Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1192; 1985LabIC946; 1985(1)SCALE1101; 1985Supp(1)SCC38; [1985]3SCR1064; 1985(2)SLJ94(SC); 1985(17)LC986(SC)
1. This writ petition involves the familiar rivalry between promotees and direct recruits. Normally a resolution of such a dispute these two well known groups of service employees would necessitate consideration of various decisions relating to the quota and rota rule and such other allied matters. We have been relieved of this exercise because we feel that the dispute in this case can be resolved on facts, unaided by precedents on such matters. The counsel on both sides advisedly, therefore, restrained themselves from citing the relevant authorities before us.2. Now the facts:All the 39 petitioners are promotees to the post of Assistant in the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (for short 'the society') the 1st respondent herein. The second respondent is the Union of India and respondent Nos. 3 to 31 are direct recruits to the same post. Respondent Nos. 32 to 88 are also promotees and have been impleaded as proforma respondents.3. The petitioner originally belonged to the service...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC513; 1985(2)SCALE1367; 1985Supp(1)SCC14; 1986(1)LC102(SC)
RANGANATH MISRA, J.1. This appeal is by special leave. Appellants are monthly tenants of a shop located in bazar Shahid Ganj within the city of Saharanpur in Uttar Pradesh on a monthly rent of Rs 19.38 per month. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of release passed in the courts below and upheld by the High Court of Allahabad in favour of the landlady, Respondent 1.2. The respondent moved the Prescribed Authority under Section 21 of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 for an order of release of the premises referred to above on the allegations that her son, a doctor, intended to settle down in the medical profession at Saharanpur and needed the premises for establishing a clinic. It was claimed that the shop-room with the adjacent shop would be re-built into a convenient place for housing the clinic. It was further maintained that the tenants were doing business of repairing electrical goods which they could shift to any other place without inconvenience. The tenants resisted the application...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1010; (1985)IILLJ398SC; 1985(1)SCALE972; 1985Supp(1)SCC26; [1985]3SCR1057; 1985(2)SLJ104(SC); 1985(17)LC924(SC)
1. This appeal, by special leave, by two employees of the United Bank of India at Calcutta, is directed against a decision given by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Calcutta, on 28 December, 1979, in an application made under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The claim made by them related to the bonus paid on the eve of Pooja every year which according to them was customary in nature, irrespective of profit or loss.2. The Labour Court after considering the evidence placed before it held that the bonus claimed could not be characterised as customary since it did not answer to the requirements of law to be customary bonus and that in the absence of an existing right to customary bonus or bonus founded on an implied agreement as a condition of service, the application made under Section 33-C(2) was not maintainable and accordingly dismissed the same.3. The petitioners' claim was attempted to be supported by the fact that they were given one...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1196; 1985LabIC950; 1985(1)SCALE938; (1985)3SCC345; [1985]3SCR1042; 1985(2)SLJ128(SC); 1985(17)LC1012(SC)
1. Promise of socio-economic justice depicted in rosy language in Articles 38, 39 and 41 is being translated into a real action-oriented programme by the stand taken by the Union of India and the Ministry of Finance in this group of petitions and application for special leave which deserves approbation and commendation. Amongst the neglected sections of the society women form a bulk. In that bigger class widows are possibly the worst sufferers both socially and economically. To them, a helping hand is extended, for providing succour sorely needed, by the two statements made in the Court by Mr. B. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India and the Ministry of Finance. Throughout the course of hearing, Mr. B. Dutta adopted a positive, constructive and helpful attitude and he] is equally entitled to our appreciation.2. As a sequel to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in D.S. Nakara and Ors. v. Union of India : (1983)ILLJ104SC a number of petitions came to b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1016; 1985LabIC817; (1986)ILLJ120SC; 1985(1)SCALE1065; (1985)3SCC148; [1985]3SCR1049; 1985(2)SLJ25(SC); 1985(17)LC1089(SC)
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. A trivial dispute disposed of by an eminently just and legally correct order by the Labour Court was unnecessarily interfered with by the Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh which has forced employees working in a comparatively lower grade to knock at the doors of this Court.3. Urban Family Planning Clinic ('Clinic' for short) was set up at Bhilai for implementation of family welfare schemes of the Government of India in accordance with approved pattern set out in the letter of Ministry of Health dated May 16, 1963. The Chief Medical Officer of the Bhilai Steel Plant was to be the administrative officer for the Clinic The entire expenditure of the Clinic was met by the Government of India by giving 100% grant though it was stated as a fact that this amount was not brought into the bank account of Bhilai Steel Plant but was deposited in a separate bank account in the State Bank of India under the name and style of Bhilai Steel Plant Urban Family Planning Cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1622; 1985(1)SCALE1044; (1985)3SCC1; [1985]3SCR995
1. Respondent Raja Ram Jaiswal moved Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 3174 of 1975 under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Judicature at Allahadad questioning the validity of the Notification dated February 6, 1975 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act ('Act' for short) as also a notice dated March 6, 1975 served upon him pursuant to the afore-mentioned notification. The impugned notification was published in the U.P. Government Gazette dated February 15, 1975. By this impugned notification, land bearing Plot No. 62 approximately admeasuring 8265 sq. yds. was sought to be acquired as being needed for a public purpose namely for extension of Hindi Sangrahalaya of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag. A substances of this notification was published in the locality where the land sought to be acquired is situate. On March 22, 1975, a corrigendum dated March 13, 1975 was published by which the impugned notification dated February 15, 1975 was to stand c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1108; 1985(1)SCALE1248; (1985)3SCC131; [1985]3SCR1021
1. Respondent Raja Ram Jaiswal alongwith the members of his family ('respondent' for short) purchased premises No. 26/30, a plot of land with a small structure standing on it admeasuring 2978 sq. yds. situated at K.P.Kakkar Road, somewhere in March 1970. The respondent desired to construct a cinema theatre on the plot of land after demolishing the existing structure. As a first step, he got prepared the plans for a modern air-conditioned, sound proof cinema building and got the same approved by the Local Municipal Corporation and the District Magistrate. Subsequently, on July 6, 1971, the respondent submitted an application as required by Rule 3 of the U.P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951 (1951 Rules' for short) to the District Magistrate for obtaining a certificate signifying his approval of the site selected for constructing a permanent building to be used for cinematograph exhibition. Before granting the requisite certificate the District Magistrate as the Licensing Authority has to be sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC989; [1985]58CompCas477(SC); 1986CriLJ824; (1985)46CTR(SC)319; 1985(6)ECC103; [1985]155ITR166(SC); 1985(1)SCALE1208; (1985)3SCC72; [1985]3SCR969
1. Appellants who are husband and wife respectively moved Civil Writ Petition No. 2163 of 1980 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana praying for quashing of a search warrant issued by respondent No. 2 - Assistant Director, Enforcement on August 24, 1979 as also the warrant of authorisation issued by respondent No. 5 - Commissioner of Income Tax, Jullundur on April 9, 1980 and for a direction to return articles seized during the search of his house on August 24, 1979 and for relief incidental and ancillary thereto.2. Briefly stated, the allegations were that respondent No. 6 - Shri J. S. Ahuluwalia, Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax at Jullundur bore personal malice towards the appellants, amongst others, attributable to an incident concerning the servant of the appellants and an application for transfer of appeals pending before him made to the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes by the first appellant. Actuated by this personal malice, respondent No. 6 first instigated respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1041; [1985]155ITR144(SC); 1985(1)SCALE986; 1985Supp(1)SCC205; [1985]3SCR985; [1985]60STC1(SC); 1985(17)LC945(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dismissing the appellant's writ petition questioning the liability imposed in him on a sales taxassessment.2. The appellant carries on business as a dealer in the re-sale of cotton yarn. As a dealer he has been registered under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 as applied to the Union Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Act'). The appellant says that he purchases cotton yarn and sells it to registered dealers, unregistered dealers and consumers. For the assessment year 1968-69 the appellant submitted his return of turnover under the state Act and claimed exemption in respect of the turnover of sales of cotton thread on the ground that it was an exempted item under Entry No. 21 of the Second Schedule. The Sales Tax Officer, by his order dated October 29, 1970, held that the sales were effected in respect of cotton yarn and, therefore, they were liable to tax...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(1985)ACC373; AIR1986SC1191; (1986)4SCC503
1. Leave granted. 2. We are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in the exercise of its discretion under Section 110-CC of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in not awarding interest on the amount of compensation finally determined by it from the date of the application. It is undoubtedly true that under Section 110-CC, the Division Bench of the High Court had discretion to award interest at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of the application as it may think fit in the exercise of its discretion. But it is well settled that every discretion conferred by statute must be exercised judicially on the basis of the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Here when the learned Single Judge enhanced the amount of compensation, he awarded interest on the enhanced amount @ 6% per annum from the date of his judgment and the Division Bench also when it further enhanced the amount of compensation, directed that interest at the rate of 6% per annum be pai...
Tag this Judgment!