Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC39; 1984(2)SCALE135; 1984Supp(1)SCC505; [1985]1SCR287; 1984(16)LC1110(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. Appellants claiming to be the Khudkasht holders of the Zaminders of the plots of land involved in dispute filed a suit for possession under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 (Tenancy Act 'for short) against respondents Nos. 4 and 5 ('rspondents' for short) who were and are in actual and physical possession and cultivating the land. This suit ended in a decree in favour of the appellants on September 30, 1948 and in execution of the decree, the appellants assert that they obtained actual and physical possession from the respondents on December 2, 1948. On the advent of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 ('1950 Act' for short) the appellants claimed to have acquired the status of Bhumindars in respect of the plots of land in dispute.2. The respondents moved an application Under Section 232 of the 1950 Act against the appellants alleging that as they were in actual and physical possession during the year 1356 Fasli and were subsequently dispos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1534; 1984(2)SCALE78; (1984)4SCC296; [1985]1SCR272; 1984(16)LC1086(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. AS the matter brooked no delay, at the conclusion of the arguments, the Court pronounced the following order reserving reasons to be given at a later date.The petitions succeed to the extent herein indicated. Let a writ be issued quashing reservation of 25 seats in favour of candidates coming from Rural Areas and educated in common Rural School for admission to MBBS Course 1982 at Medical College, Rohtak affiliated to Maharshi Dayanand Universty. Consequently the respondents are directed to admit in Ist MBBS Course of the same College commencing from July, 1983, such number of students who secured admission against the reservation for candidates coming from Rural Areas and educated in Common Rural School in 1982, according to the general merit list drawn up in respect of candidates, who sought admission and in the absence of such a list, a waiting list should be drawn up according to merits, for the year 1982. The respondents are directed to work out the admissions as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1984(2)SCALE114,(1984)4SCC294,1985(17)LC57(SC)
Order1. Writ Petition No. 1687 of 1981 in which the above Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been taken out was heard by us along with Civil Appeals Nos. 694 of 1980 etc., Prabodh Verma and Ors. etc. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. etc. and Writ Petitions Nos. 1221 to 1229 of 1979 etc., Dal Chand and Ors. etc. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. etc. All these matters, including the above Writ Petition, have been disposed of by us by a common judgment delivered today. In accordance with this judgment, the Petitioner will be entitled to continue in service and to be confirmed in the post to which she was appointed in the Vaidita Kanya Inter College, Dadri, District Ghaziabad, with effect from the date on which she would have been confirmed in the normal and usual course. She will thus be entitled to be paid her salary on this basis in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC167; 1985LabIC1196; 1984(2)SCALE87; (1984)4SCC251; [1985]1SCR216
Madon J.1. The principal question which arises for determination in his group of Appeals by Special Leave and Writ Petitions to the constitutional validity of two Uttar Pradesh Ordinances, namely; (1) the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Reserve Pool Teachers) Ordinance, 1978 (U.P. Ordinance No. 10 of 1978), and (2) its successor Ordinance-The Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Reserve Pool Teacher) (Second) Ordinance, 1978 (U.P.) Ordinance No. 22 of 1978), which had been struck down by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court by its judgment delivered on December 22, 1973, in Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 9174 of 1978-Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. [1979] A.L.J. 178 on the ground that its provisions with violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India; the subsidiary questions being whether the termination of the services of the Appellants and Petitioners as secondary school ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1570; 1984MhLJ839(SC); 1984(2)SCALE125; (1984)4SCC343; [1985]1SCR268; 1984(16)LC1124(SC)
Bhagwati, J.1. The respondent filed an application under Clauses 13(3)(vi) and (vii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order of 1949 (hereinafter referred to as HRC Order) to evict petitioner No. 1 firm of M/s. Chhotelal Pyarelal. The respondent alleged that the firm was a tenant in respect of the premises and eviction of the firm was sought on the ground of bona fide requirement of the respondent for the purpose of his occupation under paragraph (vi) as also for the purpose of making essential repairs under paragraph (vii) of Clause 13(3). The firm of Chhotelal Pyarelal raised a preliminary contention that no application could be maintained against a partnership firm and such an application was liable to be rejected. This contention ultimately came to be considered by a learned single Judge of the High Court at Nagpur. The learned single Judge being under the impression that there was still operative a judgment of another single Judge of the High Court taking th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1569; 1984(2)SCALE77; (1984)3SCC706
ORDER1. Some of the students seeking admission to the MBBS course in this academic year have made an application to this Court that the judgment delivered on 22nd June, 1984 in the radical admission cases may be given effect to only from the next academic year because ad-missions have already been made in the medical colleges attached to some of the Universities in the country prior to the delivery of the judgment on 22nd June, 1984 and moreover, some time would be required for the purpose of achieving uniformity in the procedure relating to admissions in the various Universities. We accordingly issued notice on the application to the learned advocates who had appeared on behalf of the various parties at the hearing of the main writ petitions as also to the Attorney General and after hearing them, we have come to the conclusion and this is accepted by all parties that in view of the fact that all formalities for admission, including the holding of entrance exammation, have been complet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1984(2)SCALE78a; (1984)4SCC1; [1985]1SCR214
ORDERDesai, J.1. We are not inclined to grant special leave, but we make this short speaking order in order to keep the record straight that the dismissal of the special leave petition does not tantamount to affirmance of the order of the learned Judge of the High Court who for reasons utterly untenable interfered with teh sentence imposed by the trial court and reduced it to sentence already undergone which in the facts and circumstances of the case was wholly impermissible.2. In Meet Singh v. State of Punjab, : 1980CriLJ802 this Court pointed out that Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act prescribes a minimum sentence and discretion is conferred on the court to give less than the minimum for any special reasons to be recorded in writing. This Court examined what constitute special reasons for the purpose of Section 5(2) and pointed out that the reasons which weighed with the learned Judge in reducing the sentence to the sentence undergone could not be special reasons. Ther...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1703; 1984(2)SCALE56; (1984)4SCC59; 1984(16)LC915(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. This appeal was heard alongwith C.A. No. 1998 of 1972 between the same parties and raising certain identical questions. In the course of hearing of both the appeals inevitably it was pointed out that with regard to identical questions the two Benches of the same High Court, though one learned Judge was common to both the Benches, arrived at irreconcilable conclusions which has to some extent resulted in denial of justice to the appellant. It would be our attempt to reconcile the approach of the court in both the matters keeping, in view the limitation on account of the two suits having not been consolidated and evidence recorded separately in each matter. 2. On an invitation to tender sought by the erstwhile State of Saurashtra for providing cement concrete surface to Rajkot Jamnagar road for miles 18 to 40 measuring from the Rajkot end, the appellant submitted his tender quoting 7 1/2% lower than the estimated cost of the warks in the amount of Rs. 16,59,900/- only. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1578; 1984(2)SCALE61; (1984)4SCC236; [1985]1SCR205; 1984(16)LC1037(SC)
ORDERChinnappa Reddy, J.1. This application for Review is nothing short of an abuse of the process of the Court and a waste of the time of this Court, time which has now become so dear and precious because of the daily mounting arrears. No ground for seeking a review ismentioned or even hinted at in the petition. In the first paragraph of the petition it is stated 'This is an application for Review of the order dated 9.12.83, whereby this Hon'ble Court was pleased to dismiss the above Special Leave to Appeal (Civil). The said order discloses an error apparent on the face of the record as will be clear from perusal of the various grounds and facts mentioned in the petition for Special Leave to Appeal. It is submitted that since the order is unsustainable in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to review the order'. In the second paragraph we are told that no detailed grounds have been taken (though in point of fact not a single ground is eve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1714; 1984(2)SCALE62; 1984Supp(1)SCC346; 1984(16)LC934(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. As a common question of law touching upon the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to determine the question as to 'whether, when or how any person has acquired citizenship of another country' arises in both the appeals and therefore, they were set down for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.Re. C.A. No. 1339 (N) of 1971 :2. Respondents filed Civil Suit No. 231 of 1955 on May 3, 1955 against the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Union of India praying for a declaration that the respondents are the citizens of Indian Union and are entitled to permanently live at Aligarh or any other part 1 thereof and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from deporting them to Pakistan or from prosecuting them under various statutes on account of their alleged failure to return to Pakistan. The suit was contested on diverse grounds, one such being that the respondents had migrated to Pakistan and returned to India on a passport issued...
Tag this Judgment!