Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC268; JT1987(2)SC448; 1987(2)SCALE1314; (1988)1SCC316; [1988]2SCR185
A.P. Sen, J.I have had the benefit of going through the draft judgment prepared by my learned brother Ray, J. and I agree with the order proposed to be made. In view of the importance of the questions involved, I would like to say a few words of my own. The reasons therefore would follow.B.C. RAY, J. 1. This appeal by special leave arising out of the judgment and order passed in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.1080 of 1973 by the High Court of Allahabad delivered on 6th May, 1981. While the writ petition was allowed in part a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the gradation or seniority list annexures 1,2 and 28 to the writ petition, was directed to be issued. There was a further direction for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite party No.1, the State Government to prepare a fresh seniority list in accordance with law in the light of the observations made in the said judgment, within a period of three months and thereafter to take otter consequential step...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1690; [1987]62CompCas609(SC); (1987)2GLR1104; JT1987(2)SC384; 1987MhLJ838(SC); 1987(1)SCALE1027; (1987)3SCC234; [1987]3SCR404
1. The question involved in this case is whether a brother of a person who is killed in a motor vehicle accident can claim compensation in a proceeding instituted before a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal established under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The High Court of Gujarat has upheld such a claim in this case. This Special Leave Petition is filed against the judgment of the High Court questioning the correctness of the said decision.2. The brief facts of the case are these. On account of the negligence on the part of the driver of a bus belonging to the petitioner, the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad, a boy named Bhanubhai, aged 14 years, was run over by the bus resulting in his untimely death. Ramanbhai and Dineshbhai, who were the brothers of the deceased, instituted a petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Vadodara, claiming compensation for the death of their brother alleging ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1577; JT1987(2)SC402; 1987(1)SCALE1086; 1987Supp(1)SCC93; [1987]3SCR369; 1987(2)LC671(SC)
1. This appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act 1951 is directed against the order of the High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) dated 12.10.1981 rejecting the election petition filed by the appellant questioning the election of the respondent as member of the Lok Sabha.2. A bye election was held on June 14, 1981 to fill up the vacancy to the Lok Sabha caused by the death of Sanjay Gandhi in the 25th Amethi Constituency in District Sultanpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The appellant, the respondent and 13 other candidates contested the election. On 15th June 1981 Rajiv Gandhi was declared elected having polled 258884 votes while the appellant polled 2728 votes only. The appellant filed an election petition under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) questioning the validity of the election of the respondent on a number of grounds, including the allegations of corrupt practice of undue influence, hirin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1451; 1987CriLJ1182; 1987(2)Crimes724(SC); JT1987(2)SC377; 1987(1)SCALE1150; (1987)3SCC89
V. Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. By Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 944 of 1987 the petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer to revive a contempt petition which had been previously withdrawn by him on December 12, 1986. It is necessary to set out the previous history of these proceedings in order to understand the factual background against which the said prayer has been made.2. The petitioner is the Secretary of an association of individuals called the 'Conscientious Group'. He filed contempt petition No. 4210 of 1986 alleging that the conduct of the first respondent in making certain adverse comments about the Judges who delivered the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 860 of 1986 (National Anthem Case) constitutes criminal contempt and that the first respondent as well as respondent Nos. 2 to 5 who were responsible for publishing the said statement in certain newspapers should be punished by taking action against them under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1463; JT1987(2)SC425; (1987)IILLJ360SC; 1987(1)SCALE1106; (1987)3SCC251; [1987]3SCR346; 1987(2)SLJ108(SC); 1987(2)LC292(SC)
1. The appellant appeared in person and argued his case with clarity and competence. At times he was emotionally surcharged. He perhaps, feels that he had a raw deal at the hands of the authorities. In the Special Leave Petition he has given in great detail his high qualifications and meritorious achievements in the various offices he held. Shorn of these details the necessary facts, in brief, for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:2. The appellant was appointed as Chairman of the Haryana Board of School Education as per order dated 10-12-1985. At that time he was holding the post of Professor-Director of the Punjabi University Regional center, Bhatinda. On his appointment as the Chairman of the said Board he resigned his post as Professor-Director and took over as the Chairman of the Board on 11th December, 1985. His original appointment was for a period of 2 years. The order of appointment reads as follows:In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1467; JT1987(2)SC429; 1987LabIC1022; (1987)IILLJ438SC; 1987(1)SCALE1066; (1987)3SCC5; 1987(1)LC711(SC)
ORDERO. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. Special leave granted.2. These two appeals are the aftermath of the decision of this Court in Venkata Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh : [1985]3SCR509 and the order rejecting S L P Nos. 4417 to 4447 of 1986. By the Andhra Pradesh Abolition of Posts of Part-Time Village Officers Ordinance, 1984, the posts part time Village Officers stood abolished with effect from the date of the commencement of the Ordinance, which was January 6, 1984. The Ordinance defined 'Part-time Village Officer as a person who held any of the Village Officers of Headman, Munsif, Reddy, Monagir, Peddakapu, Patel, Karnam or Patwari or triune officer or holder of any such village office by whatever designation locally known. The constitutional validity of the Ordinance was questioned in several writ petitions filed in the Supreme Court. In Venkaia Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra), the constitutional validity of the Ordinance was upheld by this Court. At the hearing of the writ ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1469; JT1987(2)SC381; 1987LabIC1025; (1987)IILLJ356SC; 1987(1)SCALE1024; (1987)3SCC1; 1987(3)SLJ131(SC); 1987(1)LC708(SC)
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated June 17, 1983 by which the petitioner has been dismissed from the service.2. The petitioner was a member of the U.P. State Judicial Service. He was appointed as Munsif on January 27, 1979 and posted at Aligarh. When he was working at Aligarh he sought permission of the High Court to study L.L.M. course of the Aligarh University. He appeared for 1st semester examination in July 1980. He was found to have used unfair means in the examination. The Registrar, Aligarh Muslim University informed the District Judge, Aligarh that the petitioner was found copying from the manuscript lying with his answer book. The District Judge thereupon communicated all the information to the High Court. Upon receipt of the information, the High Court referred the matter to Vigilance Cell with the direction to conduct necessary inquiry into the matter. The Cell submitted its report on Septemb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1443; JT1987(2)SC619; 1987(1)SCALE1273; (1987)3SCC146; [1987]3SCR355; 1987(2)LC697(SC); 1988(1)WLN172
1. This appeal on a certificate granted under Article 134A of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the heirs and legal representatives of a deceased judgment-debtor and is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court whereby the learned Judge upheld the order dated December 12, 1980 of the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, holding that in view of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the application of the decree-holder auction-purchaser for delivery of possession of the property auctioned-purchased by him was maintainable and not barred by limitation. The certificate on the basis of which the appeal is filed is not competent in view of Clause (3) of Article 133 of the Constitution, we have however treated the appeal as one under Article 136 of the Constitution. The special leave to file the appeal is granted by us.2. The mortgagee decree-holder in execution of the final decree for mortgage himself purchase the disputed pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1526; 1987(1)SCALE1254; (1987)4SCC112; [1987]3SCR424; 1988(1)SLJ43(SC); 1987(2)LC322(SC)
ORDER1. The Respondent-M.A. Chowdhary was appointed as a Staff Artist in All India Radio, Bombay under an agreement executed by him with the Director General of AH India Radio. The agreement was for three years. On the expiry of three years, the respondent was re-employed and his contract was renewed on yearly basis up to 30th November, 1964. Thereafter he was re-employed on a five years' contract.2. On November 2, 1967 the Government of India passed an order stating that Staff Artists should be allowed to remain in service up to the age of 55 years. Accordingly, a clause was added to the agreement executed by the respondent, stipulating that the respondent shall remain in service up to December 31, 1985 on which date he was to attain the age of 55 years. Clause 4(v) of the agreement, however, provided that the respondent's service will be liable to be terminated on 6 months' notice on either side.3. In due course, the respondent was transferred to All India Radio, Varanasi. The Assist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1701; JT1987(2)SC564; 1987LabIC1322; (1987)IILLJ350SC; 1987(1)SCALE1192; (1987)3SCC161; [1987]3SCR335; 1987(2)LC262(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave and the connected special leave petition and the writ petition directed against the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dated February 1, 1985 raise a question of construction of Regulation 7(iv)(b) of the U.P. State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Integration & Seniority) Regulations, 1976, framed under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. By the judgment, a Division Bench of the High Court has disallowed a batch of writ petitions seeking to quash an order of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow dated April 3, 1978. Allowing a representation made by respondent no. 1, presently working as Superintending Engineer in the U.P. State Electricity Board, the Tribunal held that in terms of Regulation 7(iv)(b) of the Regulations, respondent no. 1 having been granted seven advance increments was entitled to the benefit of as many years of service as the number of advance increments given to him at the time of his recruitme...
Tag this Judgment!