Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1991(62)FLR738]; JT1991(1)SC668; (1991)IILLJ336SC; 1991(1)SCALE250; 1991Supp(1)SCC343; [1991]1SCR579; 1991(2)LC69(SC)
Madan Mohan Punchhi, J.1. The identification of the highest post/posts in the Rajasthan Administrative Service, capable of being filled by merit alone, under Sub-rule (7) of Rule 28-B of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954 (hereafter referred to as the 'Rules'), is the search undertaken in these two connected appeals by special leave.2. The respective appellants herein are Ajeet Singh Singhvi, who appeared in person, and Jagbir Singh who appeared through his learned Counsel. Both the appellants, at the time they moved the Rajasthan High Court by means of their respective writ petitions, were high ranked officers in the Rajasthan Administrative Service but found their further chances to promotion obstacled on account of the amendments caused in the said Rules with effect from July 17, 1987. Broadly stated, on such amendments a Super Time scale was created which statedly was to remove stagnation in service. The contention of the appellants before the High Court was, and is, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(1991)BC84(SC); JT1991(1)SC639; 1991(1)SCALE240; (1991)3SCC331; [1991]1SCR544; 1991(1)LC409(SC)
M. Fathima Beevi, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent instituted the suit for possession of the land in Khata No. 19 in village Gauripur in 1968 claiming title under Ex.2 sale deed dated February 10, 1964 executed in his favour by Mst. Tetri, the widow of Chhathu Sah, the original owner. Mst. Tetri has earlier executed Ex.2-A sale deed on February 14,1959 in favour of her brother's son Lakhan Sao for a consideration of Rs. 600/-. She cancelled this deed on July 31, 1962 before transferring the property in favour of the respondent. By proceeding dated 11.7.1963 obtained mutation in her name and paid rent on 18.7.1963. The dispute, however, arose over possession of the land between the respondent and Lakhan Sao that led to proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P.C. By the order dated March 4, 1966, Lakhan Sao and his brother Gulab Sao the appellants herein were put in possession. The present suit was thereafter instituted by the respondent for declaration of his title and possession.2. The respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1991(1)SCALE294; (1991)2SCC179; 1991(1)LC400(SC)
Ranganath Misra, CJI.1. This is an application under Article 32 of the Constitution. Petitioner, a medical graduate, on completion of his house job in Paediatrics from the Medical College at Kanpur also did house job for six months in Medicine from the G.T.B. Hospital, Delhi. He applied for a year's diploma course in Paediatrics in the Medical College at Kanpur but alleges that he was denied such admission and in July, 1990 was offered admission in Diploma in Medical Radio Therapy and two months thereafter was admitted to Diploma course in Clinical Pathology. According to him under the regulations framed by the Indian Medical Council, the Diploma course was available to those who had completed houseman ship in the speciality and he pleaded that the refusal of admission to him and admission granted to several respondents was contrary to the regulations. He maintained that he was at Sl.No. 7 of the list and ought to have been granted admission in DCH which he preferred. 2. There is some ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1991Supp(2)SCC8
ORDER 1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 409, IPC for having misappropriated a sum of Rs 8741.40 and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs 2000, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The facts reveal that the appellant was serving as a clerk in the office of the Mayor of Pune at all material times. The firm of M/s Hira Lal Mehta & Co. had to recover a sum of Rs 8741.40 from the Municipal Corporation besides another amount of Rs 1446.96. Two cheques bearing numbers 646749 and 646750 dated May 5, 1973 for the said two amounts, were drawn up in favour of the said firm. Out of these two cheques, one cheque bearing number 646750 for Rs 1446.96 was admittedly paid to the representative of the said firm but the other cheque for Rs 8741.40 was not delivered to the said representative. It appears that the said cheque was encashed by the original accused 2, the peon working in the Mayor's office. Sin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1462; 1991CriLJ1850; 1991Supp(2)SCC395
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The five appellants have appealed against their conviction and sentence. Appellant No. 1 has been convicted under Section 326 and has been ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. He has also been convicted under Section 148 and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The remaining four accused have been convicted under Section 324/149 and each one of them is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant No. 2 has further been convicted under Section 148 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. This Court while granting special leave directed the appellants to continue on bail. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the State Government. The conviction of the appellants is essentially based on the testimony of the informant, Jagdish Gosain. The evidence...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1991)4SCC138
S. Ranganathan,; S.C. Agrawal and; N.D. Ojha, JJ.1. I.A. No. 1 of 1991 is an application for clarification or modification of the orders of this Court dated September 5, 1990 and October 12, 1990 in the earlier IA's filed in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 327 of 1990.2. On the earlier occasions both the parties had agreed to file a petition for divorce by mutual consent in the District Court, Alipore, Calcutta. Time for this purpose was given initially till October 30, 1990 and then till November 30, 1990. No petition has so far been filed as there were some differences of opinion between the parties regarding the terms and conditions as to the respondent's access to the child of the marriage, Ragini. After some discussion before us both the parties have filed before us a memo of agreement regarding the above matter. It has been agreed that the petition for divorce by mutual consent will be filed on or before March 31, 1991 in the District Court, Alipore, Calcutta. The terms of access o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1991]71CompCas149(SC); (1991)1CompLJ229(SC); 1991(52)ELT335(SC); (1991)2GLR1121; [1991]189ITR90(SC); JT1991(2)SC117; 1991(1)SCALE244; (1991)3SCC283; [1991]1SCR527; [1991]8
Madan Mohan Punchhi, J. 1. What is the ambit of the State's claim to priority in relation to revenues, taxes, cesses and rates, due from a company in liquidation, is the question which stands posed in this appeal by certificate, granted by the High Court of Gujarat, in O.J. Appeal No. 2 of 1975. The question arises on the frame of Section 530(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956, as it stood at the relevant time, which is set out below:In a winding up, there shall be paid in priority to all other debts-all revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due from the company to the Central or a State Government or to a local authority at the relevant date as defined in Clause (c) of Sub-section (8), and having become due and payable within the twelve months next before that date.2. And Sub-section (8)(c) of Section 530 says:The expression 'the relevant date' means-(i) in the case of a company ordered to be wound up compulsorily, the date of appointment (or first appointment) of a provisional liquidator, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1991)2CALLT34(SC); [1991(62)FLR647]; JT1991(2)SC36; (1995)IIILLJ294SC; 1991(1)SCALE271; 1991Supp(1)SCC138; [1991]1SCR517; 1991(2)LC30(SC)
Fathima Beevi, J.1. The West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and allowance) Rules, 1970, (hereinafter referred to as 1470 Rules), issued in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, vide Notification No. 5212.F dated 30th December, 1970 on the basis of the Pay Commission Report specified the revised scales of pay of the government employees in various departments with effect from 1st April, 1970. Schedule 1 of the 1970 Rules relates to services generally.2. The Government of West Bengal issued Notification No. 10303.F dated 19th November, 1974, amending the 1970 Rules. The Notification material for the purpose of these cases is set out below:NOTIFICATIONNo. 10303.F. Dated the 19th November, 1974.In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor is pleased to direct that the following amendment shall be made in the West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules, 1970...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1991)95CTR(SC)132
MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI, J. :What is the ambit of the States claim to priority in relation to revenues, taxes, cesses and rates, due from a company in liquidation, is the question which stands posed in this appeal by certificate, granted by the High Court of Gujarat, on OJ Appeal No. 2 of 1975. The question arises on the frame of s. 530(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956, as it stood at the relevant time, which is set out below :'In a winding up, there shall be paid in priority to all other debts - all Revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due from the company to the Central or a State Government or to a local authority at the relevant date as defined in cl. (c) of sub-s. (8), and having become due and payable within the twelve months next before that date.'And sub-s. (8)(c) of s. 530 says :'the expression the relevant date means -(i) in the case of company ordered to be wound up compulsorily, the date of appointment (or first appointment) of a provisional liquidator, or if no such appointment w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1991(1)SCALE276; (1991)2SCC637; [1991]1SCR480a; 1991(1)LC505(SC)
N.D. Ojha, J.1. Special leave granted. This appeal by special leave has been preferred against the judgment dated 10th July, 1990 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 423 of 1987. Respondent No. 1 is a private limited company whereas Respondents 2 to 4 are its DirectOrs. Respondent No. 1, for setting up a factory, sought financial assistance from the appellant and the appellant sanctioned a loan of Rupees thirty lakhs. In order to secure the loan Respondent No. 1 executed a deed of mortgage of certain properties on 29th June, 1979 and Respondents 2 to 4 on the same date by executing a deed of guarantee stood surety for repayment of the said loan. . It was a case of personal guarantee only as no property was given in security. For the sake of brevity the appellant, Respondent No. 1 and Respondents 2 to 4 shall hereinafter be referred to as the Corporation, the Company and the sureties respectively. The amount of loan was to be advanced in phases and after the Corporation had advanced ...
Tag this Judgment!