Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC2217; 1991Supp(2)SCC417
1. This appeal arises out of an order of interlocutory nature passed by the trial Court in a pending suit filed by the landlord, respondent No. 1, for the eviction of the appellant. On an application under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Ordinance, 1982, the appellant was, by an order dated 6-1-1983, directed to deposit the arrears of rent, and in compliance thereof the necessary amount was deposited through a Challan within the time available under the law. On 22-1-1983 an application was filed by the appellant for permission to correct certain errors in the Challan under which the deposit had been made which was rejected by the trial Court. The order was maintained by the High Court and hence the present appeal.2. On the finding of the Courts below that the deposit cannot be treated to have been made in proper compliance of the Court's direction, the defence of the appellant is liable to be struck off. It, therefore, becomes necessary to examine a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC2063; [1991(61)FLR648]; JT1990(3)SC513; 1990(2)SCALE268; (1990)4SCC510; [1990]3SCR727; 1991(2)SLJ85(SC); 1990(2)LC522(SC); (1990)2UPLBEC1082
ORDER1. This Civil Appeal by Special Leave is directed against the Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) dated 3.12.1974. The High Court by a common order disposed of number of Writ Petitions but we are concerned with Writ Petition No. 418/74 filed by Dr. Bhagwan Din Misra who is respondent No. 1 before us.2. Brief facts of the case are that in the month of August, 1973 an advertisement appeared in the daily Newspaper 'National Herald' inviting applications for the post of Reader in 'Linguistics' in the Department of Hindi of the University of Lucknow. Interview of the candidates was held on 8.4.74 at 3.00 p.m. by a Selection Committee consisting of five members viz. the Vice Chancellor of the University, Dr. K.N. Shukla, Head of the Department of Hindi and Modern Indian Languages Lucknow University, Dr. Bhagirath Misra, Head of the Department of Hindi Saugar University, Saugar, Dr. Harbanslal Sharma, Head of the Department of Hindi, Aligarh Muslim Unive...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1991Supp(1)SCC190
ORDER 1. Rule nisi. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Stenographer Grade II in 1962 and by 1978 he was confirmed as Stenographer Grade I. A departmental enquiry was held against him for remaining absent without leave and in that departmental enquiry he was found guilty and was reduced to the rank of Clerk/Typist. His grievance is that he could have been reduced to the next lower rank in the hierarchy and not to the post of Clerk/Typist which is outside the hierarchy. We had issued notice on the limited question as to why he should not be reverted to the post of Stenographer Grade II instead of being reverted to the post of Clerk/Typist. We have heard counsel for both the sides on this limited question and we think that the grievance of the petitioner in this behalf is fully justified. We, therefore, substitute the order of his reversion to the post of Clerk/Typist to that of Stenographer Grade II with effect from the date on which he was so reverted. He will be entitled ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1897; 70(1990)CLT821(SC); 1990CriLJ2673; 1990(30)LC161(SC); 1990(49)ELT328(SC); JT1990(3)SC447; 1990(2)SCALE224; (1990)4SCC250; [1990]3SCR705; 1990(2)LC500(SC)
K.N. Saikia, J.1. These appeals by special leave are from the Judgment of the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack dated July 3, 1980 in two writ applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India allowing the applications and quashing the penalty imposed on the writ petitioner under the Customs Act of 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. A commercial vessel M. V, Jag Darshan arrived at Paradip Port on March 29,1976. It was being rummaged by the customs officers from April 6, 1976 to April 13, 1976. In course of the rummage the customs officers recovered various contraband goods worth more than Rs. 1,40,000/- (Rupees one lac forty thousand), seized some quantity and detained the vessel by issue of a proper notice to the Master of the vessel with a copy to the second respondent Sri V.L. Choudhary, Deputy Conservator of Paradip Port Trust. At the instance of Sri V.L. Choudhary and Anr. the vessel was shifted to the reads i.e. far away anchorage of paradip port which was far i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC2069; 1990CriLJ2232; JT1990(3)SC530; (1990)4SCC552; [1990]3SCR927
K. Jayachandra Reddy, J 1. We allowed the Writ Petition vide our Order dated 7-8-90 and released the detenu for the reasons to be given later. We accordingly proceed to give the reasons.2. The petitioner was detained under Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 ('Act' for short) by an Order dated 13-3-90 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, The grounds were served within time. The said order is challenged in this Writ Petition. It is mainly contended that the detaining authority has not applied his mind in passing the detention order inasmuch as the relevant material has not been taken into account at the time of passing the order. Even otherwise, according to the learned Counsel, there are absolutely no grounds which warrant detention. It is also further submitted that the provisions of the Act are not attracted even if all the averments in the grounds are accepted. To appreciate this contention it becomes necessary to refer to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1923; [1991(61)FLR429]; JT1990(3)SC403; 1990(2)SCALE175; (1990)4SCC314; [1990]3SCR697; (1990)3UPLBEC1970
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5025 of 1985.From the Judgment and Order dated 25.3.1985 of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No. 686 of 1985.Arun K. Sinha for the Appellant.N.S Hegde, Additional Solicitor General, T.C. Sharma and Mrs. Sushma Suri for the Respondents.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by700K. RAMASWAMY, J. 1. This appeal by special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution arises against the decision of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No. 686 of 1985 dated March 25, 1985. The appellant was working as an Assistant Grade IV of the Indian Foreign Service, Branch 'B' in Indian High Commission at London. On November 8, 1978 he was transferred to the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, but he did not join duty as commanded, resulting in initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him on August 23, 1979. Pending the proceedings, on February 26, 1980 the appellant sought voluntary retirement from service and by proceedings dated October 24, 1980 he was a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1962; 1990CriLJ1869; JT1990(3)SC408; 1990(2)SCALE193; (1990)4SCC76; [1990]3SCR633
ORDER1. These three appeals arise out of the charge levelled by the police against the five petitioners of the above special leave petition under Section 3 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities. (Prevention) Act, 1987, (hereinafter called 'the Act'), Sections 302, 307 read with Sections 147, 148 and 149 IPC and Section 37 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, for the murder of one Raju alias Avtar Singh, son of the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 703/89, and for injuries caused to his companion Keshav Vitthal, the first informant. The facts giving rise to these proceedings are as under:2. On the afternoon of the 12th July, 1989 when Raju and his companion Keshav were proceeding on a motor-cycle at about 3.00 p.m. they were intercepted by the accused Jitendra and one another known as a wrestler. Following some altercation and heated exchange of words between them, the other three accused persons arrived at the spot. Two of them were armed with knives and the third possessed an iron-rod...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC855; [1992]74CompCas482(SC); JT1990(3)SC417; 1990(2)SCALE200; (1990)4SCC406; [1990]3SCR649
ORDER1. The common question which arises for consideration in these appeals, by special leave, and the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution is, whether a person who was inducted as a tenant in premises, which are public premises for the purpose of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Public Premises Act'), and whose tenancy has expired or has been terminated, can be evicted from the said premises as being a person in unauthorised occupation of the premises under the provisions of the Public Premises Act and whether such a person can invoke the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Control Act'). In short, the question is, whether the provisions of the Public Premises Act would override the provisions of the Rent Control Act in relation to premises which fall within the ambit of both the enactments.2. Civil Appeals Nos. 2368 and 2369 of 1986 relate to the pre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1991Supp(1)SCC189
M.N. Venkatachaliah and; N.M. Kasliwal, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel.2. Special leave granted.3. The appellant is convicted under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. The charge against him was that he cut off the nose of the complainant who is his mother-in-law. The complainant and the appellant had earlier filed in these proceedings an application seeking leave to compound the offence and for an order of acquittal of the appellant. That application was rejected by this Court as the prayer sought was not permissible having regard to Section 320(9) CrPC.4. The submission now made is that in view of the circumstances that the appellant had, after the dissolution of his earlier marriage, married a person from the same family and has also afforded monetary reparation to the complainant, the court may consider reducing the quantum of the sentence as the incident occurred some 13 years ago and the complainant herself had...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC2054; JT1990(3)SC374; (1990)IILLJ596SC; 1990(2)SCALE169; (1990)4SCC163; [1990]3SCR618; 1990(3)SLJ47(SC); 1990(2)LC515(SC)
ORDER1. This petition for special leave is against the judgment dated 2.9.1987 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissing the petitioners' writ petition (M.P. No. 3308 of 1985). The petitioners demand regulation of their services claiming to be daily rated workmen for a long time in the mines of the Diamond Mining Project, Panna of the National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. Their demands are of regularisation and 'equal pay for equal work' on the ground that they are discharging the same duties as the regular workers. The management has throughout denied the petitioners' claim and alleged that, in fact, the petitioners have been continued on rolls on humanitarian grounds for several years, even though there is no work for them; and as such, there is no question of regularising the petitioners and giving them the pay of regular workers when in fact they are not doing any work for a long time.2. The High Court rejected the petitioners' claim and came to the following conclusio...
Tag this Judgment!