Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC859; 1986(1)SCALE260; (1986)2SCC249; [1986]1SCR399; 1986(1)LC642(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The archaic right of pre-emption based on consanguinity is in question in the several thousand writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution. The constitutional validity of Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 was applicable in the State of Haryana which incorporates this right is challanged. The State of origin of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, the State of Punjab, has repealed the Act in 1973. The Act, however, continues to be in force in the State of Haryana which originally formed part of the State of Punjab. The vires of Section 15(1)(a) of the Act was questioned in this Court in Ram Sarup v. Munshi and Ors. : [1963]3SCR858 on the ground that it offended the fundamental right guaranteed by 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. It was ruled by a Constitution Bench that there was no infringement of Article 19(1)(f) and that the provision was valid. The validity of Section 15 is now impugned primarily on the ground that it offends Articles 14 and 15 of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1499; 1986(1)SCALE272; (1986)2SCC237; [1986]1SCR383
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. 1. Balbir Nath Mathur obtained an ex-parte decree for eviction against M/s. Om Prakash & Company and Kusum Rani, a partner of M/s. Om Prakash & Company in respect of the ground floor of premises of No.90, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi. Three of the partners of M/s. Om Prakash & Company, it must be mentioned at the outset, are the sister-in-law and the two minor daughters of Balbir Nath Mathur himself. When Balbir Nath Mathur sought to execute the decree for eviction, M/s. Girdhari Lal & Sons who are in occupation of the premises filed an objection petition before Rent Controller, purporting to do so under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The objection petition was rejected by the Rent Controller. The order of the Rent Controller was confirm ed an appeal, by the Rent Control Tribunal and, by the High Court on further revision. M/s. Girdhari Lal & Sons have filed this appeal with the special leave of this Court. 2. The Rent Controller and the Rent Control ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1011; 1986(0)KLT508(SC); 1986(1)SCALE250; (1986)2SCC209; [1986]1SCR371; 1986(1)LC515(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. These Writ Petitions raise an interesting question as to whether after the coming into force of the Part B States (Laws) Act 1951, the Travancore Christian Succession Act 1092 continues to govern intestate succession to the property of a member of the Indian Christian Community in the territories originally forming part of the erstwhile state of Travancore or is such intestate succession governed by the Indian Succession Act 1925 and if it continues to be governed by the Tranvacore Christian Succession Act 1092, whether Sections 24, 28 and 29 of that Act are unconstitutional and void as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. This question is of great importance because it affects the property rights of women belonging to the Indian Christian Community in the territories of the former State of Travancore. It is not necessary for the purpose of deciding this question to refer to the facts of any particular Writ Petition. It will be sufficient to trace th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC614; 1988(1)SCALE256; (1986)2SCC203; [1986]1SCR364; 1986(1)LC702(SC)
ORDERA. P. Sen, J.1. We had allowed the appeal at the conclusion of hearing of January 31, 1986. We now proceed to give the reasons therefore. 2. In this appeal by special leave the short point is as to the legality and propriety of an ad-interim order dated December 11, 1985 passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court consisting of R.N. Pyne and Ajit Kumar Sen Gupta, JJ. setting aside an interlocutory order of Padma Khastgir, J. dated November 6, 1985. By the impugned order, the learned Judges have directed the release to the respondents of more or less 600 metric tonnes of tin plates which, according to the State Government, are worth nearly about Rs.60 lakhs, seized from them for alleged contravention of item 24, Schedule 1 to the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1997 and which, according to the respondents, are nothing but waste material, on condition set out by them, namely, on the furnishing of bank guarantee of Rs.5 lakhs in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1986)ILLJ430SC; 1986(2)SCALE678; (1986)2SCC234
ORDER1. This order will govern the partial disposal of the applications for grant of interim relief to employees of the public sector undertakings who are before us and are governed by the Central pattern of basic pay and dearness allowance.2. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties at considerable length, we find that there is no justification for refusing the prayer for grant of interim relief as respects employees of these public sector undertakings drawing a basic pay of Rs. 1000 or less. This would be in consonance with and subject to the same conditions as in the order passed by the Chief Justice of India and Mr. Justice Pathak dated September 5, 1985. That order is in the following terms:So far as the Food Corporation of India is concerned, two instalments of the interim relief which have been declared by the Government of India shall be payble by the petitioners to their employees irrespective whether they are in Class I, Class II, Class III or Class IV on the same basis ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC631; (1986)51CTR(SC)336; [1986]158ITR683(SC); 1986(1)SCALE236; (1986)2SCC264; [1986]1SCR348; 1986(2)LC457(SC)
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J. 1. The question raised for our determination in this appeal is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs transferred by the deceased to his three grand nephews in equal shares was includible in the estate of the deceased that passed on his death? Substantially the answer thereto depends upon whether Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 is attracted to the case or not. 2. The facts giving rise to the question may briefly be stated. The deceased, Sri Bankatlal Lahoti was a partner in the firm of M/s. Dayaram Surajmal, which carried on business as a Bankers. With a view to give Rs. l lakh each to his three minor grand nephews (three grand sons of his deceased brother) the deceased on 4th October 1952 issued a cheque for Rs. 3 lakhs in favour of the firm; this amount was debited in the account of the deceased in the firm and credited in the accounts of the three minors in equal proportion. The said sum thus transferred to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC965; (1986)1CompLJ251(SC); 1986(1)SCALE199; (1986)2SCC176; 1987Supp(1)SCC131; [1986]1SCR312
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 12739 of 1985 and 26 of 1986.(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) Anil B. Divan, Avadh Bihari, Danial Latifi, B. Datta, Additional Solicitor General, M.C. Mehta (Petitioner-in- person), Ravinder Narain, S. Kashwaha, D.N. Mishra, S. Sukumaran of J.B. Dadachanji & Co., Raju Ramachandran, R.D. Agarwala, C.V.S. Rao, D. Kashwaha, R.N. Poddar, R. Mohan, B.P. Maheshwari, M.C. Dua, Ravinder Bana, A.K. Nauriya, R.S. Sodhi and Ms. Kitty Kumaramanglam for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered byBHAGWATI, C.J. Writ Petition No. 12739 of 1985 which has been brought by way of public interest litigation raises some seminal questions concerning the true scope and ambit of Arts. 21 and 32 of the Constitution, the principles and norms for determining the liability of large enterprises engaged in manufacture and sale of hazardous products, the basis on which damages in case of such liability should be quantified and wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC954; [1986(52)FLR358]; 1986LabIC667; (1986)ILLJ432SC; 1986(1)SCALE231; (1986)2SCC151; [1986]1SCR281; 1986(2)LC198(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment and order dated November 10, 1983 passed by the Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Appeal No. 25/PWA/81 modifying the order dated April 29, 1981 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act (Labour Court No. 2), Bhopal in case No. l/PWA/81. The facts of the case are briefly these in the course of conciliation proceedings under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 a settlement was arrived at on June 29, 1973 between the management of the Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad, the appellant herein, and the S.P.M. Employees Union, Hoshangabad. In the Memorandum of Settlement arrived at as per Section 12(3) of that Act one of the terms related to the incentive benefit. Clause 2(c) and (d) of the Memorandum of Settlement which relates to incentive benefit reads as follows :2.(c) The settlement on revised group incentive base of 6 M.T. a day will be treated as ad hoc regardless ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC617; (1986)88BOMLR151; [1986(52)FLR474]; 1986LabIC585; (1986)ILLJ358SC; 1986(1)SCALE193; (1986)2SCC112; [1986]1SCR300; 1986(1)SLJ358(SC)
D.P. Madon, J.1. The Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4041 of 1982, Shivaji Atmaji Sawant, was a Police Constable in the Bombay City Police Force attached to the Bandra Police Station in Bombay. He was governed by the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (Bombay Act No. XXII of 1951). By an order dated August 22, 1982, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, he was dismissed from service, without a charge-sheet having been issued to him and without any inquiry being held with respect to the misconduct alleged against him. The said order of dismissal was passed under Section 25(1) of the Bombay Police Act read with Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The writ petition filed by Sawant challenging the said order of dismissal was dismissed by the Bombay High Court. He has thereupon approached this Court in appeal by way of Special Leave granted by this Court. 2. The Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4363 of 1985, Namdeo Jairam Velankar, was a Head Con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC868; 1986(2)ARBLR14(SC); (1986)1CompLJ297(SC); 1986(1)SCALE244; (1986)2SCC145; [1986]1SCR290; 1986(1)LC742(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. These appeals by special leave are filed against the order dated May 25, 1984 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Revision No. 136 of 1982 and the order dated February 22, 1985 in C.M.A. No. 644(M) of 1984 on the file of that Court.2. The appellant, the State Bank of India, had allowed cash credit facility to Saksaria Sugar Mills Ltd., respondent No. l herein, on the security of the goods produced at the sugar factory belonging to respondent No. l. Respondent No. l had also deposited in the Bombay office of the State Bank of India on February 2, 1962 by way of equitable mortgage the title deeds of its immovable properties to secure the amount advanced under the said cash credit facility. Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 Govind Ram and Brothers, Shri K.G. Saksaria, Shri G.L. Vaid and Shri R.K. Saksaria had agreed to be the guarantors for the repayment of any amount due from respondent No. l under the said cash credit account. Since there was default in repayme...
Tag this Judgment!