Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2081; JT1987(3)SC362; 1987(2)SCALE356; (1987)4SCC717; 1987(2)LC508(SC)
1. M/s. Bhasin Film Corporation obtained a decree against the two appellants Shamiudin and Nasimudin for a sum of Rs. 1,44,973. In execution of the decree, 28/48 share in the Shalimar Cinema, Bhogal, New Delhi belonging to the judgment debtors was sold on September 1, 1977 for a sum of Rs. 4,37,000. An application to set aside the sale was dismissed by a learned single Judge of the High Court and the learned single Judge's order was confirmed by a Division Bench. The judgment debtors have preferred this appeal by special leave of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.2. Two principal submissions were made on behalf of the appellants. The first was that there was a total failure to comply with the requirements of Order XXI Rule 66 as no notice was given to the judgment debtors of any application made by the decree holders for setting the terms of the proclamation of sale. In fact, it was said that there was no application under Order XXI Rule 66 by the decree holder to the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2061; JT1987(3)SC366; 1987(3)KarLJ90; 1987(2)SCALE413; (1987)4SCC78; [1987]3SCR1038; 1987(2)LC606(SC)
M.H. Kania, J. 1. This is an appeal directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in Appeal from Original Order No. 282 of 1981 with C.R. No. 3842 (m) of 1980. The relevant facts for the purpose of this appeal can be shortly stated. In August 1969, the appellant before us obtained a money decree in the High Court at Calcutta against the judgment debtor Maharaj Kumar Maley Chand Mahatab. On 31st July 1970 the appellant filed a petition for execution of the decree, numbered as Title Execution Case No. 19 of 1970. On 3rd August 1970 attachment was levied in execution on open land belonging to the judgment debtor admeasuring about 19 Kathas at 10A, Diamond Harbour Road, and portion of premises No. 2 Judges Court Road, now, numbered as 6/1D, Diamond Harbour Road and 2/A, Judges Court Road, 24-Paraganas respectively. On 14th September 1970, the judgment debtor sold a portion of the attached property admeasuring a little over to 11 Kathas to one Bharat Shamsh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC436; (1988)2CALLT19(SC); JT1987(3)SC348; 1987(2)SCALE383; 1987Supp(1)SCC571; [1987]3SCR987
ORDER1. These special leave petitions are directed against a judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta dated April 8, 1987 upholding the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge dated July 17, 1986 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution. By the writ petition the petitioners had challenged the legality and propriety of the grant of licence by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation of the subsoil of Satyanarayan Park to respondent no. 14 Messrs Happy Homes & Hotels Private Limited for a period of 30 years for the implementation of a development scheme, namely, construction of a two-storeyed air-conditioned underground basement market and parking place on mani fold grounds inter alia that the construction of the said underground market would affect the ecological balance because the park was situate in a densely populated area like Burrabazar in the Metropolitan City of Calcutta, that the construction would effect ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1988Supp(1)SCC545
M.M. Dutt and; Ranganath Misra, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. Appellants 2 to 11 are employees under the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, a government undertaking. These appellants were working in different establishments of the Corporation in Azamgarh Region and have been transferred to different places outside that region. Appellants went before the High Court challenging the transfer by claiming that the transfer was contrary to the instructions issued by the State Government in a letter dated 12-4-1983, which permitted transfer of-this class of employees within their division excepting the home district. The High Court placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Shanti Kumari v. Regional Deputy Director, Health Services1 and dismissed the writ petition.3. Ordinarily we would have accepted the view of the High Court on the footing that transfer and posting of officers are matter within the discretion of executive authorities and is not a justiciable issue. But i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2211; [1987(54)FLR75]; [1987]169ITR545(SC); JT1987(3)SC352; 1989(2)SCALE541; (1987)4SCC44; [1987]3SCR996
1. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Balbir Singh and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi and Ors. : [1985]152ITR388(SC) elaborately examined the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act of 1957 for the purpose of ascertaining the manner of determination of 'rateable value' which was necessary for making assessment of property tax under that Act. this Court classified the properties into four categories.:(1) self-occupied; (2) partly self-occupied and partly tenanted; (3) restrictive lease-hold on which construction is raised; and(4) where the property has been constructed in stages.So far as the fourth category is concerned (and these applications are concerned with that) this Court said:The fourth category of premises we must deal with is the category where the premises are constructed in stages. The discussion in the preceding paragraph of this judgment provides an answer to the question as to how the rateable value of this category of premises is to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC662a; JT1987(3)SC399; (1988)ILLJ12SC; 1987(2)SCALE371; (1987)4SCC345; [1987]3SCR1018; 1987(3)SLJ231(SC); 1987(2)LC625(SC)
1. By means of these petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution the petitioners claim relief for quashing Railway Board's circular/letter No. E (NG) 1/69/PMI-180 dated 2nd July, 1970 and No. E (NG) I-80-SR6-39 dated 28th November, 1981. They further claim relief for the issue of writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent, Railway Authorities, from altering or issuing seniority list in pursuance of the Railway Board's circular dated 28th November, 1981 and to maintain the previous seniority list issued in 1968 for the purpose of promotions, confirmation and further advancement.2. In the Indian Railways, initial recruitment of Train Examiners, used to be made in the entry Grade D in the pay scale of Rs. 100-185. Prior to 1st April, 1966 recruitment to Grade D of Train Examiners was made from two sources (1) by promotion of skilled artisans working in the lower grade, (2) by direct recruitment of apprentices having completed prescribed four years' training. 50 percent o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1988]169ITR545(SC)
ORDERA three-Judge Bench of this court in case of Dr. Balbir Singh v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi : [1985]152ITR388(SC) ; : [1985]152ITR388(SC) , elaborately examined the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act of 1957 for the purpose of ascertaining the manner of determination of 'rateable value' which was necessary for making assessment of property tax under that Act. This court classified the properties into four categories :(1) self-occupied;(2) partly self-occupied and partly tenanted;(3) restrictive leasehold on which construction is raised; and(4) where the property has been constructed in stages.So far as the fourth category is concerned (and these applications are concerned with that), this court said (p. 418 of 152 ITR) :'The fourth category of premises we must deal with is the category where the premises are constructed in stages. The discussion in the preceding paragraph of this judgment provides an answer to the question as to how the rateable value of this cate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC79; JT1987(3)SC354; (1988)ILLJ235SC; 1987(2)SCALE360; (1987)4SCC203; [1987]3SCR981
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special LeaVe Petition (Civil) No. 6765 of 1985.From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12. 1984 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in C.M.A. No. 244 of 1981. D .N. Gupta and Vijay Kumar Verma for the Petitioner. The Order of the Court was delivered byVENKATARAMIAH, J. This petition is filed under Arti- cle 136 of the Constitution for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 11.12.84 allowing an appeal filed against the judgment dated 31.12.80 in E.I. case No. 4 of 1980 on the file of the Employees' Insurance Court at Hyderabad.The petitioner is a limited company carrying on busi- ness at Secunderabad and at some other places in India. The petitioner is engaged in the business of importing fertiliz- ers. It represents some foreign principals for the sale of their products in India. The petitioner imports fertilizers into India which is an item purchased by the Central Government through the State Trading Corporation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2230; JT1987(3)SC389; 1987(2)SCALE387; (1987)4SCC84; [1987]3SCR1001
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 289 of 1982.1003From the Judgment and Order dated 17.7. 1981 of the Delhi High Court in S.A.O. No. 249 of 1981. Soli J. Sorabji, Anil Kumar Gupta and Brij Bhushan for the Appellant.B.R. Agarwala for the Respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Delhi dated 17th of July, 1981 dismissing the second appeal in limine against the' order dated 2nd July. 1981 in RCA No. 87 1 of 1980 of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi.The order of eviction in this case on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord was passed by the Rent Controller on or about 15th of October, 1960. There was an appeal from the said order of the Rent Controller and the appeal was dismissed on or about 9th October, 1961 by the 2Rent Tribunal. In May 1962 the respondent filed an applica- tion before the Competent Authority under section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improveme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1988Supp(1)SCC564
Murali Mohan Dutt and; Ranganath Mishra, JJ.1. The Indian Railways Conference Association (IRCA for short) has about 1000 employees working under it. These people are not treated as regular railway employees and they are deprived of wages and other benefits as are available to the employees in the railway establishment. In the writ petition, based on the allegation of discrimination, seven aspects have been indicated in para 12. The claims are actually three in number, and can be taken to have been covered by items (a), (h) and (c) of that paragraph. The other claims would be dependent upon the status of regular employment in the railway establishment being conferred on the petitioner. When this matter was heard on the last occasion by us, we had called upon the Union of India as also the railway authorities and IRCA to examine the claim of the petitioners and file an affidavit pointing out as to on what aspects relief can be conceded. Pursuant to our direction Respondents 2 and 3 have...
Tag this Judgment!