Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC254; (1988)1GLR337(SC); JT1987(4)SC384; 1987(2)SCALE1063; 1987Supp(1)SCC614
1. These two Appeals are directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court and arise on a certificate granted by that High Court under Article 133(a) of the Constitution of India as it stood prior to its amendment in 1912.2. The facts necessary for the appreciation of the controversy before us are as follows:3. The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 2310 of 1972 and the Respondents in Civil Appeal No. 2311 of 1972 are a partnership firm and its partners. The Respondent in Civil Appeal No. 2310 of 1972 and the appellant in Civil No. 2311 of 1972 is the Gujarat Electricity Board. A suit was instituted by the said partnership firm and its partners against the said Electricity Board in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baroda, claiming certain amounts in respect of the work done under a construction contract and for certain extra items of work. We propose to refer to the parties by their description in the suit. Since the dispute in the appeals befo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC84; JT1987(4)SC338; 1988LabIC391; 1987(2)SCALE1050; (1988)1SCC57; [1988]1SCR1049; 1989(1)SLJ72(SC)
E.S. Venktaramiah, J.1. Special leave granted. The appeal is heard.2. The appellant, Sudama Singh, and Respondent No. 1, Nath Saran Singh, were both appointed as Assistant Teachers in L.T. Grade in the Gandhi Inter College, Chilkahar, District Ballia with effect from the same date, i.e., July 8, 1967 and were placed on probation for one year. Respondent No. l was promoted as Lecturer in Hindi on ad hoc basis with effect from March 1 1976 by the Committee of Management and this action of the Committee of Management received the approval of the District Inspector of Schools on October 5, 1976. On November 20, 1976 the District Inspector of Schools again made an order promoting both the appellant and Respondent No. l as Lecturers in Civics and Hindi respectively. The promotions, referred to above, had been made on an ad hoc basis. Likewise a large number of teachers, who were working in the educational institutions which were governed by the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC740; JT1987(4)SC476; 1987(2)SCALE1097; 1988Supp(1)SCC30; [1988]1SCR1034
A.P. Sen, J.1. This appeal by special leave directed against the judge merit and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated May 31, 1984 reported in 1985 Lab IC 514, raises a question of some importance. By the judgment, a learned single Judge (Tiwana, J.) partly allowed the writ petition filed by the appellant and ordained the State Government of Punjab to pay a pension of Rs. 400 per mensem to the appellant as a retired Member of the Punjab State Public Service Commission under Regulation 8(3) of the Punjab Slate Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1958 w.e.f. Aug. 10, 1972, the date when the said provision was first introduced. While disallowing his claim for payment of such pension from January 2, 1959 i.e. from the date of his retirement, the learned single Judge disallowed the appellant's claim for pension as a Member of the State Legislative Assembly under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6B of the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC184; (1987)89BOMLR600; JT1987(4)SC342; 1987(2)SCALE1034; (1988)1SCC155; [1988]1SCR1057; 1988(1)LC133(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay dt. 17th Nov. 1980. The main question involved in this appeal is whether the appellant was a licensee or a tenant and also incidentally the question whether the Court of Small Causes, Bombay had jurisdiction to deal with the eviction petition in this case. The premises in question belongs to the Bombay City Weavers Co-operative Limited. They filed ejectment proceedings against one Sugrabhai Mohammed Husain, their tenant and obtained a decree. It is stated that the appellant was a monthly tenant of the suit premises since about 2nd Feb. 1965. On or about 9th of February, 1965 a fresh document of that date was executed and it is alleged that the appellant continued by virtue of that agreement. It is alleged that this agreement was entered into between the parties since the respondent wanted to charge more rent or mesne profits. This agreement is in writing and this was fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC325; (1988)1CompLJ34(SC); JT1987(4)SC564; 1987(2)SCALE1479; (1988)1SCC523; [1988]1SCR1070
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. These appeals by special leave relate to the affairs of M's. Eastern Tea Estate (P) Ltd. It was of two branches namely, the Dutta's and the Choudhury's. Due to death and lack of cordiality between the erstwhile partners the two branches first drifted and then parted company as it unfortunately is the fate of so many Indian concerns and there were disputes and litigations in Court.2. The Civil Appeal No. 1510 of 1987 arises from a judgment and decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Gauhati dated 4th June, 1987. It appears that that a petition was filed originally by the appellant under Sections 397 and 398 read with Section 403 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The company petition came to be disposed of on 4th February, 1977 in accordance with the compromise arrived at between the parties. The said compromise comprised of inter alia, two relevant paragraphs, for the present purpose, which read as follows:1. Mrs. Arati Dutt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC711; JT1987(4)SC321; 1987(2)SCALE1005; 1987Supp(1)SCC371; 1988(1)LC127(SC)
1. After hearing the matter on 6ih November, 1987 we had allowed the appeal and directed reasons to follow. We proceed to state the reasons.2. The Union of India has carried this appeal against the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal at Patna. The respondent took the Civil Services Examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission in the year 1983 held on the basis of notification dated 18th December, 1982. The Civil Services Examination is a combined one for several services including Indian Foreign Service, Indian Administrative Service and Indian Police Service. He in his application form against column 22 which required information about services/posts in order of preference mentioned his preference for Indian Administrative Service only. The results of the examination were published on 25th March, 1984, on the basis of written examination; final results following viva voce test were published on 25th of May, 1984, and the respondent was placed in the 280th p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1988]169ITR535(SC)
ORDERPathak, C.J. 1. These appeals have been preferred by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Ahmedabad, against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court answering the questions of law referred to it in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We find it unnecessary to enter into any detailed consideration of the points raised before us because it appears that the judgment under appeal was considered by this Court earlier in CWT v. Trustees of H.E. H. Nizam's Family (Remainder Wealth) Trust : [1977]108ITR555(SC) and was approved by this Court when disposing of the appeal before it. It is not disputed that if the view taken by the court in the latter case is accepted, it would also dispose of the appeals before us. It has not been shown that the view taken by this Court in CWT v. Trustees of H.E H: Nizam's Family (Remainder Wealth) Trust : [1977]108ITR555(SC) calls for reconsideration.2. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals but without any order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC220; 1988(36)BLJR145; (1988)1GLR379(SC); JT1987(4)SC323; 1987(2)SCALE1141; (1988)1SCC132; [1988]1SCR997; 1988(1)LC113(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. These appeals by special leave are filed against the common judgment in eight writ petitions on the file of the High Court of Gujarat. The respondents in these appeals i.e. the petitioners in the said writ petitions questioned the applicability of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Act 33 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to several pieces of land belonging to them situated within the limits of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. They raised three contentions before the High Court-(i) that the Act was beyond the legislative competence of Parliament insofar as the State of Gujarat was concerned; (ii) that the lands in question were not vacant lands as defined in the Act and, therefore, the proceedings instituted in respect of them under the Act were liable to be quashed; and (iii) that the land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which had been initiated in respect of the lands in question...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC121; 1988(36)BLJR138; JT1987(4)SC433; 1987(2)SCALE1008; (1988)1SCC105; [1988]1SCR1010
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. We grant special leave and proceed to dispose of the appeal.2. Shobha Rani is the appellant. Her husband is Madhukar Reddy who is respondent before us. The wife is postgraduate in biological sciences. The husband is a medical doctor. They were happily married on December 19, 1982. But their happiness did not last longer. They started exchanging letters with bitter feelings. Then they began to accuse each other. At one stage, they thought of winding up by mutual consent. It was perhaps out of disgust. It would have been better, if it had happened. But unfortunately, it did not materialise. Ultimately they landed themselves in the Court. The wife moved the Court for divorce on the ground of cruelty.3. Before referring to further facts, let us consider the law. The cruelty simpliciter is now a ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Act 25 of 1955). Section 13 provides, so far as it is material:13. Divorce.- (1) Any marriage solemnized whethe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC145; JT1987(4)SC440; 1987(2)SCALE1114; (1988)1SCC70; [1988]1SCR1023
Sabyasachi Mukharji J.1. This, is an appeal by special leave directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated the 21st September, 1973 in Second Appeal No. 294/72. The High Court dismissed the Second Appeal of the appellant and confirmed the decision of the Rent Control Tribunal and ordered eviction. Before the High Court three contentions were urged namely:1. The petition for eviction was not maintainable in the absence of a notice to quit while determining the tenancy.2. There was no sub-letting or parting of possession by the appellant-tenant in favour of R.C. Abrol & Company Pvt. Ltd., and 3. If there was such sub-letting, it had been made with the written consent of the landlord so was not actionable.2. The Rent Control Tribunal confirmed the findings against the appellant in all the three contentions and the High Court also affirmed the findings of the Rent Control Tribunal. We must note that no contention was raised before us as far as point No. 1, namely...
Tag this Judgment!