Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1992)1SCC369
K. Jagannatha Shetty Shetty; P.B. Sawant, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. It is true that all the courts have held that the appellant is a wilful defaulter although he has paid the arrears in lump sum. But the fact remains that the payment made in lump sum has been accepted by the landlord and this method of payment went on for quite a long time. In the circumstances, we do not think that there is wilful default on the part of the tenant. The finding of the courts below seems to be too technical.3. We, therefore, set aside the eviction order. We also direct that the appellant-tenant shall pay all the arrears, if any, up-to-date within a month from today and also pay the rent hereafterwards regularly month by month. The appellant however, shall pay the costs of the respondent which we estimate at Rs 3000.4. The appeal is allowed accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1530; 1992(40)BLJR55; [1992(65)FLR852]; 1991Supp(2)SCC416
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. Recruitment to the post of Village Level Workers/Village Extension Workers is governed by the statutory rules called the Village Level Workers and Village Extension Workers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter called 'the Rules').3. In response to the advertisement dated May 13, 1987, appellants applied for appointment to the post of Village Level Worker/Village Extension Worker. The process of selection was completed and a select list of 152 candidates including the appellants was finalised on November 15, 1987. At that point of time some retrenched employees of the Census Department represented to the Government that on the basis of the Government instructions regarding retrenched employees they had the preferential right for appointment to the above posts and the Select List could not be operated. Subsequently, a writ petition for the said relief was also filed by those retrenched employees in the Patna High Court. It was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1289; 1991CriLJ1347a; 1991(2)Crimes94(SC); [1991(62)FLR657]; (1991)2GLR910; JT1991(2)SC52; (1995)IIILLJ300bSC; 1991(1)SCALE519; (1991)2SCC495; [1991]1SCR938a
ORDERK. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. The question of general importance that arises in these three appeals is whether criminal proceedings can be instituted under Section 14 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('Act' for short) against an establishment exempted under Section 17 of the Act for the contravention of the provisions of Section 6 of the Act?2. The appellants, who are common in each of these three appeals, were connected with the management of M/S Shri Subhlaxmi Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Company') an establishment governed by the Act. By a Notification dated 17th October, 1957 the Central Government in exercise of the powers under Section 17 of the Act granted exemption to the said Company subject to the conditions specified in Schedule 2 annexed to the said Notification. As a result of the said exemption the provisions of the employees' Provident Fund Scheme 1952 framed under Section 5 of the Act did not apply to the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1067; JT1992(1)SC124; (1992)IILLJ30SC; 1991(1)SCALE518; (1991)2SCC635; 1991(1)LC587(SC)
ORDERR.M. Sahai, J.1. This appeal is directed against judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The appellant, since dead, was working as Chief Medical Officer, Bhatinda when he was suspended, chargesheeted and ultimately dismissed from service after enquiry. The order of dismissal was challenged in Civil Court. The Trial Court decreed the suit. The order was affirmed in appeal. But the High Court in second appeal set aside the order of the two courts below and dismissed the suit. 2. The claim of the appellant that he was not afforded reasonable opportunity, was not accepted either by the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court. But the suit was decreed on construction of Rule 22 of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment) and Appeals Rules 1970. It was held that the appellant having retired on 31st August, 1972 and the order of dismissal dated 28th August, 1972 having been served by registered post on 7th September, 1972 it became operative from that date only. But since the appellant h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1531; 1991CriLJ1837; 1991Supp(2)SCC412
ORDERS. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court dated 13th December, 1985 dismissing the application filed under Section 482 of the CrPC by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings taken against him for offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.3. It appears from the records that there was an arbitration agreement between the petitioner and the respondent in the year 1971 for procurement of paddy'. One of the clauses of the agreement was that a shortage to the extent of 1.25 kgs. per. qtl. of 'paddy' procured should be permitted and beyond that shortage the petitioner would be liable for payment of penalty at the rates prescribed in the agreement. According to the respondent on a joint physical verification by the Magistrate; Civil Supplies Staff and Food Corporation Staff on 1st November, 1972 a heavy shortage of 206.10 qutls. of 'paddy 'and 116-78.600 qtls. of rice out of a total quantity of 23,197.40 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1316; 1991CriLJ1464; 1991(1)SCALE597; (1991)2SCC612
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, J. 1. The appellant, Buta Singh, has been convicted by both the courts below for causing the death of one Balbir Singh. The facts leading to this appeal, briefly stated, are as under.2. The incident in question occurred on 22nd June, 1975 at about 1.30 p.m. in the field at a short distance from the field of the appellant. On that dale the deceased, his father PW 7 - Surjan Singh, and his brother PW 8 - Buta Singh had gone to the field with a tractor driven by DW 1 - Dileep Singh for tilling the land. The 'Dera' of the appellant Buta Singh was near a tubewell belonging to one Dileep Singh from which the appellant was also drawing water as and when required. It is the prosecution case that when the deceased and his companions went to the land in question that afternoon the appellant, his wife Gurbachan Kaur and his minor son Gurdev Singh came to the site. They raised a 'lalkara' not be spare Balbir Singh as he was trying to establish his possession over the land. So say...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992(60)ELT679(SC); [1991]192ITR344(SC)
1. Heard learned counsel on both sides. Special leave granted.2. The High Court declined to call upon the Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer a question of law said to arise out of the Tribunal's appellate order for its opinion. The circumstance that, in doing so, the High Court relied on a decision which in turn followed an earlier one in CIT v. T.S. Hajee Moosa and Co. : [1985]153ITR422(Mad) (Mad) implied that a question of law did arise, but the question, in view of the earlier decision, was held as not a referable question of law. It is always open to the High Court to follow its earlier decision and answer the question of law one way or the other according as whether the view taken in the earlier case commends itself to it or whether, in its opinion, that earlier view needs reconsideration. But it cannot always be said that, in all cases where a similar question of law had been answered in an earlier case in a particular way, an identical question of law arising in a late...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1320; JT1993(3)SC692; 1991Supp(2)SCC419
M.N. Venkatachaliah and; N.M. Kasliwal, JJ.1. In the Special Leave Petition No. 15562 of 1990 the appellant, the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Laxmi Ganj, Lashkar Gwalior, assails the correctness of the judgment dated February 2, 1990 of the High Court enhancing in the land owners' appeal the compensation in respect of lands acquired for purpose of the appellant.2. Special Leave Petition No. 15563 of 1990 is directed against the order dated September 21, 1990 by which the High Court dismissed the application for a review of the said judgment dated February 2, 1990 preferred by the appellant.3. In view of the order we make on the main appeal arising out of the judgment dated February 2, 1990, SLP No. 15563 of 1990 becomes infructuous and is dismissed accordingly.4. We have heard learned counsel on both sides on SLP No. 15562 of 1990. Delay is condoned and special leave granted.5. The acquisition was not for purposes of the government but for the benefit of the appellant which, as a statutor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(1)SCC467
Ranganath Misra, C.J.,; M.H. Kania and; Yogeshwar Dayal, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. In the course of the hearing of the special leave petition, on February 13, 1991, we had called upon the parties to offer terms of settlement as to the rent. This is an old tenancy where rent was paid at the rate of Rs 50 a month. Parties have settled their dispute and a new tenancy is agreed to be created with effect from April 1, 1991, with a monthly rent of Rs 750. Parties are precluded from asking for fixation of a fair rent for the premises in view of their agreement before us. The rent has to be paid within 7th of every subsequent month. Arrears of rent up to March 31, 1991, if not already paid, shall be paid within two months. If there be any arrear rent lying deposited in court the landlord would be permitted to withdraw the same. The appeal is accordingly disposed of....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1322; (1991)94CTR(SC)136; [1991]189ITR512(SC); JT1991(5)SC160; 1991(1)SCALE501; (1991)2SCC684; [1991]1SCR909
ORDERS. Ranganathan, J.1. These appeals raise a question of some complexity on the interpretation of the provisions of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, ('the 1961 Act'), in regard to which there is a difference of opinion among various High Courts. In the judgment under appeal, reported in : [1975]101ITR658(Guj) , the Gujarat High Court has answered the question raised in favour of the Revenue and against the assessees. Hence these appeals by the assessee, M/s. Garden Silk Weaving Factory, Surat. 2. The two appeals relate to the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69 for which the relevant previous years were the Saka years 2022 and 2023 respectively. The question arises in similar circumstances for both the years. We shall set out the facts relevant for the assessment year 1968-69 as the appeals and reference in respect of that year were disposed of earlier than those pertaining to the assessment year 1967-68. 3. The assessee, M/s. Garden Silk Weaving Factory, is a registered firm. For the ass...
Tag this Judgment!