Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1990)92BOMLR153; JT1989(4)SC529; 1989(2)SCALE1226; (1990)1SCC277; [1989]Supp2SCR336; 1990(1)LC292(SC); (1990)1UPLBEC192
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. Special Leave granted.2. This case raises yet another variant of a vexed question. Does Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended by Act 68 of 1984) providing for higher solatium proprio vigore apply to award made subsequent to 24 September, 1984 even though the acquisition commenced prior to the said date. The appeal also raises another important question as to the applicability of Section 23(1-A) providing additional amount of compensation to awards made in such acquisition proceedings.3. The facts are not in dispute and may be stated as follows :By notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the 'Act') published in the Government Gazette on 26 October, 1967, the State Government declared its intention to acquire the land belonging to the respondent for establishing Naval Air Station Dabolim. On 23 February 1968, notification under Section 6 was published in the Gazette. On 5th March 1969 the Land Acquisition Officer de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1765; AIR1990SC1128; 70(1990)CLT256(SC); 1970CriLJ1369; JT1989(4)SC466; 1989(2)SCALE1234; (1970)2SCC396; (1990)1SCC214; (1990)1SCC214a; [1971]1SCR714; [1989]Supp2S
V. Ramaswami, J.1. Special leave granted.2. In respect of a dispute relating to the work Lankagada Minor Irrigation Project (Balance Work) in Jagannathaprasad Block which was entrusted to him, the appellant-contractor, invoking Clause 23 of the agreement and Section 8 of the Arbitration Act requested the Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation, Bhubaneswar, Orissa, to nominate an arbitrator. It may be mentioned that before making this request for nomination of an arbitrator the appellant made a claim on 16.6.1975 before the Executive Engineer, M I Division, Berhampur, Ganjam, claiming to be paid a sum of Rs. 2,81,745/-. He had also claimed interest on this at the rate of 18 per cent from the date of receiving of the claim book till payment. The work entrusted to the appellant was to commence on 6.12.1971 and to be completed within 18 months i.e. on or before 5.6.1973 and the total cost of the work was Rs. 9,98,970/-. One Shri D.C. Panda, Superintending Engineer, Central Range, w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1989(2)SCALE1455; 1990Supp(1)SCC113; [1989]Supp2SCR329; 1990(1)UJ287(SC)
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 1119 of 1986 etc. etc.(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). G. Ramaswamy, A.S.G., N.C. Sikri, N.S. Das Bahl, B.D. Sharma, Ms. Madhu Sikri, B.W. Vaidya, R.B. Misra, Ms. A. Subhashini (not present) and Dalveer Bhandari for the ap- pearing parties.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, J. The first of these applications under Art. 32 of the Constitution is on behalf of the Delhi Reserve Trained Pool Telephone Operators (RTPTOs) asking for a direction to the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited to treat all the telephone operators at par after their absorp- tion as regular employees. Three letters addressed to the learned Chief Justice of this Court have been treated as writ petitions and are the remaining one under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The first one (1276/86) is by the Reserve Trained Pool Telephone Operators of Bombay. They claim the self-same relief as asked for in the earlier case; the second one (1623/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC298; [1990(60)FLR229]; JT1989(4)SC436; 1990LabIC316; (1990)IILLJ452SC; 1989(2)SCALE1164; 1990Supp(1)SCC152; [1989]Supp2SCR323; 1990(1)SLJ35(SC)
Sawant, J.1. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 251 of 1987 are Dairy Mates whereas, those in Writ Petition No. 558 of 1987 are Junior Plant Operatives and Semi-Skilled Operatives, all working with the Delhi Milk Scheme. The first petition is on behalf of about one thousand workers, whereas, the second petition is on behalf of about 280 workers.2. The grievance of the Dairy Mates is that although they perform the duties and functions of semi-skilled workers, they have been wrongly classified as un-skilled workers and paid salary as such as recommended by the 4th Pay Commission namely, Rs. 750-940/- instead of Rs. 800-1150/- which is the salary recommended to the semi-skilled workers. The grievance of the Junior Plant Operatives and Semi-Skilled Operatives is that they are actually doing the work of skilled workers, but are classified similarly as unskilled workers and paid salary as such. Both, further, have a grievance that their counter-parts in other departments, particularly in R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC556; 1990(26)ECC189; 1989(2)SCALE1189; (1990)1SCC184; [1989]Supp2SCR293
N.D. Ojha, J.1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are licenced dealers having factories and manufacturing units at Panipat in the State of Haryana and consume sheep hair for manufacturing woollen fabrics and blankets. In order to carry on their trade they purchase sheep-hair to get yarn manufactured out of it for being used in its turn for manufacturing woollen fabrics and blankets.2. The only question urged in these writ petitions is as to whether sheep-hair was an agricultural produce within the meaning of the said term as defined under Section 2(a) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act (1961) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) so as to attract the provisions of the said Act to it. The term 'agricultural produce' according to its definition contained under Section 2(a) of the Act means all produce, whether processed or not, of agricultural, horticulture, animal husbandry or forest as specified in the Schedule to the Act. On its plain meaning, therefore, only such pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1990)1SCC318a
G.L. OZA, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 4818 of 1973 wherein the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner was dismissed.2. In the writ petition before the High Court the petitioner sought mandamus directing the respondent to pay forthwith to the petitioner compensation for the lands surrendered by her under the Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1961. A further direction was sought prohibiting the third respondent from proceeding with the revision under Section 19(1) of the Act as amended by Act 1 of 1972 with efffect from January 19, 1972.3. Necessary facts are that the petitioner's husband owned extensive lands in Gadwal. After the Act came into force the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal issued a notice under Section 3(2) of the Act directing the petitioner's husband to file a declaration of his holdings. The petitioner's husband accordingly filed the declaration. Thereafter he died in 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC294; 1989(2)SCALE1181; (1990)1SCC318; [1989]Supp2SCR314
ORDERG.L. Oza, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 4818 of 1973 wherein the writ petition filed by the Appellant/Petitioner was dismissed.2. In the writ petition before the High Court the petitioner sought mandamus directing the respondent to pay forthwith to the petitioner compensation for the lands surrendered by her under the Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act 1961. A further direction was sought prohibiting the third respondent from proceeding with the revision under Section 19(1) of the Act as amended by Act No. I of 1972 w.e.f. 19.1.72.3. Necessary facts are that the petitioner's husband owned extensive lands in Gadwal. After the Act came into force the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal issued a notice under Section 3(2) of the Act directing the petitioner's husband to file a declaration of his holdings. The petitioner's husband accordingly filed the declaration. Thereafter he died in 1969 leaving ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC325; 1989(2)SCALE1168; (1990)1SCC234; [1989]Supp2SCR299
J.S. Verma, J.1. Leave granted.2. The landlord Shri Shiv Chander Kapoor has preferred this appeal by special leave against the judgment dated August 3, 1987 passed by the Delhi High Court in S.A.O. No. 393 of 1986 whereby the High Court dismissed the landlord's appeal against the order dated October 14, 1986 of the Rent Control Tribunal affirming in appeal the order dated August 9, 1985 of the Rent Controller dismissing the landlord's application dated October 12, 1983 for restoration of possession of the premises let out for residence to the tenant Amar Bose for the limited period of three sears w.e.f. June 8, 1980 under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act'). The true scope of the enquiry contemplated when the tenant assails validity of the Rent Controller's permission granted under Section 21 of the Act for creation of a tenancy for limited period arises for determination in the present case.3. The premises is the second floor of the build...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(162)ELT3(SC)
The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedThe order passed by the Tribunal was modified as being erroneous and unacceptable. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC699; JT1989(4)SC421; 1989(2)SCALE1196; (1990)1SCC731; [1989]2SCR275
K.N. Saikia, J.1. This appeal by special leave is from the Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated May 22, 1986 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1915 of 1986 quashing the bills issued by the appellants demanding minimum guaranteed charges from the respondents.2. The appellants Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna, hereinafter referred to as 'the Board', entered into an agreement with the respondent-M/s. Green Rubber Industries, a partnership firm, hereinafter referred to as 'the firm', on the latter's application dated 26th July, 1978, for supplying the electricity of 60 KVA and on 13 4-1981 gave electricity connection. The firm later applied that it may be given 45 KVA instead of 60 KVA and it deposited the requisite sum of Rs. 2700/- and a fresh agreement was executed on May 2, 1981. On May 29, 1981 the firm was given fresh connection of 45 KVA. According to the firm it requested the Board on 19-6-1981 to cut off the connection. The firm received the bills for mini...
Tag this Judgment!