Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1291; 1984LabIC1176; (1984)IILLJ282SC; 1984(1)SCALE949; (1984)4SCC545; [1984]3SCR847; 1984(2)SLJ197(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This writ petition marks yet another round of litigation between two groups of Executive Engineers in Central Public Works Department of the Ministry of Works and Housing, Government of India, one group consisting of promotes from the grade of Assistant Executive Engineers and the other consisting of promotees from the grade of Assistant Engineers. The dispute between these two groups in regard to seniority has been going on for quite some time and it has created considerable discord and bitterness between these two groups which must inevitably affect the efficiency of the Service. It is really a matter of regret that the Central Government should not have been able to bring these two groups together and evolve a commonly agreed formula acceptable to both sides. We hope that our decision in this writ petition will finally ring the curtain down on this unfortunate controversy and both groups of Executive Engineers will accept the decision ungrudgingly without any ran...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1444; 1984(1)SCALE856; (1984)3SCC612; [1984]3SCR815; 1984(16)LC768(SC)
A. Varadarajan, J.1. These appeals by special leave are by the Punjab University and directed against two Division Bench judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in writ Petitions 1917 of 1980 and 2349 of 1980, allowing those Writ Petitions without any order as to costs. W.P. 2349 of 1980 was allowed at the motion stage on 18 7 1980 as being covered by the decision in W.P. 1917 of 1980 which was disposed of on 7.7.1980. Kulwant Singh liwana,. J. is a party to both the judgments and he sat with Harbans Lal, J. for hearing W.P. 1917 of 1980 and with M.M. Punchi, J. for hearing W.P. 2349 of 1980. In these circumstances, it is necessary to state only the facts relating to W.P. 1917 of 1980 alone briefly.2. The system known as '10 plus 2 plus 3 system' was introduced in the educational institutions in the country some years ago. The Association of Indian Universities decided the equivalence of this 1.0+2+3 system with the old 11+3 years degree course system which was prevalent in some...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1415; 1984(1)SCALE925; (1984)3SCC603; [1984]3SCR822; 1984(16)LC772(SC)
A. Varadarajan, J.1. This appeal by special leave is by Punjab University against the Judgment of a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the Letters Patent Appeal 352 of 1975 confirming the judgment of a learned Single Judge in W.P. 1017 of 1975.2. Subash Chander, respondent 1 in this appeal, joined the Daya Nand Medical College, Ludhiana, for the M.B.B.S. course in 1965 when Regulation 25 of the Punjab University was in force. That regulation required a minimum of 50 percent of marks to pass in each subject. However Rule 7.1 relating to the M.B.B.S, and certain other courses provided that-a candidate who fails in one or more papers/subjects and/or aggregate may be given grace marks up to 1 percent of the total aggregate marks (including marks for practical and internal assessment) to his best advantage in order to be declared to have passed the examination. 3. But in may 1970 an amendment was made by the University in the form of an exception to the Rule 21 which corresp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1374; 1984CriLJ993; 1984(1)SCALE862; (1984)3SCC405; [1984]3SCR833; 1984(16)LC942(SC)
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. We are sorry to say we cannot subscribe to the 'slap-say sorry-and forget' school of thought in administration of contempt jurisprudence, Saying 'sorry' does not make the skipper poorer. Nor does the cheek which has taken the slap smart less upon the said hypocritical word being uttered through the very lips which not long ago slandered a judicial officer without the slightest compunction.2. An Advocate whose client had been convicted by the learned Special Judge, Dehradun, was required to appear before the learned Judge to make his submissions on the question of 'sentence' to be imposed on the accused upon his being found guilty of an offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the Court. The learned Advocate appeared in a shirt-and-trouser-outfit in disregard of the rule requiring. him to appear only in Court attire when appearing in his professional capacity, The learned Judge asked him to appear in the prescribed formal attire for being hear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1492; 1984CriLJ1153; (1984)86PLR694; 1984(1)SCALE869; (1984)3SCC512; [1984]3SCR839; 1984(16)LC938(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. Special leave granted.2. One Nohar Chand, the respondent herein, was carrying on business of manufacturing fertilisers at Ludhiana under the name and style of M/s. Varinder Agro Chemicals (India). One inspector designated as Fertiliser Inspector visited the premises of M/s. Sachdeva Enterprises, Kapurthala ('agent' for short) on December 12, 1978 and obtained a sample of the fertiliser manufactured by Nohar Chand which was being marketed by the agent. The sample was obtained for the purpose of analysis to ascertain whether it conformed to the prescribed standard. On analysis it was found to be sub-standard. The Chief Agricultural Officer, Kapurthala filed a criminal complaint being C.C. No. 156-C of 1980 on December 24, 1980 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala against the two partners of M/s. Sachdeva Enterprises, one Raj Shetty and respondent Nohar Chand Gupta, the manufacturer of sub-standard fertiliser under Section 13(a) of the Essential Commo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1388; [1984(49)FLR135]; 1984LabIC1023; (1986)ILLJ314SC; 1984(1)SCALE865; (1984)3SCC518; [1984]3SCR798; 1984(2)SLJ1(SC); 1984(16)LC763(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. Smt. Katheeja Bai, is the widow of Abdul Salam who retired as a Line Inspector, Grade I, in the employment of the Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board on 31.7.76 and who unfortunately died on 15.10.76. Smt. Katheeja Bai failed to get from her late husband's employers certain amounts which she clamed were due to her husband. She knocked continuously, but in vain, at the doors of the Regional Provident Commissioner, Madras, Central Provident Commissioner, New Delhi and the Minister for Labour Government of India for several years for redress. In sheer desperation she ultimately turned to this Court as a last resort. Unable to engage a lawyer, she addressed a letter to a learned judge of the Court setting forth her grievance. After being processed in the Registry, the letter was treated as a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. A Rule Nisi was issued and the Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board have appeared b before us through counsel. At our request S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1383; 1984(1)SCALE943; (1984)3SCC561; [1984]3SCR806; 1984(16)LC784(SC)
A.P. Sen, J.1. The short point involved in this appeal by certificate from the judgment and order of a Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated October 17, 1969 is whether a partial stay of execution of the decree like the one in question staying sale of the attached property is within Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Limitation Act, 1908 so as to entitle the decree-holder to claim exclusion of the period during which there was stay of sale but the property was to continue under attachment, for the purpose of computation of the period of limitation provided by Section 48 of the CPC, 1908. Since the question involved is a substantial question of law, the High Court has granted a certificate of fitness under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution.2. Facts are somewhat complicated but it is necessary to disentangle them to bring out the point in controversy. One Ghasiram, the predecessor-in-title of the present respondent No. 1 Ram Narain obtained a decree for Rs. 5,548.18 p, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1099; 1984(2)Crimes511(SC); 1984LabIC851; 1984(1)SCALE874; (1984)3SCC243
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This is yet another case which illustrates forcibly what we have said on many an occasion that it is not enough merely to identify and release bonded labourers but it is equally, perhaps more, important that after identification and release, they must be rehabilitated, because without rehabilitation, they would be driven by poverty, helplessness and despair into serfdom once again. Poverty and destitution are almost perennial features of Indian rural life for large numbers of unfortunate ill-starred humans in this country and it would be nothing short of cruelty and heartlessness to identify and release bonded labourers merely to throw them at the mercy of the existing social and economic system which denies to them even the basic necessities of life such as food, shelter and clothing. It is obvious that poverty is a curse inflicted on large masses of people by our malfunctioning socio-economic structure and it has the disastrous effect of corroding the soul arid sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1095; 1984CriLJ922; 1984(2)Crimes1(SC); 1984(1)SCALE938; (1984)3SCC505; [1984]3SCR789; 1984(16)LC964(SC)
A.P. Sen, J.1. The State Government of Uttar Pradesh has preferred this appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dated October 25, 1983 by which the High Court issued a writ in the nature of habeas corpus quashing an order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Moradabad dated November 6, 1982 for the detention of the respondent under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 on being satisfied that his detention was necessary 'with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.'2. It appears that the respondent is alleged to have committed an offence of murder punishable under Section 302 and of causing disappearance of evidence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with the communal riots that occurred in the Moradabad city. On November 6, 1982, the District Magistrate, Moradabad passed the impugned order of detention but it cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1984(1)SCALE820; 1984Supp(1)SCC711; 1984(16)LC699(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. All the three appeals are by special leave and are directed against decisions of the Delhi.High Court. The dispute in each of these cases has arisen out of refusal to grant or counter-sign permits under the Motor Vehicles Act on the Delhi-Ghaziabad inter-State route.2. Before the High Court dispute had arisen as to exact sanctioned strength of the permits on the route. During the course of hearing of these appeals under Orders of the Court the Transport Secretaries of the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Union Territory of Delhi appeared before us and we directed them to amicably fix up by fresh agreement the strength of State carriage permits on this route. We have been informed that a meeting held on 7th April, 1984 and the two Governments have agreed to fix the strength of the inter-State permits on this route at 60.3. When the appeals were taken up for final hearing Mr. Shanti Bhushan for the appellants did not press the appeals. These appeals have, therefore, t...
Tag this Judgment!