Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1655; 1986CriLJ1248; 1986(3)Crimes11(SC); 1986(1)SCALE931; 1986Supp(1)SCC190; [1986]3SCR113
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. The validity of the trial of three Army Officers is in question.2. The High Court has taken the view that the learned Judge presiding over the Special Court had acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the case and proceeding with the trial of three Army Officers resulting in the conviction of one of them, and the acquittal of the remaining two and has quashed the proceedings. The question which calls for determination in these two allied appeals by special leave preferred by the State of West Bengal is whether the High Court was right in doing so.The following facts are not in dispute:(1) Three accused persons who were tried by the Judge presiding over the Fourth Addl. Special Court, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the learned Trial Judge for the sake of brevity) were Army Officers. They were charged with offences in respect of which the ordinary Criminal Court and the Court Martial both had concurrent jurisdiction.(2) The Learned Trial Judge had fail...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1859; (1986)IILLJ298SC; 1986(1)SCALE1311; 1986Supp(1)SCC185; [1986]3SCR106
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. Seniority is the bone of contention.2. The dispute centers round the question as to whether the High Court was right in affirming the view taken by the District Inspector of Schools that Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were senior to the appellant in the lecturer's grade in the Kashiraj Maha Vidyalaya Inter College, Orai, District Varanasi.3. The dispute regarding inter-se seniority having arisen amongst the aforesaid three persons, the District Inspector of Schools examined the issue and rendered a decision dated January 8, holding that Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were senior to the appellant in the lecturer's Grade having regard to the fact that their appointment in the grade became effective from 19-12-62, 1-7-63 and 23-7-1963 respectively.4. The appellant challanged the decision by way of a Writ Petition to the High Court. The High Court affirmed the decision of the District Inspector of Schools and dismissed the Writ Petition. Thereupon the Writ Petitioner in the High Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC517; 1986LabIC1816; (1986)IILLJ432SC; 1986(1)SCALE1178; (1986)3SCC33
ORDERR.S. Pathak, J.1. This appeal raises some serious questions of law of profound importance to the seniormost administrative service of the country. A probationer of the Indian Administrative Service was alleged to have committed grave acts of misconduct during a training programme and was discharged from service. The opinion, on the basis of which the order of discharge was made, stated that the misconduct was so grave that it could be described as of a criminal nature and could merit dismissal under Rule 11(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Probation) Rules 1954 on the ground that the probationer was guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the Service. It was stated, however, that as the probationer had a wife and a child an order of dismissal should not be passed, but instead he should be discharged under Rule 12 of those Rules on the ground that he was unsuitable for being a member of the Service and was found lacking in qualities of mind and character needed for the Ser...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1567; 1986(10)ECC131; 1986(1)SCALE1290; (1986)3SCC352; [1986]3SCR88; 1986(2)LC41(SC)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. The petitioners, M/s. Indo-Afghan Chambers of Commerce and its President, Sundar Lal Bhatia, are aggrieved by the grant of additional licences to the respondents, M/s. Rajnikant Brothers and M/s. Everest Gems for the import of dry fruits.2. The petitioner, M/s. Indo-Afghan Chambers of Commerce, is an association of dealers engaged in the business of selling dry fruit in North India. The dry fruit is purchased by them either locally or through imports from outside India. The respondents, M/s. Rajnikant Brothers and M/s. Everest Gems, are diamond exporters who have been issued additional licences pursuant to an order of the Court in the following circumstances.3. The respondents diamond exporters had applied for the grant of Export House Certificates under the Import Policy 1978-79 and had been denied the Certificates on the erroneous ground that they had not diversified their exports. In writ petitions filed in the Bombay High Court, they were held entitled to the Expo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1986(1)SCALE1268; (1986)3SCC329; [1986]3SCR99; 1986(2)LC4(SC)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. The petitioner, Shri Virendrasinhji Chauhan, was at one time the ruler of Chhota-Udepur. The State of Chhota-Udepur contained the Jagir of villages Gundi and Kheda, in which a half share belonged to a Jagirdar, Thakor Shri Pravinsinhji Bharatsinhji of Kadwal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Thakor'). An agreement dated March 19, 1948 was executed between the Governor General of India and the Raja of Chhota-Udepur. Under that agreement the Raja ceded to the Dominion Government full and exclusive authority, jurisdiction and powers for, and in relation to, the governance of the State and agreed to transfer the administration of the State to the Dominion Government on June 10, 1948. In lieu thereof the Raja was entitled to receive a privy purse and was entitled to the full ownership and enjoyment of all private properties (as distinct from State properties) belonging to him on the date of the agreement. He and the members of his family were entitled to all personal privil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC2118; (1986)IILLJ468SC; 1986(1)SCALE909; (1986)3SCC229; 1986(2)SLJ278(SC)
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. Validity of the impugned order of dismissal is in issue.2. The scope of the inquiry whether the impugned order of dismissal is null and void is restricted to two facets. Whether the principles of Natural Justice were violated by the Respondents by refusing to supply to the appellant (1) copies of the statements of the witnesses examined at the stage of preliminary inquiry preceding the commencement of the inquiry and (2) copies of the documents said to have been relied upon by the disciplinary authority in order to establish the charges against the appellant Who was holding the post of Superintendent of Police, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh. Such is the position having regard to the fact that this Court Per Bhawati, J(as he then was) and Kalasam, J as per order dated October 25, 1977 whilst granting special leave, has so restricted the scope of the appeal in the following terms:Special leave granted limited only to the question whether there was any violation of Article 311 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1184; 1986(1)SCALE1109; (1986)3SCC1; [1986]3SCR18; 1986(2)LC92(SC)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. Special leave granted.2. This is a land-lady's appeal by special leave directed against the order of the High Court of Delhi dismissing her second appeal in limine. The appellant is the owner of the premises No. F-8/17, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. It is a single storeyed house. She let out the premises for a limited period of two years to the respondent, who is a judicial officer. She did so after obtaining the requisite permission under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act on April 22, 1980. A registered deed was executed between the parties in that behalf. The deed recorded the undertaking of the respondent to vacate the premises at the end of two years. The two years expired on April 21, 1982 but the respondent did not hand over possession of the premises to the appellant. Accordingly the appellant prayed for an order directing delivery of possession of the premises to her. A warrant of possession was issued.3. On October 20, 1982 the respondent filed his objectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1527; (1986)88BOMLR395; 1986(1)SCALE1242; (1986)3SCC247; [1986]3SCR63; 1986(2)LC159(SC)
R.B. Misra, J.1. The present appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated January 10, 1986 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the appellant.2. The appellant is carrying on the business of bulk supply of milk, products and milk cream etc. The appellant is well-known in the said field and has a plant of pasteurization in Pune and has been carrying on the said business for more than twenty years. The appellant installed a plant for pasteurization at a heavy cost to the tune of rupees three lakhs. The appellant has been supplying large quantities of milk and milk products pasteurized or otherwise to various companies, Government Departments including respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The appellant as a registered contractor has been supplying fresh buffaloes and cows milk to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as per the requirements for the last twenty years. The appellant is on their approved list for t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1428; (1986)58CTR(SC)65; [1986]160ITR674(SC); 1986(1)SCALE885; (1986)3SCC310; [1986]3SCR26
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. Whether, question of law referable to the High Court, arises out of the order of the Appellate Income-tax Tribunal in this case, is, the question that arises in these appeals by special leave from the decision of the Orissa High Court. Several questions of law were sought for from the Tribunal to be referred out of the decision of the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). The Tribunal refused to refer these questions. An application was made, under Section 256(2) of the Act asking for reference on those questions from the High Court. The High Court rejected the applications and refused to call for a statement of case on those questions. This appeal by special leave is from the said decision of the High Court.2. It is not necessary to refer to all the questions that were pressed before the High Court because all these questions were not pressed before this Court.3. The following questions were, however, canvassed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1844; 1986LabIC1198; (1986)IILLJ145SC; 1986(1)SCALE1211; 1986Supp(1)SCC95; [1986]3SCR78; 1986(2)LC137(SC)
K.N. Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) dismissing the appellant's writ petition made under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the Order dt. 2.9.1983 reverting the appellant from the post of Commercial Officer to that of Superintendent.2. The appellant joined service in Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Bisalpur District Pilibhit, a sugar factory run and managed by the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Mills Federation. While the appellant was working as Office Surperintendent, he was selected for promotion to the post of Commercial Officer and by Order dt. August 29, 1980 appointed on probation for one year against a regular vacancy with a condition that his probationary period may be extended further and during the period of probation he could be reverted to the post of Office Superintendent without any notice. On 2.7.1981 the appellant was transferred from Bisalpur to Majohla Sugar Factory where he continued to work a...
Tag this Judgment!