Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1986(2)SCALE879; 1990(Supp)SCC640
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J. and; V. Khalid, J.1. Special leave granted.2. We are of the view that gratuity is no longer a bounty but it is a matter of right of the employee and it can therefore no longer be regarded as a provision in the discretion of the President as provided in the Pension Regulations. Since there is no legal provision empowering the authorities to forfeit the gratuity payable to an employee, the order passed by the Government forfeiting the gratuity payable to the appellant must be held to be bad and must be set aside. We accordingly set aside the order of the High Court as also the Order of the Government forfeiting the gratuity of the appellant and direct that gratuity shall be paid to the appellant forthwith. There will be no order as to costs of the appeal. The appeal is disposed of in these terms....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC733; (1985)87BOMLR652; (1987)1MLJ1(SC); 1985(2)SCALE773; 1985Supp(1)SCC590; [1985]Supp3SCR242; 1986(1)LC39(SC)
R.S. Pathak., J.1. This and the connected writ petitions raise the important question whether the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 is constitutionally invalid on the ground that only Hindu or Sikh members of the castes enumerated in the Schedule to that Order are deemed to be Scheduled Castes for the purposes of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner Soosai (in Writ Petition No. 9596 of 1983) states that he belongs to the Adi-Dravida Community and is a convert to Christianity. He is a cobbler by profession and works on the roadside at one of the cross-roads in Madras. In May, 1982, the officers of the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board surveyed the sites on which cobblers were working, including the place occupied by the petitioner, and subsequently on July 27, 1982 several cobblers were allotted bunks free of cost by the Regional Deputy Director, Khadi and Village Industries Board. The petitioner was not. On enquiry the petitioner came to know that the allot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1986Supp(1)SCC685
Order We decline to interfere with the order of the High Court dismissing the revision application, but we direct the State Government to implement all three resolutions within a period of three months. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed. Court Master. From the Judgment and Order dated February 21, 1985 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Misc. Civil Application No. 763 of 1984...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1989]65CompCas379(SC); 1985(2)SCALE871; (1986)1SCC64
R.S. Pathak, J.1. Special leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated March 28, 1979 of the Patna High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellants. The history of this case records how an ambitious plan devised by the Central Government for accelerating and modernizing agricultural development in the villages of India and simultaneously providing employment opportunities to engineers and technically trained personnel has come to grief because of an incomplete perception of the conditions necessary for its success and what seems to be an unfortunate want of determination at Governmental level in the States, besides an attitude of banking institutions which, the petitioners say, is frustratingly clinical and wholly unsympathetic to the cause of the project. It is a tragedy in which an entire range of promises and assurances has been poured, but which seems defeated by the circumstance that an appropriate infrastructure has f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1985(2)SCALE785; 1985Supp(1)SCC607
P.N. Bhagwati, CJ.1 This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus for production and release of one Anand Kumar Aggarwal. He was arrested along with one Vishwanath from the residence of his father in Benachitty at 8 p.m. on 9th June, 1981. The arrest was made by Sub-Inspector Chauhan of Gujarat Police with the assistance of the police from Durgapur Police Station. Anand Kumar Aggarwal, though arrested at Benachitty and taken to the Durgapur Police Station, was not produced before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur, who, according to the petitioner, was the nearest Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence charged against Anand Kumar Aggarwal. Anand Kumar Aggarwal was taken by Sub-Inspector Chauhan from Benachitty to Calcutta in the morning of 10th June 1981 and he was thereafter produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who, on the application of the Police, remanded Anand Kumar Aggarwal to police custody for a period of 14 days. The petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC685; (1985)3CompLJ375(SC); 1986(8)ECC145; 1985(5)LC2186(SC); 1985(22)ELT324(SC); 1985(2)SCALE667; (1985)4SCC516; [1985]Supp3SCR165; 1985(17)LC1095(SC)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated August 31, 1976 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowing a group of writ petitions filed by the respondent against the levy of excise duty.2. The respondent, Messrs. Food Specialities Limited, Moga is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It entered into a number of agreements with Messrs. Nestle's Products (India) Limited, a subsidiary of a foreign company, Messrs. Nestle's Holdings Limited, to manufacture for and on behalf of Messrs. Nestle's Products (India) Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Nestle's') sweetened condensed milk, soluble coffee, baby milk food, milk powders and infant cereal foods for sale in India by Nestle's under certain trade-marks in respect of which the latter was registered as the sole registered user in India. The agreement stipulated that the respondent would manufacture the goods and supply them to Nestle's in such quantities as Nes...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC806a; (1986)88BOMLR8; 1986(8)ECC26; 1985(5)LC1989(SC); [1985]Supp2SCR123
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. These appeals by special leave raise a number of questions relating to excise duty leviable on cigarettes manufactured by the respondents. Barring one, all the other questions are now settled as a result of the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. [1984] 1 S.C.C. 467, and all that is required is to direct the assessing authorities to assess the excise duty leviable on the respondents on the basis of the law laid down in Bombay Tyre International case (supra). The only question which remains to be considered is in regard to cost of packing includible in the value of the cigarettes for the purpose of assessment to excise duty.2. The respondents in these appeals are manufacturers of cigarettes. They manufacture cigarettes in their factories and the cigarettes so manufactured are packed initially in paper/card board packets of 10 and 20 and these packets are then packed together in paper/card board cartons/outers. These cartons/ou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC103; 1985(2)SCALE678; (1985)4SCC722; [1985]Supp3SCR225
Ranganath Misra, J.1. At the conclusion of the hearing, In view of the urgency of the matter as also the Importance of the issues involved, we made an order on September 28, 1984, setting out briefly our conclusions and had indicated that detailed reasons would be given in the judgment to be delivered later.2. On the 12th January, 1983, election to all the 126 seats of the Assam Legislative Assembly was notified to be held in February 1983. Very disturbed conditions had been prevailing in Assam for a few years prior to this period and one of the issues leading to the agitation was the electoral rolls of 1979 prepared under the Representation of the People Act, 1950('1950 Act' for short). When general election was notified, a set of writ petitions were filed in the Gauhati High Court being Civil Rules 87 and 228-246 of 1983. The first application asked for a mandamus to the Election Commission and the State Government then under President's rule not to hold elections on the basis of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC137; 1985(2)SCALE933; (1986)1SCC465; [1985]Supp3SCR264
D.P. Madon, J.1. This Appeal has been filed pursuant to a certificate granted by the Calcutta High Court against its judgment and order dated December 16, 1969, in Appeal No. 165 of 1968. The certificate has been given by the High Court under Sub-clauses (a) and (c) of Clause (1) of Article 133 prior to the substitution of that clause by a new Clause (1) by the Constitution (Thirtieth Amendment) Act, 1972. The grounds on which the certificate has been given are (i) that the value of the subject-matter in dispute in the court of the first instance and still in dispute on appeal was and is not less than Rs. 20,000 and that as the judgment in appeal was one of affirmance, the appeal involves a substantial question of law, and (ii) that the case was a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. The High Court observed:The appeal raises a question of great importance in Trade Marks Law, that is to say whether a proprietor of a trade mark who intends to use it solely by a registered user is ent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC317; 1985(2)SCALE783; (1986)1SCC9; [1985]Supp3SCR161; 1986(1)LC56(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. The Notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the present case on 18th October, 1979 and it was published in the Government Gazette on the same day. The Revenue Divisional Officer directed public notice of the substance of the Notification to be given in the locality and this direction was admittedly given on 19th November, 1979. The report of compliance with this direction was submitted by the Village Officer on 18th December, 1979. Before any further proceedings could take place pursuant to the Notification, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are owners of the land notified for acquisition under the Notification filed a writ petition in the High Court for quashing the Notification on the ground that public notice of the substance of the Notification in the locality was not given on the same day on which the Notification was published in the Official Gazette. The High Court allowed...
Tag this Judgment!