Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992Supp(2)SCC129
1. These appeals are directed against a Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Gujarat which allowed the appeals of the respondents-employees against the impugned orders of reversion passed by the Railway Administration. We have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the relevant Rules and Regulations and we do not think that the High Court committed any manifest error in the view that it took in allowing the appeals preferred by the workmen against their reversion. Since then many years have rolled by and the service has stabilised. We do not see any reason why we should interfere in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution when we do not find any manifest error in the view of the High Court. We, therefore, do not see any merit in these appeals and dismiss them with no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC317; 1992(1)LC360(SC)
ORDERRaganath Misra, CJI, K.N. Singh, M.N. Venkatchaliah, A.M. Ahmadi and N.D. Ojha, JJJJJ. 1. By these applications the Indian Red Cross Society seeks a modification of certain directions issued by this Court on 15th February, 1989, in Civil Appeals Nos. 3187 and 3188 of 1988 pursuant to the settlement of the suit instituted by the Union of India against Union Carbide Corporation and the Union Carbide Corporation (India) Limited arising out of the Bhopal Gas leak disaster.2.The prayer of the Indian Red Cross Society in these applications arises in the context of the order dated 7th June, 1985, made by John F. Keenan, Presiding Judge of the Southern District Court at New York (U.S) directing the utilisation of 5 million dollars for relief to the victims of the gas leak disaster through Indian Red Cross Society. In the said order Judge Keenan referred to the willingness of the Union Carbide Corporation to pay 5 million dollars to aid the victims of the gas plant disaster which occurred ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC133; 1992CriLJ107; 1992Supp(2)SCC218
1. These two appeals are preferred by the above three appellants who were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 3 before the Trial Court; in that Appeal No. 577 of 1979 is preferred by the appellants 1 and 2 and Appeal No. 578 of 1979 is preferred by the third appellant (third accused). These two appeals arise out of the common judgment in Criminal Appeals Nos. 1 and 2 of 1978 rendered by the Addl. Judicial Commissioner of Goa, Daman and Diu at Panaji where-under these appellants stand convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 342 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the conviction under Section 302 read with 34, I.P.C. From the judgment, it appears that no separate sentence was awarded for the conviction under Section 342 read with 34, I.P.C.2. All these appellants took their trial on the accusation that on 18-2-77 between 5.00 and 8.00 p.m. they in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully confined Orlando D'Souza at Francis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(1992)ACC332; AIR1992SC248; (1991)3CompLJ213(SC); JT1991(6)SC8; 1991(2)SCALE675; (1991)4SCC584; [1991]Supp1SCR251; 1992(1)LC505(SC)
Ranganath Misra, C.J.1. I entirely agree with my noble and learned Brother Venkatachaliah and hope and trust that the judgment he has produced is the epitaph on the litigation. I usually avoid multiple judgments but this seems to be a matter where something more than what is said in the main judgment perhaps should be said.2. Early in the morning of December 3, 1984, one of the greatest industrial tragedies that history has recorded got clamped down on the otherwise quiet township of Bhopal, the capital of Madhya Pradesh. The incident was large in magnitude - 2,600 people died instantaneously and quite a good number of the inhabitants of the town suffered from several ailments. In some cases the reaction manifested contemporaneously and in others the effect was to manifest itself much later.3. Union Carbide Corporation ('UCC for short), a multi-national one, has diverse and extensive international operations in countries like India, Canada, West Asia, the Far East, African countries, L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC639; 1993Supp(1)SCC24
1. The appellants are legal representatives of one Gour Mohan Ghosh, since deceased, who was the tenant in respect of the premises in question. The landlord had filed a suit for evicting the tenant on two grounds viz., that the premises were required by the landlord reasonably and bona fide for personal occupation and the tenant was in arrears of rent for the months of September and October, 1972. The Trial Court on an appreciation of the evidence on record dismissed the suit holding that the landlord had failed to prove the alleged requirement and that there was no default in the payment of rent to entitle the landlord to a decree. The landlord carried the matter in first appeal. The First Appellate Court confirmed the finding of the Trial Court on the question of bona fide requirement but decreed the suit on the other ground of the tenant being in arrears of rent. Against the said order the tenant filed a Second Appeal to the High Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1590; JT1991(4)SC67; 1991(2)SCALE802; (1991)4SCC572; [1991]Supp1SCR245; 1991(2)LC744(SC)
ORDERT.K. Thommen,J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for eviction arises from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dismissing his appeal against the judgment of the 1st appellate court allowing the defendant's appeal against the decree of the trial court. The trial court found that the plaintiff was entitled to evict the tenant on the ground of reasonable requirement specified under Section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (the 'Act'). Reversing that finding, the 1st appellate court held that the plaintiff was not the owner of the premises and was, therefore, not entitled to seek eviction. This finding was affirmed by the High Court by the judgment under appeal.3. The only question which arises in the present appeal is whether or not the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises for the purpose of instituting a suit for eviction in terms of the Act. The dispute concerns a flat allotted to the plaintiff by the Kadamtoia Housing Co-op...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992Supp(2)SCC445
B.C. Ray and; N.M. Kasliwal, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant Shri Ishwar Singh was appointed as Baillif in the office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi on May 12, 1975. The appellant was served with a memorandum dated June 5, 1985 wherein it was alleged that the appellant had taken Rs 1500 from one Ganeshi Lal Kapur in Recovery Case No. 462/83-84 and issued a kachha receipt dated April 7, 1984 and the appellant did not deposit the amount with the Cashier of the Recovery Branch. The appellant replied to the same by his letter dated June 19, 1985 denying the charge and he stated that he did not take Rs 1500 from Ganeshi Lal Kapur in Case No. 462/83-84 for deposit.3. Shri Ganeshi Lal Kapur wrote a letter dated June 21, 1985 to the Deputy Registrar stating that he had advanced the aforesaid sum of Rs 1500 to the appellant as a personal loan and that they are old friends. He further stated that he had some misunderstanding with the appellant which is the reason why he ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1995)1SCC399
1. In our opinion, it is not correct for the Tribunal to have stated that they are not prepared to accept the judgment of the Orissa High Court in Kunja Behari Rath v. State of Orissa1. We make it clear that the Tribunal in this case is nonetheless a Tribunal and it is bound by the decision of the High Court of the State. It is incorrect to side-track or bypass the decision of the High Court. 2. However, on the merits of the matter, we do not think that there is any case for interference. The order of the Tribunal appears to be just. We accordingly dismiss the special leave petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC2130; (1992)1GLR253; JT1991(4)SC46; 1991(2)SCALE749; 1992Supp(1)SCC5; [1991]Supp1SCR226; 1992(1)LC14(SC)
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J.1. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 114 of 1977 dated May 4, 1977 of the Gujarat High Court. The one question for decision in this appeal is whether the compliance of Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 22 of Bombay Town Planning Rules 1955 for short 'the Rules' is mandatory and whether the violation thereof invalidates the final town planning scheme. In a suit laid by the appellants, the trial court found as a fact that the appellant, a partnership firm, was continuing in possession of the old premises bearing M.C. No. 352/3 (S) No. 163-A-2 from the year 1940 as a direct tenant of Ahmedabad Panjara Pole, Barartha, a registered trust, the owner of the plot of land of survey No. 163 situated in Ward No. 'C in front of town hall in Sher Kota outside Saraspur gate in the city of Ahmedabad. The original plot consists of an area about 5 hundred to 6 hundred square yards in extent wherein' certain structures were laid and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992Supp(2)SCC224
A.M. Ahmadi,; M.M. Punchhi and; K. Ramaswamy, JJ.1. The petitioner joined service of the State Bank of Patiala as a Clerk in 1968 and was promoted to the post of Trainee Officer with effect from August 1, 1974. By letter No. Staff/Gen1/3749 dated August 1, 1974 the petitioner was informed that the Bank's Board of Directors had approved his promotion as Trainee Officer under Group B Grade II with effect from August 1, 1974 in the scale of Rs 500-1030. By a subsequent letter dated August 14, 1975 he was informed that the Board of Directors had confirmed him as Officer Grade II with effect from August 1, 1975 in the said scale. When the petitioner was working as Branch Manager at Birhana Road, Kanpur, he is alleged to have committed some misdemeanour. By a letter dated January 9, 1980 he was called upon to explain the purchase bills in excess of his discretionary power of Rs 1 lakh. The petitioner sent his reply to the said memorandum on January 31, 1980 contending that the purchase of th...
Tag this Judgment!