Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC670; 1990(38)BLJR619; I(1990)DMC45SC; (1990)2GLR797; JT1989(4)SC163; 1990MPLJ44(SC); 1989(2)SCALE866; 1989Supp(2)SCC450; [1989]Supp1SCR464
Lalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff-appellant is directed against the decision of the Bombay High Court dismissing her suit for possession of the properties detailed in the plaint.2. The disputed properties belonged to a joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law of which one Bhiku and his son Balu were coparceners. Bhiku died on June 6, 1942 leaving behind his widow Parvati the defendant No. 2 in the present, suits and Balu who died soon after his father's demise on July 25, 1942. In November 1942 Balu's widow Lilabai gave birth to a posthumous daughter who is the present appellant Sometime later Lilabai remarried and thereupon Parvati adopted Vithal, the first defendant in the present suit, in the year 1949. After attaining majority, appellant Ashabai filed the present suit for a decree for possession of the properties with mesne profits and a decree for money for Rs. 3,000/- as expenses of her marriage. She challenged the power of her grand-mother to adopt the f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC121; 1990(38)BLJR611; 1990CriLJ669; I(1993)DMC317SC; JT1989(4)SC128; 1989(2)SCALE869; 1989Supp(2)SCC572
Natarajan, J.1. Leave granted.2. Heard counsel for the parties. The limited question for consideration in these appeal a is whether the High Court has erred in quashing the charge framed under Section 302 read with Section 120B I.P.C. against respondents 1 to 3 by the Sessions Judge in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.3. Regarding the murder of one Satish, whose, grand-father is the appellant in the first appeal the investigation was made over to the C.I.D., Jaipur from the police authorities of Todabhim on account of ineffective investigation by the latter. After investigating the case, the C.I.D. laid challan against six persons including respondents 1 to 3 for offences of murder and criminal conspiracy to murder. Respondents 1 and 2, it would appear, were absconding and hence, proclamation had to be made against them under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Thereafter respondents 1 and 2 moved the Sessions Judge and the High Court for anticipatory bail but failed.4. The Sessions Judg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC100; [1989(59)FLR687]; JT1989(4)SC59; (1990)ILLJ61SC; 1989(2)SCALE819; 1989Supp(2)SCC351; 1989(2)LC706(SC)
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 11 November 1988 in O.A. No. 1677 of 1988. The event leading to the appeal are these :2. On 20 February 1958, Bal Kishan, the appellant, was enrolled as a Constable in Delhi Police. On 1 February 1964, he was promoted to officiate as Head Constable. His confirmation as Head Constable was delayed on account of certain adverse remarks against him. That adverse remarks were later expunged and he was confirmed in 1969. This has delayed his promotion as Sub-Inspector (SI). Complaining about the belated confirmation and seeking further promotion, he filed a writ petition in Delhi High Court. The High Court by judgment dated 25 September 1984 allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to confirm the appellant w.e.f. 1 February 1966 with all consequential benefits. The operative portion of the order of the High Court is as under :It is apparent that the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1989(4)SC53; 1989(2)SCALE808; 1989Supp(2)SCC477; [1989]Supp1SCR445; 1990(1)LC251(SC)
ORDER1. This civil appeal by special leave is at the instance of a builder who had entered into a contract with the Board of Governors of the La Martinere School at Calcutta in respect of certain immovable property of the School to be taken by the Builder on permanent lease.2. Christopher Martin Desgranges Martin left behind a will which stipulated the setting up of a school for the benefit of the city of Calcutta and upon his death the will was probated and the executors set up the School. The Board of Governors of the School (hereinafter 'Board') among others has the reverend Bishop of the city of Calcutta as its chairman and a retired Major-General of the Indian Army as a Member. The Old Martinians Association (hereinafter 'Association') being a body of the old students of the School resisted the request of the School before the High Court when it applied for acceptance of the agreement of lease of 1981. A learned Single Judge while agreeing on principle to accord sanction asked for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC231; 1990CriLJ584; JT1989(4)SC95; 1989(2)SCALE731; (1990)1SCC35; [1989]Supp1SCR420
K.N. Saikia, J.1. Special leave granted. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2 This State's appeal is from the Judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 31.7.1989 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2365 of 1988 quashing the detention order of Sukhjinder Singh, father of the respondent, under the National Security Act.3. Sri Sukhjinder Singh has been under detention pursuant to the Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice's Order dated 28.5.1988, passed in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act 1980 (No. 65 of 1980), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'; read with Section 14A as inserted by National Security (Amendment) Act, 1987, with a view to preventing him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order and interference with efforts of Government in coping with the terrorist and disruptive activities. He was furnished with the grounds of d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC119; [1989(59)FLR705]; JT1989(4)SC50; (1990)97PLR40; 1989(2)SCALE806; 1989Supp(2)SCC693; [1989]Supp1SCR451
ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. We grant special leave and proceed to dispose of the appeal.2. In O.S. No. 821/1973, there was ex parte decree against the appellant for payment of Rs. 2,000 and cost. In execution of the decree, the appellant's land Section No. 116 at Bayanguda village measuring 10 acres was brought to Court sale. His small farm house was also located in the land. In the auction held the respondent purchased the land for Rs. 17,000. The sale was subject to the prior mortgage for Rs. 2,000 in favour of the Land-mortgage Bank Jangareddigudem. On 31 May 1976 the sale was confirmed. On 26 July 1976, the appellant filed application under Order XXI Rule 90 for setting aside the sale. He impeached the auction sale broadly on three grounds namely: (i) that he was the owner of only one acre of land and the remaining 9 acres in the said survey number belonged to his father-Siddaiah, (ii) that the land was worth about Rs. 70,000 but it was sold for a very low price of Rs. 17,000 b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1990(60)FLR26]; JT1989(4)SC377; (1994)IIILLJ1133SC; 1989(2)SCALE1041; 1991Supp(2)SCC199; 1990(1)SLJ185(SC)
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. Heard counsel on both sides. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal which allowed the appeals of respondents 3 to 5 and quashed the temporary promotions of the appellants 2 to 4 as Deputy Transport Commissioners.3. On March 23, 1988 the Tamil Nadu Government approved a panel of six Regional Transport Officers including the four appellants before us for the purpose of temporary promotion to the cadre of Deputy Transport Commissioners. Respondents 3 to 5 who are seniors to the appellants were, however, not included in the panel. They were excluded from the panel either on account of disciplinary proceedings initiated or criminal case pending against them In view of pendency of such proceedings, the Government had decided to overlook their promotions as Deputy Transport Commissioner. The said respondents preferred writ petitions before the High Court of Madras questioning the exclusion of their names in the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC40; JT1989(4)SC69; 1990(1)SLR834; 1989(2)SCALE759; 1989(4)SCC683; 1989Supp(1)SCR371
SHARMA, J.1. The question involved in these appeals relates to the vires of the Tamil Nadu Private Educational Institutions (Regulation) Act, 1966, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The appellants are interested in running educational institutions, which are covered by the expression "private educational institution" within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act. The main challenge is directed against Section 2(c), 3(a), 3(b), 6, 7 read with Sections 15, 22 and 28. The High Court struck down Section 28 and upheld the other sections. That part of the judgment where Section 28 has been declared to be invalid has not been impugned by the respondent-State2. The provisions of the Act which are relevant for appreciating the ground urged by the appellants are as follows. Section 3 mandatorily requires a private educational institution to obtain the permission of the competent authority for the purpose of running it. The Manager of such an institution has to, as required by Section 4, make...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC40; [1989]Supp1SCR371
ORDERL.M. Sharma1. The question involved in these appeals relates to the vires of the Tamil Nadu Private Educational Institutions (Regulation) Act, 1966, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The appellants are interested in running educational institutions, which are covered by the expression 'private educational institution' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act. The main challenge is directed against Sections 2(c), 3(a), 3(b), 6, 7 read with Sections 15, 22 and 28. The High Court struck down Section 28 and upheld the other sections. That part of the judgment where Section 28 has been declared to be invalid has not been impugned by the respondent-State.2. The provisions of the Act which are relevant for appreciating the ground urged by the appellants are as follows. Section 3 mandatorily requires a private educational institution to obtain the permission of the competent authority for the purpose of running it. The Manager of such an institution has to, as required by Section 4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1990)1CompLJ219(SC); (1989)80CTR(SC)85; 1989(25)LC466(SC); [1989]180ITR171(SC); JT1989(4)SC56; 1989(2)SCALE799; 1989Supp(2)SCC462; 1990(1)LC90(SC)
ORDER1. These two applications under Article 136 of the Constitution are directed against two separate orders made by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and communicated on 2nd March, 1987, declining to waive the demand of interest made by the Income Tax Officer, Central Circle XVI, Madras, under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 (hereinafter 'Act) in exercise of powers under Section 220(2A) of the Act. The claim related to assessment years 1979-80 and 1982-83.2. The assesses-petitioner applied for waiver on 5.11.1986 when the Income Tax Officer by his separate orders dated 9.9.1986 claimed in respect of assessment year 1979-80 interest of Rs. 2,06,547/- and for the other a sum of Rs. 1,63,080/-. The Income Tax Officer raised the demand for interest as provided under the law taking into account the finally sustained demands for the two years and interest was calculated from the date when the payment covered by assessments was due and the date when the demand of interest was mad...
Tag this Judgment!