Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993Supp(2)SCC311
A.M. Ahmadi and; M.M. Punchhi, JJ.1. Rule nisi.2. The learned counsel Mr Hemant Sharma, appears on behalf of the respondents and waives service of rule. We have heard counsel on both sides and have gone through the relevant papers, the Anomalies Committee Report and the counter filed on behalf of the respondents. We find from Chapter VIII of the Anomalies Committee's Report that the Committee decided that “the existing incumbents in the semi-skilled category, who were in position as on October 16, 1981 in the grade of Rs 210-290, may be upgraded to the skilled category Rs 260-400, commensurate with the point-score given by the Committee”. So far as fresh induction to the skilled category was concerned, the Committee formulated certain propositions which are to be found in clauses ‘a’ to ‘c’ of clause (IV) of the recommendations of the Anomalies Committee in Chapter X of the report. It is, therefore, obvious that those employees who belong to the semi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1801; 1995(77)ELT501(SC); JT1991(6)SC180; 1991(2)SCALE755; (1991)2SCC305; 1991Supp(2)SCC305; [1991]3SCR323
1. These appeals arise out of and directed against the common appellate order dated 21.8.1990 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi ('Tribunal' for short) in Appeals Nos. ED/SB/T 945/80A and ED/SB/T/586/81A. By the same order another appeal of the appellant was also disposed of but that matter is not carried up in appeal here. 2. The appellant, M/s. Texmaco Ltd., pursuant to contracts entered into in this behalf with the Railway Administration fabricated and delivered to the Railways wagon-bodies mounted on 'wheel sets' supplied by the Railways. The invoices raised by the appellant respect ing these wagons reflected only the price of the wagon-bodies without including the value of the 'wheel-sets' on which the wagon-bodies were mounted. The goods were cleared for purposes of Excise duties on such invoice-value. The Revenue raised demand for recovery of short-levy and sought to recover the unpaid duty on the value of the 'wheel-sets' also. This claim fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC492; (1992)102PLR497; 1993Supp(1)SCC586
1. In this case the sole appellant died on 21st March, 1988. An application for bringing the legal representative on record was filed by Sri Gur Preet Dass Chela of the appellant on 24-1-1991. This application has been contested on behalf of the respondent on the ground that there is no satisfactory explanation regarding the delay in filing this application. It has been submitted that Gur Preet Dass himself had filed a suit in the Court of Sub-Judge Amloh on 29-8-1990 and in that plaint in para 15, Gur Preet had admitted that a case was pending between the Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar and Niranjan Dass, and the Supreme Court was pleased to stay dispossession of Niranjan Dass. Photostat copy of the order of the Supreme Court was also attached with the plaint and thus it is clear beyond doubt that the applicant Gur Preet Dass had the knowledge of the present appeal at least on the date of plaint that is 29-8-90. The application for substitution has been filed on 24-1-91 which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1991(3)SC327; 1991(2)SCALE224; 1991Supp(2)SCC175; 1991(2)LC285(SC)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. Mortgagee, of occupancy tenant of grade 'A' as defined in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act, 1980 (1923 A.D.) Act No. II of 1980, is aggrieved by decision of the High Court affirming the order of the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal holding that the mortgagee was not entitled to ownership rights under Big Estates Abolition Act of 2007 (1950 A.D.) (referred as Abolition Act) as he was not tiller of the soil being not in cultivatory possession in Kharif 2007, the material date under the Act, consequently the mortgagor was entitled to restoration of possession in pursuance of decree passed for restitution of possession under Jammu & Kashmir Restitution of Mortgaged Properties Act of 2006 (1950 AD) (in short Restitution Act).2. Litigation, for the land in dispute, extends nearly to four decades. This period also witnessed various State legislations, dealing with agricultural land, resulting in various proceedings before diffe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1834; 1991CriLJ2648a; JT1991(3)SC318; 1991(II)OLR(SC)275; 1991(2)SCALE228; (1991)3SCC600; [1991]3SCR312a
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, J.1. I am in complete agreement with my learned Brother Agrawal, J. that there is no merit in this appeal but I would like to add a few words of my own. 2. The appellant, a practising Advocate, having failed to persuade the learned Subordinate Judge to grant an ad-interim injunction pending filing of a counter by the opposite party, switched gear from persuasive advocacy to derogatory remarks in the fond hope that such tactic would succeed and the learned Judge would be browbeaten into submission. Fortunately the learned Judges was made of sterner stuff and refused to succumb to such unprofessional conduct. Instead he made a record of the disrespectful and derogatory remarks made with intent to tarnish his image as a Judicial Officer and forwarded a report to the District Judge who in turn reported the matter to the High Court to enable it to initiate proceedings for contempt of court against the appellant. The exact words uttered by the appellant, reproduced in the j...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993Supp(1)SCC438
ORDER 1. Special leave granted. 2. After hearing counsel on both sides it seems to us that the order of the Tribunal awarding pension to the petitioner/respondent cannot be sustained. The fact remains and indeed cannot be disputed that the respondent was reverted as Maistry on March 29, 1958 and he retired on June 30, 1959 as Maistry. The Tribunal, having noticed this aspect, has however observed that there is no reason for his reversion and he is entitled to pension as Attender. The reversion order was not the subject-matter for consideration before the Tribunal. 3. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the Tribunal is set aside. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5456 of 1990...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993Supp(1)SCC436
Ranganath Misra, C.J. and; M.H. Kania, J.1. Two questions arise for determination in this appeal by special leave: (1) whether the appellant institution is entitled to recognition and (2) in what way should the students who were permitted to take the examination under the orders of this Court be dealt with.2. Mr Gopal Subramanium, counsel appearing for the appellant institution concedes in term of the decision of this Court that Arya Samaj institutions established outside the State of Punjab would not be minority institutions. That aspect must be taken as final. It appears that the State Government has in the meantime taken a decision not to recognise the institution on the plea that the conditions are not satisfied but the final order of the government does not indicate any objective application of mind to the matter. Mr Pramod Swarup, counsel appearing for the State of Bihar agrees that the affiliation matter shall be reopened and the appellant shall be given a reasonable hearing.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993Supp(1)SCC71
K.N. Singh and; P.B. Sawant, JJ.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Patna dated June 30, 1978 quashing the order of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies as confirmed by the Minister, amending the bye-laws of the Postal Co-operative House Construction Society Limited, Kidwaipuri, Patna.2. This litigation has a long history. We consider it necessary to have a brief resume of relevant facts giving rise to this appeal. The Postal Co-operative House Construction Society Limited, Kidwaipuri, Patna was registered on December 14, 1955 under the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The object of the Society was to acquire land and construct houses and allot the same to its members. Initially, membership of the Society was limited to the post office employees posted in the District of Patna who may have put in at least 3 years continuous service in the department. Soon the society realised that with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC185; 1993(1)ALT60(SC); 1993Supp(1)SCC11; 1989MhLJ595
1. Both these appeals can be disposed of on a short ground. Aggrieved against the order of learned single Judge of Bombay High Court dated 26-4-88, the appellants before us, filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench referred the matter to a Full Bench. The Full Bench by order dated 18-7-1989 in Sushilabai Laxmi narayan Mudaliyar v. Nihalchand Waghajibhai Shah, 1989 Mah LJ 695, after dealing with the question referred, sent the case back to the Division Bench for deciding the question of the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal. The Full Bench referred to decisions of this Court in Umaji Kesho Meshram v. Radhikabai w/o Anand Rao Banapurkar : [1986]1SCR731 and an unreported Judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 520 of 1989 Ratnagiri District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Dinkar Kashinath Wative, decided on January 27, 1989 and observed as under :Even when in the cause title of an application both Article 226 and Article...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC163; 1992Supp(3)SCC24
1. These appeals are directed against the Order of the High Court of Rajasthan dated 12-9-1983 dismissing appellants Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the re-opening of the ceiling cases in accordance with the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973.2. The appellants in the present and the connected matter filed Writ Petitions before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging validity of Section 15 of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973. The High Court by the impugned Order dismissed the Writ Petitions upholding the validity of Section 15 of the Act. The appellants grievance is that ceiling area in respect of their land had been determined by the Ceiling Authorities and those Orders became final but the State Government directed the Additional Collector for re-opening the appellants cases and decide the same afresh in accordance with law. Learned Counsel for the appe...
Tag this Judgment!