Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1557; JT1991(2)SC503; 1991(1)SCALE939; (1991)3SCC375; [1991]2SCR752a; 1991(2)LC692(SC)
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, J.1. Special leave granted in all SLPs. 2. Mizoram acquired Statehood on February 20, 1987. At the general election held on January 21, 1989, the respondents of this batch of appeals contested the State Assembly elections as candidates of the Mizo National Front (MNF) from different constituencies. The results of the election were declared on January 23, 1989. They lost to candidates fielded by the Indian National Congress (I). The unsuccessful MNF candidates challenged the election of the Congress (I) candidates mainly on the ground that they had indulged in and were guilty of corrupt practices. As many as fifteen such election petitions came to be filed in the Gauhati High Court on one single day, March 9, 1989. Although fifteen petitions were filed, one Congress (I) candidate had succeeded from two constituencies and one candidate belonged to the Mizo National Front (Democratic) Party. On service of notice of the filing of the election petitions, the returned candi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1607; [1991(63)FLR128]; JT1991(2)SC537; 1991LabIC1468; (1991)IILLJ103SC; 1991(1)SCALE933; (1991)3SCC368; [1991]2SCR812; 1991(2)LC199(SC); (1991)2UPLBEC821
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J.1. Special leave granted.2. We are confronted in these appeals with the question as to what percentage of marks awarded for group discussion and interview for selection of Assistant Engineers by the U.P. State Electricity Board, is reasonable.3. The U.P. State Electricity Board invited applications for filling up the posts of Assistant Engineers (Civil) by issuing an advertisement in April, 1989. 120 marks were allocated for the written test, 40 marks for interview and 40 marks for group discussion. Written test was conducted by the Board on 9th July, 1989 and then interviews and group discussion were held in October and November, 1989. The result of the successful candidates in order of merit was published in daily newspaper on 27th November, 1989. The very next day the Board also issued individual letters to the successful candidates calling upon them to join on 26th December, 1989 at Electricity Training Institute' Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, The appellants before...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1532; 1991CriLJ1897; JT1991(2)SC495; 1991(1)SCALE923; (1991)3SCC1; [1991]2SCR790a; 1991(2)LC482(SC)
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, J.1. Mohinder Kaur set herself and her three children ablaze on the afternoon of 7th June, 1983, at the residence of her husband Iqbal Singh. The marriage had taken place seven or eight years before the incident. She had given birth to two daughters and a son. The deceased was working as a teacher while her husband was a clerk in the Punjab State Electricity Board office at Amritsar. Soon after the marriage there were disputes between them on the question of dowry. The demand for extra dowry strained the relations between them and the husband began to ill-treat the deceased wife. It appears that in course of time there was further deterioration in their relationship as a result whereof the deceased had written a letter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 12th October, 1977 complaining about the ill-treatment meted out to her and apprehending danger to her life and the life of her children. She had, therefore, sought police protection. However, by the time the po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1538; (1991)2GLR1331; JT1991(2)SC604; 1991(1)SCALE958; (1991)3SCC442; [1991]2SCR802; 1991(2)LC337(SC)
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J.1. The facts relevant to the controversy are as under:The appellant had taken on lease, about 55 years ago, an extent of 2 acres, 6 gunthas of agricultural lands situated in Akote village from Vishwas Rao. The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 67 of 1948 for short 'the Act' applies to the lease. By operation of Section 32(1) the appellant became a deemed purchaser from tillers' day i.e., April 1, 1957. Section 32-G provides the procedure to determine purchase price. Since the landlord was insane, the right to purchase was statutorily deferred under Section 32-F till date of its cessation or one year after death. Under Section 88(1)(b) of the Act certain areas abutting Baroda Municipality were notified as being reserved for non-agricultural or industrial purpose with effect from May 2, 1958. By another notification published in the Gujarat State Gazette dated July 2, 1964, certain lands including those situated in Akote and of the appellant's lease hold land...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1991Supp(2)SCC221
M.N. Venkatachaliah,; J.S. Verma and; N.D. Ojha, JJ.1. By these applications the appellants seek directions of this Court to enable them to pay in reasonable instalments the arrears of electricity charges that became recoverable by the respondent-Board pursuant to the judgment dismissing appellants' appeals. Appellants submit that the quantum of the arrears runs into crores of rupees and that appellants' industries would virtually be exposed by the crippling liability to closure. Appellants say that if some breathing time is allowed, it would, while enabling the State Electricity Board to recover all its legitimate dues, also enable the appellants to survive.2. We are afraid these are matters essentially for the Electricity Board to decide taking into account the particularities of the circumstances and hardships of each individual case. It is also necessary for the appellants to realise that the Electricity Board has itself borrowed money on high rates of compound interest and that if...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1991Supp(2)SCC286
M.N. Venkatachaliah and; N.M. Kasliwal, JJ.1. There is a delay of 1467 days in filing this special leave petition. The explanation is far from satisfactory and is unacceptable.2. The explanation for this long delay is that papers had been transferred from Bikaner to Ganganagar. The application for condonation of delay proceeds to aver:“It is respectfully submitted that some matters were however left out and the Advocate-on-Record for the State received instructions and vakalatnama to file special leave petition in those 22 cases including present case.”“... The delay has been by reasons of shifting of the Department and records from Bikaner to Ganganagar.”“It is further submitted that the officer incharge took some time in collecting the addresses of the respondent in the individual cases. “3. It is admitted that in all other cases SLPs were filed in time. This kind of general statements of misplacing papers have, of late, become a common feature in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1453; JT1991(2)SC543a; 1991(1)SCALE920; (1991)3SCC341; [1991]2SCR745a; 1991(2)LC196(SC); (1991)2UPLBEC972
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of Bombay High Court dated 9th March, 1990.2. Facts necessary and shorn of details are given as under. Pratibha Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Housing Society') made some unauthorised constructions in a 36 storeyed building in a posh and important locality of the city of Bombay. The Bombay Municipal Corporation issued a show cause notice dated 7th August, 1984 calling upon the Housing Society to show cause within 7 days as to why the upper eight floors of the building should not be demolished so as to limit the development to the permissible Floor Space Index (F.S.I.). In the notice it was stated that additional F.S.I, to the extent of 2773 sq. mts. was gained by the Housing Society and that the construction work had already reached 36 floors and that on the basis of the actual area of the building, the upper eight floors were beyond the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1992(65)FLR829]; 1991Supp(2)SCC291
ORDERK.N. Singh and K. Ramaswami, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that this appeal must succeed.3. There is no dispute that the appellants were selected and their names were included in the list of selected candidates which was published on October 5, 1984 in accordance with the then existing Rules but before the appellants could be appointed Rules were amended and published on March 6, 1986. The respondents did not consider the appellants for appointment on the premise that after the enforcement of the new Rules the appellants were not entitled to appointment, as the select list prepared in accordance with earlier Rules became ineffective. This view is not sustainable in law. Rule 19 of the 1985 Rules repealed the earlier Rules, proviso to Rule 19 is in the nature of saving clause. The proviso lays down that the new Rule shall not affect any action taken under the Rules which have been repealed and the action shall be deemed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1598; JT1991(2)SC493; 1991(1)SCALE902; (1991)3SCC65; [1991]2SCR741; 1991(2)LC194(SC)
ORDERB.C. Ray, J.1. This writ petition is by a body of advocates styled 'Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability' and raises certain questions as to the validity and implementation of the action of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha admitting a notice of motion moved by 108 Members of Parliament under Article 124(5) read with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 and constituting an Inquiry Committee consisting of a Judge of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice of a High Court and a jurist to investigate into the allegations of misconduct made against a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court pertaining to his conduct as the erstwhile Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.2. The main prayers in the writ petition are that the Union Government be directed to afford facilities to the Inquiry Committee to discharge its constitutional and statutory functions; and for directions to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India to abstain from allocating any judicial work to the concerned Judge during the pende...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1924; 1991LabIC1695; 1991Supp(2)SCC635
1. Special leave granted. 2. Heard counsel for the appellant, the contesting respondent No. 5 and the Delhi Administration. The grievance of the appellant is that although he was senior to respondent No. 5 Vasu Chimnani, he was not placed in the selection grade while his junior was granted that very scale. To support his contention of seniority, our attention was drawn to Annexure 'A' appended to the affidavit of January 4, 1982 (page 21). That document shows that the appellant was appointed on 1st November, 1972, whereas the respondent No. 5 was appointed on 1st May, 1973. This would show that he was senior to respondent No. 5. It is obvious from the clarification issued by the Director of Education dated 4th April, 1973, Annexure 'AA' (page 22) that Selection Grade to teachers was to be given on the basis of seniority, subject to fitness. The expression 'fitness' means that there should not be any adverse entry in the Character Rolls of the concerned person at least for the last thre...
Tag this Judgment!