Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1988Supp(1)SCC498; [1984]3SCR643; 1984(16)LC661(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. In SLP (C) Nos. 5392/84 & 5412/84.2. We have heard learned Attorney General for the petitioners and Mr. Palkhivala, learned Counsel for respondents at length.3. Special leave granted. There will be an Order vacating the Order of stay/injunction passed by the Single Judge of the High Court, prohibiting any action being taken on the basis of the requisition put in by L.I.C. We direct that all appropriate proceedings will be taken in accordance with law on the basis of the requisition. However, no effect should be given to any resolution the company may pass at the extra-ordinary general meeting to be held in consequence of the requisition without obtaining prior directions from this Court. The pendency of these cases in this Court will not stand in the way of holding the annual general meeting of the company in the normal course. These appeals are disposed of except that they will be kept pending for the limited purpose to enable counsel to move this Court for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1984(1)SCALE848; (1984)3SCC447; 1984(16)LC679(SC)
Amarendra Nath Sen, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff in the suit with leave granted by this Court against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad delivered on 23.9.1969 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff by affirming the judgment and the decree of the Lower Appellate Court which had reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.2. The facts material for the purposes of this appeal may be set out. One Bonala Thimma Reddi of village Chinna Kudala in Palivendala Taluk in the Distt. of Cuddapah had two wives, Bonala Naramma was the senior wife and by this wife Bonala Thimma Reddy had a son Bonala Yella Reddy and a daughter Nagamma. This daughter Nagamma had a daughter Venkata Lakshamamma. By the junior wife Bonala Thimma Reddy had no child. After Thimma Reddy had married for the second time, the first wife Naramrna had apprehended that she might be neglected and she had expressed her unhappiness and apprehens...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1029; 1984CriLJ832; 1984(1)SCALE650; (1984)3SCC90; [1984]3SCR640; 1984(16)LC718(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. We are very unhappy about the judgment of the High Court. Both the respondents were convicted by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge of Kurukshetra Under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. On appeal, for very strange reasons, the High Court acquitted the first respondent and converted the conviction of the second respondent to one under Section 304A I. P. C. and reduced the sentence to two years' rigorous imprisonment. What the High Court said speaks for itself. This is what the High Court said:However, we are told by the learned Counsel for the parties that they being closely related some members of the village have intervened and have brought about some sort of arrangement under which Ram Kumar appellant has already made a gift of three acres of land in favour of Smt. Maya Devi widow of Chander Shekhar as compensation on account of the loss of life of her husband. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1858; [1984(49)FLR173]; (1984)IILLJ362SC; 1984(1)SCALE651; (1984)3SCC281; [1984]3SCR623; 1984(2)SLJ54(SC); 1984(16)LC667(SC)
R.B. Misra, J.1. The present writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution and the civil appeals by special leave arising out of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution raise common questions of law and are, therefore, being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The pattern of facts in the present group of cases is the same and therefore, it is not necessary to give the facts of each case separately. In order to bring out the points for consideration in these cases we would like to give the facts of writ petition No. 6436 of 1980.3. In 1952 an emergency was imposed by the Government of India on account of the external aggression by the Chinese forces on the Indian territory. The Government was in great need of youngmen to join the military service at the risk of their lives to serve the nation to cope with the emergency needs of the Government of India, The Government of India as well as the State Governments decided to give certain benefits to encourage the young energetic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1471; 1984(1)SCALE997; (1984)3SCC410; [1984]3SCR582
Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court discloses an unfortunate litigation which proves the well-known legal maxim 'delay defeats justice' and arises out of a Will executed by the testator which was hotly contested by various rival claimants resulting in an action which went on merrily and sprightly for almost three decades as a result of which in the back-waters of the long-drawn litigation most of the claimants died and their successors were interested not in the property but in the money which the property would bring, if sold.2. As a result of internecine dispute between t he heirs, an Official Receiver had to be appointed to look after the property and the final end of the drama seems to have begun when the Receiver, on the request of the parties, decided to sell the property with the permission of the court by a private treaty least the litigation might draw the last drop of the blood of the property rights of the heirs. Meanw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1178; 1984(1)SCALE644; 1984Supp(1)SCC96; [1984]3SCR572; 1984(16)LC692(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. A hangover of the hey day of Article 31 permeates the controversy in these two appeals. The attempt is to salvage something from the debris of repealed Article 31 by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978.2. In Re Civil Appeal No. 922/77 : Ramnath, the appellant, who is now dead took on lease a plot of land bearing No. 64 Block L. Daryaganj, Delhi admeasuring 590 sq. yards from Delhi Improvement Trust under Exh. A-4 dated February 10, 1942. The period reserved under lease was 90 years. The appellant paid Rs. 10,253 as initial premium and had to pay recurring half-yearly rent in the amount of Rs. 102-8-6 under the agreed terms and conditions of the lease: On payment of Rs. 10,253, the initial payment, the appellant was put in possession.3. In Re Civil Appeal No. 923/71 : Appellant R.S. Ram Pershad since deceased took on lease two plots of land bearing No. 66-67 in Block L, Daryaganj, Delhi from the Delhi Improvement Trust. The appellant executed a registere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1406; 1984Supp(1)SCC104; [1984]3SCR554; 1984(16)LC955(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.1. We had passed an interim order on April 18, suspending the operation of the order passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, on April 17,1984. The High Court, by its aforesaid order, had stayed the issuance and publication of the notifications by the Election Commission of India under Sections 30, 56 and 150 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. We had directed that the special leave petition should be listed before us the next day for considering whether the interim order should be confirmed.2. On February 28, 1984, this. Court gave a judgment in Civil. Appeal No. 5501 of 1983, setting aside the election of the returned candidate from the 59-Taoru Assembly Constituency in Haryana. As a result of that judgment, a vacancy arose in the Legislative Assembly of the State of Haryana from that Constituency. On April 6,1984, the Election Commission of India sent a message to the Chief Secretary, Haryana, who is the Chief Electoral Officer for the State of Hary...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1984(1)SCALE680; (1984)3SCC538
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This is one of those cases by way of public interest litigation where positive results have been achieved for the benefit of the workmen employed on the Salal Hydro Electric Project as a result of judicial intervention. It is not necessary to set out the history of this litigation because the facts giving rise to this litigation have been set out in detail in the interim judgment delivered by us on 2nd March 1983. Suffice it to state that this litigation was started on the basis of a letter addressed by the People's Union for Democratic Rights to Mr. Justice D.A. Desai enclosing a copy of the news item which appeared in the issue of Indian Express dated 26th August 1982 pointing out that a large number of workmen working on the Salal Hydro Electric Project were denied the benefit of various labour laws and were subjected to exploitation by the contractors to whom different portions of the work were entrusted by the Central Government. The letter was treated as a wri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1247; 1984(32)BLJR390; [1984(49)FLR354]; 1984LabIC955; 1984(1)SCALE649; (1984)3SCC125; [1984]3SCR552; 1984(2)SLJ66(SC); 1984(16)LC817(SC)
ORDERO. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. In view of our decision in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India : [1984]3SCR550 and for the reasons mentioned by the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 3281 of 1979 dated 2.3.1983 in the case of Bidhubhushan Malik and Ors. v. Union of India, which we have accepted as correct in Special Leave Petition No. 9616 of 1983 just now dismissed by us we allow the writ petitions. The Judges of the High Court and of the Supreme Court will be entitled to the pensionary benefits under the amended Act of 1976 irrespective of the dates of their retirement. They will be so entitled with effect from 1.10.1974. Arrears of pension calculated under the provisions of the new Act will be paid to those to whom it is due within four months from today. In the case of Judges who have died after 1.10.1974 the amounts due will be paid to the legal heirs of the Judges within four months from today. The family pension due to the widows will be calculated under the provisions of the 197...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1177; 1984(1)SCALE643; (1984)3SCC95; [1984]3SCR550; 1984(16)LC816(SC)
ORDERO. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The Allahabad High Court has held:.The High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, (as amended) shall be read down as under, in para 10 of the First Schedule, the words 'and who has retired on or after the 1st day of October, 1974' are unconstitutional and are struck down. Omitting the unconstitutional part it is declared that the Judges (including the Chief Justices) of the High Court are entitled to pension as computed under the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, (as amended) irrespective of the date of retirement. The date October 1, 1974, continues to be relevant as being one from which the liberalised pension became operative under the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Act, 1976, irrespective of the date of retirement and hence there is no question of payment of arrears of pension for the period preceding October 1, 1974....2. For the reasons mentioned by the learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court in ...
Tag this Judgment!