Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC908; JT1988(1)SC443; 1988LabIC1005; 1988(Supp)SCC761; [1988]3SCR79; 1988(3)SLJ130(SC); 1988(1)LC736(SC)
K.N. Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad dated August 7, 1974 allowing the respondent's Letters Patent appeal and setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge and dismissing the appellant's writ petition made under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the State Government dated April 24, 1972 dismissing the appellant from the U.P. Civil Service (Executive Branch).2. The appellant was in the service of the State of Uttar Pradesh as a member of the U.P. Civil Service (Executive Branch). He was posted as Regional Transport Magistrate at Bareilly between June, 1962 to October, 1964. A number of charges were framed against the appellant and the State Government referred the matter to the U.P. Administrative Tribunal constituted under the U.P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) for enquiry into those charges. The Tribunal after r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1028; JT1988(1)SC436; 1988(1)SCALE431; 1988Supp(1)SCC262; 1988(2)LC65(SC)
Jagannatha Shetty, J1. These two appeals by Special leave are by the State of U.P. The respondents-accused in both the appeals were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, Manipuri under Section 302/149, 307/149 and 148 of I.P.C. and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. Against the said conviction and sentence the accused preferred Criminal Appeal Nos. 235 and 240 of 1972 before the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court by judgment dated April 19, 1977 allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and acquitted them from all the charges.2. On March 2, 1970 there was triple murder in the village Husainpur Tarai, P.S. Shamshabad in the District of Farrukhabad : (1) Moonga Lal, (2) Dharmoo and (3) Jawala were done to death by gun shots. It was alleged by the prosecution that the village was mostly inhabited by Dhobies and Kisans. There was no coordination between them. The houses of the accused and the deceased are close to each other. There appears to be only a pathway in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1988AIHC782; 1987(1)SCALE1211
ORDER1. Mr. Deepak Diwan, a Director of the Company of Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. assisted by Shri K.S. Mehta, Chartered Account of S.S. Kothari & Company on behalf of M/s. Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. draws our attention to certain developments in the matter in which we have delivered the judgment on 12th February, 1988. By the said decision in the judgment we had directed that the 17th Annual Genera! Meeting of Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. should be held in accordance with law under the Chairmanship of Shri Jaswant Singh a former Judge of this Court. We are informed today that Meeting has been convened to be held on the 28th March, 1988. We direct that the Meeting be held irrespective of any order of any Court or any authority as we had indicated and irrespective of any prayer for adjournment. Decisions taken on that Meeting would be implemented within the purview of the companies law. Any decision of the Board convening the 18th Annual General Meeting must await the result of the 17th Annual G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC835; 1988CriLJ921a; JT1988(1)SC419; (1988)93PLR649; 1988(1)SCALE420; (1988)2SCC72; [1988]3SCR73
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. Not only the option to 'make up' or 'break up' but also the right to 'haul up' the erring husband before a Criminal Court, is claimed by the aggrieved wife irrespective of the fact that the husband of an erring wife does not have a corresponding right. Or else the conscience of the 'EQUALITY' clause will not be appeased is the plea made by the anguished wife.2. Accordingly, a constitutional gun has been pointed at the provision which in its effect permits only the husband of the adulteress to prosecute the adulterer but does not permit the wife of the adulterer to do so. True it is, neither of the spouses can prosecute each other. But the aggrieved wife complains that to deny her the right to prosecute her offending husband for the offence of adultery punishable under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code is to violate the Constitution by discriminating against her on the ground of her sex.3. The provision which disables the wife from prosecuting the husband for such ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC876; JT1988(1)SC458; 1988LabIC1014; (1988)IILLJ345SC; 1988(1)SCALE414; (1988)2SCC351; [1988]3SCR62; 1988(3)SLJ91(SC); 1988(1)LC596(SC)
Murari Mohon Dutt, J.1. As elaborate submissions have been made by both the parties at the preliminary hearing of the special leave petition, we proceed to dispose of the points involved in the case on merits after granting special leave.2. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court striking down Rule 5-C of the Cantonment Funds Servants Rules, 1937, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules', as ultra vires the provisions of the Cantonment Act, 1924 and also quashing the impugned order of transfer dated October 27, 1986 passed by the GOC-in-Chief, Central Command.3. The respondent, Dr. Subhas Chandra Yadav, was appointed a Sub-Charge, Cantonment General Hospital, Lucknow, by the Cantonment Board by the appointment letter dated 23.4.1969. He was confirmed in that post on 1.12.1969 by an order issued by the Cantonment Board. The conditions of service of the employees of the Cantonment Board, which is a statutory body, are governed by the provisions of the Rules....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1988(16)ECC1; 1988(34)ELT3(SC); JT1988(1)SC441; 1988(1)SCALE429; 1988Supp(1)SCC156; [1988]3SCR37; 1988(1)LC553(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. This appeal under Section 130-E of the Customs Act is directed against the decision of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, by which the Tribunal has reversed the appellate decision of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. The short point involves in this appeal is as to whether the imported 'special purpose complex machine' has to be charged to customs duty under item 89.59(1) as claimed by the Revenue or under 84.45/48 of the tariff schedule as maintained by the appellant. If the appellant's claim is accepted the duty is at the rate of 40 per cent while if the department's stand is maintained it is at the rate of 60 per cent. The Assistant Collector took the view that the imported machine was not manufacturing carburettors and was discharging an individual function of plugging holes in the carburettor body with the help of lead shots. Therefore, the appropriate entry was 84.59(1) of the Customs Tariff. The appellant challen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC862; JT1988(1)SC418; 1988LabIC959; 1988(1)SCALE390; 1988Supp(1)SCC220; 1988(1)LC543(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. These two appeals are by special leave and are directed against one and the same judgment of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. In the first matter the appellants are a group of promotee Assistant Engineers in the Irrigation Department while in the second the State of Andhra Pradesh is in appeal. The dispute is between direct recruits and promotees to the post of Assistant Engineer in regard to respective seniority and consideration of their claims for further promotion to the post of Executive Engineer.2. We have today disposed of Writ Petition Nos. 17165-86 of 1985 and 12401 of 1985, where a similar question relating to Assistant Engineers in the Roads & Buildings Wing was considered. The same principle applies in regard to the service relating to the Irrigation Wing. Rule 2-C (1) of the Special Rules provides that in respect of the substantive vacancies in the category of Deputy Executive Engineers (redefinition of Assistant Engineers), 371 1/2 % shall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC887; JT1988(1)SC404; 1988(1)SCALE379; (1988)2SCC201; [1988]2SCR1118; 1988(3)SLJ76(SC); 1988(1)LC577(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. The appeals are by special leave and are directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in a group of representation petitions While the writ petitions are under Article 32 of the Constitution, Writ Petition 72 of 1987 being by promotee Deputy Tehsildars and Writ Petition 241 of 1987 being by another group of Deputy Tehsildars promoted by transfer.2. The background of the litigations may now be indicated. A set of rules regarding recruitment of Deputy Tehsildars was in force in the erstwhile State of Madras which continued to apply to Andhra Pradesh until in 1961 the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Subordinate Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'Special Rules') were brought into force. The cadre under the Special Rules consisted of Deputy Tehsildars only. Rule 3 provided:3.Appointment : (a) Appointment to the category of Deputy Tehsildars in this service shall be made:i) by direct recruitment, orii) by transfer from members of the An...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990Supp(1)SCC215
Ranganath Misra and; M.M. Dutt, JJ.1. Mr Subhash Kulkarni, Secretary of the petitioner-Association is present in court on behalf of the petitioners and Mr A. Sundaram, Manager Bank of Madurai, Dada Bhai Naroji Road, Bombay represents the Madurai Bank one of the respondents herein others are absent. Heard them in person.2. On January 20, 1988 this Court had directed that out of the 44 lakhs of rupees due to the workmen under the orders of the Payment of Wages Authority and the Industrial Court, 50 per cent should be disbursed to the labourers towards wages and the court had further directed that eight thousand bags of sugar which were to be disposed of, should be disposed of quickly and the liquid cash should be in the hands of the Court Receiver.3. It appears that before the order reached the parties Bank of Madurai the creditor of the society had already adjusted the amount in its books. We do not propose to re-open that question at present but we are leaving it and to be looked into ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC857; JT1988(1)SC412; 1988LabIC994; 1988(1)SCALE384; 1988Supp(1)SCC221; [1988]3SCR24; 1988(3)SLJ101(SC); 1988(1)LC568(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. This appeal is by special leave and is directed against the appellate judgment of a division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the rejection of the writ petition by a Single Judge of that High Court. Appellants are Engineers in the establishment of the Chief Engineer (Roads and Buildings of the Andhra Pradesh Government and the dispute is one of inter se seniority between them on the one side and respondents 3 and 4 on the other.2. Appellants filed a writ petition being No. 4151 of 1972 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh claiming a direction to the State Government for considering them for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer on the basis that they were senior to five promotee Assistant EngineeRs. A learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition by judgment dated 29th March, 1973, and gave the following directions:The respondents 1 and 2 (State of Andhra Pradesh and its Chief Engineer respectively) will, therefore, consider the clai...
Tag this Judgment!