Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1986Supp(1)SCC537
A.P. Sen and; B.C. Ray, JJ.1. We are inclined to think that the petition filed by the appellants before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution did raise questions which deserved a hearing on merits. The High Court therefore was not justified in dismissing the writ petition in limine. We are therefore constrained to grant special leave and remit the matter to the High Court for a decision afresh.2. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court are set aside and the High Court is directed to hear the writ petition on merits after notice to the parties. The hearing of the writ petiton be expedited....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC2160; 1986CriLJ2037; 1986(2)SCALE566; (1986)4SCC326; [1986]3SCR961
A.P. Sen, J.1. This appeal by special leave directed against the judgment and order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated February 12, 1986 raises a question of some importance. The question is whether the Food Inspector, Faridkot was competent to lodge a complaint against the appellants under Section 20(1) of the Act for commission of an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act') by virtue of the delegation of powers by the Food (Health) Authority, Punjab under notification dated September 7, 1972 purported to have been issued by him under Rule 3 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Punjab) Rules, 1958.2. Put very shortly, the essential facts are these. Appellant No. 2, Messrs Food Specialties Limited is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling various well-known articles of food including New Maggi 2 minute noodles with sweet sour taste-make...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1986(2)SCALE860; (1991)4SCC129
ORDER1. After the interminable hearing of this appeal had gone on at quite some time lasting for several days, the appellants have filed an affidavit sworn by K.V. Choudhry, Under Secretary, Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) today. Apart from revealing that the Government has no desire or intention to spare any officer who is found to have intentionally flouted Government instructions and orders with regard to deposit of seized cash etc. and that it had already issued instructions on September 2, 1986 to all the Directorates concerned to review the case of delay in deposit of seized cash and report the facts, it is further stated that after receiving the reports the Government proposes to scrutinise each and every case and initiate the necessary disciplinary action against such of the officers who may be found to have deliberately flouted Government instructions and delayed deposits, in the light of the advice given by the Central Vigilence Commission)? Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1986(2)SCALE1265; (1987)1SCC82
ORDER1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. We are of the view that the reports submitted by the Chairman of the Meetings should be accepted and the resolutions passed at the Meetings should be given effect to. We accordingly do so.2. The Board as constituted after the election will take charge of the affairs of the Company and discharge its duties in accordance with law It is open to the reconstituted Board to co-opt any person in accordance with law for the purpose of managing the affairs of the Company.3. This order should not be construed as affecting the rights of the parties with regard to the ownership of the shares.4. These matters are disposed of accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1986(2)SCALE688; 1986Supp(1)SCC561
ORDER1. Writ petitions are adjourned to 14.10.1986.2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent states . that the State Government is considering favourable the question of issuing a notification in accordance with the recommendations made by the committee and that the decision will be reached very shortly and if it is decided to issue such notification, it will be done without any delay before the next hearing of the Writ petitions. But since the acceptance of the recommendations of the Committee and issue of notification in accordance therewith as well as the implementation of the Interim order made by this Court for payment of minimum wages to workers engaged in drought relief work will involve a financial burden of almost rupees twenty crores, we hope and trust that the Central Government will provide necessary assistance to the State Government at an early date since the minimum wages required to be paid are for a work given by way of famine relief operations. We w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC2090; 1986CriLJ1959; 1986(3)Crimes284(SC); 1986(2)SCALE531; (1986)4SCC416; [1986]3SCR905
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 1986 arises out of the judgment and order of the High Court of Patna and the Writ Petition No. 316 is in respect of the same detenu. Both these challenge the order of detention dated 2nd January, 1986 passed by the respondent No. 1. The District Magistrate Dhanbad in respect of the petitioner under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, hereinafter called the 'Act' on the ground that the petitioner's activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Several criminal cases had been filed against the petitioner between 3rd January, 1983 to 18th February, 1985. On or about 2nd January, 1985 the order of detention was passed on an incident relating to the exchange of fire between two rival groups. The order states the grounds as follows:1. On 24.12.1985, between 10 and 10.30. A.M. the subject alongwith Ramashish Bangali, Gulam, Rambriksha armed with Rifle, gun etc. came in Car No. BHG-9372 on Katras Coal Dump and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC111; [1987]61CompCas291(SC); (1986)3CompLJ283(SC); JT1986(1)SC586; (1986)IILLJ509SC; 1986(2)SCALE523; (1986)4SCC337; [1986]3SCR923; 1987(1)SLJ268(SC); 1987(1)LC317
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. A CAT-scan of this appeal reveals three problems, viz:I. Whether a rule or regulation framed by a public sector undertaking which is an authority under the control of Government of India and is a 'State' within the parameters of Article 12 of the Constitution of India empowering the employer to terminate the services of an employee by giving notice of the prescribed period or payment of salary for the notice period in lieu of such notice is constitutional?II. If it is unconstitutional, whether the employee whose services are terminated under the said rule or regulation is always and invariably entitled to reinstatement? Whether option to pay compensation in lieu of reinstatement can be given to the employer in fit cases?III. What would be the appropriate amount to be reasonably awarded in lieu of reinstatement?These are the questions which call for answers in this appeal.(By Special Leave arising out of W.P. No. 2329 of 1984 dismissed by the High Court of Delhi summa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1986(2)SCALE536; (1986)4SCC368; [1986]3SCR937; 1987(1)LC288(SC)
Murari Mohan Dutt, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner, Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as 'the Company', has challenged the taking over of the management of its two textile mills under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1972 (for short 'Take-over Act') and also the constitutional validity of the Take-over Act and the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationaliisation) Act, 1974 (for short 'the Nationalisation Act').2. It appears that the Company had failed on evil days resulting in initiation of liquidation proceedings against the Company and the appointment of a provisional liquidator. The mills of the Company were closed sometime in May, 1972. On the application by the Industrial Finance Corporation of India, the Punjab & Haryana High Court directed the Board of Directors of the Company to hand over possession of the two mills to the Corporation to which the Company was indebted for a huge sum of money. The Corporation was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1644; 1987LabIC1305; 1987Supp(1)SCC37
E.S. Venkataramiah; O. Chinnappa Reddy, JJ.1. The High Court in the judgment recorded the following findings:“The result is, as noticed above, that although it cannot be said that the order dated December 30, 1965/January 7, 1966 suspending the plaintiff from service of the defendant College was illegal or null and void inoperative against the plaintiff from its inception, it did cease to be operative with effect from October 17, 1975 on the expiry of the 60 days from the commencement of the U.P. Secondary Education Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975.”2. Having recorded this finding, the High Court refused to exercise its discretion to grant a declaration that the order of suspension ceased to be operative with effect from October 17, 1975. We think that the High Court was wrong in refusing to grant the declaration. We, therefore, declare that the order of suspension ceased to be operative with effect from October 17, 1975. The appeal against the judgment of the High Court in Secon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC2173; 1986(34)BLJR735; 1986CriLJ2042; 1986(3)Crimes252(SC); 1986(2)SCALE541; (1986)4SCC407; [1986]3SCR913; 1986(2)LC614(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This Appeal and the Writ Petition challenge the order passed by the District Magistrate, Dhanbad under Section 12(2) of The Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (hereinafter called the said 'Act'). The order was passed on 15th January, 1985 and was served on the petitioner on 7th December, 1985. The impugned order was approved by the Government on 15th January, 1985.2. The said Act was an Act to make special provisions for the control and suppression of anti-social elements with a view to maintenance of public order. Section 12 deals with power to make orders for detaining persons, Clause (d) of Section 2 of the said Act states 'Anti-Social Element' as a person who is:(i) either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences, punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code; or(ii) habitually commits or abets the commission of offences under the Suppression of Im...
Tag this Judgment!