Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1665; JT1988(3)SC175; 1988(2)SCALE103; (1988)4SCC577; [1988]Supp1SCR725; 1988(2)LC427(SC)
1. This special leave petition is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay dated June 28, 1988 upholding the election of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 Dr. Shantaram Kale and Takiqui Hassan as Mayor and Deputy Mayor respectively, and respondents Nos. 3-8 as Members of the Standing Committee at the first meeting of the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation at the Alankar Hall, held on May 6, 1988 at 2 p.m. The issue involved is whether the first meeting of the Corporation called for that day at 2.45 p.m. by the Municipal Commissioner, respondent No. 9, who presided over the meeting, was adjourned for the day or adjourned sine die and therefore had to be called on some subsequent date to be fixed by him and thus necessitated the giving of seven days' clear notice as required by Rule 1(h), Chapter II of the Rules framed under Section 453 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.2. Since the question involved was a matter of moment and the affidavits filed b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1809; 1988(18)ECC168; 1988(36)ELT723(SC); JT1988(3)SC291; 1988(2)SCALE291; 1988Supp(1)SCC658; [1988]Supp1SCR687; 1988(2)LC526(SC)
1. These are appeals under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called 'the Act').2. The appellant manufactures compressed Oxygen and dissolved acetylene falling under tariff item No. 14H of the First Schedule of the Act as it stood at the relevant time. The appellant had received show-cause notice in respect of the period from 1.1.1984 to 31.1.1984 and also five other show-cause notices for different periods, in respect of the price lists submitted by the appellant seeking approval of the price list of gases in question. It was found by the Tribunal that the appellant manufactures and sells oxygen and D.A. Gases. These are sold from the factory of the appellant at Visakhapatnam and from their depot/service centers at Vijayawada, Rajamundry, Vadlapudi, Jeypore and Damanjodi. They sell their product to Government undertakings as per the rates determined by DGS & D, New Delhi. In respect of other buyers the appellant sell their product at various prices on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1663; JT1988(3)SC172; 1989LabIC1314; (1995)IIILLJ710SC; 1988(2)SCALE101; (1988)4SCC571; [1988]Supp1SCR682; 1989(1)SLJ123(SC); 1988(2)LC401(SC)
1. Special leave to appeal is granted in both the special leave petitions.2. The petitioners are teachers employed in various recognised aided private schools in the State of Haryana. The schools are maintained under private management. They receive financial aid from the State Government. The petitioners have come to Court alleging that teachers employed in Government aided private schools are entitled to parity with the teachers employed in Government schools in the matter of pay scales and other emoluments such as Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, City Compensatory Allowance, Medical Reimbursement and Gratuity, etc. It appears that prior to 1967 there was considerable disparity in the emoluments of teachers employed in the same State, and the Government of India appointed the Kothari Commission to examine the conditions of service of teachers with the object of improving the standards of education in the country. Among other things, the Kothari Commission recommended that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1737; [1991]70CompCas127(SC); (1988)3CompLJ1(SC); JT1988(3)SC141; 1988(2)SCALE238; (1988)4SCC59; [1988]Supp1SCR627; 1988(2)LC572(SC); (1990)3UPLBEC1467
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad dated 26th September, 1984. The first appellant is the State of Uttar Pradesh impleaded through the Chief Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The second appellant is the Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, Department of Energy, Lucknow. The third appellant is one Shri Yogendra Narain, presently acting as Secretary to the Chief Minister, State of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. At a particular point of time Shri Yogendra Narain was the Secretary to the Department of Energy. The fourth appellant is the Assistant Electrical Inspector, a functionary under the U.P. Electricity (Duty) Act, 1952, Mirzapur Zone, Rani Patti, Mirzapur. The fifth appellant is the Collector of Mirzapur.2. There are four respondents in this appeal. The first respondent is Renusagar Power Company Ltd. The second respondent is M/s. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. Respondent No. 3 is Shri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1681; 1988(38)ELT225(SC); JT1988(3)SC313; 1988(2)SCALE218; (1988)4SCC364; [1988]Supp1SCR694
A.P. Sen, J.1. These appeals by special leave and the connected special leave petitions directed against the various judgments and orders of the Andhra Pradesh High Court involve a question of principle, and relate to location of Mandal Headquarters in the State of Andhra Pradesh under Section 3(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Act, 1974. The main issue involved is whether location of Mandal Headquarters was a purely governmental function and therefore not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the present cases we are concerned with the location of 12 Revenue Mandal Headquarters.2. The avowed object and purpose of the Andhra Pradesh Dstricts (Formation) Act, 1974, as amended by the Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Amendment Act, 1985 as reflected in the long title, was to bring about a change in the Revenue Administration with a view to 'bring the administration nearer to the people and to make all public service...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1705; 1988(36)BLJR577; 1988(2)Crimes942(SC); JT1988(3)SC126; 1988(2)SCALE87; 1988Supp(1)SCC526; [1988]Supp1SCR613
1. This appeal has come to this Court on grant of leave against the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 and sentence of death and also his conviction under Section 201 IPC and sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200 awarded by Sessions Judge, Ferozepur and confirmed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The appellant is convicted for having committed the murder of his father and son. It is alleged that deceased Santa Singh father of the present appellant owned 4-5 killas of land situated at Ferozepur Road where a tube well was also installed by the side of a small kotha where he alongwith his grandson Seva Singh used to live away from the house where the appellant resided. It is alleged that Seva Singh was crippled and used to move about on a tricycle Banta Singh and Seva Singh used to go to Gurudwara of their village to render services.2. Banta Singh had only one son i.e. present appellant whereas the appellant had a son Seva Singh the deceased from hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1988(36)BLJR762; JT1988(3)SC131; 1989LabIC1321; (1988)IILLJ360SC; 1988(2)SCALE79; 1988Supp(1)SCC669; [1988]Supp1SCR621; 1989(1)SLJ14(SC); 1988(2)LC314(SC)
1. This appeal by special, leave is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana whereby the High Court dismissed in limine the letters patent appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissing the writ petition of the appellant relating to his seniority.2. The appellant was appointed an Assistant Engineer-II with effect from June 10, 1963 in the Punjab State Electricity Board on probation for two years which ended on June 10, 1965. After the bifurcation of the Punjab State Electricity Board, the service of the appellant was allocated to the Haryana State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'. As a result of a disciplinary proceeding held against the appellant, on April 15, 1968 a minor penalty for the stoppage of one increment without any future effect was imposed on the appellant by the Board. After the expiry of one year, the appellant was, however, given the i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC183; (1988)2GLR1457; JT1988(3)SC129; 1988(2)SCALE76; 1988Supp(1)SCC713; 1988(2)LC390(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. This appeal by certificate under Article 133(1)(a) and (c) of the Constitution is by the defendants against the reversing judgment of the Gujarat High Court. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Bhavnagar, asking for:(i) declaration that the contract dated 5th of May, 1943 between it and the ex-State of Bhavnagar valid for a period of 51 years commencing from 5th of May 1943 fixing the charges for carrying salt in wagons from the siding to the Concrete Jetty was binding on the defendants and they had no right to revise the terms thereof.(ii) The agreement dated 29th of March, 1951, was valid, subsisting and binding on the defendants and the stipulated rates were not liable to be varied except in the manner provided in Clause 8A of the agreement.2. On the basis of the aforesaid contentions a claim for refund of Rs. 1,49,667.09 was made. The defendants maintained that the suit was not maintainable as under the provis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1700; JT1988(3)SC121; 1989LabIC1317; (1989)ILLJ61SC; 1988(2)SCALE82; (1988)4SCC42; [1988]Supp1SCR604; 1989(1)SLJ61(SC); 1988(2)LC329(SC)
1. The short question which arises for consideration in this case is whether a teacher employed in a school falls within the definition of the expression 'workman' as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The appellant, Miss A. Sundarambal, was appointed as a teacher in a school conducted by the Society of Franciscan Sisters of Mary at Caranzalem, Goa. Her services were terminated by the Management by a letter dated 25th April, 1975. After she failed in her several efforts in getting the order of termination cancelled, she raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer under the Act. The conciliation proceedings failed and the Conciliation Officer reported accordingly to the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu by his letter dated 2nd May, 1982. On receipt of the report the Government considered the question whether it could refer the matter for adjudication under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act but on reaching the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1676; JT1988(3)SC135; 1988(2)SCALE91; 1988Supp(1)SCC642; [1988]Supp1SCR593; 1988(2)LC334(SC)
ORDER1. The short point which arises for consideration in this case is whether without a prior agreement between two or more Regional Transport Authorities through which an interregional route passes it is open to any one of the said Regional Transport Authorities to grant a permit to ply a stage carriage on the said inter-regional route under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. After the opening of the 'Mahatama Gandhi Sethu' connecting South Bihar and North Bihar by road there was a great need for granting permits to operate stage carriage services between places which are situated in North Bihar and the places in South Bihar. Therefore, in order to satisfy the demand of the travelling public, the North Bihar Regional Transport Authority issued an advertisement inviting applications for granting stage carriage permits in respect of inter-regional routes connecting certain places situated within its jurisdiction and certain other pl...
Tag this Judgment!