Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1991Supp(2)SCC386
Sabyasachi Mukharji, C.J.,; K.N. Saikia and; M.M. Punchhi, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, dated August 16, 1989. Having considered the facts and circumstances of this case and having heard counsel for both the parties, we are of the opinion that the appropriate order would be to allow this appeal and to direct that the possession of the railway quarter, now in possession and occupation of the respondent, should be handed over by the respondent and taken possession of by the appellants or their representatives on or about May 23, 1990 and the entire amount due and owing to the respondent, less the amount mentioned hereinafter, will be handed over by the officer taking possession then and there.3. Rent for the period overstayed may be deducted from the payment to be made as aforesaid. The appellants will be entitled to make claim in accordance with law to which they are entit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC2252; 1990CriLJ2665; JT1990(3)SC586
ORDERS. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. The above appeal is preferred by the second accused before the Trial Court, namely, Hem Raj challenging the correctness of the judgment made in Criminal Appeal No. 157/74 on the file of the High Court of Delhi confirming the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and dismissing the appeal.2. This appellant along with three others took his trial on the accusation that on 5.10.1972 at about 7.30 A.M. at Gali Arya Nagar, Near Arya Samaj Mandir in furtherance of common intention he committed the murder of Ravinder Kumar, the deceased herein by stabbing him with a knife. The trial Court convicted only the appellant and acquitted the other accused persons 1, 3 and 4, namely, Madan Lal, Naresh and Daulat Ram.3. The facts, material for the purpose of this appeal may, however, be briefly indicated thus:4. The appellant, Hem Raj and Madan Lal are brothers. Similarly, Narash and Daula...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1880a; JT1990(3)SC135; [1990]2SCR627
S. RANGANATHAN, J.1. After hearing counsel for all parties, we grant special leave in these two petitions and proceed to dispose of the appeals finally by this common order as the point involved is a common one. We are dealing with the matter at some length as it raises certain important aspects of the Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908 which are likely to come up for consideration frequently.2. Smt Shanti Devi, the petitioner in SLP No. 15093 of 1989, was the highest bidder at an auction sale of house property bearing No. A-205, Defence Colony, New Delhi conducted on February 29, 1988 by the Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) for realising the income tax dues of its owner. Her bid was accepted and the sale confirmed on April 13, 1988. On April 14, 1988 a certificate of sale was issued by the TRO to the petitioner. Under the relevant rules, a copy of the certificate of sale should have been endorsed to the Sub-Registrar but it was actually sent to the Sub-Registrar on May 12, 1988....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1880; [1990]183ITR481(SC); (1990)3SCC605
S. Ranganathan, J.1. After hearing counsel for all parties, we grant special leave in these two petitions and proceed to dispose of the appeals finally by this common order as the point involved is a common one. We are dealing with the matter at some length as it raises certain important aspects of the Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908 which are likely to come up for consideration frequently. 2. Smt. Shanti Devi, the petitioner in SLP No. 15093 of 1989, was the highest bidder at an auction sale of house property bearing No. A-205, Defence Colony, New Delhi conducted on 29-2-88 by the Tax Recovery Officer (T.R.O.) for realising the income-tax dues of its owner. Her bid was accepted and the sate confirmed on 13-4-1988. On 14-4-1988 a certificate of sale was issued by the T.R.O. to the petitioner. Under the relevant rules, a copy of the certificate of sale should have been endorsed to the Sub-Registrar but it was actually sent to the Sub-Registrar on 12-5-88. The petitioner i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC2003; JT1990(3)SC499; 1990Supp(1)SCC368; [1990]2SCR609; 1990(1)LC722(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted. Heard both the sides.2. The right to conduct arrack sale in Tamil Nadu was auctioned on 28.5.1981 for the excise year 1981-82. Shop No. 49 in Koneripatti village in Sankari Taluk District Salem was auctioned for the excise year 1981-82. In respect of the auction of this shop, the appellant was the successful bidder and the bid amount was Rs. 6550 per month. As per the term$, the appellant paid the caution deposit of Rs. 1000 and a half month's rent on the same day.3. Since the bid amount was found to be inadequate there was a reauction on 11.6.1981 but there was no bidder on that day. Therefore again on 19.6.1981 the same shop was re-auctioned and one Mr. Chellamuthu was successful bidder at Rs. 6575 per month but he failed to comply with certain requirements. Therefore it was re-auctioned on 27.6.81 but there were no bidders and the shop was re-auctioned again on 17.8.1981 when the bid was only Rs. 3000 by one Doraisamy. The appellant was called upon by way of a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1990)IILLJ153SC; 1990(1)SCALE806; (1990)3SCC655; [1990]2SCR559; 1990(1)LC710(SC); (1990)3UPLBEC2032
P.B. Sawant, J: 1. The admitted facts in the present case are that the respondent applied for Grade-I and Grade-II teacher posts (Post Graduate Teacher and Trained Graduate Teacher posts respectively) in September, 1985 pursuant to a newspaper's advertisement calling for applications for the said posts. Admittedly, the qualification prescribed in the advertisement for the said posts was a second class degree in M.A., and the respondent held a third class degree in M.A. However, it appears that on December 27, 1985, an order was issued wrongly by the first appellant appointing her as a Post Graduate Teacher in Hindi. The order stated that her appointment was subject to the production of original certificates and to the compliance with the other necessary formalities. When pursuant to the order, the respondent approached the authorities with the certificates, it was noticed that the respondent was not qualified for the post. She was, therefore, not allowed to join the service, and was se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990(3)Crimes270(SC); JT1990(2)SC169; (1990)2SCC668
S. Rat navel Pandian, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed by the detenu, Alocious Fernandez from the jail challenging the order of his detention dated 17.5.1989 passed by the Union of India under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods. The grounds of detention served on the detenu give the full particulars of the involvement of the detenu in the smuggling activities. Hence, it is not necessary to reiterate the entire facts leading to the passing of the impugned order.2. The petitioner was defended by Mr. Jag Mohan Khanna, an advocate of this Bar at the instance of the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee. The learned Counsel challenged the order of detention contending that the detenu was in jail pursuant to the order of remand in the criminal case instituted against him in connection with this incident and that there was no material before the detaining authority that the detenu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1383; [1990(60)FLR864]; JT1990(2)SC231; 1990LabIC1213; (1990)IILLJ201SC; 1990(1)SCALE798; (1990)3SCC50; [1990]2SCR617; 1990(2)LC254(SC); (1990)3UPLBEC2060
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. The workmen of the Ordinance Clothing Factory, Avadi, Madras are represented by the petitioner/appellant Union. The workers of the factory are divided into two categories, namely, (i) day workers and (ii) piece-rated workers. The day workers are paid wages in the time scale of Rs. 260-400 on the basis of their actual attendance whereas the piece-rated workers are paid on actual out-put or production calculated on the basis of time required for making the item by multiplying the same by the hourly rate worked out by dividing the mean of the time scale by monthly working hours e.g., Rs. 330 -r- 195 hours = Rs. 1.69 (Rs. 330 being the mean of the time scale of Rs. 260-400 and 195 hours being the total monthly hours).3. The appellant-Union contends that the daily normal working hours of the workmen are 8 during the week except on Saturdays when the working hours are 4-3/4 only. Thus the total working hours during the week comes to 44-% hours. If the piece-r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1459; 1990CriLJ1510; 1990(2)Crimes584(SC); JT1990(2)SC596; (1990)3SCC190; [1990]2SCR573
ORDER1. On 29.5.1981 at about 8 A.M. a grave rioting took place in the village of Tirro in Varanasi District. In the course of the said rioting two persons Mahendra Singh and Virendra Singh deceased Nos. 1 and 2 were killed and Vijay Narain Singh, P.W. 1, Uma Shankar Singh, P.W. 2 and one Kailash Singh received injuries. In respect of these offences 14 accused were tried under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. Chirkut Singh, Accused No. 6 was tried for offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. for attempting to commit the murder of P.W. 1 and the remaining accused under Section 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. for causing injuries to Uma Shankar Singh, P.W. 2 and Kailash Singh. It is alleged that the irate rial prosecution witnesses, deceased persons and the 6 accused belong to the same village. Since 1972 there have been disputes between these two rival groups. A number of cases were also pending in the courts. On the day of occurrence at 8 A.M. P.W. 1 went to his pu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990ACJ545; [1990]68CompCas580(SC); JT1990(2)SC164; 1990(1)KLT817(SC); (1990)98PLR144; (1990)2SCC680; 1990Supp(2)SCC680; [1990]2SCR570; 1990(1)LC712(SC)
1. These are appeals by special leave challenging the reversing common decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court holding the insurer liable for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939.2. The insurer repudiated its liability by maintaining that the policy had been taken after the accident and, therefore, it had no liability to meet the award of compensation against the owner. The Tribunal accepted this stand and rejected the claim against the insurer. In appeal, the High Court took the view relying upon certain decisions that the insurance policy obtained on the date of the accident became operative from the commencement of the date of insurance-i.e. from the previous mid-night and since the accident took place on the date of D the policy the insurer became liable.3. Apart from the judgment 7under appeal, we find that this view is supported by two judgments of the Madras High Court and an earlier decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Two Division Benches of the Madras...
Tag this Judgment!