Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC54
ORDER There is an appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Gujarat on the question of the views of some of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. This question is no longer open to the appellants as the issues have already been settled by the decisions of this Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2027; (1987)2SCC445
ORDER1. Special Leave granted.2. The certificate course in Physical Education in Shri Hanuman Vayayam Prasarak Mandal, Amravati, Maharashtra was recognized by the Government of Haryana in 1975 for appointment to the post of Physical Training Instructor in Govt. Schools in Haryana. On the basis of this recognition granted by the State of Haryana to the certificate course of physical education in this Institute in Amaravati, the petitioners joined the certificate course and were receiving instruction in this Institution until 9th January, 1985 when the State of Haryana derecognized the certificate course with the result that the certificates obtained by the petitioners at the end of the certificate course became useless for obtaining service as Physical Training Instructor in Haryana. The petitioners, therefore, filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for a writ directing the State of Haryana to recognise the certificates obtained by them, because they had joined th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC148; JT1986(1)SC784; 1986(2)SCALE736; (1986)4SCC660
Ranganath Misra, J.1. Punjab National Bank is in appeal by special leave challenging the order of eviction from a tenanted premises. That order by the Controller has been upheld in appeal by the Tribunal and the High Court has refused to interfere.2. Eviction had been asked under Section 14(1)(k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act on the basis that the appellant as tenant had taken the premises for residential purpose but had put it to non-residential use. The Delhi Development Authority raised objection on the ground of change of user and had proceeded to raise penalty. The Controller dismissed the application but the Tribunal reversed that decision and passed an order directing eviction of the appellant.3. At the hearing of the appeal we had a feeling that the respondent wanted higher rent and that was the real motive for asking for eviction. When a settlement by way of enhancement of rent was suggested, the Bank agreed to enhance the rent but left the fixation of the sum to the discretio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC31
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J. and; Ranganath Misra, J.1. Special leave petition is dismissed. But we would like to observe that members of the subordinate judiciary should not be frequently transferred without compelling reasons and ordinarily they should not be transferred before the expiration of the period laid down by the High Court for transfer in regard to any particular station and as far as possible no transfer should be effected in mid-term unless compelled by administrative exigencies. Otherwise, it would not only cause personal hardship and inconvenience to the members of the subordinate judiciary but would also have the effect of demoralising them and would be likely to affect performance of judicial work....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1986(2)SCALE892; 1986Supp(1)SCC690
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties at length in this 40 appeal, we set aside the order dated October 22, 1986, made by the High Court and permit the parties, entitled to vote in terms of our order dated September 25, 1986, and Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. to issue and circulate or publish any circular or memorandum or other communication in support of the view-point of the party concerned in respect of, and confined to, the subject matter of the respective meetings convened for November 19, 20 and 21, 1986 under the orders of this Court.3. The appeal and the Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 29690 of 1986 in Special Leave Petition No. 11393 of 1986 are disposed of accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC9; (1987)1CompLJ76(SC); 1986(2)SCALE728; (1986)4SCC678; [1987]1SCR114; 1987(1)LC43(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. Harbhajan Singh Dhalla, the petitioner herein asserts that he is going from piller to post to collect Rs. 27,000 which according to him is due from the Algerian Embassy, he further asserts that this is a case where a little man's small claim is attempted to be thwarted by technical device. He is an Indian National. He had undertaken general maintenance work at the Embassy of Algeria in India and at the residence of the then Ambassador of Algeria in New Delhi in the year 1976. He claims that his rightful dues in respect of the said work runs into more than Rs. 28,500. He says that he has been deprived of the same. He states that he is in search of a remedy but the remedy alludes him and his claim remains uninvestigated and undecided. 2. The petitioner narrates his story that he had written to all and sundry to extend some help in obtaining his dues but nothing tangible has resulted so far. The petitioner had approached the Ministry of External Affairs for grant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC16; 1986(2)SCALE714; (1986)4SCC558; [1987]1SCR99; 1987(1)LC33(SC)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3947 of 1986 From the Judgment and Order dated 30.8.1982 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5105 of 1982. Pramod Swarup, R. Singh Rana and Ashok K. Srivastava for the Appellant. G.N. Dixit, M.K. Dua, Aman Vachher and S.K. Mehta for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. Smt. Amna Begum was a resident of Rehpura Village, Tehsil Kichha, District Nainital in the State of Uttar Pradesh. She owned a fairly large extent of agricultural land. On 8.6.1973 the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972 came into force. Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') provided that on and from the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amend- ment) Act, 1972 no tenure-holder would be entitled to hold in the aggregate throughout Uttar Pradesh, any land...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987(1)SCALE480; 1987Supp(1)SCC15
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. We are of the view that the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal ought not to have determined the question of seniority without the appellants in both the appeals being before the Tribunal since the determination of this question would directly affect the interest of the appellants. We would, therefore, allow the appeals set aside the order made by the Tribunal on 3rd September, 1984 and' the subsequent direction given by the High Court for its implementation and remand the matter to the Tribunal with a direction that the appellants shall be joined as party respondents to the Representation before the Tribunal and the Representation shall be heard and disposed of the tribunal after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties including the appellants in both the appeals 3. Since the order of the Tribunal as also the subsequent direction given by the High Court for its implementation are being set aside by us, any consequential action taken by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC22; 1986(2)SCALE720; (1987)1SCC92; [1987]1SCR126; 1987(1)LC23(SC)
K.N. Singh, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) dt. January 20, 1984 setting aside order of the Addl. District Judge, Lucknow dt. January 18, 1983 and quashing the allotment order made in appellant's favour and directing the Addl. District Magistrate (Civil Supplies), Lucknow to reconsider the applications made for allotment of the premises in dispute after giving notice to the respondent landlord. 2. The dispute relates to 1st floor of House No. 109/16 situate in Model House Colony, Aminabad, Lucknow. Mauji Ram Gupta the owner of the house was residing in the ground floor of the house while the 1st floor was let out to a tenant. Vacancy in the first floor arose, several persons including the appellant, H.C. Ghildiyal and Ramakant Srivastava made applications for allotment of the same. Mauji Ram Gupta, the landlord also made an application for the release of the premises to him under Section 16 of the U.P Urb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC20; JT1986(1)SC785; 1986(2)SCALE725; (1987)1SCC19; [1987]1SCR108; 1987(1)LC13(SC)
ORDERR.S. Pathak, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposing of a revision petition filed by the Appellant in execution proceedings.2. The Appellant is a contractor, who entered into two agreements with the Government of the State of Andhra Pradesh for providing B.T. Macadam wearing coat and seal coat along two stretches of the Hyderabad-Vijayawada National Highway. While the work was in progress, the contractor made certain claims in respect of the loss suffered on account of delay, escalation of rates and other heads. The claims were referred to arbitration. On September 4, 1979 the Arbitrator held the contractor entitled to a sum of Rs. 99,00,000 under five heads of claim. The contractor applied to the Civil Court for making the award a rule of the Court while the State Government prayed for setting aside the entire award. The Civil Court set aside the award and refused to pass a decree in terms of the award. The contra...
Tag this Judgment!