Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC534; 1991LabIC30; 1991Supp(1)SCC179
1. These appeals on special leave are against the judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Sikkim on 4th December, 1985 allowing the writ petitions and quashing the impugned Order of compulsory retirement. The short facts of the case are as follows :The respondents are the employees in the Sikkim Nationalised Transport. On 26th March, 1985 a report was submitted by the Committee of Secretaries, Sikkim Nationalised Transport New Establishment Department recommending compulsory retirement of the respondents. The reasons that weighed with this Committee have been stated in detail in paragraph 3 of the Special Leave Petition at page 24. It is to the following effect :The Minister constituted a Committee with the Secretary, Nationalised Transport Department and the Secretary, Establishment Department and reviewed the cases of following four employees who are in key positions in the Nationalised Transport Department, they are S/Sh1) Smt. Tshering Dolma, Deputy General Manager2) Sonam L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1990]79STC439(SC)
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of a Full Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated April 8, 1974 (Shyama Charan Shukla v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1974] 34 STC 504), quashing orders of the sales tax authorities on a petition by the respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties we find no good reason to interfere with the High Court's order as the High Court has quashed orders of sales tax authorities following the decisions of this Court in Ghanshyamdas v. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax : [1964]51ITR557(SC) and Anandji Haridas & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. S.P. Kushare : [1968]1SCR661 .3. The appeal fails and accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC2192; JT1991(1)SC450; 1990(2)SCALE525; (1991)4SCC195; [1990]Supp1SCR362
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J.1. This batch of 28 Appeals are against the common judgment and decrees of the Kerala High Court in A.S. No. 487 of 1969 etc. dated January 22, 1973 and leave under Article 136 was granted by this Court on March 14, 1974. The High Court reversed the awards and decrees of land acquisition, Sub-Court, Ernakulam and confirmed the separate awards of the Collector dated March 29, 1962. The notification Under Section 4(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition 1089 for short 'the Regulation' was published on October 31, 1961 and the declarations which are the relevant dates for determining the market value by operation of Section 22(1) was published on October 31, 1961 and February 22, 1962. The land acquired was 190.37 acres and 15.48 acres for Periyar Valley Irrigation Project and Photo-Chemicals Project both being public purposes. The Collector determined the market value at Re.0.04 per cent for certain lands and Re.0.12 per cent for certain other lands, Rs. 30 per cent to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1991Supp(1)SCC188
B.C. Ray and; K. Jagannatha Shetty Shetty, JJ.1. The only question that was agitated before this Court is that the appellants, pursuant to their applications for the posts advertised by the railways, were asked to sit in a written test. They sat in the written test along with other 14,000 candidates and passed in the said written test and 1130 successful candidates, including the appellants, were called for viva voce. Thereafter, a selection list was prepared by the railway authorities. In this selection list only the names of 790 candidates appeared. The names of the appellants did not appear in the selection list published by the railways. These appellants, however, questioned before this Court that since out of 790 candidates 300 and odd candidates were not employed as certain enquiries were pending against them, so the unfilled up vacancies be directed to be filled up by these appellants.2. We do not find any merit in this contention. Firstly, these appellants were not included in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1991(5)SC8; 1990(2)SCALE456; 1991Supp(2)SCC544; 1990(3)SLJ147(SC); 1991(1)LC114(SC); (1990)3UPLBEC1509
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner No. 1, an, association of the retired employees of the South Eastern Railway and petitioner No. 2 being the convenerof the association. For convenience sake we would hereinafter refer the above class of pensioners as petitioners. According to the Railway Board's letter No .PC III/79/DP/1 dated 11.6.1979 the Ministry of Railways extended the benefit of merger of Dearness Pay (D.P.) upto 272 points price index level with average emoluments for calculation of Pensionary Benefits to the Railway servants retired on or after 30.9.1977. It further stipulated that the Railway employees retired on or after 30.9.1977 but not later than 30.4.1979 will have an option to choose either of the two alternatives i.e. in favour of the existing rule to have their pension calculated without merger of D.P. on 272 points price index level or with merger of the same. Such employees were given time...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC814; 1991Supp(2)SCC296
ORDER1. The petitioners are the owners of premises No. 31, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta, which is in the occupation of the Consulate General of USSR as a tenat. It was leased on 14th December, 1957 for a period of 23 years on a rent of Rs. 8,000/- per month. The period of 23 years was to expire on 14th January, 1981. Before the expiry of the said period, the petitioners served a notice dated 6th July, 1980 intimating the Consulate General that they did not intend to extend the lease any further and demanded possession of the premises. As the possession was not delivered, they desired to sue for eviction and sought the consent of the Central Government to do so as required by Section 86 of the CPC. The requisition for consent was sent to the Central Government on 5th December, 1980. As no reply was received thereto within a reasonable time, the petitioners filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Calcutta for a mandamus to command the Central Government to take a decision on their app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1055; JT1990(4)SC163; 1990(2)SCALE445; (1990)4SCC668; [1990]Supp1SCR349
ORDERR.M. Sahai, J.1. Is Estoppel a good defence to 'archaic', Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana : [1986]1SCR399 , right of Pre-emption which is a 'weak right', Bishen Singh v. Khazan Singh : [1959]1SCR878 , and can be defeated by any 'legitimate' method Radha Kishan v. Sridhar : [1961]1SCR248 .2. Barring High Court of Rajasthan and erstwhile, Mewar State Jethmal v. Sajanumal [1947] M L R 36, most of the other high courts, namely, Allahabad, Naunihal Singh v. Ram Ratan39 ILR 127, Oudh, Ram Rathi v. Mt. Dhiraji [1947] Oudh 81, Ajmer Gopinath v. R.S. Nand Kishore AIR 1952 Ajmer 26, Bhopai, Abdul Karim v. Babu Lal AIR 1953 Bhopai, and Lahore Kanshi Ram Sharma and Anr. v. Lahori Ram and Anr. AIR 1938 Lah. 273 have answered the issue in the affirmative. The Privy Council AIR [1929] PC 259, too, applied this principle to non-suit a pre-emptor who knew that the property was in the market for long but offered to purchase, only, one out of many blocs. It had:Assuming that the prior completed pur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1221; JT1991(5)SC191; 1991LabIC1008; (1991)IILLJ412SC; 1991(1)SCALE488; (1991)2SCC283; [1990]Supp3SCR13; 1991(3)SLJ161(SC); 1991(1)LC633(SC)
1. We have heard Sri Lekhi, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Sri Tewatia, learned Senior Counsel for the first-Respondent. Special leave granted.2. Appellant was the Company Secretary of the Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., a Government Company. The short question in this appeal is whether in the course of the disciplinary inquiry initiated against the appellant by the Corporation on certain charges, which if established might lead to appellant's dismissal from service, appellant was entitled to engage the services of a legal-practitioner in the conduct of his defence. The proceedings in the inquiry attract and are regulated by the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952.Inquiry-Authority, by his order dated 8.8.1989 rejected the prayer made by the appellant even at the initial stage of the inquiry for permission to engage the services of a lawyer. Before the High Court, appellant challenged the proceedings in the inquiry on grounds of denial ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1991Supp(1)SCC219
M.N. Venkatachaliah and; K.N. Saikia, JJ.4. The dispute relates to the tenancy of an accommodation in the first floor of Property No. 125 A, Purva Suthi Ganj Begum Bridge Road, Meerut City. Complainants are the owners of the premises. The contempt complained of is the alleged wilful disobedience and breach of an undertaking given to the court by the contemner, Kanta Gupta, pursuant to a consent order made on December 17, 1987. The said undertaking is in the following terms:“(1) That I will continue in possession of the premises in dispute for a period of two years from December 17, 1987 and will hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the respondent-landlords punctually on the expiry of the said period of two years.(2) That I will pay to the said respondent all arrears of rent within two months from December 17, 1987.(3) That I will pay to the respondents further compensation for use and occupation of the suit premises at the rate of Rs 2500 per month wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC2281; (1990)92BOMLR554; JT1991(5)SC13; 1990(2)SCALE449; 1991Supp(1)SCC27
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This appeal by the grant of certificate under Article 136 of the Constitution is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 7.4.1978. This litigation has a long chequered history. The dispute relates to agricultural land bearing survey No. 784/1 situated within the municipal limits of Miraj town in Sangli District, Maharashtra. The area of the land is 1 acre 20 gunthas. Dhondiba Santu Lamdade was the original tenant of the land. He died issueless on 1.3.64. Dhondiba Santu Lamdade during his lifetime had taken two wives one of whom died during his lifetime but the cashier Dhondibai alias Sakhubai survived Dhondiba. On the evidence led before the Tenancy Aval Karkun (Special Tehsildar), he came to the conclusion that there was a divorce between Dhondiba Santu Lamdade and Sakhubai by a document dated 9.10.1947.2. This land originally belonged to Sanmukh family and was purchased by Gurumukhsing Narayansing Chadda (appellants) on 21.8.64. After the...
Tag this Judgment!