Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1507; [1991(63)FLR133]; JT1991(2)SC529; (1992)IILLJ149SC; (1991)2MLJ7(SC); 1991(1)SCALE832; (1991)3SCC219; [1991]2SCR576; 1991(2)LC216(SC); (1991)2UPLBEC1049
ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi, the petitioner in SLP No. 4415 of 1989 has challenged his compulsory retirement and in Writ Petition No. 1287 of 1989 he has questioned the validity of the direction dated 21 July 1984 issued by the Finance Ministry, Government of India. Since the questions raised in both the cases are inter locked, we grant special leave in the SLP and proceed to dispose of the same along with the writ petition. 2. The events leading to these cases may briefly be stated. In 1982, the petitioner was a Manager of the Syndicate Bank ('the Bank') at East Patel Nagar Branch at New Delhi. He discounted a cheque of the sum of R.s. 50,000 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Madras, after obtaining, by phone prior approval of the Regional Divisional Manager of the Bank. The cheque was sent for realisation to the Punjab National Bank at Madras, but it was returned unpaid. The petitioner did not take prompt action to recover the amount from the person in whose...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1605; 1991LabIC1525; (1994)IIILLJ583SC; 1991Supp(2)SCC404
1. This is an appeal from a, decision of the High Court of Orissa which allowed the claim of the respondent for appointment as a Medical Officer in Homeopathic Dispensary.2. The respondent is a registered Homoeopathic Practitioner within the meaning of Section 21 of the Orissa Homoeopathic Act, 1956 which is hereinafter referred to as the 'State Act'. There is also a Central enactment called Homoeopathic Central Council Act, 1973 (Act No. 59 of 1973) on the same subject, which is hereinafter referred to as the 'Central Act.'3. The respondent was originally holding the post of Distributor and thereafter he was appointed as Medical Officer in a Homoeopathic Dispensary. After coming into force of the Central Act, the respondent was reverted to his original post of Distributor. The reversion was based perhaps on the ground that the respondent was not duly qualified to hold the post of Medical Officer in the dispensary in view of the bar imposed either by the Central Act or by the State Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1612; [1991(62)FLR981]; JT1991(2)SC380; 1991LabIC1460; (1992)IILLJ18SC; 1991(1)SCALE848; (1991)3SCC47; [1991]2SCR567; 1991(2)LC212(SC); (1991)2UPLBEC933
ORDERLalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. This appeal was earlier heared by a Division Bench and was referred to a Constitution Bench for examining the question whether a candidate whose name appears in the merit list on the basis of a competitive examination, acquires indefeasible right of appointment as a Government servant if a vacancy exists. Reference was made to the decision in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha and Ors. : (1973)IILLJ266SC ; Miss Neelima Shangla, Ph. D. v. State of Haryana and Ors. : [1986]3SCR785 and Jitendra Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. [1985] 1 SCR 899. 2. The appellant was selected in the combined Civil Services Examination held by the Union Public Service Commission for appointment to several services including the Indian Police Service (in short 'the IPS') and the Police Services Group 'B'. The examination had been held in October, 1977 and the result was announced in May, 1978. A combined merit list for the IPS and the Police Services Group 'B' ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC2216; 1992(40)BLJR193; JT1991(5)SC232; 1991(1)SCALE904; (1991)3SCC347; 1991(2)LC263(SC)
ORDER1. We are concerned here with Mining Lease No. 99. By a decision of this Court dated 30th August, 1988 in Writ Petitions 8209 & 8821 of 1983 (1989) Su. 1 SCR 504 an exception was made in the case of this lease since its period was to expire in 1990. The lease from the Government was of 15 acres of land and another 100 acres of land were taken by the lessee from some private source. The learned Counsel appearing for the lessee had undertaken before the Court that over the said 100 acres no mining operation would be carried out and the lessee would immediately restore vegetation over the area and full forest growth would be available on the same. The mine was further neither within the forest limit nor within the municipal areas and the mineral from the area were to be removed not through the city limits. The learned Counsel had also undertaken that on the expiry of the lease, even the 15 acres of land taken on lease from the Government would be subjected to afforestation by the les...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1494a; JT1991(5)SC357; 1991(1)SCALE885; (1991)3SCC141; 1991(2)LC277(SC)
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. SLP(C) No. 16512/90. Special Leave granted. SLP(C) No. 8729/91. Delay condoned and special leave granted. 2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties in these appeals which arise out of the judgment dated October 5, 1990 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1491 of 1984 Tiled under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and they are disposed by this common judgment. Briefly stated the facts are as follows. 3. Premises comprising Block D, on the 3rd floor of Contractor Building at Bai Awabai Kashinath Road, Bombay, was let out by the owners to one Nadirshaw P.Bhatena (hereinafter referred to as 'Bhatena') on a monthly rent of Rs. 57.30 paise. The appellants in the appeal arising out of SLP No. 16512/90 (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants') are the owners of the said premises. The other parties to these proceedings arc also described with reference to the said appeal. The tenancy of Bhatena was terminated by notice dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1726; JT1991(3)SC12; 1991(1)SCALE913; (1991)3SCC261; [1991]2SCR563; 1991(2)LC184(SC)
ORDERM.H. Kania, J.1. A few facts are necessary for the disposal of these petitions.2. The petitioners were the owners of certain lands which were acquired by the respondents under the provisions of Sections 17 and 19 of the Bangalore Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bangalore Act'). Under the provisions of Section 36 of the Bangalore Act, where the acquisition is otherwise than by agreement, it will be regulated by the provisions, as far they are applicable, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Land Acquisition Act'). Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, which section was included in the said Act in 1984 as set out hereinafter, very briefly stated, provides that the Collector must make his award within two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and that if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for acquisition of the land shall lapse. Under the Explanation to the first proviso to Section 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1621; 1963(1)SCR778
VENKATARAM AIYAR, J.The petitioner is a partner in a firm called Messrs. Mohan Lal Hargovind Das, which carries on business in the manufacture and sale of biris in number of States, and is dealer registered under the U.P. Sales Tax Act 15 of 1948 with its head office at Allahabad. In the present petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner impugns the validity of a levy of sales tax made by the Sales Tax Officer, Allahabad, by his order dated December 20, 1958.On December 14, 1957, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification under section 4(1)(b) of the Act exempting from tax, sales of certain goods including biris, provided that the additional Central Excise duties leviable thereon had been paid. In partial modification of this notification, the Government issued another notification on November 25, 1958, exempting from tax unconditionally sales of biris, both machinemade and handmade, with effect from July 1, 1958. The effect of the two notifications ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1650; JT1991(2)SC423; 1991(1)SCALE799; 1992Supp(1)SCC489; [1991]2SCR524; 1991(2)LC251(SC)
ORDERRanganath Misra, CJ.1. These are applications under Article 32 of the Constitution on behalf of petitioners who hold All India Tourist Permits granted under Section 63(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 corresponding to Section 88(9) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The respondent-States in these writ petitions are Haryana, Punjab, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. There is a common Act-the Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1924-which is applicable to the States Punjab and Haryana. In each of the other States there is a similar separate legislation. Under the taxing power in the several Acts provision has been made for taxation as also for levy of additional tax. It is the contention of the petitioners that the demand of additional tax is neither compensatory nor regulatory and, therefore, the levy is violative of Article 10(1)(g) read with Article 301 of the Constitution. In regard to the States of Punjab and Haryana a special contention has been raised to the effect that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1734; 1991LabIC1606; 1991Supp(2)SCC154
1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court dismissing the appellant's appeal preferred against the order of a learned single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent and quashing the order of the Life Insurance Corporation terminating the respondent's agency under Regulation 17(1) of the Agent's Regulations 1972 read with Staff Regulation 29. 3. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that this appeal must succeed. The respondent was working as an Agent in an Insurance Company prior to life insurance business was taken over by the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The respondent was absorbed as an Agent in the life Insurance Corporation of India. Since, her husband was an officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, her agency was terminated w.e.f. 31-3-1976 under Regulation 17(1) of the Agent's Regulations 1972 read with Staff Regulation 29, after giving her three months'...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1789; 1991LabIC1696; 1991Supp(2)SCC433
1. These appeals are directed against the common order of a Division Bench of the High Court dated 31-7-1986 allowing the appeal preferred by the respondents and setting aside the order of a single Judge quashing the order terminating the appellants' services, and offering them alternative employment at a lower scale. Since these appeals arise out of a common order, we are disposing these appeals by this order.2. The State of Karnataka promulgated 'Karnataka Contract Carriages Acquisition Ordinance' on January 30, 1976 providing for acquisition of contract carriage motor vehicles owned by private operators in the State of Karnataka. The Ordinance also made provisions for absorption of employees of the private operators whose vehicles were acquired under the Ordinance. The Ordinance was replaced by Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act 1976 on 12-3-1976 which also made provision for absorption of the employees of the erstwhile private operators of contract carriages. The Act wa...
Tag this Judgment!