Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1985(2)SCALE925; (1985)4SCC508
ORDER1. This Special Leave Petition is directed against an order passed by the High Court setting aside the order of the Trial Court granting bail to the petitioners.2. This Court does not ordinarily, in the exercise of its discretion under Article 136, entertain petitions for Special Leave to appeal against orders granting or refusing or cancelling bail or anticipatory bail. These are matters where the High Court should become final and this Court should not entertain petitions for Special Leave. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed with these observations. We hope and trust that the trial will be expedited and completed at an early date....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC335; [1986(52)FLR25]; 1985(2)SCALE894; (1985)4SCC641; 1986(1)LC44(SC)
D.P. Madon, J.1. Six security guards belonging to the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as 'the Force') were dismissed from service by dispensing with the disciplinary inquiry under Clause (b) of Rule 37 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969, read with Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution. These provisions authorizes a disciplinary authority to dispense with a disciplinary inquiry where it is satisfied, for some reason to be recorded in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry. The dismissed security guards filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Kerala High Court challenging their dismissal. These petitions were transferred to this Court under Article 139A(1) of the Constitution as a number of other matters involving the interpretation of the second proviso to Article 311(2) were pending in this Court. These other matters were disposed of by a Constitution Benc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1985(2)SCALE1077; (1985)4SCC458
ORDER1. Issue Rule Nisi on the Writ Petitions. The Writ Petitions shall be heard by a Constitution Bench of 5 Judges on 7th January, 1986 as first item on Board on that date.2. So far as the application for interim relief is concerned, there will be stay of transfer of Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution pending in this Court and the Registry of this Court will continue to receive writ petitions under Article 32 which may be filed hereafter. This Court will be entitled to deal with the Writ Petitions under Article 32 and pass orders in those Writ Petitions.3. So far as the Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution pending in the High Courts as also suits or appeals pending in the Subordinate Courts are concerned, there will be no order of stay, subject to the following conditions :1. Appointment of 'Judicial' Members of the Tribunal to be made hereafter shall be in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. However, appointments already made will not be di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC328; 1986CriLJ357; 1986(1)Crimes313(SC); 1985(2)SCALE897; (1985)4SCC573; [1985]3SCR680; [1985]Supp3SCR680
A.P. Sen. J.1. This appeal by special leave raises a question whether the High Court could have stayed under Section 482 of the CrPC, 1973 the proceedings for confiscation of illicitly felled teak timber trees by the respondents from the reserved forests in Allahabad district, which were seized under Sub-section (1) thereof, pending before the Divisional Forest Officer, Hyderabad who is the Authorized Officer under Section 44(2A) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 till the disposal of the criminal case pending against him before the Court of XVIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for commission of alleged offences punishable under Section 20(1)(c)(iv) and (x) and Section 20(1)(d) read with Section 29(4)(a)(ii) of the Act.2. First as to the facts. On an information being laid that the respondent G.V. Sudhakar Rao was indulging in widespread illicit felling and removal of teak trees from the reserved forest in Adilabad district, the Forest Range Officer, Flying S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC355; 1987LabIC1904; 1985(2)SCALE1398; (1985)4SCC686; 1986(1)LC58(SC)
A.P. Sen, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated April 10, 1985 quashing the order of the Director of Marketing, Bhopal dated May 13, 1983 under Sub-section (1) of s. 56 of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1973 directing the supersession of the Krishi Upaj Mandi, Khandwa for a period of one year w.e.f. even date in the first instance and the subsequent order dated March 14, 1984 constituting a Committee Under Section 56(3)(b) and that dated May 12, 1984 extending the period of supersession till May 11, 1985. After quashing the impugned orders of the Director, the High Court has also directed the State Government to put the elected body incharge of the Market Committee forthwith. Taking advantage of the order passed by this Court dated April 10, 1985 for maintenance of status quo, it appears that the Director has again passed an order purporting to be under Sub-section (1) of Section 56 of the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC207; 1986CriLJ22; 1985(2)Crimes969(SC); 1985(2)SCALE842; (1985)4SCC624; 1986(1)LC451(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. This appeal is by special leave. The State of Uttar Pradesh has challenged the judgment of the Allahabad High Court quashing the order of detention made by the District Magistrate of Gorakhpur on August 7, 1981, in exercise of powers Under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 ('Act'for short).2. The respondent moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of habeas corpus and challenged his continued detention on the ground that the provisions of Section 10 of the Act had not been complied with and his representation had not been placed before the Advisory Board within three weeks from the date of detention. The High Court found that the petitioner had made a representation on August 16, 1981, which the authorities of the Jail had forwarded to the District Magistrate and he in his turn sent the same to the State Government on August 24, 1981. The State Government received the representation, on August 25, 1981, and caused it to b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC319; 1985(2)SCALE880; (1985)4SCC557; [1985]Supp3SCR661; 1986(1)LC121(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. These appeals have been placed before us primarily to resolve a conflict between Ram Sanehi Singh v. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation : (1971)3SCC797 , Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal and Ors. : [1975]1SCR493 , and Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal and Ors. : [1975]1SCR615 . The question for our consideration is, where a route is nationalised under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, whether a private operator with a permit to ply a stage carriage over another route but which has a common overlapping sector with the nationalised route can ply his vehicle over that part of the overlapping common sector if he does not pick, up or drop passengers on the overlapping part of the route? The answer to the question really turns on the terms of the scheme rather than on the provisions of the statute, as we shall presently show.2. We will mention here the facts of a few case...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC231; 1986MhLJ809(SC); 1985(2)SCALE811; (1985)4SCC393; [1985]Supp3SCR646; 1986(1)LC659(SC)
A.P. Sen, J1. This appeal on certificate from the judgment and decree of the Karnataka High Court dated April 5, 1971 raises a question of general public importance. The question is whether two or more trustees of a registered public trust can, with the permission in writing of the Charity Commissioner as provided for in Section 51 of the Act, bring a suit for declaration that certain property belongs to the public trust and for possession of the same from a person holding it adversely to the trust under Section 50(ii) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. That depends on whether the words 'persons having interest in the trust occurring in Section 2(10) and Section 50 of the Act do or do not include the trustees of a registered public trust. If they do not, two or more trustees cannot file a suit as contemplated by Section 50(ii) of the Act. There had been a divergence of opinion in the High Court as to the precise meaning of the words 'persons having interest in the trust' in Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC237; 1985(33)BLJR691; [1985(51)FLR616]; 1986LabIC72; (1986)ILLJ138SC; 1985(2)SCALE766; (1985)4SCC460; [1985]Supp3SCR639; 1986(1)LC67(SC)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the common judgment and order of the Patna High Court dismissing two appeals filed by the Regional Director, Employees' state insurance corporation on the question whether the respondent is liable to pay the disputed bonus to its workmen.2. The respondent, Bata Shoe company (P) Ltd., has a branch factory at Digha Ghat and another at Mokamah in the State of Bihar. At the Digha Ghat branch, the respondent entered into a settlement with its workmen on May 6, 1947, in which it was agreed that production bonus payable to the workmen would remain unaltered but employees earning less than Rs. 200 would get an extra bonus called 'good attendance bonus' at 5% of their yearly salary provided they completed active service for 265 days annually Inclusive. of Saturdays. It was stipulated that attendance bonus would be. calculated in the same way as production bonus. On November 28, 1951 there was an agreement by which if was agre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC383; (1985)3CompLJ370(SC); [1986]157ITR72(SC); 1985(2)SCALE868; (1985)4SCC660; [1985]Supp3SCR627; 1986(1)LC6(SC)
R.S. Pathak. J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court answering the following question of law against the Revenue on a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the difference between Rs. 2,09,920.88 np. and the amount that had been allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was a business expenditure incurred by the assessee in the relevant previous year and in allowing the same as a deductible expenditure?2. The assessee, who is the respondent before us, carries on business as Electrical Engineers and Contractors with its Head Office in Calcutta and branches in different parts of the country. The assessee put into effect a Pension and Life Assurance Plan for its European employees in about the year 1948. Pursuant to the Plan it took out policies with the Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society in the name of thos...
Tag this Judgment!