Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC11; 1990(2)ARBLR195(SC); (1991)93BOMLR689; JT1990(3)SC710; 1990(2)SCALE468; 1991Supp(1)SCC68; 1990(2)LC695(SC)
ORDER1. These special leave petitions are filed against the judgment and order dated 19th September, 1989 of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court passed in First Appeal No. 1185 of 1988.2. After hearing the learned Counsel on both sides and after going through the relevant material on record we are of the view that these petitions have to be dismissed in limine. Since we have heard the submissions of the parties at some length, we indicate briefly our reasons for this order.3. Admittedly, the Award is a non-speaking one and there was no stipulation in the reference to the arbitrator that he should give reasons for his Award. The petitioner-State Government made two grievances before us against the Award. The first was with reference to the compensation that was awarded to the respondent-contractor for the stoppage of work. In this connection, it was the contention of the Government that since Clause (6) of the contract between the parties had provided for a specific rate of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC817; (1991)93BOMLR605; 1991Supp(2)SCC712
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard Counsel for the parties.3. These appeals are directed against the order of the High Court of Bombay dated 15-6-1989 granting injunction restraining the appellant from evicting the respondents who have encroached upon the land in dispute.4. Briefly, the facts are that the Bombay Municipal Corporation acquired the land in dispute in 1974 for public purposes, namely, for establishing nursing college, medical college, primary school, garden etc. It appears that a number of members, including the respondents encroached upon the land and made un authorized construction in the shape of huts. The Corporation issued notice under Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 for evicting the respondents. The respondents filed a suit in the Court of City Civil Judge, Bombay, they also prayed for an interim injunction against the Corporation. The City Civil Court rejected the application for the interim injunction there upon the respondents approached the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1348; [1991(62)FLR321]; JT1991(5)SC17; (1988)IILLJ356SC; 1990(2)SCALE470; (1990)4SCC698; 1988Supp(1)SCC355; 1990(2)LC651(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. The Post-GraduateInstituteof Medical Education & Research, known as PGI and hereafter referred to as 'the Institute' at Chandigarh is an Institute of national importance created by a special parliamentary statute of that name being Central Act No. 51 of 1966. The subject-matter of these appeals by special leave centers round a dispute relating to the creation of the speciality of PediatricGastroenterology and the consequential filling up of the post of Professor therein. The contenders for that post in this round of litigation have been Dr. (Mrs.) Saroj Mehta and Dr. J.B. Dilawari. The High Court by the impugned judgment not only set aside the selection of Dr. (Mrs.) Mehta as Professor but also was very critical about the Institute and its functioning.2. By an order dated April 26, 1988, made by this Court a part of the dispute was made final, namely, the creation of the speciality in PediatricGastroenterology and creation of the post of Professor, by saying:For t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1990]18ITR571(SC); 1992Supp(1)SCC495
ORDERK.N. Singh, J.1. These appeals are by way of special leave granted by this Court against the judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court dated July 16, 1975. see .2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred two questions to the High Court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). These questions are:(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act read with the Explanation to that section were justified in respect of the assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that, for the purpose of calculation of penalties, the difference between the tax on the income shown in the first returns and the tax on the incomes assessed shall be taken as the amount of tax that would have been avoided ?3. On a detailed discussion, the H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC526; [1991(61)FLR517]; JT1990(3)SC712; 1991Supp(1)SCC1; 1990(2)LC645(SC)
ORDERP.B. Sawant, J.1. These are three proceedings instituted by an aggrieved employee, Captain B.D. Gupta (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner'). Civil Appeal No. 4026 of 1982 is directed against the decision dated 26th May, 1982 of the Allahabad High Court in two writ petitions. Writ Petition No. 1976 of 1982 was filed by the petitioner and the other writ petition was filed by one Captain R.S. Sanger with whom we arc not concerned here. In his writ petition in the High Court, the petitioner had challenged the appointment of Captain Shashank Shckhar Singh, who is one of the respondents herein, to the post of Director, State Civil Aviation Department, Uttar Pradesh, and had prayed for a direction to hold fresh selection for the said post by treating him senior to Captain Singh. The petition was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned decision dated 26th May, 1982.2. Writ Petition No. 7292 of 1982 is filed by the petitioner to challenge the order of 11 th June, 1962 passed by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC300; 1991CriLJ360; 1990(3)Crimes715(SC); JT1990(3)SC835; 1990(2)SCALE505; 1991Supp(1)SCC353
ORDERS. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 821/78 dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant and confirming Use judgment of the Trial Court, whereunder the appellant stood convicted under Section 302 IPC and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life and 5 years' rigorous imprisonment respectively.2. The appellant, Vinod Kumar took his trial along with one Anil Kumar (since acquitted) on the charge that on 20.11.1977 at about 3,30 P.M. in the Held of Vishwa Nath Kapoor situated in the village Makanpur within the limits of Palia Police Station, he caused the death of the deceased Raj Kumar by shooting him with a double barrel breach loading gun (DBBL gun No. 7075), the licence for which stood in the name of his mother. The charge against the acquitted accused was under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for having share...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC240
ORDER1. Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) No. 11659/1989.Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 1174, 1454 of 1986 and appellants in Civil Appeals Nos. 545 and 644 of 1987 and Civil Appeal No. of 1990 (arising out of S.L.P. No. 11659/ 1989) totalling in all 148 were employed as casual labourers in the Indira Gandhi International Airport at Delhi during the period the Airport was under construction. When the construction was over the excess labour force was retrenched.2. On the basis of a statement of the Minister in answer to a question in the Lok Sabha which has been placed on record upon affidavit, it was asserted by counsel for the petitioners that there were vacancies available and yet petitioners have been kept out of employment. We have heard counsel for the parties on the basis of documents made available to us and we find that the number indicated by way of answer in Parliament related to all the four international Airports in the country. Now a bre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1991(5)SC291; 1990(2)SCALE471; (1991)1SCC104; [1990]Supp1SCR355
Lalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. Special leave is granted.2. The appellant and the respondent No. 5 along with others were candidates for admission to the Post-graduate Course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in the G.R. Medical College, Gwalior. They had duly passed the M.B.B.S. examination and satisfied the other essential conditions for admission. The selection of the candidates was made on the basis of their relative merit and the respondent No. 5 was selected as the last candidate in the list of the successful applicants. The appellant was placed on the top of the waiting list and was admitted for the Diploma Course. She challenged the admission of the respondent No. 5 on the ground that the latter was a foreign national, and was not entitled to be considered for admission in absence of prior clearance Certificate by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Central Government; which she could not file along with her application nor could she produce it before she was finally selected. A wr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1307; 1991Supp(1)SCC212
ORDER1.Pursuant to an agreement between the parties and a further allotment, trees of the species described in the agreements comprising 3000 cubic meters of softwood in all were permitted to be cut and removed by the respondent. The rate for the payment of the wood was fixed by the agreement. It has been found by the High Court that the respondent felled trees of the species described and the total amount of wood collected from the trees felled was not in excess of 3000 cubic meters, although the felling was done from areas other than those specified in the agreement as there was a mistake in the fixing of the areas from which the trees could be cut. The High Court has further found these trees were felled by the respondent with the full knowledge and consent of the concerned Forest Officers. Because of certain proceedings the wood was not allowed to be removed by the respondent for some time and was stored in the godowns of the appellants. By the impugned judgment the Karnataka High ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1741; 1991LabIC52; (1991)IILLJ425SC; 1991Supp(1)SCC204
ORDER1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana affirming the decision of the single Judge in a writ petition. The short question that came before the High court for consideration was whether the Directors of a private limited company had personal liability to meet the demand of contribution arising under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. Their liability depended upon the correct interpretation of the term 'principal employer' appearing in Section 2(17) of the Act. The definition reads thus :2(17) 'Principal employer' means(i) in a factory, the owner or occupier and includes the managing agent of such owner or occupier, the legal representative of a deceased owner or occupier, and where a person has been named as the manager of the factory under the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948), the person so named; (ii) in any establishment under the control of any department of any Government of India, the authority appointed by ...
Tag this Judgment!