Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1992(5)SC521; (1993)IILLJ869SC; 1992(2)SCALE691; 1993Supp(2)SCC723; 1992(2)LC536(SC)
N. Venkatachala, J.1. This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an Order dated the 15th February, 1989 of the patna High Court in Writ Petition CWJC No.5954 of 1987. The petitioner who was in the service of the State Government had impugned in that Writ Petition, an Order of the Director of the Directorate of Freedom Fighters of the Government of Bihar, by which his claim for extension of service by two years based on Bihar State Government's Notification dated 31.05.1983, had been refused. But, the High Court dismissed that Writ Petition by its Order dated 15th February, 1989, on the sole ground that a Division Bench of that Court in CWJC No. 953 of 1988 had nullified the Notification of the State Government on which petitioner's claim had been based. The present SLP has been filed respecting that Order of the High Court.2. Admittedly, the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in CWJC No.953 of 1988 which had been followed in making the Order respecting wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC155; JT1992(5)SC621; 1992(2)SCALE548; (1992)4SCC477; [1992]Supp1SCR709a
ORDERG.N. Ray, J.1. Legality and validity of the policy decision of Government of India dated January 20, 1990, containing the guidelines regarding the procedure for allotment of land by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as DDA) to different Cooperative Group Housing Societies are in dispute in this Special Leave Petition No. 10857 of 1991 arising out of the Judgment dated May 10, 1991 of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No. 2885 of 1990 (Kaveri Cooperative Group Hosing Society Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.) and several applications for intervention and for adding and impleading of parties to the special leave petition. The backdrop of relevant events in connection with the issuance of the aforesaid guidelines by the Central Government have been succinctly indicated in the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court and may be stated hereunder:Prior to July 16, 1983, for some period of time the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Delhi Administr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC2209; 74(1992)CLT704; JT1992(5)SC609; 1992LabIC2478; (1993)ILLJ171SC; 1992(2)SCALE649; 1993Supp(1)SCC564; 1992(2)LC533(SC)
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J.1. Special leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the Judemcnl of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal dated 2.11.1,991.3. The facts in brief are that the appellant was working as Nizarat Officer in the Collectorate of Baripada in the State of Orissa. Whole working on such post the Additional District Magistrate on 24.5.1973 lodged a report about the cash amounting to Rs. 30,877.53/- missing from the Collectorate's funds. The appellant found involved in the said matter was placed under suspension by an order dated 9.4.1974. The disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant for the charges of misappropriation of cash and negligence in performance of duty on 7.10.1974. A criminal case under Section 409 I.P.C. was also instituted against the appellant and one Anil Chandra Patnaik who was working as Nazir at the relevant time. The appellant and the said Anil Chandra Patnaik were both convicted in the Criminal case by the Learned Chief Judicial Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC234; (1993)95BOMLR96; JT1992(5)SC601; 1992(2)SCALE684; 1993Supp(2)SCC38; 1992(2)LC505(SC)
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the Judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 20th August, 1980.2. Property C.T.S. N0.610/A, situated in Khanbhag, Sangli, District Sangli (Maharashtra) originally belonged to one Lalbi. Mohd. Hanif Samad Sheikh and Ahmed Sahib Samadh Sheikh respondents now represented through their legal representatives purchased the said property from Lalbi by a registered sale deed dated 13.3.1972. The appellant Bahsheer Kadar Mastry was the tenant of the original landlord in the suit premises on a rent of Rs. 15/- per month. The respondents after having purchased he property filed civil suit No.258 of 1972 in the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Sangli against the appellant for possession on the grounds of default in the payment of rent and bonafide necessity of the suit premises for the personal use and occupation of the respondents. The plaintiffs in the suit had alleged that the rent had fallen due from 1.1.1966 and this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1185; 1993(41)ECC75; 1993(67)ELT25(SC); JT1992(5)SC474; 1992(2)SCALE510; 1993Supp(2)SCC124; [1992]Supp1SCR584
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. These appeals under Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 are against the order dated August 21, 1990 passed by the Cumtoms, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal Nos.C/987-989/89-A arising out of the order dated December 13, 1988 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay dismissing the appeals against the order dated March 7, 1988 passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs.2. The appellants imported Gum Rosin declaring its CIF value at US$ 410 per metric tonne according to the Bill of Entry which was supplied by M/s. China National Native Product and Animal By-products Imports and Exports Corporation. The declaration of the imported goods made by the appellants described it as 'OFF grade Gum Rosin' which was the description of the quality of goods also in the Bill of Entry. It appears that as a result of some intelligence reports gathered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bombay that Gum Rosin of standard or supe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC280; 1993(1)ALT(Cri)156; 1993CriLJ37; JT1992(5)SC441; 1992(2)SCALE506; (1992)4SCC653; [1992]Supp1SCR592
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, J.1. Does a Petitioner-third party who is a total stranger to the prosecution culminating in the conviction of the accused have any 'locus standi' to challenge the conviction and the sentence awarded to the convicts in a petition brought under Article 32 of the Constitution? If the answer to this poser is in the negative this petition must fail on that preliminary ground. Before we proceed to answer the same it would be advantageous to notice a few facts.2. The assassins of General Vaidya were charge-sheeted under Sections 120B, 302, 307, 465, 468, 471 and 212, I.P.C. read with sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as 'the TADA Act') and Section 10 of the Passport Act. Five persons besides the absconding accused were put up for trial before the Designated Court, Pune. The Designated Court acquitted all the accused of the charges levelled against them except accused No. 1 Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha and accused No. 5 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1992(5)SC523; (1993)ILLJ317SC; 1992(2)SCALE663; 1993Supp(2)SCC207; 1992(3)SLJ206(SC); 1992(2)LC530(SC)
N. Venkatachala, J.1. Special leave is granted and the appeal is heard on merits.2. The second appellant is the Administrative Board established under the U.P. Women's & Children Institutions (Control) Act, 1956 for properly controlling and supervising orphanages and other institutions of destitute children and women in the State, with the funds to be received by way of, donations from the public and aid from the State Government. The first Respondent was appointed on 29th September, 1958 in a temporary post of Licensing Inspector in the establishment of the Administrative Board, on a pay scale of Rs. 120-8-200 EB 10-300 plus dearness and other allowances as admissible to State Government Employees. The first Respondent who should have returned to duty by 26th March, 1970 after availing of the 'Holi' Holidays, failed to do so even by the month of July, 1970 despite a notice served upon him in that regard. This situation led to the issuing of an Order dated 15th July, 1970 by the Admini...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1232; 1993(1)ALT1(SC); JT1992(5)SC471; 1992(2)SCALE489; (1992)4SCC429; [1992]Supp1SCR600; 1992(2)LC794(SC)
G.N. Ray, J.1. The question for our consideration in this appeal is whether the expression 'Building' in Section 3(i) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act) means only the super-structure or it includes the land underneath it also.2. It is not necessary to go into the history of litigation between the parties, suffice it to say that the building in dispute was let out to the Sales Tax Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh by one Devender Singh. His application under proviso to Section 21(8) of the Act for enhancement of rent was allowed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and he enhanced the rend to the building from Rs. 300 to Rs. 5,622.87 per month. The appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur was dismissed. The State of Uttar Pradesh challenged the order of the courts below before the High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC502
K. Jayachandra Reddy and; G.N. Ray, JJ.1. This case entirely rests on the circumstantial evidence. Both the courts below have convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 394/120-B, 201 and 404 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life, 10 years, 7 years and 3 years respectively. All sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. Mr U.R. Lalit, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that in the first instance the whole case is of suspicious nature and even if the circumstances which are relied upon by the High Court are accepted to have been proved still the chain is not complete and therefore it is highly unsafe to convict the appellant merely on suspicion. The prosecution case is as follows:—3. The deceased Shyam Sunder was a partner in a firm which dealt in cloth business. He wanted to open a shop in the canteen in the Army Ordnance Company at Jhansi. On October 15, 1973 at 7.00 p.m. he left his shop for seeing Lt. Col. S.S. Judge (PW 14). The deceased wanted to buy ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1992(5)SC574; 1992(2)SCALE621; 1993Supp(2)SCC149; [1992]Supp1SCR620; (1993)1UPLBEC145
S. Mohan, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals which are dealt with under a common judgment raise the only question of law as to whether Section 8(3)(a) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952(Act 30 of 1952) hereinafter referred to as the Act), is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.3. It is enough if the facts in Civil Appeal No. 1129 of 1975 are noted. It is preferred against the judgment of a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Writ Application No. 608 of 1972 dated 30th of May, 1974 [the judgment has since been reported in AIR 1975 Pun 74.4. A large extent of land in the Village of Malo Majra Tehsil,-District Patiala was requisitioned by an order of the District Magistrate, Patiala, dated 17th March, 1967. The order of requisition was made under Section 29(1) of the Defence of India Act, 1962. The requisitioned land included 157 Bighas and 6 biswas belonging to Diwan Hari Krishan Khosla who died during the pendency of th...
Tag this Judgment!