Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC770; JT1987(1)SC365; 1987(1)SCALE255; (1987)1SCC712; [1987]2SCR190; 1987(1)LC610(SC)
S. S. Natarajan, J.1. This appeal by Special Leave is by a landlord and is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Revision No. 907 of 1977. In an eviction suit filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the 'Act') against the tenant and the sub-tenant (Respondent 2 and 1 respectively) in respect of two premises, there was a compromise between the landlord and the tenant and in terms thereof, the Rent Controller decreed the eviction of the first respondent from the premises sub-leased to him. An Appeal to the appellate Authority proved of no avail and hence the first respondent filed Civil Revision No. 907 of 1977 under Section 15(5) of the Act to the High Court. The High Court allowed the revision holding that no order of eviction can be passed under Section 13(2) of the Act as the sub-tenancy had been created before the Act came into force in the Union Territory of Chandigarh where the property is situa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC767; JT1987(1)SC419; 1987(1)SCALE342; (1987)1SCC610; 1987(1)LC382(SC)
A.P. Sen, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated April 30, 1979 arising out of a suit brought by the appellant, as plaintiff, for declaration of her one-sixth share in the suit lands and for joint possession against the respondents who are her paternal cousins, on the allegation that they had abducted her mother Mst. Pari and that the alleged will dated August 24, 1972, Exh. D 1, purported to have been executed by her mother in their favour was not genuine but had been procured by fraud. Her case was that her mother Mst. Pari had been abducted by the respondents and they got the will executed, and that case has not been substantiated. Both the learned Additional District Judge as well as the learned Subordinate Judge have on a consideration of the evidence held that due execution of the will, Exh. D-l, as well as its attestation were proved and also that there were no suspicious circumstances surrounding it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC768; 1988(36)BLJR194; 1987CriLJ713; 1987(1)Crimes479(SC); JT1987(1)SC337; 1987(1)SCALE258; (1987)2SCC652; 1987(1)LC466(SC)
S. Natarajan, J.1. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 1284 of 1974 confirming the conviction of appellant, Radha Kishan under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and the sentence of life imprisonment and three years' R.I. respectively awarded therefor.2. Having regard to the evidence in the case and the defence taken by the appellant, the appeal raises a limited question viz. whether the appellant shot deceased Darya intentionally or accidentally.3. Briefly stated the facts are as below. One Amar Singh, who was also tried with the appellant but acquitted of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 114 Indian Penal Code came from his village on 5.12.73 and took the appellant and Darya for 'shikar'. Amar Singh was having a licensed gun. On the 5th and 6th of December the 'shikar' party could not get any game and hence they started proceeding to another forest known as Pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC773; 1987CriLJ709; JT1987(1)SC359; 1987(1)SCALE261; (1987)2SCC17
S. Natarajan, J.1. Without a shred of evidence being recorded the rendering of a judgment of acquittal under garb of an order of discharge of the accused by the Special Judge, Shimla and a summary dismissal of the criminal revision filed against that order by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh with the cryptic words 'Heard. Dismissed.' has impelled the State to file this Appeal by Special Leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.2. During the investigation of another case relating to F.I.R. No. 71 of 1977 the investigating authorities came to seize 2607 scants. With reference to these scants a case was registered in F.f.R. No 94 dated 25-12-1977 against the first respondent and five others for commission of offences punishable under Sections 379, 411, 420, 218, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 5(2)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Investigation revealed that the accused had entered into a criminal conspiracy for illicitly felling trees of Kail standing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1661; (1988)1GLR156(SC); JT1987(1)SC737; 1987Supp(1)SCC280
M.P. Thakkar, J. 1. On November 23, 1965 a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in order to acquire lands specified in the notification for the purpose of 'construction of light factories and residential quarters for members of the Vishwakarma Sarvodaya Sahakari Mandal Ltd., Ahmedabad for engaging itself in light industrial work which is for a public purpose. Respondents 1 and 2 instituted a Writ Petition in the High Court in order to challenge the aforesaid notification. The High Court by its judgment and order under appeal allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the aforesaid notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act as also the earlier notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereupon the State of Gujarat has approached this Court by way of present appeal by special leave.2. The notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act which were challenged by the original Writ Petitioners were quashed upon the Hig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC313
O. Chinnappa Reddy and; V. Khalid, JJ.1. Thanks to the learned counsel appearing in the case particularly to Shri R. Venkataramani and the Additional Solicitor General Mr G. Ramaswamy, we are happy to record that we have been able to arrive at a happy solution of the problem. There will be an order in the following terms:“(1) Those who have put in a service of 5 years and above as on 1-1-1981 shall be treated as temporary employees with effect from 1-1-1981.(2) Those who have more than 3 years but less than 5 years as on 1-1-1981 shall be treated as temporary employees with effect from 1-1-1982.(3) Those who have completed 360 days but less than 3 years as on 1-1-1981 shall be treated as temporary employees with effect from 1-1-1983.(4) Those who complete 360 days on any date after 1-1-1981 shall be treated as temporary employees with effect from that date.(5) For the purpose of fixation of pay and pensionary benefits 50 % of the services rendered prior to 1-1-1981 shall be taken...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC79
E.S. Venkataramiah and; Sabyasachi Mukharji, JJ.1. The question before the Third Pay Commission was whether any step should be taken to remove the stagnation at the level above the Senior Scale Officers in the Indian Forest Service. The Pay Commission recommended for that purpose that a Selection Grade above the Senior Scale might be created at the level above the Senior Scale Officers. The Government did not accept that recommendation and the Conservators of Forests were granted the pay scale recommended by the Pay Commission with effect from January 1, 1973 without creating a Selection Grade at that level. But the Government later on created a Selection Grade at the level of Deputy Conservators of Forests on September 12, 1977 with effect from July 12, 1977. The question of creating a Selection Grade at the level of the Deputy Conservators of Forests was not at all in the contemplation of the Pay Commission. Hence the creation of the Selection Grade at the level of Deputy Conservator...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC68
ORDER There is great force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the allegation was that a bomb was thrown at the meeting at the time of the election the question was one relating to public order and not law and order and detention of the respondent for a period beyond the date of election would not render the detention bad. Even so as 16 months have passed since the quashing of the detention order we do not consider it appropriate to issue a notice to the respondent in order to examine the validity of the judgment of the High Court. On this short ground alone we are dismissing the special leave petition. We should not be understood as having approved the view taken by the High Court. Court Master. From the Judgment and Order dated August 20, 1985 of the High Court of Allahabad in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 5525 of 1985...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1987(1)SC715; 1987Supp(1)SCC627
ORDER1. The appellant was originally in the service of the then State of Bombay as it was before the re-organization of States in 1956. On the eve of re-organization he was employed in the Bombay State Electricity Board. He came to be allotted to the State of Mysore (as it then was) upon the re-organization of the States on 1st April, 1957. Later on the State of Mysore became the State of Karnataka. The appellant continued to work in the Electricity Department of the then Mysore State (later on Karnataka State) because at the material time there was no Electricity Board and it was a Department of the State. After the formation of the Karnataka Electricity Board (KEB) the appellant was given an option to join the KEB on the conditions of service applicable to the employees of the Board. He was also informed that if he was not willing to join in, KEB, his services were liable to be terminated. Taking stock of the situation at the material time, the appellant opted for joining the KEB. Ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC777; [1987(54)FLR476]; JT1987(1)SC376; 1987LabIC619; (1987)ILLJ345SC; 1987(1)SCALE240; (1987)1SCC700; [1987]2SCR164; 1987(2)SLJ23(SC); 1987(1)LC560(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The petitioners describe themselves as 'catering cleaners of Southern Railways represented by V. China Thambi and M.Mohan of the Vegetarian Refreshment Room, Central Station, Madras'. The petition is claimed to be filed in a representative capacity on behalf of about three hundred and odd catering cleaners working in the catering establishments in various railway junctions of the Southern Railway and in the pantry cars of long distance trains running under the control of the Southern Railway. Since a long time they have been agitating for the abolition of the Contract system under which they are employed to do cleaning work in the catering establishments and the pantry cars and for their absorption as regular employees of the principal employer, namely, the Southern Railway. They complain that they are rot even paid minimum wages. They are paid a pittance averaging from Rs. 2 00/- to Rs. 2.50/- per day. Although the contract system has been abolished in almost ...
Tag this Judgment!