Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1495; 1985(1)SCALE832; 1985Supp(1)SCC714; [1985]Supp1SCR352
1. My learned Brethren have expressed their respective points of view on the policy of reservations which, alas, is even figuratively, a burning issue to-day. We were invited by the counsel not so much as to deliver judgments but to express our opinion on the issue of reservations; which may serve as a guideline to the Commission with the Government of Karnataka proposes to appoint, for examining the question of affording better employment and educational opportunities to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes. A somewhat unusual exercise is being undertaken by the Court in giving expression to its views without reference to specific facts. But, institutions profit by well-meaning innovations. The facts will appear before the Commission and it will evolve suitable tests in the matter of reservations. I cannot resist expressing the hope that the deep thinking and sincerity which has gone into the formulation of the opinions expressed by my learned Brethren will no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1985(1)SCALE934; 1985(Supp)SCC111; [1985]Supp1SCR614; 1986(1)LC435(SC)
1. The appellant was the Returning Officer in the by-election to Constituency No. 78 Fatehabad Assembly Constituency of Haryana State for which the election schedule was published on November 23, 1983. The last date for filing of nomination papers was November 30, 1983, and date of poll was scheduled for December 23, 1983.2. Nomination papers were to be scrutinised on December 1, 1983. During scrutiny the appellant rejected nomination papers of two candidates being Mani Ram Chhapola and Raj Tilak. After the election Lila Krishan was declared elected and thereupon an election petition was filed under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('Act' for short) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh being Election Petition No. 1 of 1984 challenging the election of Lila Krishna.3. In the election petition it was alleged that the rejection of the two nomination papers was without any justifying ground and on account of improper rejection of those nomination papers, the ele...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1121; 1985LabIC1219; (1986)ILLJ101SC; 1985(2)SCALE1365; (1985)3SCC378; 1985(17)LC639(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., the employer through its learned counsel got this matter adjourned on numerous occasions under the pretext that an amicable settlement may be brought about between the parties. In order not to impose a court's solution we acceded to the request. This exercise has proved fruitless but it has hardly any impact on the outcome of the case.2. Appellant Anil Kumar s/o Shri Saldip Lal Mohan was employed, according to him, as Turner Grade I, though all throughout he was paid wages as Turner Grade II. His service was terminated on June 19, 1970 on the report of an Enquiry Officer who had framed the following two charges against him :(i) You were given the work of rethreading of spray pipe on 4.3.70, and the jobs of the repairs of three gland were entrusted to you on 6.3.70. You neglected your duty and did not execute the above jobs for several days. The delay in the repairs put the factory to a considerable loss.(ii) You wilfully refused the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC941; 1986(34)BLJR408; [1986(52)FLR179]; 1985LabIC961; 1985(1)SCALE1106; (1985)3SCC38; [1985]Supp1SCR605; 1985(2)SLJ315(SC); 1986(1)LC439(SC)
1. These appeals are by special leave and two of these are by Junior Engineers while the other four are by Assistant Engineers working under the respondent-Bihar State Electricity Board. In September, 1975, the Board advertised in local newspapers that selection of Electrical Engineers would be made under an 'Employment Promotion Programme' and Engineers with 50 per cent marks in the degree examination would be eligible for consideration. In due course, such selection was made and a group of Apprentice Engineers also called Trainee Engineers came to serve under the Board. These selected engineers had already completed their training for the purpose of obtaining the degree in engineering. The graduate trainees were called upon to report for a period of six months' training with effect from April 1, 1977. In March 1977, the Board had indicated that the training does not guarantee employment under the Board but in August, 1977, the Board resolved that 200 vacant posts of Junior Engineers ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1003; (1985)3CompLJ298(SC); (1985)3SCC255; [1985]Supp1SCR567; 1986(1)LC520(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court on 18 July, 1972 in F.A.O. No 139-D of 1962 whereby a decree in terms of the Award passed by the Trial Court was set aside. Principally the view of the Full Bench rendered on the specific question refered to it and which was followed by the learned Single Judge while allowing the first appeal has been challenged by the appellant before us in this appeal.2. Facts, admitted and/or found by the lower courts are these: The appellant is a share-broker and a member of the Delhi Stock Exchange-an Exchange recognised by the Central Government under the Securities Contracts (Regulations) Act, 1956. The respondent, a non-member, had dealings in shares and securities with the appellant as principal to principal between 14 July and 27 September, 1960 in respect whereof printed Contract Notes (Ex P.I toP. 31) in the prescribed form were issued by the appellant and w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC791; 1986CriLJ806; 1985(1)SCALE1041; (1985)3SCC382; [1985]Supp1SCR561
ORDER1. The Union of India has moved this Court seeking permission to withdraw Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 8009 & 8010/77 pending in this Court since 1977.2. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 8009 of 1977 was moved by the Solicitor General of India requesting the court to take action against the five persons whose names and addresses have been set out in the petition Under section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 on the ground that they were individually and severally guilty of wilful disobedience to the directions and order of this Court with regard to the preservation of the film 'Kissa Kursee Ka'. negatives and the prints in proper condition until the disposal of Writ Petition No. 595/77 and thereby they have interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings and their conduct was intended and calculated to interfere with and obstruct the administration of justice by causing the loss and disappearance of film 'Kissa Kursee Ka' with a view to disabling and preven...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1130; 1985CriLJ1361; 1985(2)Crimes459(SC); 1985(2)SCALE1358; (1985)3SCC225; 1985(17)LC813(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. While granting special leave in the above matter, notice was issued to the petitioners to show cause why the sentence imposed upon them by the High Court should not be enhanced. Mr. J.D. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellants urged and in our opinion rightly that once a notice to enhance the sentence is issued the case is wide open and the appellants are entitled to challenge the correctness of the order of conviction. We accordingly heard submissions on the merits of the order of conviction to satisfy us that the prosecution had failed to bring home the charge.2. Having heard Mr. Jain we are satisfied that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in convicting the appellants Sadha Singh and Natha Singh for an offence Under Section 307/34 I.P.C. for attempting to commit murder of Mohinder Singh and sentencing each of them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 900/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1985(2)SCALE384; (1985)4SCC689; [1985]Supp1SCR493; 1986(1)LC104(SC)
1. There are four appeals and a Transferred Case before us. The appeals arise out of interim orders passed by a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court on February 12 and 19, 1982 which were confirmed by him on February 25, 1982. Those orders were passed in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution asking for the writs of mandamus and certiorari, directing that the instructions issued by the Election Commission should not be implemented by the Chief Electoral Officer and others; that the revision of electoral rolls be undertaken de novo; that claims, objections and appeals in regard to the electoral roll be heard and disposed of in accordance with the rules; and that, no notification be issued under Section 15(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 calling for election to the West Bengal Legislative Assembly, until the rolls were duly revised.2. Transferred Case No. 3 of 1982 is that very writ petition. It was withdrawn for hearing and final disposal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1073; 1985(1)SCALE991; 1985Supp(1)SCC179; [1985]Supp1SCR592; 1986(1)LC581(SC)
1. This appeal under Section 116A(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('Act' for short) is directed against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court setting aside the election of the appellant to Fatehabad Constituency of the Haryana Legislative Assembly. By Notification dated November 23, 1983, the Constituency was called upon to elect a member at the by-election. November 30, 1983, was appointed as the last date for receipt of nomination papers. Scrutiny was scheduled for December 1, 1983. Poll was held on December 23, 1983 and appellant was declared as the returned candidate by securing 1339 votes in excess of votes polled by respondent 1 who had been fielded as the common opposition candidate. On February 2, 1984, the respondents filed an Election Petition asking the election of the appellant to be set aside on the ground provided under Section 100(1)(C) of the Act by the pleading that the nomination papers of two candidates being Mani Ram Chapola and Raj Tilak ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC753; 1985(1)SCALE1116; (1985)3SCC364; [1985]Supp1SCR583; 1986(1)LC468(SC)
1. The short point arising for consideration in this appeal by special leave filed against the decision of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision No. 332 of 1981 turns upon the interpretation of Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The appellant-land-lady filed the suit on 6.8.1973 for recovering possession from the respondent-tenant of a portion of premises situate at Bhau Ka Nagla, Agra Road, Mauza Dholpura on the allegation that it had been let to the respondent on a rent of Rs. 360 per mensem and that the tenancy has come to an end by efflux of time fixed in the rent note on the expiry of 30.6.1973. She alleged in the plaint that the demised property is situate beyond the municipal limits of Ferozabad and is intended for use as a factory and is exempt from the provision of the Act and that the respondent is in arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 3...
Tag this Judgment!