Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC130; JT1987(4)SC396; 1987(2)SCALE1042; 1987Supp(1)SCC543; 1988(1)LC29(SC)
1. The petitioner, 'Vellore Educational Trust' is a Trust registered by The Registrar, Registration Department at Vellore which is in Tamil Nadu. It wants to establish an Engineering College in Andhra Pradesh for the benefit of Tamil minorities.2. There is no dispute and indeed there cannot be any dispute that Tamils are minority community in Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner trust in order to conserve and preserve the language, script and culture of the Tamil speaking community particularly of those who have been living in the adjoining districts made an application to the first and second respondent on May 24, 1984 seeking permission under Section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 to establish a private engineering college with affiliation to Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati. As the respondents did not take any action on the said application, the petitioner trust gave several reminders to the respondents to consider the application. The petitioner also made a written app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987(2)ARBLR279(SC); (1988)1CompLJ39(SC); JT1987(4)SC406; 1987(2)SCALE1149; (1988)1SCC174; [1988]1SCR1124
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. Special Leave granted.2. In the Special Leave Petition notice was issued on 13th of July, 1987 and it was directed that the matter would be disposed of at the notice stage. After hearing the rival contentions, we grant leave to appeal and dispose of the appeal by the order hereunder.3. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the learned single judge of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in Revision Petition No. 157 of 1986. It appears that the appellant, a State Government enterprise, on or about 17th of May, 1983 entered into a contract with the respondent-a private limited company for the supply and installation of a Vanaspati manufacturing plant at Harducharu in the District of Nainital, in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The contract bond contemplated, according to the appellant, guaranteed performance of work at various stages in accordance with the time schedule prescribed therein and provided for completion and commissioning of the plant afte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1988(1)ARBLR366(SC); JT1988(1)SC12; 1988Supp(1)SCC552
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. We have heard counsel for the parties. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi setting aside the objections to the award. The learned District Judge confirmed the award and the High Court also confirmed the said order. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the appellants have come up in this appeal. The only question involved in this appeal whether the award is unreasoned award and whether there was proper and adequate notice given to the appellants for proceeding with the arbitration proceedings. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted before us that the award was really ex parte and his client had not been given a reasonable opportunity. In that view of the matter and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that at this stage it is not necessary for us to enter into the enquiry. The ends of justice would be served in this state of affairs that in order to ensure the fair play in the ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC247; (1988)1GLR367(SC); JT1987(4)SC455; 1987(2)SCALE1193; 1988Supp(1)SCC133; [1988]1SCR1110
Murari Mohan Dutt, J.1. This, appeal by special leave is at the instance of the plaintiff-appellant, since deceased, and is directed against the judgment and decree of the Gujarat High Court reversing those of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Himatnagar, whereby the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit instituted by the appellant.2. The late Thakore Sartansinhji, the father of the appellant, was the Ruler of the former Mohanpur State situate in the district of Sabarkantha, Gujarat. After independence, the said Mohanpur State merged in the then State of Bombay (now the State of Maharashtra). The former Ruler, the father of the appellant, by a deed of gift dated May 14, 1951 gifted certain properties to his youngest son, the respondent No. 1 herein. By his will dt. May 22, 1951, the former Ruler also bequeathed certain properties to the respondent No. 1 and his mother. The father of the appellant died on Dec. 9, 1955 and on his death the appellant became the Ruler. On May 10, 1956, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC117; JT1987(4)SC398; 1988LabIC339; 1987(2)SCALE1058; 1987Supp(1)SCC518; [1988]1SCR1102; 1988(1)SLJ180(SC)
K.N. Singh, J.1. The short question which arises in this appeal is whether the disciplinary proceedings taken against the appellant resulting in his dismissal are null and void as the Enquiry Officer failed to comply with the principles of natural justice in holding the enquiry. The question relating to the non-compliance of principles of natural justice is founded on the grievance that a copy of paper No. 5 although mentioned in the memo of charges was not supplied to the appellant, and that he was not permitted to inspect the same. A learned single Judge of the High Court has answered the question against the appellant. Hence this appeal.2. The appellant was posted as fireman at Moghulsarai in Northern Railway in May, 1964. On 28th May 1964 coal lying at Pusauli Station was fraudulently removed by some person giving out his name as Shambhu Tiwari. A criminal case was registered, but on account of absence of reliable evidence, a final report was submitted. It appears that during the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1987(4)SC641; 1988Supp(1)SCC538
ORDER1. By this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the validity of his continued detention under an order passed by respondent No. 1 the District Magistrate, Meerut dated July 21, 1987 under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, on being satisfied that it was necessary to do so to prevent him from his prejudicial activities affecting maintenance of public order.2. On the view that we take, it is not necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the impugned order pertains to maintenance of public order or merely relates to law and order. While the petitioner was detained in Central Jail, Meerut, he handed over a representation addressed to the State Government of uttar Pradesh, to the Jail Superintendent with an endorsement forwarding a copy thereof to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Internal Security Section), North Block, New Delhi. The writ petition was filed in this Court on September 7, 1987...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1987(4)SC663; 1988Supp(1)SCC511
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. Special leave granted.2. The order of the High Court is set aside subject to the following condition that the school which is being sought to be evicted by virtue of the order of eviction made before the High Court and he trial court is run by the Government of Rajasthan. The only ground on which the eviction order has bane passed is the ground of default in payment of rent. In the interests of justice inasmuch as school is being run by the Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, therefore, it would not be appropriate to uphold that order when the appellants are willing to offer and to pay all arrears of rent. There was, however, another ground, that is to say the ground of bona fide need of the landlord too, that fact has not been gone into. The proper order in so far as the order of eviction on default in payment of rent, would be to set aside the High Court's order but the suit to proceed before the learned trial Judge on the question of bona fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC215; JT1987(4)SC373; (1988)ILLJ427SC; 1987(2)SCALE1107; 1987Supp(1)SCC536; [1988]1SCR1088; 1989(1)SLJ92(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The appellant joined the service of the Narang Bank of India Ltd., New Delhi on July 12, 1974 as a Clerk-cum-Typist and was confirmed in his service on Oct. 1, 1974. The Narang Bank of India Ltd., however, terminated his services on 'Feb. 10, 1975 without assigning any reason. On an industrial dispute being raised the Central Government by its order dt. July 9, 1975 referred the following dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal for adjudication:Whether the action of the management of the Narang Bank of India, New Delhi in terminating the services of Shri Bhagwan Dass Chopra w.e.f. 10-2-1975 is justified? If not, what relief is the said workman entitled?2. The claim made by the appellant was disputed by the management. On the basis of the pleadings filed by the parties the Industrial Tribunal framed issues and directed the parties to lead evidence. In the course of the trial the appellant examined himself and he was cross-examined by the representa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC157; JT1987(4)SC368; 1987(2)SCALE1067; (1988)1SCC166; [1988]1SCR1079
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. A tea estate of 100 acres with some buildings, machinery and equipments was given as security to the Kerala Financial Corporation ('The Corporation') against the loan taken by the appellant. A part of the loan remained outstanding and the appellant could not clear it. The Corporation thereupon filed O.A. No. 8/64 before the District Court of Kottayam for recovery of the arrears and obtained decree for an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/-. In execution of the decree, the said tea estate was brought for sale by court auction. On Nov. 5, 1969, the auction sale was held. There was no bidder. So the Corporation itself had to purchase the property for about Rs. 1,65,000/-. There was long standing dispute between the workmen of the estate and the previous management relating to payment of their wages. The Corporation therefore could not take possession of the estate. An extent of 85 acres out of 100 acres of the estate was in possession of the workmen as per settlement arriv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1987(4)SC516; 1987(2)SCALE1045; (1988)1SCC143; [1988]1SCR1099
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. Special leave granted.2. The High Court in its judgment and order dated 9th July, 1986, has observed that the question of limitation has been canvassed before the High Court. The High Court expressed the view that there was a lot of conflict between the various High Courts on the interpretation of Article 54 of the Limitation Act which governed the point of limitation. The High Court, however, did not decide this question and expressed the view that due to passage of time prices of lands had gone up sky-high and it would be unjust to enforce the agreement of sale entered into. In other words, it appears that without deciding the question whether the claim of the plaintiff was barred by limitation or not, the High Court exercised its discretion in refusing to grant the relief on the ground that there has been good deal of delay and the parties would suffer if specific performance of the agreement was granted. It appears from the facts that in this case the maj...
Tag this Judgment!