Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC611; JT1988(4)SC154; 1988(2)KLT903(SC); 1988(2)SCALE1181; (1989)1SCC44; [1988]Supp3SCR380
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This petition is for leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution from the judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 9th October, 1987. The question that was urged before the High Court and the question which is sought to be raised in this petition is whether the respondent-Andhra Pradesh Rayons Ltd. which is manufacturing Rayon Grade Pulp, a base material for manufacturing of synthetics or man-made fabrics is an industry as mentioned in Schedule I of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) cess Act, 1977 for the purposes of levy of Water Cess under the Act. The water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 was passed by the Parliament to 'provide for the prevention and control of water pollution and the maintaining or restoring of wholesomeness of water, for the establishment, with a view to carrying out the purposes aforesaid, of Boards for the prevention and control of water pollution, for conferring on and assign...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC149; JT1988(4)SC26; (1989)ILLJ71SC; 1988(2)SCALE1266; 1989Supp(1)SCC31; 1988(2)LC532(SC)
ORDER1. The special leave petition is directed against the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 2305 of 1986 filed by the petitioner in the High Court of Allahabad against the award of the Labour Court in a reference made to it under Section 4(k) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter the Act) in favour of the respondent employee and substituting the order of termination of service of the respondent by an order of re-instatement together with 75% back wages. The respondent too had filed a writ petition i.e. W.P. No. 6769 of 1986 to challenge the Labour Court's award in so far as it provided only for 75% back wages instead of full back wages. The High Court heard both the Writ Petitions together and by a common order dismissed both the petitions. This special leave petition is directed against the dismissal of W.P. No. 2305 of 1986 and there is no challenge by the respondent against the dismissal of his writ petition W.P. No. 6769 of 1986.2. Notice was ordered on the special le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1992)4SCC112
E.S. Venkataramiah and; N.D. Ojha, JJ.1. Petitioner 1 is a casual labourer on daily wages working in the Soil Conservation Department, Agriculture Section, Delhi Administration, Delhi and Petitioner 2 is the Union of Casual Labourers working in the said department. They have prayed for the issue of direction to the Delhi Administration and to the Union of India to regularise their services and also to pay each of them until such regularisation the minimum salary payable to a person regularly employed in a comparable post in the department. It is stated that many of the casual labourers working in the above-said department have been working for nearly 20 years as casual labourers.2. Following a number of decisions rendered by this Court on the question of regularisation of casual workers and the need for paying them the minimum salary payable to a regular employee in a comparable post, we issue a direction to the Delhi Administration to prepare a scheme for absorbing the casual labourer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC245; JT1988(4)SC376; 1988(2)SCALE1362; 1989Supp(2)SCC25; [1988]Supp3SCR361
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. A hast of questions of seminal significance, not only for the Advocate who has been suspended from practising his profession for 3 years on the charge of having withdrawn a suit (as settled) without the instructions from his client, but also for the members of the legal profession in general have arisen in this appeal (Appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961):(1) Whether a charge apprising him specifically of the precise nature and character of the professional misconduct ascribed to him needs to be framed?(2) Whether in the absence of an allegation or finding of dishonesty or mens rea a finding of guilt and a punishment of this nature can be inflicted on him?(3) Whether the allegations and the finding of guilt require to be proved beyond reasonable doubt?(4) Whether the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies?(5) Whether an Advocate acting bona fide and in good faith on the basis of oral instructions given by some one purporting to act on behalf of his clien...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC67; 1988(3)Crimes638(SC); JT1988(4)SC73; 1988(2)SCALE1150; 1989Supp(1)SCC25
G.L. Oza, J.1. These appeals by special leave have been filed by the appellants against their conviction under Sections 147, Section 325/149, Section 330/149 and Section 354/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo various terms of imprisonment between two to five years for these offences. Appellant Mullu has been further convicted under Section 342/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo two years' R.I. The remaining five appellants have been convicted under Section 220/149 I.P.C. and each sentenced to undergo five years' R.I. Sarjoo Singh, appellant has been further convicted under Section 218/149 and sentenced to undergo three years' R.I. for that offence. All these sentences are to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case was that sometime on the night between 12th and 13th March, 1967 a burglary is alleged to have been committed at the house of one Pitam in the village Adilpur under Police Station Kotwali Sitapur. A bicycle and other articles of total value of about Rs. 932/- were taken aw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC157; JT1988(4)SC50; 1988(2)SCALE1079; (1989)1SCC89; [1988]Supp3SCR282
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This petition is for special leave to appeal from the decision of the High Court of Delhi, dated 13th July, 1988. By the said Order the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. In the said writ petition, the petitioner had asked for a direction to the Union of India and/or the Doordarshan to accept the script of the petitioner and eventually to give him the contract. The High Court in its order recorded that there was no substance in the allegation that Shri Gulzar, respondent No. 2 herein, had been preferred over the petitioner by practising discrimination. There was a proposal to produce T.V. serials based on national integration, communal harmony, against exploitation of child labour, equal status for women etc. etc. and the last date for submitting such projects was 7th May, 1986. It was further announced by the Doordarshan that the project should be completed in terms of the guidelines issued by the Doordarshan, respondent No. 1. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1988(3)SC820; 1988(2)SCALE1031; 1989Supp(1)SCC593; 1988(2)LC543(SC)
ORDER1. On 4.8.1918, this Court on the application made by Nishan Developers Properties Private Limited (hereafter 'Nishan, for short) and Sanchaita Commissioner and upon nearing Mr. Gobind Mukhoty for the small depositors made the following order :Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/proposed purchaser. Mr. Gobind Mukhoty is for the small depositors and Mr. H.K. Puri appears for the Commissioner. We have also perused the terms contained in Schedule-A which are the terms of the settlement. We are of the view that the arrangement is in the interest of the depositors and would benefit his State. Accordingly the proposal is accepted and the Commissioner is permitted to sell the property strictly in accordance with the terms contained in Schedule-A. We are told that an amount of Rs. 2,62,500/- is paid and the balance of Rs. 7,87,500/- is undertaken to be paid within six months from the : date of settlement. On failure of payment as stipulated the arrangement shall be withdrawn and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC2245; JT1988(3)SC814; 1989LabIC1224; 1988(2)SCALE1502; 1988Supp(1)SCC663; [1988]Supp3SCR323
N.D. Ojha, J.1. This appeal by special leave has been preferred against the Judgment dated 8th March, 1976 of the Guwahati High Court in Civil Rule No. 261 of 1973. The appellant who was a Sub-Inspector of Police in Assam was dismissed by the Superintendent of Police, Darrang district, Tezpur, by Order dated 29th January, 1973. This order was passed without compliance with the requirements of Article 311(2) of the Constitution on the ground that it was a case to which the provisions of Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) were attracted. The appellant preferred an appeal to the Inspector-General of Police, Assam (Shillong). The said appeal having been dismissed he challenged the order of dismissal as well as the appellate order under Article 226 of the Constitution in Civil Rule No. 261 of 1973 referred to above. The various submissions made on behalf of the appellant did not, however, find favour with the Learned Judges who heard the civil rule mentioned above resulting ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC162; (1989)1CALLT15(SC); JT1988(4)SC214; 1988(2)SCALE1163; (1988)4SCC619; [1988]Supp3SCR333
S. Ranganathan, J.1. A somewhat important question as to the nature and scope of the rights available to a defendant whose 'defensehas been struck out' calls for determination in this appeal in the particular context of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The appeal arises from the judgment of a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court constituted to resolve a conflict in the earlier decisions of the same court on this issue. The Full Bench, by a majority of two (P.K. Banerjee and Chittatosh Mookerjee, JJ) to one (Ramendra Mohan Datta, Acting C.J.) decided that in a matter where the defence against delivery of possession has been struck out under Sub-section 3 of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') the defendant-tenant cannot cross-examine the witnesses called by the plaintiff, excepting on the point of notice under Section 13(6) of the said Act. The correctness of the view taken by the majority is contested in this appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1989(37)BLJR13; JT1988(4)SC233a; 1988(2)SCALE965; 1989Supp(1)SCC644a; [1988]Supp3SCR306
Ranganath Misra, J.1. A letter addressed to the learned Chief Justice of this Court from two citizens of Patna in regard to the Mental Hospital at Kanke near Ranchi in Bihar State was considered as a public interest litigation and registered as an application under Article 32 of the Constitution. On 7.4.1986, this Court called upon the State of Bihar to file its counter affidavit and the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Ranchi or any other Judicial Magistrate nominated by him to visit the hospital and submit a report about the conditions prevailing in the Hospital.2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate visited the hospital on 8.6.1986, and on several other occasions thereafter and submitted a detailed report on 15th of July, 1986. He found that there were 1580 beds. The Hospital was in the sole management of the Health Department of the State of Bihar. The State received financial contributions from West Bengal and Orissa. There is a Managing Committee of the Hospital consisting of 14 members in...
Tag this Judgment!