Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1990)2CompLJ82(SC); JT1990(1)SC412; 1990(1)SCALE449; (1990)2SCC371; [1990]1SCR951; 1990(2)LC41(SC)
Panchhi, J.1. Special leave granted2. Theses two appeals respectively are directed by the Union of India and the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the DOA) against the full bench decision and order of the Delhi High Court dated May 22, 1987 declaring and by necessary implication directing that the DDA carry out and implement its resolution number 26 dated February 1, 1983, which resolution was said to have been substituted by it by a later resolution number 3 dated August 1,1986 reiterated by another resolution dated November 3, 1986. These resolutions related to some affairs of the Delhi Cloth Mills Limited (hereinafter referred to as the DCM), the writ petitioner before the High Court, and the official reaction thereon.3. Some of the essential facts as culled out from the judgment of the High Court, and others which have come by in the meantime, would be necessary to be noticed. The Mill has a complex over an area of about 63 acres at sites at Bara Hindu Rao and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1228; [1990(60)FLR679]; JT1990(1)SC408; 1990(1)SCALE453; (1990)2SCC356; [1990]1SCR962; 1990(2)LC39(SC)
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J.1. This writ petition under Article 32 filed on behalf of about 450 erstwhile employees of M/s. Burmah Shell retired between May 1, 1979 and December 1984, is for a mandamus or direction to the respondents to restore full pension (which had been commuted) to the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 and others similarly situated upon the expiry of 12-1/2 years from date of retirement in case of those retired prior to April 1985 and after 11-1/3 years to those retired prior to April 1, 1985 from their respective dates of retirement. They claim that though in their previous Writ Petition No. 590/87 disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on May 11, 1988 of which one of us (Ranganath Misra, J.) was a member, a hike in the pension effective from May 1, 1988 was granted. Consideration of the present relief had been left over for a later period. Admittedly, the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 590/87 sought two reliefs, namely, (i) restoration of the commuted portion of the pensi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1277; (1990)2CompLJ18(SC); JT1990(1)SC462; 1990(1)SCALE475; (1990)3SCC223; [1990]1SCR909
ORDERT. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The petitioners are owners of sugar mills operating in the State of Uttar Pradesh in areas classified for the purpose of determining the price of levy sugar as West and East Zones. They challenge the validity of notifications dated 28th November, 1974 and 11th July, 1975 (Annexures 8 & 9) issued by the Central Government in exercise of its power under Sub-section (3-C) of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Act No. 10 of 1955), as amended to date (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').1 The petitioners do not, and cannot, challenge the validity of the Sub-section by reason of Article 31B of the Constitution of India. By the impugned orders, the Central Government fixed the prices of levy sugar for 1974-75 production. For the purpose of determining the prices, the country is divided into 16 zones, and the prices fixed for various grades of sugar in terms of Section 3(3-C) of the Act vary from zone to zone. Prices are determined with reference to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1013; 1990(2)Crimes280(SC); JT1990(1)SC553; 1990(1)SCALE572; (1990)2SCC687
ORDERK. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court.2. 18 persons were tried by the IInd Additional District & Session Judge, Kheri for several offences under Sections 148, 302, 323, 304, 395, 396 IPC. They were alleged to have committed dacoity and murdered five persons on the intervening night of 1st and 2nd November, 1972 in the house of Kallaktar, one of the deceased in Village Bamhniyarpur in Kheri District. It was also alleged that these bandits took away Km. Sarla from that house whose dead body was discovered later on in a field. According to the prosecution while one of the deceased Kallaktar, his brother and another deceased were undergoing imprisonment in the jail, Amar Singh, brother of the accused Mulaim Singh, who was residing in the house of Kallaktar developed illicit intimacy with Km. Sarla. After the release of Kallaktar and his other associates mysteriously Amar Singh disappeared and it was suspected that Ka...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1990)2CompLJ1(SC); 1990(48)ELT481(SC); JT1990(1)SC528; 1990(1)SCALE462; (1990)3SCC481; [1990]1SCR884a; 1990(2)LC47(SC)
K.N. Saikia, J.1. The first respondent M/s. Shanmughavilas Cashew Industries, Quilon purchased from East Africa 350 tons of raw cashew nuts which were shipped in the vessel SS Steliosm chartered by the appellant M/s. British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., incorporated in England, pursuant to a contract of affreightment evidenced by 3 bills of lading issued to the shipper for the 3 loads of cashewnuts. Out of 4445 bags containing the nuts carried in the said vessel only 3712 bags were delivered at Cochin, there being thus short landing of 733 bags.2. The first respondent sued the appellant in suit No. O.S. 18/1965 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cochin seeking damages for the shortage of 733 bags of raw cashewnuts amounting to Rs.44,438.03. The suit having been decreed with interest @ 6% per annum from 17.7.1964, for the sum total of Rs.46,659.93, the appellant preferred therefrom appeal A.S. No.365 of 1969 in the High Court of Kerala which was pleased by its Judgments and decr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1992)4SCC114
1. Having considered the facts we are of the opinion that this matter is covered by a decision of this Court entitled Niadar and Another v. Delhi Administration and Another1 which was decided on September 29, 1988. In terms thereof thus, we direct the Delhi Administration to absorb the petitioners in accordance with the prepared scheme for absorbing casual labourers, which scheme has been made effective from October 1, 1988. In terms of the scheme, any casual labourer who has worked for one year or more in the Horticulture Department shall be regularised within a period of six months from today if such casual labourer is otherwise fit to be regularised under the scheme as regular employee. On that footing each casual labourer working in the department shall get salary or wages at the rate equivalent to the minimum salary paid to a regular employee in comparable post in the Horticulture Department. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also contended that the expression salary or w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)3UPLBEC2040
The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedAppellant on probation for six months. His probation period further extended for six months. During this period he was discharged from service. On appeal High Court held that appellant cannot be discharged as period of probation being for only six months. Supreme Court settled matter by awarding monetary compensation to respondent. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1563; (1990)92BOMLR304; JT1990(2)SC200; 1990(1)SCALE398; (1990)2SCC288; [1990]1SCR862
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, J.1. Special leave granted.2. Can a licensee occupying a flat in a tenant-co-partnership society be evicted therefrom under Sub-section (1) of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (Act No. XXIV of 1961), hereinafter called 'the Societies Act', notwithstanding the protection extended by Section 15A of the Bombay Rents, Hotels & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Act No. LVII of 1947), hereinafter called 'the Rent Act', as amended by Act XVII of 1973 or whether such proceedings would be governed by Section 28 of the Rent Act? That is the question which arises for our determination in the context of the fact that the appellant licensee claimed to be in actual possession of the flat on 1st February, 1973, under a subsisting licence, albeit without the express permission of the society. The factual matrix in which this question needs to be answered may be briefly stated as under:3. The Vishwa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., respondent No. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1086; (1990)92BOMLR347; 1990CriLJ1140; 1990(2)Crimes1(SC); 1990(1)SCALE389; (1990)2SCC456; [1990]1SCR836
ORDERK.N. Singh, J.1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, by Mrs. P. Devaki wife of the detenu R. Thamaraikani, challenges the validity of her husband's detention under the order of the Collector and District Magistrate of Kamarajar District Virud-hunagar, Tamil Nadu dated 15.8.1989 issued under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) (as amended by Act 52 of 1986 and Act 1 of 1988) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. After hearing arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties at length, we allowed the petition on 10.11.1989 and issued directions for the release of the detenu forthwith. We are now giving the reasons for our Order dated 10.11.1989.3. The detenu R. Thamaraikani is a member of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Party, briefly described as AIDMK. He has been an active social...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1990)92BOMLR215; 1990(2)Crimes256(SC); JT1990(2)SC23; 1990(1)SCALE614; (1990)4SCC718; [1990]1SCR855
S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. Special leave granted.2. The notice was issued on the Special Leave Petition limited to the question whether the High Court had jurisdiction to enhance the sentence without issuing notice and affordingto the appellant an opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement of the sentence, or in the absence of an appeal by the State for enhancement of sentence on the ground of inadequacy.3. This appellant along with two others were convictedfor murdering Kumari Mangala in furtherance of their common intention and causing disappearance of evidence of the said offence with the intention of screening themselves from legal punishment under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC respectively and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life under the first count and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of No. 2,5007-each with a default clause and directed both the substantive sentences t...
Tag this Judgment!