Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(162)ELT4(SC)
The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedDispute related to deduction of certain discounts and rebates in computation of market value for purpose of exercise duty. Supreme Court disposed of appeal as Tribunal had referred matter to Assistant Collector to discuss and decide on basis of other judgments of Supreme Courts. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC2056b; 1990LabIC1674; 1990Supp(1)SCC773
ORDERS. Ranganathan, J.1. This is a Special Leave Petition preferred by the Committee of Management of the Atarra Post Graduate College from an order of the High Court of Allahabad dated 30-9-88 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12682/87 (reported in 1988 All WC 1493).2. The facts briefly were that the Committee of Management had terminated the probation of one Dr. Gaur who had joined as Principal on 1-11-1984 and whose probation has been extended till 31-10-86. This was stated to be in pursuance of resolutions passed by the Committee on 11-10-1986 and, again, 20-10-86 and after notice to Dr. Gaur. This order of the Committee of Management was approved by the Vice Chancellor of the University on 7-12-1986. A Writ Petition was filed against this order of the Vice Chancellor by Dr. Gaur but this was dismissed by the High Court on the short ground that he had an alternative remedy before the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U.P. State University Act.3. Later on, however, on a representat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC2056
ORDER1. This is a Special Leave Petition preferred by the Committee of Management of the Atarra Post Graduate College from an order of the High Court of Allahabad dated 30-9-88 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12682/87 (reported in 1988 All WC 1493.2. The facts briefly were that the Committee of Management had terminated the probation of one Dr. Gaur who had joined as Principal on 1-11-1984 and whose probation has been extended till 31-10-86. This was stated to be in pursuance of resolutions passed by the Committee on 11-10-1986 and, again, 20-10-86 and after notice to Dr. Gaur. This order of the Committee of Management was approved by the Vice Chancellor of the University on 7-12-1986. A Writ Petition was filed against this order of the Vice Chancellor by Dr. Gaur but this was dismissed by the High Court on the short ground that he had an alternative remedy before the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U.P. State University Act.3. Later on, however, on a representation made by the Tea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990Supp(1)SCC726
M.N. Venkatachaliah and; N.M. Kasliwal, JJ.1. Heard Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri B.R. Sabharwal, learned counsel for the New India Assurance Co.2. Special leave granted.3. The only question that arises in this appeal brought by the owner of the motor vehicle against the order dated January 4, 1990 of the High Court of Allahabad in F.A.O. No. 257 of 1989 affirming the award dated August 31, 1988 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is whether the New India Assurance Company is liable, as insurer of the vehicle, to indemnify the appellant and satisfy the award made against the appellant.4. Rais Ahmad Ansari, respondent 1 herein, instituted a Motor Accident Claim No. 15 of 1986 on the file for the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VI Additional District Judge) Kanpur Dehat, for compensation for the personal injuries suffered by him in an accident that occurred on December 28, 1985 involving appellant's truck UP 2488. The proceedings culminated in an award ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1991ACJ1; AIR1990SC1979; 1990Supp(1)SCC696
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Special leave granted. The appeal is taken up for final hearing with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.3. The appellant filed a claim for compensation on account of injuries received by him in an accident which took place on 30th November, 1977. On that date, the appellant was going on his scooter which met with an accident with a motor cycle which was being driven by respondent No. 1 and was owned by respondent No. 2. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation to the appellant against respondent Nos. 1 and 2, namely, the driver and owner of the motor cycle as also against the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 3, with whom according to the appellant the motor cycle stood insured at the time of the accident.4. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the insurance company preferred an appeal before the High Court which was allowed and the award as against the insurance company has been set aside. The High...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1974CriLJ611; JT1990(3)SC148; 1990(2)SCALE1; (1990)4SCC178; [1990]3SCR336; 1990(2)UJ477; (1990)3UPLBEC2049
SHARMA, J1. This appeal under s. 116A of the Representa- tion of the People Act, 1951, is directed against the deci- sion of the Karnataka High Court setting aside the election of the appellant D .B. Raju to the State Legislative Coun- cil, and directing the recount of the votes after excluding those of 242 nominated members. The election was held by adopting the 'single transferable vote method'. The polling took place on 3.7. 1988 and the counting was taken up on the next date, that is, 4.7. 1988. After several rounds of counting the appellant was declared as the successful candi- date.2. The election in question relates to the Chitradurga Local Authorities Constituency, comprising 121 Mandal Pan- chayats. The last date and time fixed for receiving nomina- tion papers was 3.00 p.m. on 3.6. 1988. According to the appellant's case, a decision was taken by the Chitradurga Zilla Parishad in its special meeting held on 28.5. 1988 to nominate two members from each Mandal Panchayat, that is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1980; 1992Supp(2)SCC70
1. This appeal is from the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow dated 20-8-1980 in Writ Petition No. 648 of 1978. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition setting aside the concurrent orders of all the three consolidation authorities holding that the writ petitioners, Respondents 5 and 6 herein, were entitled to get back possession.2. The disputed plots were entered in the basic year in the name of Respondents 5 and 6, Yar Mohammed and Iqbal Mohammed and on publication of basic year records, the appellants Hasan Ali, Nazar Ali and Maghul Ali filed objections claiming the co-tenancy right in respect of Khata No. 365. They also claimed sirdari rights over 1/3rd share of the plots in Khata No. 365 on the basis of possession. There being dispute between the parties the matter was referred to the Consolidation Officer before whom parties tendered oral and documentary evidence in respect of their cases. The Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of co-tenancy righ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1990(3)SC337; 1990(2)KLT349(SC); 1990(2)SCALE159; (1990)4SCC136; [1990]3SCR535; 1990(2)LC445(SC)
B.C. Ray, J.1. The appellant who is owner of land comprised in R.S. Nos. 44/11 and 44/20 in village Thottapuzhasseri in Alleppey District, assailed the validity of the declaration made under Section 6 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 (Act 21 of 1962) made by the 2nd Respondent, Board of Revenue, Kerala State on 25.9.1973 and published in Kerala Gazette dated October 16, 1973 Stating that the lands described therein are needed for a public purpose namely for playground for M.M.A. High School and directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Changannur to order for acquisition of the same. 2. The grounds on which the challenge was made in the writ petition inter alia were that the property in question was mortgaged with the Maramon Marthomite Church, as the Church refused to return the property on accepting the money, the appellant filed a suit for redemption of the mortgage which was ultimately decreed and appellant got possession of the property on October 8, 1973, During the pende...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1808; [1991(61)FLR329]; JT1990(3)SC300; (1991)ILLJ39SC; 1990(2)SCALE153; (1990)4SCC27; [1990]3SCR523; 1990(3)SLJ105(SC); 1990(2)LC438(SC); (1990)2UPLBEC1066
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. When the service of an employee is terminated consequent upon the employer accepting the resignation voluntarily tendered by the employee does the termination so brought about amount to 'retrenchment' within the meaning of Section 2(s) read with Section 6N of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is the question which we are called upon to decide in this appeal by special leave. The facts relevant to be stated for the disposal of this appeal are as under:Ram Singh was employed by the appellant-company on 10th March, I960 and was posted in the Bradma machine section of the company. His duties were to attend to the printing of shares, pay-sheets, registers, ESI cards etc., relating to the appellant-company. On 1st November, 1970 he addressed a letter of resignation to the Manager of the appellant-company in the following words:R/Sir,I regret to bring to your kind notice that my family circumstances do not permit me to continue my service and hence I am compel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC2220; 1991Supp(1)SCC146
1. The State of Gujarat has questioned the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in L.P.A. No. 21 of 1966 whereby the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the disputed land belonged to the Wakf administered by the respondent. Two questions were urged before the Division Bench : (i) that the suit filed on the conclusion of the proceedings initiated under Section 37(2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 was not competent as the plaintiff had failed to exhaust all the remedies available under the Code before the institution of the suit; and(ii) that the presumption under Section 110 of the Evidence Act could not be raised in such cases where the claim is sought to be decided under Section 37(2) of the Code. So far as the first contention is concerned, reliance was placed on Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876 which runs as under : No Civil Court shall entertain any suit against the Government on account of any act or omission of any Revenue Offi...
Tag this Judgment!