Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC867; 1989(1)SCALE511; 1989Supp(1)SCC656; [1989]1SCR848; 1989(1)LC721(SC); 1989(2)WLN1
G.L. Oza, J.1. These appeals have come to this Court against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan dated 29.9.86 wherein the learned Judges disposed of the following appeals by the impugned judgment and against this after grant of leave these appeals are before us:(1) The State of Rajasthan and Anr. Vs Prajapati Grah Nirman Samiti Ltd. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 3 of 1978) (2) The State of Rajasthan and Anr. Vs Adhunik Grah Nirman Samiti Limited (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 4 of 1978) (3) The State of Rajasthan and Anr. Vs M/s. Jai Marwar Company Pvt. Ltd. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 5 of 1978) (4) Trustees of Major Maharaja Hari Singh) Benefit of Defence service Personnel Charitable Trust Vs The State of Rajasthan and Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 79 of 1981) (5) State of Rajasthan and Anr. Vs Maharaja Gaj Singh Ji (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 354 of 1984) 2. Initially the three writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Rajasthan b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC875; JT1989(1)SC420; 1989(1)SCALE525; 1989Supp(1)SCC690; [1989]1SCR840; 1989(1)LC645(SC)
T.K. Thommen, J.1. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 25.1.1988 in Election Petition No. 1 of 1985, The High Court by the impugned order 'set aside the proceedings of counting and the resultant declaration' made on 28.12.1984 in respect of the election to the Lok Sabha held on 27.12.1984 from 34, Nizamabad Parliamentary Constituency consisting of 7 Assembly Segments. The High Court directed the Secretary to the Election Commission to conduct the counting of the votes afresh in the said Constituency from which the appellant was declared elected to the Lok Sabha. The 1st respondent, M. Narayan Reddy was one of the six candidates who contested the election. According to the result declared by the Returning Officer, the appellant secured 2,51,172 votes while the 1st respondent, the election petitioner, secured 2,48,725 votes. The 1st respondent filed Election Petition under Sections 80 and 81 of the Representation of the People Act,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC827; 1989CriLJ954; 1989(1)Crimes725(SC); JT1989(1)SC395; 1989(1)SCALE488
Ahmadi, J.1. In Sessions Case No. 13 of 1974, 23 persons were arraigned before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 201, 216, 332 and 395,, I.P.C. The learned Judge convicted accused Nos. 2 and 17 to 21 under the aforesaid provisions and sentenced them to varying terms of imprisonment on each count. All of them preferred an appeal to the High Court. Masodkar, J., who heard the appeal found that no error was committed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Against the said order, original accused Nos. 17 to 21 have approached this Court by special leave.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are these. The incident in question occurred on December 26, 1972 between 2 p.m. and 5 p.m. in village Dahegaon. On that day, PW 1, Head Constable Bansi received information that certain persons were gaming by placing bets at a cock fight. Thereupon, PW 1 raided the place in the company of police constab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1989]178ITR220(SC)
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.1. In these matters, the question that arises for consideration is, whether a learned Single Judge sitting in chambers is competent to dismiss application for condonation of delay in statutory appeals under Order 20-A of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, regarding appeal under Section 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 as well as under Order 20-B regarding appeals under Section 130-E of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 35-L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. It appears that an application for condonation of delay came before a learned Single Judge and in the circumstances mentioned in the Review Petition No. 557 of 1987, the application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. That order was passed by learned Single Judge under Order 6 Rule 2(14) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. The application had been filed for the condonation of delay along with the statutory appeal against the judgment/order of the Customs, Excises and Gol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1298; [1989]66CompCas221(SC); (1989)1CompLJ321(SC); 1989(41)ELT617(SC); [1989]17ITR220(SC); JT1989(1)SC409; 1989(1)SCALE490; (1989)2SCC303; [1989]1SCR824; [1989]74
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In these matters, the question that arises for consideration is, whether a learned Single Judge sitting in Chambers is competent to dismiss application for condonation of delay in statutory appeals under Order XX-A of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, regarding appeal under Section 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 as well as under Order XX-B regarding appeals under Section 130-E of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 35-L of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, It appears that an application for condonation of delay came before a learned Single Judge and in the circumstances mentioned in the Review Petition No. 557 of 1987, the application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. That order was passed by learned Single Judge under Order VI Rule 2(14) of the Supreme Court Rules. 1966. The application had been filed for the condonation of delay along with the Statutory Appeal against the Judgment/ Order of the Customs, Excises and Gol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1070; JT1989(1)SC408; 1989(1)SCALE483; (1989)2SCC110; [1989]1SCR837; 1989(1)LC665(SC)
R.S. Pathak, CJI.1. Special leave granted.2. This tenant's appeal by special leave arises out of a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages.3. The suit was brought by the respondents who claimed that a shop owned by them had been let to the appellant, that the appellant had fallen in arrears of rent from 1 February, 1968 and had not paid the arrears, notwithstanding a notice of demand dated 8 January, 197? served on the appellant. The suit was decreed exparte by the Trial Court and the decree was set aside by the first Appellate Court. In Writ Petition before the High Court, it was urged on behalf of the appellant that the appellant had deposited the arrears of rent under Sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972, and that therefore the Court should have made an order relieving the appellant against his liability for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. The High Court noted that the suit was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1049; [1989(58)FLR573]; JT1989(1)SC383; (1989)IILLJ567SC; 1989(1)SCALE450; 1989Supp(1)SCC236; 1989(2)SLJ64(SC); 1989(1)LC628(SC)
Ahmadi, J.1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is preferred by and on behalf of the retired employees of the Imperial Bank of India (IBI) which has since been taken over by the State Bank of India (SBI) constituted under the provisions of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (Act 23 of 1955). Petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the pensioners' of IBI. Petitioner No. 1, the IBI Pensioners, Association, is impleaded as a party to give the petition a representative character. The grievance of the petitioners is that the instant Pension-Plan governing the employees of the erstwhile IBI is out-dated and does not provide reasonable pension required for survival. Several contentions have been raised in the petition but it is not necessary to traverse them because the pension-plan has undergone a change during the pendency of the petition. The question of suitably revising the IBI Employees Pension and Gratuity Fund Rules and Regulations (hereinafter called 'the Rules') was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC879; JT1989(1)SC375; 1989(1)SCALE477; 1989Supp(2)SCC162; 1989(1)LC576(SC)
Sharma, J.1. This appeal, directed against the decision of the Bombay High Court in a first appeal, arises out of a suit filed by the appellant Shankarrao for partition of the properties set out in the plaint. The suit was decreed by the trial court. On appeal, the High Court has reversed the decision and dismissed the suit.2. For properly following the cases of the parties it may be necessary to appreciate their relationship. The plaintiff-appellant Shankarrao had a brother Ganpatrao, now deceased, whose wives are defendants Nos. 4 and 5 and whose sons are defendants No. 1, 2 and 3. The plaintiff claimed that the family was joint till 1946 and out of the income of the joint family Ganpatrao, who was the 'Karta', had purchased certain lands in which also he the plaintiff) has got half share. He also challenged certain alienations effected by Ganpatrao and claimed share in the transferred properties. Some properties mentioned in the body of the plaint are alleged to be self-acquired pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990Supp(1)SCC62; 1990(Supp)SCC62
A.M. Ahmadi and; S. Natarajan, JJ..1. Special leave granted.2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be held proved that the injury caused by the appellant to PW 1, Ramji Lal was a grievous injury. Though PW 19, Dr Pankaj Tiwari had suspected a fracture of the bone because of his clinical examination for confirmation suggesting a chipping of bone, he had advised skiagrams being taken but no skiagrams appear to have been taken, and even if taken they have not been marked as exhibits in evidence. In such circumstances we are of the view that the offence committed by the appellant would fall only under Section 324 IPC and not under Section 326 IPC. Consequently the conviction of the appellant has to be modified to one under Section 324 IPC and accordingly he is convicted under Section 324 IPC instead of under Section 326 IPC.3. It is brought to our notice that the appellant and PW 1 Ramji Lal, the injured person h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1071; [1989(58)FLR546]; JT1989(1)SC359; (1989)IILLJ155SC; 1989(1)SCALE459; 1989Supp(1)SCC244; [1989]1SCR791; 1989(2)SLJ56(SC); 1989(1)LC622(SC)
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. These two appeals by special leave raise the question of determination of seniority of the appellants in the cadre of Lower Division Clerks. The appeals are preferred against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated March 5, 1982 in LPA No. 125 of 1981.2. The appellants were originally recruited as Civilian School Masters or L.D.Cs., Leading Hand (Technical), etc. either in the Lower Defence Installations comprising Ordinance Factories, Ordnance Depots, Workshops, Regimental centers. Uuits, Command Headquarters, etc. under the control of Army Headquarters, New Delhi. Some of the appellants were declared as surplus in those establishments and they came to be posted/transferred to the Armed Forces Headquarters and inter-service organisations as LDCs. Their posting/ transfer was done in the public interest. They joined the service in the Armed Force Headquarters on various dates between 1960 and 1964. Some of them were later promoted as Upper Division Cler...
Tag this Judgment!