Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1164; [1984(49)FLR140]; 1984(1)SCALE884; 1984Supp(1)SCC128; [1984]3SCR772; 1984(2)SLJ67(SC); 1984(16)LC755(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. Nothing appears more well settled than that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 conferred on the High Court was a weapon forged to overreach injustice and secure and advance justice. When therefore, this extraordinary power is used to defeat justice and to promote technicality not only its raison d'etre is violated but it becomes a handy instrument for those to whom litigation cost is a luxury enjoyed at the cost of others and employed to exhaust and harass an unequal opponent. Sad as it may appear that unfortunate situation emerges in this appeal.2. The first respondent-Shree Synthetics Ltd. ('respondent' for short) appears to be a company governed by the Companies Act, 1956. It has set up a factory at Ujjain where it manufactures polyester fibre. Appellants in each of these appeals were the workmen of the respondent. There is a trade union of the workmen employed by the respondent of which at the relevant time three out of the five appellants in this gro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1984(49)FLR156]; 1984Supp(1)SCC700; 1984(16)LC678(SC)
ORDER 1. Special leave granted. 2. A peon formerly in employ of Nagar Palika, Kasganj is being pushed from pillar to post from 1967 and till today in search of justice and if we adopt the strict legal modality, even if he succeeds a remand is inevitable. Thereby this old litigation will get a new lease for decades multiplying the misery of the appellant. The beneficiary of remand order will certainly be someone other than the appellant. Mr C.P. Lal, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant is so exhausted that he is willing to forgo his claim to reinstatement and backwages for 17 years, if he is adequately compensated. Respondents 2 and 3, Nagar Palika and its Executive Officer respectively frankly stated that the Court may accept the suggestion, determine reasonable compensation to be paid by Respondents 2 and 3 to the appellant. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we direct the respondent Nagar Palika, Kasganj shall pay Rs ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1110; [1984(49)FLR150]; 1984LabIC900; 1984(1)SCALE714; (1984)3SCC384; [1984]3SCR752; 1984(2)SLJ47(SC); 1984(16)LC654(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The appellant was appointed on probation as the Principal of the Model Inter College, Thora, District Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as 'the College') on August 28, 1967 in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (U.P. Act No. II of 1921) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Regulations made thereunder. The period of probation prescribed was one year. Shortly before the expiry of the period of probation on August 25, 1968, the Managing Committee of the College passed a resolution extending the period of probation of the appellant by one year. Thereafter on April 27, 1969, the Managing Committee met to consider the question of confirmation of the appellant in the post of the principal. As the Managing Committee was not satisfied with the services of the appellant, it resolved to terminate his services and after obtaining the approval of the District Inspector of Schools wrote a letter dated June 30, 1969 t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1234; 1984(1)SCALE815; (1984)3SCC619; [1984]3SCR763; 1984(16)LC687(SC)
R.B. Misra., J.1. The present appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 29th January, 1970 in letters patent appeal confirming the judgment and order of the learned Single judge of the High Court dated 7th January, 1970.2. Nanak Chand, father of the appellant was a displaced person from West Pakistan where he had left agricultural lands in village Chhota Bhuth Autar, tehsil Bahawal Nagar, district Bahawalpur. After the partition of the country his claim bearing Index No. B/BP-3/259 was verified in his name for 26 standard acres 12 1/2 units. Nanak Chand disappeared sometime in December, 1954 and a report about his disappearance was lodged by the appellant's brother Dewan Chand, arrayed in this appeal as respondent No. 2, on 25th December, 1954 with the local police, Malhout, district Ferozepur, Punjab. An enquiry was made by the police in the matter and ultimately the police gave out that Nanak Chand could not be traced.3. In the year 1956 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1094; [1984(49)FLR157]; 1984(1)SCALE688; 1984Supp(1)SCC225; [1984]3SCR734; 1984(2)SLJ14(SC); 1984(16)LC697(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.1. Section 33 of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zilla Parishads Act, 1961 ('The Act') provided in so far as relevant, that subject to rules made by the Government, a Panchayat Samiti may employ such servants as it may consider necessary for the efficient performance of the duties imposed upon it by the Act, rules or bye-laws made thereunder or by any other law for. the time being in force. In pursuance of this power, the appellant was appointed as a clerk on June 1, 1963 by the Panchayat Samiti, Loharu, which is respondent 3 in this appeal. He was confirmed in that post in course of time. On January 21, 1974 he was promoted as a Head Clerk on an ad hoc basis. On March 14, 1975 a resolution was passed by respondent 3 regularising the post of Head Clerk. On April 1, 1975, the appellant was appointed as a Head Clerk.2. The Punjab Panchayat Samitis Zilla Parishads (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1973 introduced extensive amendments in the Act of 1961. Section 13 of the Ame...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1668; 1985CriLJ1858; 1989Supp(2)SCC385
ORDERD.A. Desai, J.1. We heard Mr. R.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner in SLP No. 4126 of 1984 and Mr. V. D. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners in SLP No. 5540 of 1984 and Mr. K. K. Venugopal, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents in both the petitions and Mr. A. P. Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the State of West Bengal.2. List of dates filed by Mrs. Indra Bansal, learned Counsel is taken on record.3. Very interesting point of law was sought to be canvassed by Mr. K. K. Venugopal, learned Counsel for the respondents but as the petitions are directed against interim orders by the Calcutta High Court and therefore at this stage we consider it unnecessary to undertake the exercise to examine it. We give the following directions and dispose of these petitions.4. There were two informations of cognizable offences lodged against respondents Nos. 1 and 2, one at Barasat Police Station bearing No. 63 of 1984 and another at Sera pore Police Station bearing No. 14/8...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1108; 1984CriLJ926; 1984(1)SCALE707; (1984)3SCC92; [1984]3SCR738; 1984(16)LC1024(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. These appeals by special leave arise out of a Sub-clause dated January 9, 1979 of the Allahabad High Court refusing to quash the proceedings in toto which were pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Code'). The High Court, however, quashed the proceedings only in respect of offences under Sections 467, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and directed prosecution of the respondents in respect of other offences to proceed according to law. In order to understand the implication of the judgment of the High Court, it may be necessary to narrate a few facts.2. It appears that some time in the year 1967 Shankar Lal Bhargava, who was officiating as Stamp Reporter in the Registry of the Allahabad High Court, with the aid of Suresh Chandra Srivastava and Bishan Swarup, who were clerks of Advocates, removed used stamps and out of them reused three co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1260; 1984(1)SCALE793; (1984)3SCC99; [1984]3SCR743; 1984(16)LC662(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. This appeal by special leave against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court unfolds a tell-tale plight of an unfortunate, litigant who, after obtaining a decree for ejectment, was driven from pillar to post to get the said decree executed. His attempts to get the said decree executed were stalled sometimes by objections filed by the tenant-appellant and sometimes by amendments made in the law with the result that even after 13 years of litigation the landlord respondent was not able to get possession of the premises. This was because of a statutory amendment which made the decree obtained by him inexecutable and Was, therefore, lying dormant and ineffective.2. The legislature having realised the hardship of such landlords came to their rescue by an amendment in 1976 to the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (for short, to be referred to as the '1972 Act') which was expressly given retrospective operation so as to revive t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1326; 1984(1)SCALE690; (1984)3SCC634; [1984]3SCR715; 1984(16)LC722(SC)
A.P. Sen, J.1. These appeals on certificate are directed against the Judgment and orders of the Punjab High Court dated November 19, 1969 allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondents and quashing the impugned notices of demand for recovery of the difference between the amount which they had agreed to pay under the terms of auction of a liquor vend and the amount realized on re-auction of the vend as also the defaulted instalments of the licence fee payable in respect of a liquor vend issued under Section 60 of the Punjab Excise Act 1914 ('Act' for short).2. Put very shortly, the essential facts are these. On March 11, 1969, the Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Hissar held an auction for granting the right to sell country liquor for Mandi Dabwali for the year 1969-70 at the Collectorate. At the commencement of the auction, the Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner had read out the auction announcements and conditions of auction as required under Rule 36(4) of the Punjab Li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1271; 1984(1)SCALE750; (1984)3SCC465; [1984]3SCR676
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. 1. A few months ago, orthodox Hindu sentiment was outraged and general public feeling was roused by the discovery that beef tallow imported from abroad was either being sold as vanaspati or used in its manufacture by certain unscrupulous persons. There was a furore in the country. There was public agitation. Questions were asked in Parliament. Outside the House, Press and Politician made capital of it. There were demands that severe action be taken against those responsible. Assurances were given in Parliament. Bureaucracy went into action. It was discovered that though the import of beef tallow, like other animal tallow, had been canalised through the State Trading Corporation with effect from June 5, 1981, there had been considerable import of beef tallow outside the channel of the Stale Trading Corporation even subsequent to June 5, 1981, on the ostensible pretext that licences had been issued and firm contracts had already been entered into before that date. ...
Tag this Judgment!