Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1034; 1989(2)ARBLR215(SC); JT1989(1)SC299; 1989(1)SCALE221; [1989]1SCR115; [1989]Supp1SCR368; 1989(1)LC399(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. This is an application for making the award dated 17th February, 1988 passed by Mr. V. Khalid, a former Judge of this Court, in a dispute referred to him by this Court's orders dated 6th October, 1987, final and to give consequential directions thereupon.2. On 7th April, 1979 there was a contract for construction of the building in question. The contract consisted of two phases. The date of commencement of both the phases was 10th March, 1979; the date of completion of phase-I was 9th June, 1980 and for phase-II 9th November, 1980. The dispute arose about the handing over of the site. According to the appellant, the site was not handed over to him as agreed upon and therefore, the work could not either be commenced or completed as stipulated. He, therefore, accused the respondent of obstructionist tactics also. According to the respondent, however, the claims put forward by the appellant were imaginary excuses to gain time and that he put forward various dema...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC751; JT1989(1)SC73; 1989(1)SCALE70; (1989)2SCC390; [1989]1SCR108; 1989(1)LC336(SC)
G.L. Oza, J.1. These two appeals have been filed by the two appellants against the 45 judgment of the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore dated 30.3.1974. This appeal has been filed in this Court after getting a certificate from the High Court of Karnataka under Article 133(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution.2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellants owned an Industrial concern by the name of Bangalore Fancy Fire Works and with a view to improve the industry and develop it further they sought aid from the Government of Mysore, one of the respondents, under the Mysore State Aid to Industries Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and application for this aid was made to the concerned authorities of the State on 23.1.1953 wherein an aid in the nature of financial assistance to the tune of Rs. one lac was sought. By the orders of the competent authority dated 3.9.1953 the financial assistance of Rs. 60,000/- by way of loan was sanctioned. This finan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC775; JT1989(1)SC274; 1989(1)SCALE161; (1989)1SCC559; 1989(1)LC469(SC)
ORDER1. Special leave is granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The two appellants, namely, Dr. Sanjay Mehrotra, son of Shri B.R. Mehrotra, Dr. Vivek Tandon, son of Shri T.N. Tandon and respondent No. 9, Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal, son of Shri R.K. Aggarwal were admitted in G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur in D.M. (Cardiology) course for the session 1987-89. The admissions of the appellants and the respondent No. 9 were set aside by the High Court by its judgment dated 16th September, 1988 at the instance of respondent No. 6. By the said judgment the High Court also directed the admissions of respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 8 in the said course.3. It appears that the Government of U.P. framed certain rules for the admission in the superspeciality Courses. Under the said rules candidates will be admitted on the basis of their merits in the M.B.B.S. examinations. Under the Rules, 75% of the seats are reserved for the institutional candidates. The appellants and the respondent No. 9 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990ACJ192; (1989)4SCC730
ORDER1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. It is an unfortunate case where the police collected poor people and took them to the Police Station for doing some work. They were asked to work without labour charges. On demand they were beaten and it appears that one of them Ram Swaroop succumbed to the injuries and the body has also been disposed of. Petition No. 2 Patasi, as alleged, was also stripped of her clothes and was thrashed in the Police Station. The other Eight persons namely (1) Dandwa (2) Ram Prasad (3) Jaipal (4) Mahavir (5) Kannu (6) Munsjia (7) Hukka and (8) Pratap were also beaten up rather then they should have been paid for the work they did at the Police Station.3. We are happy and we record our appreciation that Mr. A.S. Khan, Deputy Commissioner of Police in his Affidavit has frankly accepted the atrocity committed by the police officers and it also appears some action has been taken and Station House Officer has been arrested. The matter is being investigated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC772; JT1989(1)SC435; 1989(1)SCALE66; [1989]Supp1SCR214
Natarajan, J.1. The appellant Sukhram and his cousin one Gokul were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Ratlam under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and under Section 436 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and concurrently to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the respective convictions. On appeal, the High Court confirmed the convictions and sentences awarded to the appellant but gave the benefit of doubt to accused Gokul and acquitted him of both the charges. The appellant has preferred this appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court confirming the convictions and sentences awarded to him.2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, was that Gokul and the appellant bore a grudge against PW 1 Gendalal because of his refusal to return a sum of Rs. 400/- collected as fine from Gokul by the caste panchayatdars and left in deposit with PW 1 Gendalal. It would appear that about four years before the incident which took place o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1989Supp(2)SCC530
K. Jagannatha Shetty Shetty,; K.N. Singh and; Kuldip Singh, JJ.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Delhi dated 22-7-1982 dismissing the appellant's writ petition made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the order dated 27-3-1982 terminating his services in pursuance of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965.2. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we do not find any infirmity in the order of termination. Appellant's services were terminated as his work and performance in service was not found satisfactory, inasmuch as he had been obtaining leave from 1973 to 1981 as follows:1973 — 198 days1974 — 114 days1975 — 154 days1976 — 137 days1977 — 207 days1978 — 126 days1979 — 97 days1980 — 177 days1981 — 270 days3. The above statement would show that for the major part of his service career, he has been on leav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC705; 1989(1)BLJR37; 1989(2)Crimes181(SC); JT1989(1)SC76; 1989Supp(1)SCC377; 1989(2)WLN10
Ahmadi, J.1. The appellant Munir Ahmed and 13 others were tried before the learned Sessions Judges, Churu (Rajasthan) for the murder of one Suduleh Khan and for causing injuries to PW-1 Suduleh Khan, son of Jasu Khan and PW-3 Yusuf Khan. The charge framed against the appellant was for commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 307/149, I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 304, Part I, I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year Seven of his companions were also convicted for causing hurt to the prosecution witnesses, but since their convictions are not challenged before us we need say no more about their participation On appeal the High Court while maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 304, Part I, I.P.C, reduced the sentence to Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC696; 1989(1)BLJR21; [1989(58)FLR321]; JT1989(1)SC50; 1989LabIC999; (1989)IILLJ260SC; 1989(1)SCALE422; (1989)2SCC84; [1989]1SCR78; 1989(2)SLJ153(SC); 1989(1)LC361(S
Murari Mohan Dutt, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition of the appellants whereby they challenged inter alia the validity of Rule 328(2) of the Railway Establishment Code as amended by the Railway Board by Advance Correction Slip No. 70.2. The appellants were appointed Trade Apprentices in Locomotive Component Works (for short 'LCW') in or about January, 1959. There was a merger of LCW with Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi, (for short 'DLW') on Aug. 1, 1961, as a result of which all the members of the staff of LCW were taken over by DLW. On July, 19, 1962, the appellants were appointed Skilled Artisans after successfully completing a training for three years and a half. The regular channel of promotion to higher posts from the post of Skilled Artisan is in the following order : -1. Skilled Artisan.2. Highly Skilled Grade-II3. Highly Skilled Grade-1. 4. Chargeman-C.5. Chargeman-B.6. Chargeman-A.7. As...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1989Supp(2)SCC565
K. Jagannatha Shetty Shetty; K.N. Singh; Kuldip Singh, JJ.1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), Allahabad dated 23-9-1986 suspending the pension granted to the petitioner.2. The petitioner was employed in the Army as soldier. On his superannuation, he was granted pension of Rs 108 per mensem with effect from 1-11-1978. He continued to draw that pension till 31-1-1983. After his retirement the petitioner was involved in a murder case and convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and awarded imprisonment for life. In view of petitioner's conviction the CDA (Pensions) passed the impugned order suspending the payment of pension to the petitioner in exercise of his powers under Regulation 119 of Pension Regulations Part I (1961) read with para 29.1 of Pension Payment Instructions (1973) for the period the petitioner was undergoing imprisonment. The petitioner has challenged the val...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1989(1)SCALE65; (1988)2SCC242a; 1989Supp(2)SCC531
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. We have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff-State of Assam and the learned counsel for the defendants, namely, Union of India the State of Nagaland and the Election Commission. Taking into consideration all the aspects of the case and the balance of convenience we feel that the appropriate order that should be passed in this case is that we should allow the Election Commission to conduct the election scheduled to be held on 21st January, 1989 in the areas in dispute in any of the manners indicated by it in para 4 of its counter affidavit, namely, either by setting up polling stations in the disputed areas at the same sites and locations at which they were set up at the time of the last general election to the Nagaland Legislative Assembly held in November, 1987 or in any other manner it considers appropriate. The election shall be held under the supervision of the Election Commission of India with the assistance of the police force selected by it. This ord...
Tag this Judgment!