Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990Supp(1)SCC111
K. Ramaswamy,; P.B. Sawant and; Ranganath Misra, JJ..1. Special leave is granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is as to the rejection of the appellant's writ petition by the High Court where he had disputed the cancellation of his licence granted under the Insecticides Act, 1968.3. The short facts which are no more in dispute are these : The appellant had a dealer's licence under the Act to deal in insecticides. The Chief Agricultural Officer, Ferozepur, cancelled this licence by order dated July 15, 1982, on the finding that the appellant was in possession of misbranded insecticides and had kept the same for sale and thus one of the conditions of the licence had been violated and such violation authorised cancellation of the licence. The Public Analyst made a report that the stock contained in the tin was misbranded inasmuch as against the requirement of 25 per cent of W/W, the Oxydemston Methyl content was 27.6 per cent. The appellant had taken the stand before the authority and the Hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990Supp(1)SCC37; 1990(Supp)SCC37
ORDER 1. This is an application under Article 32 of the Constitution and is a Public Interest Litigation. Kerala river running through some of the districts of Maharashtra ultimately joins river Krishna. On the allegation that the sand from the river is being exploited in a reckless manner and thereby the river bed is adversely affected, this writ petition was filed in this Court asking for stopping of commercial quarrying of sand and regulating excavation and other activities connected with commercial exploitation of sand keeping in view the safety of the river bed and the adjoining area. On notice the State of Maharashtra has filed its counter-affidavit and a copy of the report of a Committee of Experts appointed by the government under the Chairmanship of the Collector of Sangli. We find from the report that in the deliberations preceding the making of the report, sub-committees had been set up and several meetings were held dialogue continued over all material aspects for qui...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1989(4)SC412; 1989(2)SCALE1102; 1990Supp(1)SCC638; 1990(Supp)SCC638; [1989]Supp2SCR140
Ranganath Misra, J.1. Promotee Engineers of the Roads & Buildings Wing of the Andhra Pradesh Engineering Service are the Petitioners in this application under Art. 32 of the Constitution and challenge is to the Government circular of 12.8.88 (Annexure A) fixing the guideline for the drawing up of the seniority list pursuant to a direction issued by this Court in a batch of Writ Petitions, decision whereof is reported in 1988 Suppl. SCC 225 - K. Siva Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.2. While petitioners are promotees, the respondents are direct recruits. Petitioners allege that they had put in continuous service of 6-7 years by 1982 and their services having been regularised in the post of Deputy Executive Engineer in the year 1974-75, direct recruits appointed in the year 1982 cannot under any law be placed above them.3. As notice in Siva Reddy's case (supra), substantive vacancies in the category of Assistant Engineers had to be filled up from two sources- 37-1/2% by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1153a; II(1990)DMC296
1. This appeal arises out of the Judgment dated 13.12.1971 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Second Appeal No. 617/89, wherein the learned Judge of the High Court dismissed the Second Appeal filed by the present appellant.2. The present appellant filed a suit for injunction and possession on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 28.4.66 executed by Smt Yashoda Bai in his favour with respect to Immovable Property including agricultural lands and houses.3 The property originally belonged to her husband and after his death she got it as a limited owner and by influx of time and by coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, she acquired the rights of an absolute owner. On 28.4.63, she adopted respondent Nain Singh as her son and executed a document said to be the Deed of Adoption. This document is not a registered document and the trial court admitted it in evidence in proof of adoption. This document, in addition to recital of the factum of adoption in presence of Panchayat i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1990)97PLR182; 1989(2)SCALE1104; (1990)1SCC193; [1989]Supp2SCR149
K. Ramaswamy, J.1. Special leave granted.2. This appeal under Article 136 arises against the order dated Sept. 16, 1988 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana refusing review the order dated August 11, 1988 made in Civil Revision No. 2439/80 on its file. The facts lending to the decision are that the respondent Govind Ram, the father of the respondents/landlord laid the suit No. 118/77 (initially numbered as O.S. No. 276/75) on the file of Sr. Sub Judge for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation of the shop in Gurgaon, let out to the appellant/tenant. The suit was originally laid in the Court of Sub Judge, IIIrd Class, Gurgaon, which was transferred later to the Sr. Sub Judge, Gurgaon, which was decreed ex-parte on October 20, 1977. The application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex-parte decree was dismissed on January 10, 1979, and was confirmed on appeal on August 17, 1979 and in revision by the High Court on October 15, 1979. When ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1153; JT1989(4)SC434; 1990MPLJ1(SC); 1989(2)SCALE1178; (1990)1SCC1; [1989]Supp2SCR144
G.L. Oza and; M. Fathima Beevi, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated December 13, 1971 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Second Appeal No. 617 of 1989, wherein the learned Judge of the High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by the present appellant.2. The present appellant filed a suit for injunction and possession on the basis of a registered sale deed dated April 28, 1966 executed by Smt. Yashoda Bai in his favour with respect to immovable property including agricultural lands and houses.3. The property originally belonged to her husband and after his death she got it as a limited owner and by influx of time and by coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, she acquired the rights of an absolute owner. On April 28, 1963, she adopted respondent Nain Singh as her son and executed a document said to be the Deed of Adoption. This document is not a registered document and the trial court admitted it in evidence in proof of adoption. This document, in addition ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC461; [1990(60)FLR56]; JT1989(4)SC410; 1989(2)SCALE1095; 1990Supp(1)SCC692; [1989]Supp2SCR124; 1990(1)LC315(SC); (1990)1UPLBEC419
Ranganath Misra J.1. Special leave granted.2. The short question in these appeals is as to whether the High Court was right in upholding the decision of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission to re-hold the recruitment examination.3. On the requisition of the State Government the State Public Service Commission had undertaken the recruitment to the post of Upper Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari (Women), District Inspectress of Girls Schools/Associate Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools in Uttar Pradesh Educational Service-Junior Scale (Women's Branch) The advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates was published on May 5, 1985 and a corrigendum was published on June 8, 1985. The recruitment examination was in two stages-written and interview/personality test. After the written examination was over, on the basis of the results thereof successful candidates upto a base limit have to be called to be interviewed. On account of improper feeding into the computer some of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1989(4)SC419; 1989(2)SCALE1098; 1990Supp(1)SCC796; 1990(1)SLJ79(SC); 1990(1)LC166(SC)
ORDER1 After notice to the other side, both sides have been heard on merits. Accordingly, the matter is being decided on merits.2. Special leave granted.3 The respondent, Inderjit Rajput, was working as a Customs Inspector when he was compulsorily retired by an order dated 29.7.1986 and his representation against the same was also rejected. The respondent challenged his compulsory retirement before the Central Administrative Tribunal. By the impugned order dated 29.3.1989 the Central Administrative Tribunal accepted the respondent's contention and has quashed the order of compulsory retirement. The appellants have challenged this order of the Tribunal herein.4 The respondent assailed the order of his compulsory retirement on three grounds The first ground was that the respondent had not completed 30 years qualifying service to enable his compulsory retirement under the relevant rules. The second ground was the mala fides alleged against two of the departmental superiors; and the last g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1989(4)SC410a
Ranganath Misra, J.1. Special leave granted.2. The short question in these appeals is as to whether the High Court was right in upholding the decision of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission to re-hold the recruitment examination.3. On the requisition of the State Government the State Public Service Commission had undertaken the recruitment to the posts of Upper Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari (Women), District Inspectress of Girls Schools/Associate Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools in Uttar Pradesh education Service -Junior Scale (Women Branch). The advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates was published on May 5, 1985 and a corrigendum was published on June 8, 1985. The recruitment examination was in two stages - written and interview/personality test. After the written examination was over, on the basis of the results thereof successful candidates upto a base limit have to be called to be interviewed. On account of improper feeding into the computer some of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990(48)ELT626(SC); 1990Supp(1)SCC112
ORDER1. These are appeals under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act ('the Act') from an order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal dated 30th July, 1986. The question before the Tribunal was as to whether the excise duty in respect of cartons manufactured by the respondents was leviable under the Act. These cartons had been exempted from payment of duty upto 27-2-1982 under Notification No. 105/80. However, the Finance Act of 1982 made these cartons eligible to duty under the Tariff Item 17(4) with effect from 28-2-1982. The plea of the assessee was that the cartons, the levy of duty on which was under challenge, had been manufactured before 28-2-1982 and were in stock on that date and the levy cannot attach to them merely because they were cleared after 28-2-1982. The Tribunal accepted the contention raised on behalf of the assessee and, following certain earlier judgments of the Tribunal, held that the pre-budget stocks of cartons which were cle...
Tag this Judgment!