Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1221; [1992(65)FLR926]; JT1992(5)SC638; 1993LabIC96; (1993)IILLJ662SC; 1992(2)SCALE370; (1992)4SCC689; [1992]Supp1SCR345; 1992(3)SLJ73(SC); 1992(2)LC593(SC); (1992
ORDERKuldeep Singh, J.1. Special leave granted.2. Srikant Chaphekar, Assistant Director, Town and Country Planning Office, Madhya Pradesh was considered alongwith other Assistant Directors by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) on March 18,1981 for promotion to the post of Deputy Director and was not found fit for promotion on the basis of his service record. It is not disputed that a person junior to him was promoted. Chaphekar was, however, promoted to the post of Deputy Director on January 24,1986. He filed an application before the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in November 1991 seeking promotion to the post of Deputy Director with effect from 1981 when a person junior to him as promoted. The Tribunal by its order dated February 21, 1992 allowed the application directing the State of Madhya Pradesh to promote him to the post of Deputy Director with effect from 1981 and to consider him for further promotion to the post of Joint Director from the date when the person j...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1992(65)FLR778]; JT1992(5)SC381; 1992(2)SCALE473; 1993Supp(1)SCC714; [1992]Supp1SCR337; 1992(3)SLJ57(SC); 1992(2)LC597(SC); (1992)2UPLBEC1425
N.P. Singh, J.1. Special leave granted.2. The appeal has been filed for setting aside the judgment of the High Court, quashing the appointment of the appellant as Principal of Chhotu Ram College of Education, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as 'the said College').3. An advertisement was issued on 30th June, 1986 inviting applications for the post of Principal of the said College. After interview of the applicants the appellant was selected for the said post and he was appointed as the Principal by the Managing Committee of the College in question on 22nd July, 1986. As per the University regulations any such appointment was required to be approved by the Vice-Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor declined to approve the said appointment of the appellant on the ground that he did not fulfil the requisite qualifications for the post, and the decision of the Vice-Chancellor was duly communicated to the Managing Committee of the College by a letter dated 24th August, 1987. However, later the Vic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993Supp(3)SCC436
A.M. Ahmadi,; M.M. Punchhi and; K. Ramaswamy, JJ.1. Delay condoned.2. The present special leave petitions are directed against interim orders passed by different learned Single Judges of the High Court. State of Jammu & Kashmir has preferred letters patent appeals against those orders. The letters patent appeals are not set down for hearing or even for interim orders because we are told that one Judge or the other has passed similar orders. Counsel for the respondents, however, states that the learned Chief Justice and Kaul, J. have not passed any such order. Counsel for the petitioners also states that the letters patent appeals are fixed before a Division Bench comprising Justices B.K. Gupta and B.A. Khan and he has no objection if they hear the matters.3. We would request the learned Chief Justice of the High Court to constitute a Bench, if necessary, by directing one of the Judges to move from Jammu to Srinagar or vice versa to hear the appeals, if for any other reason the lear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1981; [1992(65)FLR853]; JT1992(5)SC511; 1992LabIC2037; (1992)IILLJ744SC; 1992(2)SCALE476; (1992)4SCC711; [1992]Supp1SCR325; 1992(3)SLJ65(SC); (1992)2UPLBEC1189
ORDERLalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. Special leave is granted.2. The main question which has been raised in this appeal relates to the interpretation and scope of Rule 10(4) of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and its consequent validity.3. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant on the basis of several charges and an inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the charges had been proved. The report was accepted by the disciplinary authority who passed an order of removal of the appellant from service on 4.2.1984. The order was confirmed in departmental appeal. The appellant, thereafter, challenged the order of punishment by an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was registered as OA No. 401 of 1987. It was contended that since a copy of the inquiry report had not been served on the appellant, the proceeding got vitiated in law. Relying upon an earlier Full Bench decision ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(1)ARBLR118(SC); 1992(2)SCALE372; (1993)1SCC230; [1992]Supp1SCR309; 1992(2)LC716(SC)
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. Special Leave granted. 2. This appeal by M/s. India Meters Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Appellant is directed % against the Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 23.4.1991. 3. The Punjab State Electricity Board issued a tender notice by publication in the newspaper Indian Express dated24.2.1978, inviting sealed tenders for supply of house service electricity meters and Amps. The appellant offered to supply their standard meter type OB-7 and stipulated their own terms of payment and indicated that they would not submit a bank guarantee as 2 demanded in the tender notice. The appellant also sent a telegram on 3.6.1978, reiterating the offer to supply the meters, keeping all their terms and conditions unaltered. 4. The Board vide their communication dated 27.7.1978 sent a purchase order cum contract for supply of 75000 meters. In this purchase order no reference was made to the term and condition of payment and the inability to furnish bank g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1511
1. There are two appellants and both of them are convicted under Section 302/34, I.P.C. for the offence of committing the murder of one Badal Bera. The trial Court sentenced both of them to death. They preferred an appeal and the matter was also referred to the High Court for confirmation of the death sentence. The High Court, after considering the evidence, however, reduced the sentence to imprisonment for life and dismissed the appeals filed by the convicts.2. In this appeal, the learned Counsel submitted that the case entirely rests on the circumstantial evidence and both the courts below have convicted the appellants on the mere suspicion and that suspicion, however, strong cannot take place of proof.3. The prosecution case is as follows: The first appellant, Kagen Bera (A-1) is alleged to have illicit connections with Smt. Jyotsna Bera (A-2) even prior to her marriage with the deceased. The first appellant was the resident of Baharpota and the second appellant before her marriage ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC166; 1992(2)SCALE375; 1993Supp(2)SCC540; [1992]Supp1SCR317; 1992(2)LC774(SC)
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J.1. Both these appeals by grant of Special leave are directed against the common Judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated 6.4.1978. This litigation has a long chequered history but we would succinctly narrate such facts which are necessary for the disposal of these appeals. Thakor Sh. Jagdevsinghji since dead and now represented through his heirs and legal representatives (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) was the ruler of Umeta State and he was also a registered Talukdar and owner of five villages, including village Kothiakhad in the State of Gujarat. This Village Kothiakhad is situated on the bank of river Mahi. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he was the owner of suit land 'A' Kothiakhad Bhatha bearing survey No. 247 admeasuring 100 acres and 38 gunthas and of landed property plot 'B' referred to as Mahmedpura land and for recovery of possession and for rendition of accounts of income from 1.11.1952 till the date of handing over possess...
Tag this Judgment!