Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC594
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J. and; Ranganath Misra, J.1. The review petition is allowed and the judgment and order made in the appeal are set aside. The appeal shall be placed on Board for hearing and final disposal on January 13, 1987. But if the respondent pay to the appellant ex gratia, a sum of Rs 1 lakh on or before January 12, 1987 the appeal will stand dismissed with no order as to costs. If this amount is not paid by the respondent, the appeal shall be heard on merits....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC314
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been pointed out to us that as a result of the direction given by the Steel Authority of India, services of a number of labourers would stand terminated from 1-1-1987. It is now pointed out that this order is likely to take effect from 1-1-1987. Learned counsel for the contractors says that their engagement is expiring on 31-12-1986. In the circumstances, if we direct that the labourers would be continued by the contractor, then it would mean that the contractors will have to pay without providing work. 2. Whoever be the new contractor, authorities of the Rourkela Steel Plant operating under Respondent 1 may instruct that the employees as far as possible would be continued. Mr Shanti Bhushan points out that while making this adjustment, workers who have already worked continuously for more than three years' may be preferred. We suggest that the Steel Authority of India and the management of Rourkela Steel Plant would ke...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1156; 1987CriLJ1054; JT1987(2)SC321; 1986(2)SCALE1081; 1986Supp(1)SCC535; 1987(1)LC213(SC); 1987CriLJ1888
ORDERA.P. Sen, J.1 This petition for special leave directed against the Judgment and order of the Bombay High Court dated May 3, 1986 and the connected petition under Article 32 of the Constitution raise common questions and therefore they arc disposed of by this common order. The petitioner by a petition under Article 226 filed before the High Court prayed for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, which is also the prayer before us, for the release of her husband Mohanlal Jatia, who has been detained by an order of the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, dated December 13, 1985 under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. 1974, on being satisfied that it was necessary to detain him 'with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange.2. In support of these petitions, learned Counsel has mainly adva...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC358; 1987(35)BLJR111; [1987(54)FLR72]; 1987LabIC467; 1986(2)SCALE1091; 1986Supp(1)SCC698; 1987(1)LC124(SC)
ORDERA.P. Sen, J.1 These appeals and the connected writ petition raise common questions and therefore they are disposed of by this common order. We heard learned Counsel for the parties at considerable length and they with their perspicuity, much learning and resource presented their respective points of view. After hearing the arguments lasting over several days, we reserved the judgment. We do not think it is desirable in the public interest to defer the judgment any longer as the post of Food & Drugs Controller is a sensitive one and the incumbent holding the post discharges many important functions and duties. We have therefore decided to deliver this short order indicating the judgment. The reasons therefor shall follow.2. Having given the matter our anxious consideration and after considering the arguments of the learned Counsel in depth, we have formed the considered opinion that Dr. M.C. Bindal lacked the essential qualifications for appointment to the post of Food & Drugs Cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC874; 1987(11)ECC357; 1987(27)ELT567(SC); [1987]167ITR904(SC); 1986(2)SCALE1218; 1986Supp(1)SCC652; [1987]66STC403(SC); 1987(1)LC209(SC)
ORDER1. Two questions have been raised for consideration in this group of cases. One question is whether the processes of bleaching, dyeing, printing, mercerising, etc., carried on by a processor on job work basis in respect of grey cotton fabrics and man made fabrics belonging to the customer and entrusted by him for processing amount to 'manufacture' within the meaning of the Central Excises and Salt Act as it stood prior to its amendment by the Central Excises and Salt and Additional Duty of Excise (Amendment) Act 1980 so as to attract levy of excise duty on the processed fabrics and whether, in any event, after the Amendment Act, these processes amount to manufacture and excise duty is leviable on the processed fabrics. The other question is whether, even if the processed fabrics are assessable to excise duty in the hands of the processor who carries on these processes on job work basis, what is the value on the basis of which the processed fabrics are liable to be assessed. So far...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987(1)SCALE679; 1987Supp(1)SCC141
ORDER1. We have gone through the report made by the Saxena . Committee appointed by us. We deeply appreciate the tremendous effort made by Shri Saxena and his colleagues in investigating into the existence of bonded labourers in Mohanpur and Deoghar Blocks of Deoghar district and Saraiyahat Block of Dumka District and submitting a detailed and comprehensive report to the Court. The report of the Saxena Committee discloses that there are large number of bonded labourers in these areas and the Saxena Committee has been able to identify 2515 out of 3143 such bonded labourers, We accept the report of the Saxena Committee and proceed to give the following directions:1. All the labourers who have been found to be bonded by Saxena, Committee may be directed to be released within two weeks from the date of this Order and on their being released the concerned Collector will issue forthwith a certificate to each of them certifying that ho or she is a bonded labourer and has been released from bo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC357; 1987(35)BLJR382; 1987(28)ELT3(SC); [1987(54)FLR297]; (1987)ILLJ255SC; 1986(2)SCALE1097; (1987)1SCC422; 1987(1)LC128(SC)
ORDER A.P. Sen, J.1. In this special leave petition a question was raised regarding the authority and jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to strike down as constitutionally invalid a rule framed by the President of India under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution as being violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. That depends on a construction of Sections 14(1), 28 and 29(1) of the Act, as amended, read in the light of Article 323A of the Constitution. Since the question raised was of far-reaching importance we issued a notice to the learned Attorney-General to appear and assist the Court. We heard learned Counsel for the parties including the Union of India on the question at considerable length and reserved judgment. We were later informed by the learned Counsel that the same question had been argued before a Constitution Bench and its judgment was awaited, and they requested us to defer ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC400; 1986(2)SCALE1211; 1986Supp(1)SCC543; [1987]1SCR661; 1987(1)LC139(SC)
B.C. Ray, J1. All these matters involve a common question of law as to whether the notice dated 15.12.1982 issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh laying down the qualification regarding eligibility of a candidate to be considered for admission to the post-graduate degree in M.D., M.S. and diploma course in M.D., M.S. etc. on the basis of merit in accordance with the Regulations made under the Indian Medical Council Act is invalid as it trenches upon Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. 2. Civil Appeal No. 6119 of 1983 is against the judgment and order dated 22.4.1983 made in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 946 of 1983 by the High Court of Allahabad dismissing the writ petition holding that it was within the competence of the State Government to issue the aforesaid notice laying down the qualification of eligibility for being considered for admission to the post-graduate course by issuing notice dated 15.12.1982 and that the said notice is not repugnant to or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC406; 1986(2)SCALE1222; (1987)1SCC254; [1987]1SCR674; 1987(1)LC115(SC)
Murari Mohan Dutt, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the revision petition of the appellant against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur, whereby he affirmed the order of the Rent Controller, Guntur, directing the eviction of the appellant from the disputed shoproom.2. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are respectively the father and son. The respondents filed a petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', before the Rent Controller, Guntur, praying for an order of eviction against the appellant from the disputed shop-room on the ground that it was bona fide required for the respondent No.2, who had passed the B.Com. examination, and would start a business in readymade garments in the disputed shop-room. The petition was contested by the appellant. It was inter alia denied by the appellant that the shop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC355; 1987(35)BLJR97; 1987CriLJ528; JT1987(1)SC18; 1986(2)SCALE1093; (1987)1SCC265; [1987]1SCR631
Ranganath Misra, J.1. Peoples' Union for Democratic Rights, an organisation said to be committed to the upholding of fundamental rights of citizens has filed this application under Article 32 of the Constitution. It is alleged that on 19th April, 1986, 600 to 700 poor peasants and landless people mostly belonging to the backward classes had collected for holding a peaceful meeting within the compound of Gandhi Library in Arwal, a place within the District of Gaya in the State of Bihar. Without any previous warning by the police or any provocation on the part of the people who had so collected, the Superintendent of Police, Respondent No. 3 herein, reached the spot with police force, surrounded the gathering and opened fire as a result of which several people were injured and at least 21 persons including children died. The petitioner alleged that separate unofficial inquiries have been held into the atrocity and the reports indicated that the number of deaths was much more than 21 and ...
Tag this Judgment!