Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1395; JT1988(2)SC473; 1988LabIC1651; 1988(1)SCALE1188; (1988)3SCC370; [1988]Supp1SCR396; 1988(2)LC381(SC)
1. Special Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 9.12.1986 dismissing the appellant's writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 30.12.1986 dispensing with the appellant's services as Addl. District and Sessions Judge in terms of Rule 10(3) of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963.3. Initially, the appellant was an advocate practising law in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. He was selected for appointment to the Haryana Superior Judicial Service by the High Court. On the recommendation of the High Court the State Government by its order dated 14.4.1983 appointed the appellant as Addl. District and Sessions Judge on probation for a period of two years in accordance with Rule 10(1) of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules 1963, as adopted by the State of Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The High Court by its order dated 27.4.1983 posted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1240; JT1988(2)SC593; 1988(1)SCALE1099; (1988)3SCC503; [1988]Supp1SCR302; 1988(2)LC228(SC)
ORDERSerial Number 1719/1463/22V-2/82. The following Panchayat and Social Education Organisers are appointed on the post of officiating Block Development Officer, temporarily and on deputation, from the date of taking charge in the pay scale of Rs.350-25-400-25-500 E.B.-30-650 until further orders and they are posted in Development Block shown against their names. This posting on deputation would be entirely temporary and they would not be entitled to become semi-permanent or permanent on this post. If required their services may be transferred back to their parental department at any time, after notice.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ S. Name of Panchayat Name of Development No. and Social Educational block where posted Organiser 1 2 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 ... 7. Shri Ashok Deshmukh Kurwai (Vidisha)In the name and according to the order of Governor of Madhya Pradesh.S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1988(36)BLJR601; (1995)IIILLJ713SC
R. Misra and N.D. Ojha, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. The appellant was Nazir in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Nabha.3. He was prosecuted for criminal misappropriation punishable under Section 409 of I.P.C. on the allegation that he had failed to account for a sum of Rs. 4,941.47 entrusted to him It is not disputed that by judgment dated 26.3.1963 by Shri O.P. Agarwal Magistrate, First Class, Patiala, on being found guilty he was sentenced to imprisonment which he has suffered.4. On the basis of this conviction the State of Punjab dismissed the appellant. Subsequently several amounts entrusted to the appellant became the subject matter of a regular audit by the State Government Auditor. The Auditor found that the total amount for which the appellant has not been able to render accounts worked out to Rs. 42,763.02. A list of the total amount embezzled is available at page 155 of the paper book. It is not disputed that the sum of Rs. 4,941.47 which was subject matter of the crimi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1407; JT1988(2)SC439; 1988(1)SCALE1109; (1988)3SCC32; [1988]Supp1SCR312; 1988(2)LC283(SC)
1. Under the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act 2 of 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the Union of India acquired the right, title and interest of Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as Burmah Shell) in relation to its undertakings in India. Sections 3, 4, and 9 of the Act are relevant. Under Section 3 the right, title and interest of Burmah Shell in relation to its undertakings in India stood transferred and became vested in the Central Government. In terms of Section 4, the assets and liabilities were taken over by the Government of India. Under Section 9 persons employed under Burmah Shell came under the employment of the Government Company known as Bharat Petrolium Corporation Limited (respondent No. 1 herein). Section 10(1) provides thus:Where a provident, superannuation, welfare or other fund has been established by Burmah Shell for the benefit of the persons employed by it in connection wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1362; JT1988(2)SC441; 1988(1)SCALE1079; (1988)3SCC57; [1988]Supp1SCR325; 1988(2)LC267(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated 29th August, 1984. One Jagan Nath, since deceased, was the original tenant of the premises in question. He died during the pendency of this appeal here. His sons have been substituted. The tenancy in question started on 1st January, 1962. It appears that on 7th November, 1967 notice was addressed to Shri Baldev Raj, describing him as sole proprietor of M/s. Bindra Tent House, New Delhi, for eviction. There was an increase in rent in July, 1970. The respondent herein filed the petition against the appellant herein Jagan Nath under Sections 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) for eviction of the appellant from the premises consisting of one room forming part of premises No. N-80, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, as the appellant herein had not paid rent with effect from 1st May, 1975 till 30th April, 1977 at the rate of Rs. 75 per month des...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1451; JT1988(2)SC417; 1988LabIC1665; 1988(1)SCALE1150; (1988)3SCC241; [1988]Supp1SCR379; 1988(2)LC217(SC); 1988(2)WLN21
1. These appeals by Special Leave, arise out of the judgment, dated, February 6, 1987 of the Division Bench of High Court of Rajasthan, disposing of by a common judgment a batch of writ-appeals and writ petitions, in which was involved the question of the validity of certain provisions of the Recruitment Rules made and promulgated under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution by which, in respect of the scheme of competitive examinations to be conducted by the Public Service Commission for recruitment to certain branches of the civil services under the state, certain minimum qualifying marks in the viva-voce test were prescribed.The Division Bench, by its judgment under appeal, declared as arbitrary and unconstitutional this prescription in the rules which required that the candidates for selection to Administrative Service, the Police Service, and the Forest Service of the State should secure a minimum of 33% of the marks prescribed for the viva-voce examination. In these appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1487; (1988)2CompLJ161(SC); JT1988(2)SC448; 1988(1)SCALE1055; (1988)3SCC263; [1998]Supp1SCR348; [1988]70STC162(SC)
1. These appeals by certificates are from the judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka dated 16th of August, 1985. By the impugned judgment and order the writ petitions filed by the Coffee Board and others were dismissed. In order to appreciate the questions involved in the decision, it may be noted that the appellant herein-Coffee Board contended that the compulsory delivery of coffee under the Coffee Act, 1942 extinguishing all marketing rights of the growers was 'compulsory acquisition' and not sale or purchase to attract levy of purchase tax; it was further contended that the appellant was only a 'trustee' or 'agent' of growers not exigible to purchase tax and that all export sales were 'in the course of export' immune to tax under Article 286 of the Constitution.2. It was held by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court that an element of co-sensuality subsists even in compulsory sales governed by law and once there is an element of co-sensuality, however minimal th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1403; JT1988(2)SC465; 1988(1)SCALE1043; (1988)3SCC764; [1988]Supp1SCR317; 1988(2)LC290(SC)
1. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we grant special leave and, as full and complete submissions have been made, we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits.2. The only question that is involved in this appeal is whether the appellant D.K. Agarwal, who was a member of the Higher Judicial Service under the State of U.P., to be precise, the District and Sessions Judge, Gonda, and since retired on February 29, 1985, was entitled to the super-time scale.3. The appellant was appointed to the post of District and Sessions Judge on October 31, 1983. In or about December 1985, the Selection Committee constituted by the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court and consisting of three Judges of that Court recommended the grant of selection grade to the appellant on the basis of merit as required under Rule 27 of the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975. hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'. The Full Court approved the recommendation for the grant of the selection grade...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1388; JT1988(2)SC567; 1988LabIC1643; 1988(1)SCALE1034; (1988)3SCC211; [1988]Supp1SCR332; 1988(2)LC294(SC)
Murari Mohon Dutt, J.1. These two appeals are directed against a common judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court whereby, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court quashed the orders of compulsory retirement of the two respondents, Mr. R. Rajiah and Mr. K. Rajeswaran, who were then the District Munsifs.2. The respondent, R. Rajiah, originally joined service as a Sub-Magistrate on 3-3-1965. On 6-1 -1973, he was appointed a District Munsif in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service. While he was functioning as District Munsif, on 3-3-1980 the Registrar of the High Court, the appellant herein, sent a communication to the respondent Rajiah stating therein that he was being compulsorily retired from service in public interest with effect from 3-3-1980.3. The other respondent, K. Rajeswaran, was also originally appointed a Sub-Magistrate in 1953. On 29-11-1971, he was appointed a District Munsif having been selected by the Tam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1255; [1991]70CompCas549(SC); 1988CriLJ1775; 1988(2)Crimes729(SC); (1989)1GLR239; JT1988(2)SC409; 1988(1)SCALE915; (1988)3SCC153; [1988]Supp1SCR287
1. This appeal by special leave brought from the judgment and order of the Gujarat High Court dated 21st November, 1987 and the connected petition under Article 32 of the Constitution are directed against an order passed by the District Magistrate, Panchmahals, Godhra dated 28th May, 1987 for the detention of the appellant under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 on being satisfied that it was necessary to do so, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.2. It is not an undisputed fact that the appellant is engaged as a commission agent or broker in the rather lucrative but illicit business of liquor traffic at Godhra in the State of Gujarat where there is total prohibition by importing different varieties of Indian made foreign liquor in sealed bottles like scotch whisky, beer etc. from wine merchants of Vanswada in the State of Rajasthan. But then by engaging himself i...
Tag this Judgment!