Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1991]71CompCas1(SC); (1990)2CompLJ138(SC); JT1990(2)SC401; 1990(2)KLT37(SC); (1990)98PLR264; (1990)3SCC280; [1990]2SCR826; 1990(1)LC728(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. Special leave granted.2. Three applications were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Bombay by the respective appellants before us challenging the rejection of their highest offers in response to invitation by public tender without assigning any reason for the same as arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to Rule of Law.3. The respondent a Government company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act has been constituted as the New Town Development Authority under Sub-section (3) of Section 113 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966. The respondent is empowered to dispose of land vested in it and the respondent has formulated with the approval of the State Government under Section 159 of the said Act a code for regulating, inter alia, disposal of land. Regulation 4 provides:The Corporation may dispose of plots of lands by putting to auction or considering the individual applications as the Corporation de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC27; (1990)IILLJ609SC; (1990)3SCC168; 1990(2)LC268(SC)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. Special leave granted.2. Station Masters of South Eastern Railway are aggrieved by implementation of the scheme of re-structuring by the Chief Personnel Officer framed by the Railway Board for 'C' and 'D' cadre. Their claim was not accepted by the Central Administrative Tribunal as implementation as such, was beneficial to the majority. It was further found that alternative T of the scheme meant for the combined cadre was rightly adopted as the cadre of Assistant Station Master (ASM) and Station Master (SM) in the South Eastern Zone was combined before 1983. The appellants have challenged correctness of these findings. They also claim that implementation of scheme is highly unjust and inequitable.3. Prior to re-structuring the cadre comprised of Assistant Station Masters at the bottom and Station Superintendent at the top. Initial appointment of ASM was made in the scale of Rs. 360- 540. The promotional ladder bifurcated into (i) ASM to ASM and (ii) ASM to SM, both in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993Supp(1)SCC86
L.M. Sharma, J. (Vacation)1. The impugned order has not been filed on the ground that a copy has not been made available to the petitioners in spite of an application.2. I have examined the circumstances in which this case has arisen from the special leave petition and the other documents. It appears that a decree for eviction of the petitioner had been filed long time back and the petitioner had preferred a first appeal in the High Court, which was disposed of on compromise between the parties in 1977. In May 1977 a compromise decree was passed whereby the property in question was to be demarcated in two parts; one to be handed over to the decree holder respondents and the other to remain with the petitioner. Although the respondent has been attempting to get the fruits of the compromise decree, he has not been able to succeed for about 13 years. In this situation, the High Court has directed the petitioner to hand over the portion indicated by its order to the respondent. The petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1376; JT1990(2)SC558; (1990)98PLR588; (1990)3SCC583; 1990(2)LC200(SC)
ORDERLalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. This appeal by special leave at the instance of the tenant of the premises in question is directed against the decree for his eviction on the ground that the respondent-landlord requires the premises for opening a clinic by his doctor daughter.2. Admittedly the respondent's daughter passed her M.B.B.S. examination and was studying the M.S. course when the present application for eviction was filed before the Rent Controller, Hyderabad. Her husband also is a doctor and is running a clinic at a distance of 6 miles. The respondent's daughter is assisting her husband in his clinic but it is claimed by the respondent-landlord that she is desirous of starting a separate clinic and for that purpose the premises in question, let out to the appellant, is suitable. The appellant denied the alleged necessity of the landlord and inter alia pleaded that the sole purpose of the proceeding was to extract higher rent. The Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, after exami...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1597; 1990CriLJ1622; 1990(2)Crimes619(SC); JT1990(3)SC102; (1990)3SCC537; [1990]3SCR240; 1990(2)LC395(SC)
ORDER1. The petitioner, Syed Farooq Mohammad has challenged the order of his detention passed on December 20, 1989 under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, and served on him on February 15, 1990. The order of detention was issued by Nisha Sahai Achuthan, Joint Secretary to the Government of India who was specially empowered under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act and it recited that with a view to preventing the petitioner from engaging in abetting and transportation of narcotic drugs, the said Sayyed Farook Mohd. @ Farooq @ Sayyed Farooq Isamuddin @ Anand be detained and kept in custody in the Yervada Central Prison, Pune. The grounds of detention were also served on the same day i.e. February 15, 1990 immediately after his arrest by the Customs Authorities.2. On July 19, 1989 the staff of the Preventive Collectorate Customs, Bombay impounded two fiat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1080; [1990(60)FLR622]; JT1990(1)SC431; (1990)IILLJ32SC; (1990)2SCC314; [1990]1SCR971; 1990(2)LC32(SC); (1990)2UPLBEC822
ORDERMadan Mohan Punchhi, J.1. Whether 'night shift allowance' forms part of 'wages' in the context of Section 32(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is the issue which crops up for decision in this appeal by special leave against the order dated October 9, 1986 of the Industrial Tribunal, Karnataka at Bangalore in Serial No. 1 of 1980 in I.D. No. 26 of 1979.2. It arises on these facts.3. Bharat Electronics Limited, Bangalore, the appellant-herein, is the 'management' and the respondent Shri B. Sridhar, 'workman' was in employment with the management as a bus driver. The establishment of the management, at the relevant time, had about 13,500 employees out of whom about 2,800 were females. The management provided transport facilities for picking up and dropping down its employees from and at stipulated official stops. The drivers plying buses of the establishment on a rotational basis, working on night shifts, used to get a variable night sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990(48)ELT633(SC); JT1990(2)SC585; (1990)4SCC65; [1990]3SCR96; 1990(2)LC165(SC)
M.M. Punchhi, J1. Has the Central Government violated the bar of limitation while exercising suo moto revisional powers under Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962 is the limited question which crops up for consideration in the instant appeal against the judgment and order of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated September 3, 1984 passed in Appeal No. CD (SB) (T) 1604/81-C.2. The appellant imported a consignment of top line tube winder endless belts valued at Rs, 31,101/-. The consignment came from the United Kingdom and was covered under a Bill of Entry dated 6-8-1979. The goods were assessed to duty under heading 40.05/16 (3) at 40% plus counter-veilingduty at the rate of 25% under Item 16-A (4) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appellant lodged a refund claim with the Assistant Collector on grounds which are factual in nature, asserting that the goods had not correctly been assessed to duty and that they should have been assessed under a differen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1673; [1991(61)FLR112]; JT1990(2)SC582; 1990LabIC1403; (1990)3SCC619; [1990]3SCR207; 1990(2)SLJ159(SC); [1990]78STC216(SC); 1990(2)LC207(SC)
ORDER1. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and order dated 22nd March, 1978 made in Writ Appeal No. 520 of 1975 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and order made in Writ Petition No. 3073 of 1974 on 18.7.1985.2. The appellant who was a chartered accountant was appointed as a non-official member of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, in the State of Karnataka by an order (No. RD 80 SXE 1958) dated 16th July, 1958 for a period of two years from 17th July 1958 under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Mysore Act No. 25 of 1957). By an order No. RD 17 SXT 58 dated 12th December, 1958 issued by the Government it has been mentioned that the appellant as member of Sales Tax Tribunal shall be eligible for Travelling Allowance under the Mysore Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules 1958 as a government servant in respect of tours undertaken by him in connection with his official duty on the basis of his salary Rs. 1,0...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1316; JT1990(2)SC397; 1990(1)SCALE866; (1990)3SCC440; [1990]3SCR83; 1990(1)LC749(SC)
ORDER1. This is an application under Article 32 of the Constitution filed by the Tamil Nadu Cauvery Neerppasana Vilaiporulgal Vivasayigal Nala Urimal Padhugappu Sangam which is said to be a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act asking this Court for direction to the Union of India, respondent No. 1, to refer the dispute relating to the water utilisation of the Cauvery river and equitable distribution thereof in terms of Section 4 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, and for a mandamus to the State of Karnataka not to proceed with the construction of dams, projects and reservoirs across the said river and/or on any of its tributaries within the State and to restore supply of water to the State of Tamil Nadu as envisaged in the agreements dated 18th of February, 1924. To the petition States of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala and the Union Territory of Pondicherry have been added as respondents 2 to 5 respectively.2. In the petition it has been allege...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC2059; (1991)ILLJ605SC; (1990)4SCC13; [1990]3SCR93; 1990(2)LC169(SC)
ORDER1. These appeals arose out of the judgment and order dated November 26, 1987 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi directing that the petitioners (respondents in these appeals) will be entitled to the same relief as was granted to the petitioners by Anand, J. in the writ petitions CWP Nos. 278 of 1978 and 937 of 1978.2. The matrix of the case, in short, is that the services of the respondents who were appointed as constables in Delhi Police in the years 1964-66 were terminated because of their participation in the agitation along with other police constables in April 1967. In view of the public controversy and in deference to the views expressed in Parliament, a large number of agitating constables were taken back in service as fresh entrants. Later, in view of the assurance given in the Parliament by the then Home Minister, prosecutions were withdrawn and the dismissed constables were reinducted into service. Some of the dismissed constables filed ...
Tag this Judgment!