Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC2321; 1993LabIC1941; (1993)IILLJ1074SC; 1994Supp(1)SCC465
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Special leave is granted.2. The respondent No. 1 was serving the appellant-State as a constable in the Police Department. He applied for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in response to an advertisement issued in that regard. The respondent appeared at the written examination and viva voce test held for selecting suitable candidates for appointment. He was, however, not selected and he filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court, which was allowed by a perfunctory judgment which is quoted below in its entirety:After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through their pleadings, we find that the petitioner, who has got excellent career and has got good marks in the written test as well as interview and also possesses very good sports career, deserves to be selected on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. In fact, the petitioner is already working as a constable in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993(2)ALT23(SC); 1993(41)BLJR588; JT1993(1)SC213; 1993(1)SCALE126; (1993)1SCC531; [1993]1SCR198
1. Leave granted.2. The appellant claimed to be the owner of 'Gher' (property in dispute) in the town of Shameili and in that capacity, according to him, he had let out the property to one Habib as long ago as in 1966. He had filed suit No. 591/66 against Habib for recovery of rent and the suit was decreed. According to the appellant, Habib sublet the property to one Banda. In 1974, the appellant filed a suit for eviction of both Habib and the sub-tenant Banda in the Court of Small Causes. This suit was decreed against both Habib and Banda.Thereafter, Banda, filed an application for setting aside the said decree. His application was dismissed. The revision filed by him before the Additional District Judge was also dismissed on 26th September, 1977. Thus, according to the appellant, the eviction decree against both Habib and Banda became final on that date.However, Banda filed the present suit on the basis of his title as the owner of the property which has given rise to the present app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993(41)BLJR308; JT1993(1)SC107; 1993(1)SCALE54; 1993Supp(2)SCC347
ORDER1. The appellant claims to be the Bataidar (under-raiyat) of the 3.10 acres of land in Khata Nos. 178 and 78 of Mouza Barbhara, P.S. Tarapur, Dist. Monghyr. According to him, he was in the land for more than 25 years. Respondent No. 1 who is the owner of the land tried to dispossess him and hence the appellant under the provisions of Section 48-E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') approached DCLR, Sadar for preventing his dispossession. The DCLR, Sadar constituted a Board under the said Section and referred the matter to the Board for settlement and if there be no settlement, for decision according to law. Since there was no settlement, the Board held an inquiry into the dispute with regard to the rights of the appellant. Witnesses of both the parties were examined. It transpired in the evidence that the appellant who was a Mukhya had prevented the earlier cultivators of the land viz., Kesheo Mandal and Kulanand Chaudhary from cultivating the lan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(1)SC108; (1993)IILLJ992SC; 1993(1)SCALE48; 1993Supp(2)SCC407; (1993)2UPLBEC898
1. As per the office report, there is delay of 709 days in the filing of the special leave petition against the judgment and order dated September 19, 1988, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, hereinafter to as the Tribunal, in Review Petition No. 39 of 1987. An Application (LA. No. 1 of 1989) has been filed by the petitioner of seeking condonation of delay, which is supported by an affidavit filed by the petitioner. On April 23, 1990, the matter was adjourned and the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit from the learned Counsel who had appeared for her in the Tribunal on the question whether Tribunal's order was communicated to him and if so, when and if not communicated whether he had applied for grant of certified copy and if so, when and further, when the copy was delivered to him. The petitioner filed her own affidavit dated August 30, 1990 stating that her counsel had, despite her request, declined to file the affidavit but had given certain in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC2464; 1993(2)ARBLR366(SC); 1994Supp(1)SCC68
1. This is an appeal pursuant to the special leave granted filed by the State of Orissa against the judgment of the High Court. The matter arises out of arbitration proceedings and the dispute is regarding the interest that was awarded. 2. The arbitrator awarded the amount of Rs. 63,186/- by way of interest though the claim was of Rupees 2,74,230/-. The Subordinate Judge accepted the award regarding the interest and also made it the rule of the Court. Aggrieved by the same the State of Orissa filed an appeal before the High Court and it is held that the direction for payment of interest given by the arbitrator is legal and correct. No other details are given in the judgment of the High Court. 3. In this appeal before us, Mr. R.K. Mehta, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the award in the instant case was passed on 7-3-79 i.e. prior to the Interest Act (i.e. 1978 Interest Act which came into force in August 1981) and as the position stood then the claimant was not entitled t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1574; JT1993(1)SC146; (1993)103PLR410; 1993(1)SCALE109; (1993)2SCC68; [1993]1SCR149
1. The appellant, Gulraj Singh Grewal, took the suit premises situate in Ludhiana on monthly rent of Rs. 900/- from respondent No. 1, Dr. Harbans Singh, in March 1990. Respondent No. 2, Dr. Ravinder Singh, is son of respondent No. 1, Dr. Harbans Singh. Both the respondents are medical practitioners. The respondents filed a petition for eviction of the appellant-tenant on three grounds, namely, personal need of the respondents under Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a); change of user under Section 13(2)(ii)(b); and impairment of value and utility of the rented building under Section 13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1940. The appellant contested the petition denying the existence of any of these grounds for eviction.2. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition holding that none of the three grounds had been proved. On appeal by the respondents, the appellate authority held that the personal need of respondent No. 2, Dr. Ravinder Singh, one of the landlords, was proved and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993Supp(3)SCC529
Kuldip Singh and; B.P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ.1. The main question for consideration before the High Court was whether collar lining (bukram) is a cotton fabric for the purposes of U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (the Act). The question was decided against the appellant. The validity of show-cause notice issued to the respondents by the Sales Tax Authority under Section 21 of the Act was also challenged before the High Court. The High Court came to the conclusion that the issuance of the said notice was without authority of law. We have heard Mr D.V. Sehgal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. He has taken us through the judgment of the High Court. We agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the High Court to the effect that collar lining was a cotton fabric. It is not necessary for us to go into the question as to whether the notice under Section 21 of the Act was permissible under law or not. The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(1)SCC153
ORDER 1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondents for a decree for possession of a piece of land described in the plaint. The appellants denied the claim and set up their own title. The trial court disbelieved the case of the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit. On appeal the Additional Civil Judge, Azamgarh, reversed the finding on the question of title but dismissed the suit and, consequently, the appeal on the ground of limitation. He held that the plaintiffs were in possession of the disputed land till July 31, 1948 and were dispossessed by the defendants on August 1, 1948. The suit having been filed in 1961 was, therefore, held to be barred by the rule of limitation. The plaintiffs challenged the decision before the High Court by filing a second appeal which has been allowed by the impugned judgment. 2. The only question which appears to have been agitated before and decided by the High Court was whether the suit had to be dismissed on the ground of limi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(1)SC123; (1993)103PLR402; 1993(1)SCALE105; (1993)1SCC566; [1993]1SCR171
J.S. Verma, J.1. The suit premises in Chandigarh was let out by the appellant to the respondent, Smt. Satya Bhalla on 1.11.1974 on a monthly rent of Rs. 550/- solely for residential purpose. However, the respondent's husband, a lawyer established his office in a part of the suit premises and started using the same for that purpose. The appellant-landlord filed a petition before the Rent Controller in February, 1983 seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant on several grounds including the ground contained in Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1940 i.e. the use of the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased. The Rent Controller made an order of eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground of change of user contained in Section 13(2)(ii)(b). The tenant's appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority which affirmed the order of eviction made by the Rent Controller. A further revision to the High Court has been allowed by the lea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(1)SC128; 1993(1)SCALE98; (1993)2SCC37; [1993]1SCR124
1. These are batch of appeals against the judgment of Delhi High Court dated 1st March, 1990 whereby the High Court by a common judgment disposed of a bunch of writ petitions, inter alia, filed by Gulab Rai against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.2. The challenge in the writ petitions was to the Resolution of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as M.C.D.) whereby it approved the proposal of the Delhi Electricity Supply Committee (in short D.E.S.C.) to enhance minimum consumption guarantee charges from Rs. 40/- per KVA to Rs. 340/- per KVA in respect of arc/induction furnaces.3. The petitioners in the writ petitions has set up/installed arc/induction furnaces for the manufacture of castings and have their factories in Delhi.4. One of the important raw-materials for the writ petitioners is electricity. Each of the petitioners had obtained electricity from the respondents and the sanctioned load is more than 100K WS. The exact sanctioned load, among the ...
Tag this Judgment!