Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1423; JT1990(3)SC379; (1990)IILLJ388SC; 1990(1)SCALE625; (1990)3SCC60; [1990]2SCR233; 1990(2)LC217(SC); (1990)3UPLBEC2069
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. The respondent in this appeal-K. Ratnagiri was at the material time Circle Inspector of Police attached to Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. In that police station one U. Narasimha died in Police lock up. Pending prosecution with regard to that offence, the Director General of Police made an order keeping the respondent under suspension. The order reads:Shri K. Ratnagiri, Circle Inspector of Police, Sanjiva Reddy Nagar P.S. Hyderabad is placed under suspension with immediate effect in public interest untill further orders pending prosecution against him in the case of death of U. Narasimha in Police lock-up.3. The respondent appealed to the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal has set a7side the suspension order holding that the respondent shall be deemed to be in service from the date of issue of suspension order. The Tribunal, however, has reserved liberty to the Government to transfer him to any other Police Station. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1233; JT1991(5)SC282a; (1990)IILLJ456SC; 1990(1)SCALE659; (1990)3SCC157; [1990]2SCR239; 1990(1)LC670(SC); (1990)3UPLBEC1955
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. These appeals are directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka dated August 11, 1978 dismissing the appellants' writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging validity of the revised select list prepared by the Karnataka Public Service Commission for appointment to the posts of Tehsildars.3. In the State of Karnataka recruitment to the posts of Tehsildars is regulated by the Karnataka Administrative Services (Tehsildars) Recruitment (Special) Rules 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 1975 Rules). The Karnataka Public Service Commission (hereinafter refer red to as the Commission) issued a Notification on May 23, 1975 (published on May 29, 1975) inviting applications from in-service candidates for recruitment to 50 posts of Tehsildars. Paragraph 3 of the Notification specified details of the posts reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward classes i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992Supp(2)SCC175
K. Jagannatha Shetty Shetty and; M. Fathima Beevi, JJ.1. The respondent-tenant who is in occupation of the premises in question was sought to be evicted on the ground of habitual default, irregular payment and bona fide need. The petitioner who is the landlord approached the Rent Controller seeking permission for terminating the tenancy under Section 13(3)(i), (ii) & (iii) of the C.P. Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. The Controller granted permission to terminate the tenancy only on the ground of habitual default and irregular payment of rent. In other words, the landlord was not given permission to terminate the tenancy on the ground of bona fide need. However, he did not file an appeal against the order of the Controller. The tenant on the other hand, appealed challenging the permission granted by the Rent Controller.2. Pursuant to the permission granted, the landlord filed civil suit for eviction. The trial court decreed the suit but made a conditional order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1912; JT1990(2)SC380; 1990(1)SCALE679; 1990Supp(1)SCC617; [1990]2SCR253; [1990]78STC243(SC)
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. The appellant is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The appellant (hereinafter referred to 'the assessee') purchases iron scrap from dealers inside and outside the State of Karnataka for the purpose of manufacturing iron ingots, steel rounds and tor-steel. These manufactured goods were sold mostly within the State. In respect of the Assessment Years 1972-73 to 1974-75, accepting the contentions of the assessee that the goods sold were manufactured out of tax suffered iron scrap, the Commercial Tax Officer exempted the sales turn over of the manufactured goods. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in exercise of his powers under Section 21 of the Act restricted the exemptions but otherwise confirmed the assessment order by his order dated 11.5.1979. The respondent Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore initiated proceedings under Section 22(A) of the Act for revising the order of the Deputy C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1242; 1990CriLJ1269; 1990(2)Crimes158(SC); JT1990(2)SC83; 1990(1)SCALE636; (1990)3SCC266; 1990(2)LC365(SC)
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, J.1. These four appeals, the first by a relative Anvaruddin and the others by the State of U.P., arise out of a single incident which occurred on February 11, 1973 at about 11 a.m. wherein Siraju and his son Ali Mohammad were killed. Nine persons, namely, (i) Shakoor (ii) Fayaz Ahmad (iii) Ahsan (iv) Allauddin (v) Shamshu (vi) Alam (vii) Wasla (viii) Gaju and (ix) Kallu were arraigned before the learned Sessions Judge, Meerut, principally on the charge of having formed an unlawful assembly for the murder of the aforesaid two persons. They were charged under sections 147 and 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted two of them, namely, Gaju and Kallu, of all the charges levelled against them and directed that they be set at liberty whereas the remaining seven persons were convicted under Section 302/149, I.P.C. and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Accused Shakoor, Alam, Fayaz Ahmad, Ahsan, Allauddin and Wasla were also convi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1990(2)SC1; 1990(1)SCALE628; (1990)2SCC523; [1990]2SCR220; 1990(2)LC220(SC)
M.H. Kania, J.1. This is a group of matters comprising Civil Appeal No. 3388 of 1984 in this Court and other cases which have been placed before us for hearing along with this appeal. We propose to deal first with Civil Appeal No. 3388 of 1984.2. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 1450 of 1981. The question involved in the appeal before the High Court from which this appeal arises was whether land which has been agreed to be sold by the owner under an agreement of sale and possession of which was delivered in part performance of the agreement for sale but pursuant to which no conveyance had been executed till the relevant date, could be included both in the holding of the owner-vendor as well as the purchaser or whether it was liable to be included only in the holding of the purchaser for the purposes of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter refer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1272; 1990CriLJ1311; 1990(2)Crimes175(SC); JT1990(1)SC566; 1990(1)SCALE604; (1990)2SCC629; [1990]2SCR212
ORDER1. Leave granted in the Special Leave Petition.2. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 12.12.89 in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 13644/89 passed by the High Court at Allahabad dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, Vashisht Narain Karwaria, the detenu herein.3. The District Magistrate, Allahabad, in exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') passed the impugned order of detention on 31.3.88 against the detenu on reaching his requisite subjective satisfaction on consideration of the materials placed before him that it had become necessary to pass the detention order with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.4. The salient and material facts which necessitated the detaining authority to pass the impugned order, as set out in the grounds of detention are as follows:5. On 30.3.1988 at about 3.30 P.M. the auc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1256; JT1990(3)SC483; 1990LabIC1027; (1990)IILLJ249SC; 1990(1)SCALE587; (1990)3SCC294; [1990]2SCR193
ORDER1. Arguments heard. Special Leave granted.2. This appeal on Special Leave is directed against the Judgment and Order dated April 1, 1987 passed by the High Court, Patna in C.W.J.C. No.4097/1985 allowing the writ petition in part. The subject matter of the writ petition is the gradation list dated 9.1.1986 of the Inspectors of Excise by which the Government of Bihar has finally fixed the inter se seniority of the petitioners (respondents in this Appeal) who were promoted vis-a-vis the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 (appellants in this appeal) who are promoted to posts of Inspectors of Excise in 5% quota for promotion from the posts of Upper Division Assistants of Excise Department in the said Civil Writ Petition.3. The matrix of this case in short is that the appellants Nos. 1 and 2 who were respondents 3 and 4 of the writ petition were promoted to the posts of Excise Inspectors from among the Upper Division Assistants of the Excise Department against the vacancies of the year 1974-75 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1159; (1990)92BOMLR394; [1991(61)FLR369]; JT1990(3)SC351; 1990LabIC935; (1990)IILLJ395SC; 1990(1)SCALE693; (1990)2SCC444; [1990]2SCR177; 1990(2)LC188(SC)
ORDER1. The present appeals arise out of a battle for recognition between the rival trade unions in proceedings under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The fourth respondent-Company has two factories, one at Bhandup, Bombay employing about 1700 workers and the other at Aurangabad employing about 1000 workers. The first respondent-Union, viz., the Association of Engineering Workers, Bombay obtained a certificate of recognition from Industrial Court, Thane under Section 12 of the Act, on April 7,1977 for the Company's undertaking at Bhandup. While the first respondent-Union was acting as such recognised union, many of the workers claimed that they had resigned from the said Union and formed a new union called the Automobile Products of India Employee's Union which is the appellant-Union and registered it on January 7, 1981 under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. On October 9, 1981, the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1990(2)SC560a; 1990(Supp)SCC541; 1990(2)LC423(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. This appeal is by special leave and challenge is to the order dated 1.10.1981 on a miscellaneous application in a pending second appeal before the High Court. The High Court in the pending second appeal was asked to decide whether a suit instituted without prior notice under Section 66 of the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960, was maintainable. That, in fact, was the question which required adjudication in the second appeal. The High Court negatived the stand. We are of the view that the impugned order need not be interfered with but in case in the second appeal this question is raised it shall be disposed of on its own merits after hearing parties in case that appeal may still be pending disposal. We do not express any opinion one way or the other.2. The appeal is, therefore, disposed of with this observation. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!