title and delivery of possession with manse profits in respect of the properties described in the plaint. The State of Bihar-the 1st respondent herein is the main defendant in the suit. Prior to the institution of the suit, the plaintiffs had issued a notice to the 1st Respondent-State-under Section 80 C.P.C. on 18.2.1969 and Exhibit 2 is a copy of the said notice. However, without waiting for the statutory period of two months, the plaintiffs instituted the suit on 2.4.1969. In the written statement filed on behalf of the State of Bihar, it was contended, inter alia, that the suit was not maintainable for want of proper notice under Section 80 C.P.C. This conte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1002; (1984)IILLJ25SC; 1984Supp(1)SCC216; 1984(16)LC555(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. The appeals are by special leave and are directed against the decision of the Orissa High Court in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Special Leave Petition seeks to challenge the same decision of the High Court. Appellants before us are teachers in the employment of the State of Orissa, while the petitioners of the special leave petition though belonging to the cadre of teachers have been serving as Sub-Inspectors of Schools also under the same State Government.2. For the first time a set of rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution were framed by the Governor of Orissa known as the Orissa Education Service Class II (Recruitment to the School Branch) Rules, 1971 and were brought into force with effect from August 16, 1971. The service as defined in Rule 3(e) covers the posts of District Inspectors of Schools, Gazetted Head Masters and Head Mistresses of Schools and Secondary Training Schools and Assistant Director of Public...
Tag this Judgment!