Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1984CriLJ830; (1984)3SCC82; [1984]3SCR544; 1984(16)LC1021(SC)
D.A. Desai, J. 1.On Nov. 24, 1983, the Court by its Judgment and order directed that a writ of habeas corpus be issued. The operative portion of the order reads as under:Accordingly, this petition is allowed and we direct that a writ of habeas corpus be issued to the respondents 1, 2 and 4 commanding them to produce C. Daniel, retired Naik Subedar of Manipur Rifles and Headmaster of the Junior High School of Ruining Village and C. Paul, Assistant Pastor of Huining Baptist Church, who were taken to Hungrier Camp by the jawans of 21st Sikh Regiment on March 10, 1982 before this Court on Dec. 12, 1983 and file the return. 2. The Registry issued the writ and served the same upon first respondent-Union of India, second respondent-Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and 4th respondent-Commandant, 21st Sikh Regiment, Phungrei Camp. Pursuant to the writ, it was obligatory upon respondents 1, 2 and 4 to file the return and to produce C. Daniel and C.Paul. A return on affidavit by one Ajai Vikra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1346; [1985]57CompCas493(SC); (1984)3CompLJ163(SC); 1984LabIC905; 1984(1)SCALE699; 1984Supp(1)SCC118; [1984]3SCR530; 1984(16)LC1047(SC)
Amarendra Nath Sen, J.1. Whether the order of the Central Government taking over the management of the Sugar Mill of the Appellant under Rule 125A of the Defence of India Rules and appointing an authorised Controller of the said Mill there under is valid, is the principal question which falls for determination in this appeal by certificate.2. The main contention of Mr. S.T. Deasi, learned Counsel for the appellant, is that on a proper construction of Rule 125A of the Defence of India Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) the Order taking over the management of the Sugar Mill under this rule is invalid, as on the date of the Order the Sugar Mill was closed and the appellant had no intention of re-opening the same. It has not been disputed that if the Order of the take over of the management is held to be valid the appellant will not be entitled to any relief and the appeal must fail.3. We may observe that the question whether the Mill was closed or not on the date the Order takin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(1984)ACC388; AIR1984SC1244; 1984(1)SCALE709; (1984)3SCC583; [1984]3SCR522; 1984(16)LC1031(SC)
D.A Desai, J.1. The intrepid albeit affluent transport operators again succeeded in their none-too-legal designs to operate vehicles not by obtaining statutory permits but to put it mildly by abuse of the court's process.2. By a judgment rendered by this Court in S. Kannan and Ors. v. Secretary, Karnataka State Road Transport Authority etc. : [1983]3SCR740 on August 29, 1983, this Court held that grant of a temporary all-India tourist permit is foreign to the very concept of all-India tourist permit as envisaged by Sub-section (7) of Section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and accordingly an unusually large number of temporary all-India tourist permits obtained pursuant to the interim relief granted by this Court were set at naught. Some of the present petitioners were directly parties to the petitions disposed of by that judgment. Indefatigueable as they are, they again approached this Court by a camouflage of challenging the validity of quota of fifty such permits fixed by the Cen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1240; [1984(49)FLR195]; 1984LabIC896; 1984(1)SCALE666; (1984)3SCC549; 1984(2)SLJ463(SC); 1984(16)LC711(SC)
1. CM.P. No. 3068 of 1984 is by the first respondent in Writ Petition No. 1194 of 1979 (Municipal Corporation of Delhi) for a direction that having regard to changed circumstance the Corporation need not fill in the gaps in the seniority list of 1978-79 relating to Assistant Engineers by direct recruitment. C.M.P. No. 3069 of 1984 is by the petitioners in the same writ petition for taking proceedings against respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition for contempt of this Court's order dated 13.7.1983 made in the writ petition and for directing those two respondents to forthwith implement that order and fill up the available 32 posts of Assistant Engineers from amongst the petitioners 'who were qualified and eligible according to the recruitment rules' and to restrain those respondents from filling up the post in the direct recruitment quota from amongst diploma holders on current duty charge or on ad hoc basis or in any other manner.2. By our order dated 13.7.1983 we allowed prayers Nos....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1249; 1985(4)ECC201; 1985LC514(SC); 1984(18)ELT185(SC); (1984)3SCC65; [1984]3SCR461; 1984(16)LC1072(SC)
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. By these writ petitions, the petitioners who ere licensed dealers, are challenging the constitutional validity of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and in particular the provisions contained in Sections 2(p), 16, 27 (as amended), 44, 48, 52, 79 and 100 (as amended) and the Gold Control (Forms, Fees and Miscellaneous Matters) Rules, 1968 (as amended in 1975/1976) and the Gold Control (Identification of Customers) Rules, 1969 as being violative of their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) and are seeking suitable directions restraining the respondents from giving effect to any of those provisions, Some of the petitioners (including the petitioner in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 538 of 1973) are challenging the Government of India's Letter of Instructions and the Trade Notices withdrawing the facility of permitting licensed dealers to send ornaments for sale through their traveling salesmen as being violative of the constitutional guarantee under Article 301 as also ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1352; [1984(49)FLR247]; 1984(1)SCALE720; (1984)3SCC524; 1984(16)LC705(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. Appellant Shri Karnail Singh joined on March 23, 1955 Indian Air Force as Clerk-cum-Pay Accountant in Group III. He was promoted to the rank of Corporal. Air Field Safety Operators (AFSO for short) constitute a technical branch in Group II in the Indian Air Force. The post in this branch carry better pay scales and swifter promotions compared to post in Group III. The appellant applied for and obtained enrolment in Air Field Safety Operators branch in the year 1961. This movement by change of trade is styled as remustering in the technical parlance of the Air Force. The appellant was thus remustered on July 1, 1961. The appellant alleged that in the matter of seniority, he was entitled to get credit for the service rendered by him prior to his remustering in Group II and if his seniority is thus correctly reckoned he has become eligible for promotion to the rank of Flight Sergeant, a cadre now redesignated as Junior Warrant Officer long before many persons junior to hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1121; 1984(1)SCALE783; 1984Supp(1)SCC175; [1984]3SCR484; 1984(16)LC996(SC)
A.P. Sen, J.1. This appeal on certificate is directed against a judgment and decree of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated May 2, 1969 substantially reversing the judgment and decree passed by the third Additional District Judge, Indore dated June 18/19, 1962 and dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for partition and separate possession of their half share of the suit properties detailed in Schedule 'A' appended to the plaint except with respect to a house and the agricultural lands at Ujjain. During the course of the hearing the parties have come to a settlement and the terms of the compromise have been recorded. Nevertheless, the correctness of the judgment delivered by the High Court is open to serious doubt and as it involves a question of general importance, we proceed to record our views.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows. The report of the Inam Commissioner discloses that in 1837 the late Maharaja Harihar Rao Holkar made a grant of an inam of a garden known as Ram ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1151; 1984(1)SCALE632; (1984)3SCC301; [1984]3SCR502; 1984(16)LC1061(SC)
Amarendra Nath Sen, J.1. The question for consideration in Civil Appeal No. 3116 of 1983 by certificate granted by the High Court is, whether the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity) is constitutionally valid or not.2. The writ petition out of which this appeal arises was filed in the High Court along with a number of other writ petitions filed by various other parties challenging the validity of the Act. The High Court for reasons recorded in the judgment upheld the validity of the Act and dismissed this writ petition and also the other writ petitions. The High Court granted certificate under Articles 132 and 133 of the Constitution and this appeal has been filed with the certificate granted by the High Court. As the identical question is involved in all these appeals and special leave petitions, this judgment will also dispose of all the appeals and special lea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1239; 1984CriLJ995; 1984(1)SCALE642; 1984(16)LC1030(SC)
ORDER1. Rule Nisi.2. We heard Mr. T.S. Arora, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned Counsel For the State, of Jammu & Kashmir.3. The petitioner was under 20 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence. He was convicted for committing murder and was awarded capital punishment by the learned Sessions Judge. In appeal the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir.4. The petitioner is in jail uninterruptedly from the date of his arrest i.e. June 24, 1974. Today, he has not completed 10 years of actual sentence. But Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned Counsel pointed out that with remission he has completed 10 years of sentence.5. Rule 516-B(b) of the Punjab Jail Manual in its application to the State of Jammu & Kashmir provides that the case of a male prisoner under 20 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence who is undergoing:(iv) a single sentence of more than 20 years shall be submitted through the Inspe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1221; [1984(49)FLR159]; 1984LabIC860; 1984(1)SCALE663; (1984)3SCC1; [1984]3SCR429; 1984(16)LC596(SC)
ORDERE.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The Delhi Veterinary Association is the petitioner in the above case. It is an association of veterinary doctors who are residing in the Union Territory of Delhi. By this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner is seeking relief in respect of Veterinary Assistant Surgeons working in the office of the Development Commissioner, Delhi Administration, Delhi, who are its members. It is alleged that these Veterinary Assistant Surgeons have been denied the benefit of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' incorporated in Article 39(d) of the Constitution and that there has been violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and -Article 15 of the Constitution because their scale of salary is lower than the. pay scale of Veterinary Assistant Surgeons employed by the Union Territory of Chandigarh or by the Central Government in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (I.T.B.P.) and in the Border Security Force (B.S.F) It is also...
Tag this Judgment!