Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2045; JT1987(3)SC273; 1987(2)SCALE302; (1987)3SCC723; [1987]3SCR852; 1987(2)LC331(SC)
1. There were disputes between the partners of the firm Balasubramania Foundry (hereinafter called 'the firm') and several legal proceedings were taken in the courts of Coimbatore, these ultimately came to this Court. this Court by an order dated 2nd of November, 1982 referred the disputes to the Arbitrator. The order stated that the disputes were referred to the sole Arbitrator, Justice K.S. Palaniaswamy failing him Justice C.J.R. Paul and the respective parties including the firm were directed to file their joint memos in ail the courts where the suits/proceedings were pending before the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator was directed to proceed in accordance with the Arbitration Act. In order to complete the narration, there was an application for appointment of Receiver which was directed to be proceeded with in the trial court. this Court, however, by the said order directed the trial court to dispose of that application.2. By the said order as mentioned hereinbefore in the absence of Jus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2064; (1987)2GLR1206; JT1987(3)SC335; 1987(2)SCALE311; 1987Supp(1)SCC714; [1987]3SCR909; 1987(2)LC646(SC)
A.P. Sen, J.1. This appeal on certificate brought from the judgment and order of the High Court of Gujarat dated July 3,1972 raises a question whether the High Court was justified in reversing the decision of the District Judge, Surendranagar dated March 19,1964 and restoring the order of the Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad, State of Gujarat dated February 1,1962 upholding that of the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad holding that the two temples of Sri Dwarkadhishji and Sri Trikamrayji at Patadi were temples as defined in Section 2(17) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and therefore they fell within the purview of the expression 'public trust' within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal may be shortly stated. The appellant is a former ruler of the semi-jurisdictional State of Patadi, one of the 17 States which entered into a covenant for the formation of the United State of Kathiawad which on the reorganisation of the States became pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1987(4)SC152; 1988Supp(1)SCC536; 1987(Supp)SCC466
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. On the last occasion on November 26, 1986, we were informed that the parties had arrived at a settlement and a prayer was made for leave to compound the offence and we accordingly called for a report. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kota by his report dated July 30, 1987 has certified that the parties appeared before him and stated that they had entered into a compromise.3. The offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is not compoundable and therefore we examined the records to satisfy us whether the offence is made out. We find it difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellant under Section 307. Though the appellant assaulted the deceased with a sword, the injuries ascribed to him were on a vital part of the body i.e. neck. The testimony of the doctor shows that the injuries were of a simple nature and, were not likely to cause death. That being so, the appellant could only be convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2085; JT1987(3)SC258; 1987(2)SCALE252; (1987)4SCC69; 1987(2)LC329(SC)
ORDER1. This is a petition on special leave against the judgment and order dated January 11, 1987 of the High Court of Judicature of Patna passed in C.R. No. 1385 of 1985.2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration that pattas dated 15.12.1948, 1.7.1950, 24.4.1951 and 26.11.1952 executed by Nagendra Prasad Bhagat in the name of defendant No. 1 were illegal, ineffective and not binding on the plaintiff. There was also a prayer for recovery of possession with mesne profits. The suit was valued on the basis of the rent payable for the land. The defendant filed a written statement and thereafter raised a preliminary objection that the plaintiff has undervalued the suit and also challenged the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit. The Trial Court has held that the suit is governed by Section 7(IV)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and the plaintiff has rightly valued the lease hold interest created by the lessee. The plaintiff is entitled to put his own valuation of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC434
E.S. Venkataramiah; K.N. Singh, JJ.1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also gone through the records of the case. The evidence in the case clearly discloses that the Truck No. PNJ 5112 was involved in the accident. From this unrebutted evidence of PW 4, Puran Chand, who was one of the injured in the accident in question and the other circumstances, we are of the opinion that the accident took place on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the truck and that Swaraj Kumari died as a consequence thereof. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal grievously erred in rejecting the claim for compensation. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jullundur in MACT No. 17 of 1972 dismissing the claim petition and the order passed in FA No. 460 of 1978 on the file of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by which the High Court dismissed the appeal filed against the order of the Tribunal and award a sum of Rs 50,000 as com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC495
M.M. Dutt and; Ranganath Misra, JJ.1. On February 3, 1987 a three-Judge Bench presided over by the learned Chief Justice and consisting of two of us made the following order:“It is prayed on behalf of the respondents that the State of Bihar may be permitted to fill the posts of Civil Assistant Surgeons. We understand that the process initiated by the State Public Service Commission is under way and will be completed shortly. As soon as the State Public Service Commission intimates the results of this examination to the State Government, it will be open to the State Government to fill those posts....”More than six months have passed and the posts of doctors have not been filled up. Obviously the Public Service Commission has not been able to rise to the occasion.2. Several posts of doctors have been going vacant and people of Bihar appear to have been deprived of medical assistance to a considerable extent. The High Court had given the direction almost three years back to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC436
M.M. Dutt and; Ranganath Misra, JJ.1. The only question which has been finally decided by the High Court was that Plots Nos. 79 and 117 were not irrigated. The rest of the dispute was remanded to the ceiling authorities for determination. There was hardly scope for filing a special leave petition to this Court against the order of the High Court. The question as to whether those two plots were irrigated or were not irrigated was a pure question of fact and could not be subjected to decision of this Court by obtaining leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. This must, therefore, be styled as a frivolous petition for leave. It is unfortunate that the State of U.P. had decided to file such a frivolous petition. Filing frivolous petitions creates problem for the Registry of this Court and adds to the bulk of the pending litigation. If the respondents had appeared, we would have given examplary costs to them but since this petition is being dismissed ex parte, we direct the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1953; JT1987(3)SC243; 1987LabIC1644; 1987(2)SCALE223; (1987)4SCC176; [1987]3SCR833; 1987(3)SLJ253(SC); 1987(2)LC345(SC)
ORDER1. The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') is the petitioner in this petition. It has questioned the correctness of the order passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 17082 of 1986 directing it to comply with the order dated August 30, 1986 passed by the State Government on an appeal filed by Respondent No. 1 against the order passed by the Commission in a disciplinary proceeding held against him.2. Respondent No. 1 was working as a Section Officer in the office of the Commission. On July 18, 1981 he was placed under suspension on certain charges and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. In the said enquiry he was found guilty and he was reverted to the rank of an Upper Division Assistant by the order dated April 24, 1982 and by another order passed on the same day he was dismissed from service. Against these orders Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the State Government. The State Government ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC690
Order A quantity of bricks belonging to the appellant was seized and thereafter confiscated by an order of the Collector dated August 28, 1959. And appeal to the Commissioner of Land Revenue and a further appeal to the Board of Revenue were rejected. On a petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh by its judgment dated March 19, 1966, quashed the order of confiscation. Thereafter, the appellant filed the suit, out of which the present appeal arises to recover the value of the bricks, which had in the meanwhile been sold by auction. The suit was decreed by the trial court but was dismissed by the High Court on two grounds. The first ground was that the State of Madhya Pradesh could not be sued for the value of the bricks as the act of the Collector in seizing the bricks was a sovereign act. The second ground was that the suit was barred by limitation as it was not filed within one year from the date of seizure, as contem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1988Supp(1)SCC171
O. Chinnappa Reddy,; M.H. Kania and; K. Jagannatha Shetty Shetty, JJ.1. On an earlier occasion when the matter reached the High Court, the High Court had given categorical findings that the plaintiff was entitled to partition of 1 anna 7 pies and odd share, that the plaintiff and defendants were in possession as co-sharers and that there was no question of ouster or adverse possession. In view of those findings, there was no need for the High Court to remand the matter to the lower appellate court for a fresh hearing. In fact we fail to understand what fresh hearing the lower appellate court was expected to give in face of the findings recorded by the High Court. Though pursuant to the order of remand, the lower appellate court purported to rehear the matter, ultimately the lower appellate court granted a decree in accordance with the findings recorded by the High Court earlier. The second appeal filed thereafter by the defendants was rightly dismissed by the High Court in limine. We a...
Tag this Judgment!