Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993Supp(1)SCC444
B.C. Ray and; T.K. Thommen, JJ.1. Leave granted. Arguments heard.2. The instant appeal on special leave has been filed against the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby the High Court upheld the findings of the courts below dismissing the objections raised on behalf of the judgment debtors Rajender Prashad and others against the validity of the ex-parte decree.3. Undoubtedly, there was an award made by an arbitrator in respect of certain matters referred to the arbitrator relating to the sale of goods to the defendant partners, wherein one of the partners was present and that award was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Ist Class, for making the award a rule of the Court. In that proceeding Sukhdeb Singh and Jai Dayal were made parties out of the six partners of the partnership firm, respondent 3. The award was made a rule of the court. The decree was transferred to the Court of Sub-Judge, Ist Class, Gurgaon for execution. Appellants filed objections...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992Supp(2)SCC76
Ranganath Misra, C.J.,; Kuldip Singh and; S. Mohan, JJ.1. Special leave granted in fresh matters.2. In the State of Rajasthan, the government introduced a special scheme known by three separate names for providing employment to at least one member of every landless family not already provided work to make provision of work for 100 days in a year and the scheme conceived of the arrangement that after 100 days of employment was over, someone else similarly situated would be provided employment so that the scheme would be running and available to provide employment to as many unemployed people in the State as it could cover.3. We are of the view that the scheme has a philosophy behind it and the basic aspect is that those who have no employment at all would have provision of employment for at least 100 days and the basic 100 days employment would provide them sustenance for the remaining period during which they have no employment. Good of the greatest number seems to be the basic aspect ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992Supp(2)SCC430
Ranganath Misra, C.J.,; Kuldip Singh and; S. Mohan, JJ.1. This is an application under Article 32 of the Constitution. Petitioners are either Chief Judicial Magistrates or Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates in the employment of the State of Haryana who claim to be entitled as members of the Haryana State Superior Judicial Service constituted under the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963 as applicable to State of Haryana on the basis that they have been conferred powers by appropriate notification under Section 12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 and come within the definition of District Judge as provided under Article 236 of the Constitution.2. On hearing counsel for the parties we are of the view that the inclusive definition in Article 236 of the Constitution expands the definition by including other categories of officers named therein over and above District Judges referred to in Article 233. Even if a particular person comes within the definition given under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1899b; JT1991(6)SC423; 1991(2)SCALE843b; (1992)1SCC53; [1991]Supp1SCR456; 1992(1)LC456(SC)
M.H. Kania, J.1. The facts found in this appeal show that the appellant, Laxmi Bai, was at the relevant time a member of a joint family with her son, the partition pleaded by the appellant not having been accepted as genuine by the authorities concerned. She terminated the tenancy of the predecessor in title of the respondents by a notice dated June 24, 1960. Under the provisions of Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), April 1, 1957, was declared as the tillers' day and Section 32 of the said Act provided inter alia that the tenants of the land who fell within any of categories described in Sub-section (1) of the said section were deemed to have purchased the land held by them as tenants from their landlords, free of all encumbrances subsisting thereon on the said day. The case of the appellant is that, in the present case, the tillers' day was postponed in view of the provisions of Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992Supp(2)SCC136
Ranganath Misra, C.J.,; Kuldip Singh and; S. Mohan, JJ.1. Challenge in this appeal by special leave is to the order of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dated February 19, 1976 holding that the declaration dated April 3, 1964 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 is vitiated and, therefore, quashed. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that the reasoning given or accepted by the High Court for coming to the conclusion that the declaration is vitiated is wrong. The purpose for which the acquisition had been initially notified is not changed merely because by passage of time the Delhi Development Authority came into existence to monitor the very purpose for which the land had been initially notified to be acquired. The purpose continued to be the same and the High Court went wrong in recording the finding that it was changed. For this reason, we reverse the decision, allow the appeal and hold that the declaration is not open to ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993Supp(1)SCC606; [1992]84STC383(SC)
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel on both sides. 2. The petitioner, an excise contractor, is aggrieved by the order of the High Court remitting certain proceedings of assessment to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for a fresh disposal. It is not disputed that the case is one in which a best judgment assessment was justified. The controversy is as to the quantum of the estimate on best judgment. 3. We decline to go into the details of the estimated figures of gross and taxable turnover as the matter is essentially one to be examined by the Tribunal in the proceedings on remand. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the High Court left little choice to the Tribunal in the matter of the estimate of the gross and taxable turnovers. But the apprehension of the petitioner could be allayed by directing the Tribunal that, in disposing of the matter upon remand, it shall while taking due note of the observation of the High Court in regard to the effect of the non-production before the Tribunal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992Supp(2)SCC237
Ranganath Misra, C.J.,; Kuldip Singh and; S. Mohan, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. In a suit for injunction filed under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to the State Bank of India Staff Association, Calcutta a lot of events have happened which perhaps could have been avoided. Some of these avoidable aspects are related to courts' orders and others are relatable to unnecessary bickering between groups in the Staff Association.4. The matter came before this Court in 1990. After hearing the parties then before the Court it was felt that though the suit was in a representative capacity, appropriate advertisement had not been made and, therefore, proceedings before the High Court — Single Judge as also Division Bench — were not legitimate. One election appears to have taken place subsequent to the Division Bench's order. The net effect of this Court's direction was to wipe out that election. Another election has tak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1991]Supp1SCR458; 1991(2)LC754(SC)
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These are defendants' appeal and special leave petition arising out of a suit for possession brought by Balwant Singh - the plaintiff. In the Special Leave Petition, we condone the delay and grant leave. The suit was dismissed by the Court of first instance and the dismissal was affirmed by the appellate court but decreed by the High Court in the second appeal.2. The issue raised in the appeal is of considerable importance and it relates to the construction of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ('the Act')- One Smt. Mahan Kaur, wife of Jaimal Singh inherited from her husband certain agricultural land measuring 110 kanals 12 marlas situate in village Hamhal, Jakhe Pal in Sangrur District. Some of the lands were under mortgage and are in possession of defendants 2 to 6. After coming into force of the Act, Mahan Kaur died intestate. On being informed that there was no heir entitled to succeed to her property, the Revenue Assistant Collector sanctioned ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1991)2SCC137; 1992Supp(2)SCC85
Ranganath Misra, C.J.,; Kuldip Singh and; S. Mohan, JJ.1. We have seen the affidavit of the Ministry of Environment and have heard Mr M.C. Mehta, petitioner-in-person and learned Attorney General for the Union of India. From the affidavit we find that the Ministry of Environment accepts the position that pollution in Delhi is mainly on account of the high rise in the number of vehicles driven by petrol and diesel operating within the Delhi and New Delhi areas. As a measure of control, it has been stated in the affidavit that several prosecutions have been launched. Registration of vehicles found to be defective has been suspended.2. Learned Attorney General accepts the position that mere institution of prosecutions or suspension of registration would not be effective measures to meet the menace of pollution caused by the automobiles operating in the area. The affidavit has mentioned about the proposal of a massive programme of educating the pliers of automobiles about the care to be ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC223; 1992(1)KLT585(SC); 1993Supp(1)SCC213
ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal by certificate has been preferred against the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court dated 18th August, 1977 rendered in C.R.P. No. 1472/76 : reported in 1977 Ker LT 767 . The question raised in the appeal relates to the construction of Section 2(52) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 ('Act'). Before we set out the section, we may refer to the facts in brief. The land in dispute once belonged to the Paliam family - next in affluence only to the Cochin Royal family in the Cochin State (now part of the State). In a partition of the Paliam, the Jenm right in the property was allotted to Madusoodanan Kuttan Achan (DW-2). He had about 200 acres of land in his possession. On March 25, 1959, DW-2 transferred one acre of land out of his holding to the appellant. That land was in the possession of a tenant Ramasetty, the predecessor of the present respondent-Uma Devi. The appellant approached the Land Tribunal seeking resumption of the land fr...
Tag this Judgment!