Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1993)2CompLJ346(SC); JT1993(1)SC310; 1993(1)SCALE223; (1993)2SCC144; [1993]1SCR340
1. Special leave granted.2. The short but interesting question which arises for determination in this appeal is whether in a case where an industrial concern makes any default in repayment of any loan or advance any instalment thereof or otherwise fails to meet its obligations under the terms of any agreement with the Financial Corporation, such as the respondent herein, can the latter take recourse Sections 29 and/or 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the 195l Act') notwithstanding the bar of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the '1985 Act')? In order to answer the aforesaid question it is necessary to bear in mind the provisions of the aforesaid two statutes.3. The 1951 Act was enacted to provide for the establishment of State Financial Corporations Section 3-empowers the State Government to establish a State Financial Corporation as a corporate with an authorised capital of such sum as may...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1993)1GLR764; JT1993(2)SC89; 1993(1)SCALE239; 1993Supp(3)SCC567; [1993]1SCR366
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court 120th of January, 1977 in Second Appeal No. 90 of 1976.2. The plaintiff-appellants are the fanners of the Village Morzar under Bhanwad Taluka of Jamnagar District. Their lands are situated on the outskirts of the village. Under the Vartu Dam irrigation Scheme, the defendant-State proposed to construct a dam on river Vartu and prepared sketch, indicating the passage of the canal from Vartu Dam for that purpose, it proceeded to : land through which the canal was proposed to run. The plaintiffs appellants apprehended serious damage to their lands by the passing of the canal through their lands and they filed a Regular Civil Suit in 1966 against the defendant-State, seeking to restrain it from implement' the Irrigation Scheme, as proposed. Suit was registered and defendants were summoned. During the pendency of the suit, it appears that an agreement was arrived at between the parties and it was agree...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1472; JT1993(1)SC592; 1993(1)SCALE566; 1993Supp(3)SCC509; [1993]1SCR380
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. By a decree in C.S. No. 363 of 1912, schemes for administration of two trust estates 50 were sanctioned. One trust estate comprised Premises No. 246, R.K. Mutt Road, Mylapore, Madras belonging to one Poonambalam Pillai and the other trust estate comprised the adjoining Premises No. 247 belonging to his wife, Nagai Visalakshi Ammal. We are concerned in this appeal with the premises bearing No. 246 belonging to the trust estate of Poonambalam Pillai. These premises were being used as a marriage hall [Kalyanamandapam].2. It appears that in both the said trusts, hereditary trustees were appointed. It is not clear from the judgments of the courts below as to when the Official Trustee in place of or in addition to the hereditary trustees came on the scene. However, that is not relevant for the decision of the issue involved in the present appeal.3. The predecessor of the present appellant-Official Trustee had made an application to the High Court being Applic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC599; 1994LabIC462; (1994)IILLJ67SC; 1994Supp(3)SCC705
ORDER1.Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Special leave is granted.2. The respondent retired as an Executive Engineer under the appellant-State. The case of the appellant is that the respondent had, on the basis of his true age to retire on 31st January, 1988 but he remained in service by playing fraud on the department. However, it is admitted that he served the department till 30th September, 1989. By a writ petition out of which the present appeal arises the respondent claimed his salary from February, 1988 to September, 1989. The respondent also complained that he was not being paid his post-retrial benefits. The High Court by the impugned judgment has allowed both the reliefs. 3. So far the question of payment of arrears of salary is concerned, we do not find any merit in the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that the respondent can be refused his emoluments for the period in question as no proceedings were ever initiated for inquiry as to the alleged fraud playe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(3)SC693; (1994)106PLR216; 1993(1)SCALE209; (1993)1SCC608; [1993]1SCR326
1. The short controversy raised in the above appeal is whether the Union of India through the Deputy Inspector General, National Security Guard is a necessary and proper party to be impleaded when the land in question was acquired by the State of Haryana for the purpose of National Security Guard as desired by the Union of India.2. The State of Haryana acquired some land situated in District Gurgaon for the purposes of National Security Guard in 1985 as desired by the Union of India. The land owners being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, submitted reference petitions under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). During the pendency of the reference application before the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, an application was moved by the Union of India for being impleaded in the array of the respondents on the ground that the land had been acquired for the purpose of National Security Guard being...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(1993)ACC345; 1993ACJ254; JT1993(1)SC295; 1993(1)SCALE218; (1993)1SCC621; [1993]1SCR321
KULDIP SINGH, J.1. Special leave granted.2. Padmakar More was going on a bicycle on September 9, 1978 when he was knocked down by a bus owned by the respondent-corporation. He succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Narayan, father of Padmakar, Prerna his widow and Shweta a minor daughter moved a petition before the First Additional Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Indore claiming Rs 1,50,000 as compensation. The tribunal by its award dated April 27, 1982 allowed the claim petition and ordered payment of Rs 26,000 with interest at 6 per cent from the date of the application. The tribunal further directed the said amount to be apportioned as Rs 12,000, Rs 10,000 and Rs 4000 amongst the widow, minor daughter and the father respectively. The tribunal further directed that the share of the minor daughter be deposited in the State Bank of India, Indore in reinvestment scheme, which shall be payable to her on attaining majority. The tribunal based its findings on the following reasoning:&ldquo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1478; JT1993(1)SC236; 1993LabIC1028; (1993)ILLJ777SC; 1993(1)SCALE199; (1993)2SCC56; [1993]1SCR296; 1993(1)SLJ102(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The respondent, while working as Income Tax Officer, Muktsar during the year 1982-83 completed certain assessments. A charge memorandum dated 2.5.1989 was served on him to the effect it was proposed to hold an inquiry against him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Central & Appeal) Rules, 1965. A statement of article of charge framed against him was to the following effect:STATEMENT OF ARTICLE OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SHRI. K.K. DHAWAN, A GROUP 'A' NOW POSTED AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY.Article IShri K.K. Dhawan, while functioning as I.T.O. 'A' Ward, Muktsar during 1982-83 completed nine assessments in the case of:(1) M/s. Chananna Automobiles,(2) M/s. Gupta Cotton Industries,(3) M/s. Ajay Cotton Industries,(4) M/s. National Rice Mills,(5) M/s. Tek Chand Buchram,(6) M/s. Tilak Cotton Industries,(7) M/s. Chandi Ram Behari Lal,(8) M/s. Phuman Mai Chandi Ram, and(9) M/s. Modern Tractors,in an irregular manner, in undue...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1993)1SCC642
M.N. Venkatachaliah,; A.M. Ahmadi,; J.S. Verma,; G.N. Ray; S.P. Bharucha1. On January 7, 1993, the President of India, in exercise of powers conferred on him under Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India, referred the following question to this Court for its consideration and opinion, viz.:“Whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure) in the area on which the structure stood?”Upon receipt of the said reference, the Registry of this Court gave notice to the learned Attorney General of India as required by Rule 1 of Order 32 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, to appear before the Court on January 12, 1993, to take directions from the Court under Rules 1 and 2 of Order 32 of the said rules. Directions of the Court were sought on the following points:“1. The parties who shall be served with the notice of reference...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1274; 1994CriLJ1111
1. Special leave granted.Pandharinath Laxman Waringe has been detained, by an order dated April 3, 1992, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. His wife Smt. Panna challenged the detention order by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition by its judgment dated July 21, 1992. This appeal by way of special leave is against the judgment of the High Court.2. The detention order is founded on four incidents which took place between June 2, 1990 and September 13, 1991. The detention order was served on the detenu on April 3, 1992 itself. The learned Counsel for the detenu challenged the order of detention, before us, on the following grounds:(1) There was inordinate delay in considering the representation of the detenu by the Central Government and as suc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(1)SC298; 1993(1)SCALE183; (1993)2SCC84; [1993]1SCR269
1. These appeals are preferred against the judgment of the Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court allowing a batch of 16 special appeals. The special appeals were preferred against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dismissing a batch of 24 writ petitions. The result of the judgment of the Full Bench is that the notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan under Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition-Act, 1953 proposing to acquire a large extent of land stands quashed.2. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Act, published in the Rajasthan gazette dated 13.1.1982, proposed to acquire a total extent of 2,517 bights (approximately equal to 1,580 crores) for the benefit of the Rajasthan Housing Board. On 9.2.1982, another notification was issued under Section 17(4) of the said Act dispensing with the provisions of Section 5(A). On the same day, a declaration under Section 6 was also issued in respect of the said area. According to, the Government, the poss...
Tag this Judgment!