Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1483; JT1992(1)SC69; 1992LabIC1552; (1992)IILLJ1SC; 1991(2)SCALE1409; 1992Supp(1)SCC652; [1991]Supp3SCR524
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. In the Posts & Telegraphs Department of the Government of India, there were earlier two cadres: (i) Telegraphic in the pay scale of Rs. 110-240, and (ii) Telegraph Masters (for short 'TMs') in the pay scale of Rs. 210-380. There were certain posts known as 'allowanced posts' of Assistant Telegraph Masters (ATMs), Testing Telegraphic (TTLs) and Teleprinter Supervisors (TPSs). Appointments to these allowanced posts were made from amongst Telegraphic on the basis of selection through a departmental examination and the selected candidates were required to undergo a training for a period of two months. They were paid an allowance (special pay) of Rs. 30 per month. In 1968 as a result of reorganisation, 75% of the allowanced posts of TTLs, TPSs and ATMs were merged into the post of ATM and the remaining 25% posts were abolished. Selection/appointment for the post of ATM was thereafter made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness from amongst Telegraphic who wanted to vo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC496; JT1992(1)SC37; 1992LabIC299; (1992)IILLJ23SC; 1991(2)SCALE1421; 1992Supp(1)SCC524; [1991]Supp3SCR534; (1992)1UPLBEC41
ORDERS. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellant Triveni Shankar Saxena questioning the correctness of the judgment dated 23.8.1982 rendered by the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition No. 226 of 1980 allowing the said Writ Petition and quashing the order of the Uttar Pradesh Services Tribunal dated 6.10.1979. A few facts of the case as set out in Suit No. 367/74 filed before the Court of the Civil Judge, Moradabad may be stated :2. The appellant was appointed as a Lekhpal by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Moradabad on 6.4.1953 at the circle of Village Tilokpur, Pargana in Moradabad District, which post he held from 6.4.53 to 12.3.54 at Tilokpur and thereafter from 13.3.54 to 15.11.54 in Village Thonda in Tehsil Moradabad.3. In the wake of consolidation proceedings in the State of UP., the appellant was selected as a Consolidator on 5.11.1954 and was sent for training as a Consolidator at Rampur Training College, which he joined on 16.11.1954 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1593; [1992]73CompCas490(SC); [1992]194ITR434(SC); JT1991(6)SC540; 1991(1)SCALE1429; (1992)1SCC489; [1991]Supp3SCR553
ORDERLalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. This special leave petition is directed against the order of the High Court dated 4.4.1991 disposing of a writ petition filed by the present two respondents. The entire judgment reads thus:On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the just and fair order should be that the petitioners who have been appointed on part time basis should be continued until the Govt. make regular appointments on the recommendations of the public service commission. Meanwhile the petitioners will get their salary for the period of the vacation.Notice was issued to the respondents asking them to get ready for final disposal of the case, and accordingly they have filed their counter affidavit followed by further affidavits by the parties.2. Special leave is granted.3. In pursuance of certain Instructions issued by the Director, Education Department of the State of Punjab in 1990, each of the respondents was offered a post, as per annexures P/1 and P/2 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1900; 1992CriLJ2924; JT1991(6)SC496; 1991(2)SCALE1413; (1992)1SCC434; [1991]Supp3SCR515; 1992(1)LC259(SC)
S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the detenu, P.U. Iqbal under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus quashing the order of detention dated 21.8.1989 passed by the second respondent in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(i)(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') with a view to preventing the detenu from abetting the smuggling of goods and directing him to be interned in the Central Prison, Trivandrum in pursuance of the said mittimus. Following the above order, the first respondent (Union of India) by its order dated 7.9.90 made a declaration under Section 9(i) of the Act and thereafter passed an order under Section 10 of the Act that 'the detention shall continue for a period of 2 years from 9.8.90'. The circumstances under which the impugned order was issued and the materials on the basis of which the de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1809; 1992(1)ARBLR168(SC); I(1991)BC258(SC); JT1991(6)SC507; 1991(2)SCALE1436; (1992)1SCC492
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. The appellant was an Army contractor. He entered into three contracts for building construction work with the Army authorities at Dehradun vide. Agreements Nos. CWE/DDN/34 dated December 3, 1965, GE/DDN/31 dated November 30,1967 and CWE/ DDN/35 dated December 15, 1967. These agreements contained a provision for arbitration in Clause 70 whereunder all disputes between the parties to the contract other than those or for which the decision of the Commander Works Engineer (C.W.E.) or any other person was by the contract expressed to be final and binding, were required to be referred to the sole arbitration of an engineer to be appointed by the authority mentioned in the tender documents. Certain disputes arose between the appellant and the army authorities in relation to the performance of these contracts and the said disputes were referred to the arbitration of Lt. Col. L.K. Raisinghani who was appointed as arbitrator by the Chief Engineer (Northern Zone), Lucknow ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992(1)Crimes100(SC); JT1991(6)SC424; 1991(2)SCALE1439; (1992)1SCC504; [1991]Supp3SCR548; 1992(1)LC175(SC)
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. All the above four appeals relate to the same incident and are directed against the same Judgment of Delhi High Court dated 26.8.1978 as such they are disposed of by one single order. It may be mentioned that so far as Appeal No. 57 of 1980 is concerned, the accused appellant Amar Singh Solanki having died, his legal representatives have filed an application for permitting them to continue the appeal, but as we are maintaining the conviction, it is unnecessary to bring the legal representatives on record and we dismiss this appeal as having abated.2. We do not consider it necessary to mention the facts in detail as we are upholding the findings of the High Court as regards the participation of the accused appellants in the crime. The only question to be considered by us is regarding the offence committed by the appellants and the sentence to be awarded in the facts and circumstances of the case.3. The incident relates to a highway robbery committed on 20th April, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1991(1)SC16; 1991(2)SCALE1417; 1995Supp(4)SCC455; 1992(1)LC457(SC)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. After hearing counsel for both the parties we are of the opinion that the matter must got back to the High Court since certain relevant aspects are not clear from the record before us. 2. Defendants are the appellants. The respondents-plaintiffs instituted a suit for eviction in the Court of District Magistrate, Salem being O.S. No. 1472 of 1972. The plaintiffs' case was that they had let out the portion marked ABCD admeasuring 20 ft. x 16 ft., delineated in the plaint plan, on lease to the defendants for a period of three years. At the end of three years the plaintiff sent a notice terminating the defendants' tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The defendants not only did not vacate the land but also encroached upon an adjoining portion and have thus come into possession of a larger area M.N.O.P. They are not only liable to be evicted and to pay the arrears of rent but are also liable to pay damages for use and occupation of the excess la...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1780; JT1992(1)SC50; 1991(2)SCALE1434; (1992)1SCC414; [1991]Supp3SCR558; 1992(1)LC513(SC)
ORDERSharma, J.1. Special leave is granted.2. The appellant is the daughter and heir of Shripat Tukaram Jadhav, since deceased, who was in possession as a tenant of a portion of a building belonging to the respondent No. 3. The respondent filed a suit for eviction of Shripat on the ground that he needed the building for demolition and for reconstruction of a new one, which was disposed of by a compromise between the parties. According to the consent decree the tenant had to vacate the premises, and the respondent-landlord undertook to complete the reconstruction of the new building within a reasonable period and 'to give possession of an identical (equal) area as in the original premises to the defendant, on a monthly rental and the defendant will have a right to an identical area in the new building'. The decree further stated thus:The right of the defendant to an identical area is an essential condition to this compromise.2. Accordingly the tenant vacated the premises in 1966 and the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1525; 1993Supp(1)SCC215
ORDER1. The following eight petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are stated to be pending before the High Court of Gujarat :(i) Special Criminal Application No. 909/90; (ii) Special Criminal Application No. 514/91; (hi) Special Criminal Application No. 312/91; (iv) Special Crl. Application No. 381/91; (v) Special Criminal Application No. 581/91; (vi) Special Crl. Application No. 380/91; (vii) Special Crl. Application No. 583/91; (viii) Special Crl. Application No. 499/91.One of the grounds common to these petitions is as to the constitutional validity of the 'Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976' as also the validity of the 'Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974'. In addition, the action initiated under the provisions of those statutes is also assailed.2. This Court, by its order dated 25-10-1989, directed a stay of further proceedings in all these and similar matters before the High Court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1525a
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. The following eight petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are stated to be pending before the High Court of Gujarat:(i) Special Criminal Application No. 909/ 90; (ii) Special Criminal Application No. 514/ 91; (iii) Special Criminal Application No. 312/91; (iv) Special Crl. Application No. 381/91; (v) Special Criminal Application No. 581/ 91; (vi) Special Crl. Application No. 380/91; (vii) Special Crl. Application No. 583/91; (viii) Special Crl. Application No. 499/91.One of the grounds common to these petitions is as to the constitutional validity of the 'Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976' as also the validity of the 'Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974'. In addition, the action initiated under the provisions of those statutes is also assailed.2. This Court, by its order dated 25-101989, directed a stay of further proceedings in all these and similar matters before t...
Tag this Judgment!