Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC716; 1993Supp(1)SCC645
1. This appeal by special leave is virtually against the decision of a learned single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which was affirmed by the Letters Patent Bench by a limine order of dismissal.2. The few facts involved are these :The appellant is the son of one Ladha Singh. Ladha Singh was a displaced person from West Punjab, now Pakistan. He was allotted agricultural lands in village Lehra gaga, Teh. Sunam, Distt. Sangrur (Punjab State) on quasi-permanent basis. On the scrutiny of his case later when the revenue records came from Pakistan, there was detected a discrepancy. It appears that Ladha Singh had claimed allotment of land far in excess than was due to him. There were two heads of account of land abandoned in Pakistan. One was in the name of Ladha Singh, son of Ganpat Singh and the other in the name of Ladha Singh son of Sant Singh. The appellant claimed that Ladha Singh son of Ganpat Singh and Ladha Singh son of Sant Singh was one and the same person. The Managin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC696; 1992(38)ECC98; 1991LC481(SC); 1992(57)ELT684(SC); JT1992(1)SC129; 1992(1)SCALE1; 1992Supp(2)SCC306; [1992]1SCR7; 1992(1)LC700(SC)
ORDERKuldip Singh, J.1. The respondent, Shashikant & Company, had applied for the grant of Export House Certificate under the Import Policy 1978-79. The Certificate was denied on the ground that the respondent had not diversified its exports. Against the said order the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed by the Bombay High Court and the respondent was held entitled to the Export House Certificate. Special leave petition filed by the Union of India against the said order was heard along with a bunch of similar petitions under the title Union of India v. Rajnikant Brothers. The petitions were dismissed on April 18, 198S by an order in the following terms :We have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgments of the High Courts of Bombay and Delhi. We are unable to find, in the facts and circumstances of the case, any requirement of diversification of exports as a condition for the grant of Export House Certificates in the Import Policy for the year 1978-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC749; JT1992(1)SC315; 1992LabIC580; 1992(1)SCALE120; (1992)2SCC148; [1992]1SCR1; 1992(1)LC731(SC); (1992)2UPLBEC1070
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, J.1. Special leave granted.2. Heard counsel on both sides. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as under :3. One Mr. Jaisani, a direct recruit, was holding the post of Assistant Director General (Prevention of Food Adulteration) in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of the Government of India. On his passing away sometime in July 1989, a vacancy arose which was required to be filled under the extant recruitment rules. The recruitment rules which were then in operation provided for the said post being filled in by direct recruitment only. A requisition was sent to the Union Public Service Commission ('Commission' hereafter) sometime in November, 1989 for selection of a candidate for filling in the vacancy in question.4. However, before the Commission could advertise the post, the Union Government informed the Commission by letter dated December 29, 1989 received by the Commission on January 1, 1990 not to proceed with the process of selectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1009; JT1992(4)SC468; 1993Supp(1)SCC457
1. Ram Bux owned agricultural lands in two villages, namely, Parson and Galand in the then Tehsil Ghaziabad, District Meerut in the State of Uttar Pradesh. He had two wives. From his first wife, he had a son named Rasal Singh. From his second wife, he had four sons. He died somewhere in the year (sic). His progeny were in occupation of his agricultural lands when consolidation operations started in the villages sometimes in the late sixties. A dispute arose between the heirs of Ram Bux with regard to the rule of succession. The progeny of the first wife claimed that they had half share in the owned agricultural lands of Ram Bux. The progeny of the second wife claimed that they had 4/5th share in the properties of Ram Bux, under the rules of succession known to Hindu Law, Ram Bux having left five sons. The customary succession pleaded by the progeny of the first wife was Chondapatt whereby the share is determined wife-wise. It appears that in the ordinary course of litigation in village...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC772; 1994CriLJ919
1. Vindu Lachmandas, the respondent before us, was charged under Sections 364 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for the kidnapping and murder of six years old child named Nita. Her husband Lachmandas was also charged under Section 302/34, I.P.C. The trial Court, acquitted the husband but convicted the respondent under Section 302 and sentenced her to life imprisonment. She was also convicted under Section 364, I.P.C. and sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment. Two appeals were filed before the High Court. State appealed against the acquittal of the husband whereas the wife filed appeal against her conviction and sentence. The High Court dismissed the State appeal. The appeal filed by the respondent was allowed and she was acquitted of both the charges. This is State appeal against acquittal of the wife.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. There is no direct evidence in this case. The prosecution relied upon various circumstances to prove the involvement of the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC880; 1993Supp(2)SCC759
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. The dismissal of the writ petition is based on the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench that whether the appellant or his predecessor-in-interest Smt. Jeevani were in possession of the suit property authorised or otherwise is a disputed question of fact between the parties and that the said question had received the attention of the Assistant Collector and the Collector in appeal. It was held that it was not open to the Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to go into the disputed questions of fact and it was hence that the writ petition was dismissed. We find that in the judgment it is stated that the said Smt. Jeevani had Tiled a suit for declaration regarding her ownership against the (sic) Panchyat which is the contesting respondent herein and obtained a decree in her favour on O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC651; 1995Supp(4)SCC536
1. This appeal is by the plaintiff whose suit was decreed by the Trial Court but on an appeal by the defendant was dismissed by the First Appellate Court and the second appeal has failed.2. The plaintiff claiming to be the purchaser of 2/3rd share in the suit property by sale-deed Exhibit A-l dated 14-6-1962 brought the suit for partition and separate possession of his 2/3rd share. The suit property originally belonged jointly to Palani Chettiar and his uncles Murugess Chettiar and Govindasami Chettiar, each having l/3rd share. By an unregistered agreement dated 17-5-1959, Exhibit B-3, Murugesa Chettiar and Govindasami Chettiar agreed to convey the property to the defendant within the stipulated period of one year and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was paid by way of advance. Subsequently, a registered sale-deed, Exhibit B-l was executed by Palani Chettiar on 6-6-1959 for a sum of Rs. 4,500/- in favour of the defendant who was also put in possession of the entire property. It may be mentioned th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC532; 1995Supp(4)SCC534
1. These two appeals now prosecuted by the legal representatives of Sundra Naicka Vadiyar arise out of two suits for permanent injunction based on possession claimed by the plaintiff in each suit. In O.S.No. 239/49 the plaintiff was S.N. Vadiyar while he was the defendant in O.S. No. 315/73 filed by Ramaswami Ayyar. The said R. Ayyar was the defendant in O.S. No.239/69. Both these suits related to different parcels of agricultural land of which the plaintiff claimed to be in possession and on that basis sought injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession. The Trial Court decreed O.S. No. 239/ 69 filed by S.N. Vadiyar and dismissed O.S. No. 315/73 filed by R. Ayyar against S.N. Vadiyar. R.Ayyar then preferred two first appeals both of which were dismissed. That lead to two second appeals in the High Court by R. Ayyar both of which have been allowed by a common judgment which is challenged in these appeals. The result of the High Court's decision is that R. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992Supp(2)SCC642
M.M. Punchhi and; G.N. Ray, JJ.1. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dated January 31, 1985 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3602 of 1981.2. The assailing appellant herein H.N. Dube was a respondent before the High Court. His appointment as Chief Engineer in the Lucknow Development Authority was rendered illegal and quashed by the impugned judgment. Sequelly direction was given to the State Government to make appointment to the post of Chief Engineer in the Lucknow Development Authority from amongst the members of U.P. Palika Engineering (Superior) Service on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit. Under an interim order obtained from this Court H.N. Dube continued to function as Chief Engineer in the Lucknow Development Authority till he retired in the year 1986. Thereafter it appears that contrary to the directions aforementioned one Surender Singh was appointed as Chief Engineer an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992Supp(2)SCC144
S. Ranganathan and; N.D. Ojha, JJ.1. Though a number of applications are listed before us, we are concerned here only with an application filed by Shri Ambica Mills for modifying an order passed by us on April 15, 1987. It is submitted that the applicant Shri Ambica Mills desires to sell one of its units in order to discharge its liabilities and rehabilitate itself and that the order of restraint passed by us on April 15, 1987 should be relaxed so as to permit this. It is stated that the applicant is prepared to offer certain other properties to the Oil and Natural Gas Commission by way of security in respect of the amounts due to the Commission. Counsel for the Commission has to verify whether the properties thus offered are sufficient and free from other encumbrances and whether the Commission will be willing to accept these as security in respect of the dues payable under the orders of this Court. On the other hand, Shri H.N. Salve, appearing for certain financial institutions state...
Tag this Judgment!