Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1988(36)BLJR268; 1986Supp(1)SCC538
A.P. Sen and; B.C. Ray, JJ.1. Appellant Shoukat Beg who was a Patwari, has been convicted by the Special Judge, Jhabua by his judgment and sentence dated February 22, 1975 for having committed an offence punishable under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1½ years and to pay a fine of Rs 2000 or in default, to further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years on each count. The substantive sentences of imprisonment are to run concurrently. The conviction and sentence have been upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court by its judgment dated July 20, 1977.2. The only contention advanced in the appeal is one of sentence. In a case like the present we agree with the High Court that the sentence must be deterrent. The gravamen of the charge against the appellant was that he as the Patwari received Rs 4880 as a motive or ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC378; 1986(2)SCALE400; (1986)4SCC248; 1986(2)LC597(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The question raised in this case is whether the property which were excluded from the lease granted by the company to the Government in 1966 could also be taken over as part of the 'Sick Textile Undertakings'. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the very exclusion of the properties from the lease was an indication that these properties were not necessary for the running of the Mil and that they were not used in connection with the Undertaking, at any rate from 1966. There is no substance in the submission. There is no dispute that the property is the property of the Textile Undertaking. Once it is found to be the property of the Textile Undertaking there is no escape from the provisions of Section 4(1) read with Section 4(3) of the 'Sick Textile Undertakings' (Taking Over of Management) Act. The Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC53; 1986(2)SCALE431; (1986)4SCC273; [1986]3SCR734; 1987(1)LC3(SC)
A.P. Sen, J.1. In this special leave petition the short point involved is whether by reason of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 92 of Order XXI of the CPC, 1908, the deposit required by Rule 89 not having been made within thirty days from the date of sale, the application made by the judgment-debtor was not maintainable. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 92 has been amended by Section 72 of the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1976 by adding the words 'the deposit required by that rule is made within thirty days from the date of sale', the following 'Or in cases where the amount deposited under Rule 89...within such time as may be fixed by the Court' to prevent any controversy as to the power of the Court to extend the time to make good the deficit. Unfortunately, the words added speak of the deficiency owing to 'any clerical or arithmetical mistake' on the part of the depositor. The amended Rule 92(2) now reads:92(2). Where such application is made and allowed, and where, in the case of an application under Rule 89, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC2030; [1987]61CompCas466(SC); JT1986(1)SC375; 1986(2)SCALE381; (1986)4SCC222; [1986]3SCR718; 1987(1)LC308(SC)
Dutt, J.1. In these Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India the petitioners, including the petitioner Minerva Mills Ltd. and some of its creditors, have challenged the legality of the order dated October 19, 1971 passed under Section 18A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (for short 'IDR Act') taking over the management of the textile undertaking of the petitioner, Minerva Mills Ltd., and the constitutional validity of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 (for short 'Nationalisation Act').2. On August 20, 1970, the Central Government appointed a Committee Section 15 of the IDR Act to make a full and complete investigation of the affairs of the Minerva Mills Ltd., hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'. After the investigation was made the Central Government by an order dated October 19, 1971, authorised the National Textile Corporation to take over the management of the undertaking of the Company. The petitioners did not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC2094; 1986(2)SCALE400a; (1986)4SCC287; [1986]3SCR705
Ranganath Misra, J.1. These two appeals by special leave assail the judgment of the Gujarat High Court substantially affirming the appellate decision of the Charity Commissioner that the Pushti Margiya Moti Haveli at Junagad and thirty-eight items of its properties constitute a public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.2. The appellant is the widow of Maharajshri Purshottamlaljl who admittedly was a lineal descendant of Shrimad Ballabhacharyaji, the founder of the Pushti Margi Sampradaya. Purshottamlalji passed away in 1955 and, after him, the appellant has been in charge of the management of the Haveli and its assets both moveable and immovable. The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was extended to Saurashtra area of the Gujarat Stale in the year 1961. In October 1961, the appellant made an application to the Assistant Charity Commissioner at Rajkot under Section 18 of the Act contending that the Haveli and its properties did not consti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1986Supp(1)SCC529
R.S. Pathak and; Sabyasachi Mukharji, JJ.1. Mr K.N. Bhatt gives an undertaking on behalf of the Canara Bank that the petitioners who are casual workmen in the employment of the Canara Bank and who have completed over 240 days of employment in a year, will be retained in service and will also be considered for absorption as and when a vacancy arises. This order will not prejudice the rights of those workmen who were originally in the employment of the erstwhile Lakshmi Commercial Bank and have now been absorbed in the Canara Bank. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1781; 1988LabIC106; 1986Supp(1)SCC560
ORDER1. We understand that the services of the petitioners have been regularised recently. Petitioners claim that they have been in continuous employment ever since the year 1979 and that they are entitled to the Salary and Allowances as are paid to regular and permanent employees on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Following the Order made in the Writ Petitions Nos. 3077-3111 of 1985 we direct that these petitioners shall be entitled to the Salary and Allowances on the same basis as paid to regular and permanent employees from the date of their continuous employment. Respondents will ascertain the date of their continuous employment and payment as aforesaid will be made to the petitioners within 3 months from today. The matter is disposed of accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1986Supp(1)SCC568
Order 1. Normally, this Court does not interfere with interlocutory orders of this nature except under very exceptional circumstances. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason for us to depart from this well settled practice. Obviously, the High Court could not have prejudged the whole issue involved in the writ petition which is still to be heard on merits. We, therefore, made the impugned order subject to the result of the writ petition and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Learned counsel for the State Government seeks two weeks' time to implement the impugned order of the High Court. We grant two weeks' time to the State Government to implement the direction made by the High Court as prayed for. 2. We hope and trust that the High Court will endeavour to dispose of the writ petition on merits, as expeditiously as possible; and, in any event, not later than four weeks from today. 3. Special leave petition is accord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC244; 1986(2)SCALE393; (1986)4SCC184; 1986(2)LC594(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The principal submission of Mr. G.L. Sanghi, learned Counsel for the petitioners was that the undertaking was not a 'Sick Textile Undertaking' within the meaning of Section 2(b)(ii) of the Sick Textile Under takings (Taking Over Management) Act, 1972 as it had not remained closed for a period of not less than three months immediately before the appointed day. In support of this submission learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on two letters written by the petitioners, one addressed to the Inspector of factories and the other to the 'Tehsildar, in which it was stated that the Mill had started working partially with effect from January 12, 1972. The 1st letter is dated January I4th, 1972 and the 2nd letter is dated January 20th, 1972. Whatever effort may have been made to start the Mill partially, it is clear from the other material available in the case that the petitioner did not succeed in restarting the Mill. The letter dated September 22, 1972 addressed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1986(52)FLR418]; 1986(Supp)SCC562
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J. and; S. Natarajan, J.1. Ms Kumaramangalam, counsel for the applicant complains in this CMP that two of the employees namely Bhim Sen Bhatia and Mrs Usha Singh were wrongfully discharged from service by the management and the discharge was by way of victimization for their Unionist activities as also because they took an active part in opposing the management and proceedings arising out of the case concerning escape of gas. This allegation is disputed by Mr Nariman on behalf of the management and he informs us that in fact an application for approval of the Industrial Tribunal for discharge of Bhim Sen Bhatia and Mrs Usha Singh has been made by management long back under Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the application is still pending. It is a matter of regret that applications for approval should remain pending before the Industrial Tribunal for over 9 months when Section 33(5) of the Act provides in clear terms that when an application for ap...
Tag this Judgment!